i'll start off with:
this is not really an argument about which is "better" overall...("better" was sort of tounge in cheek in the first post) i made that decision almost ten years ago, when "cheap" dslr's cost 5k or more - and i traded my film slr for a 3 megapixel point and shoot... besides, it doesnt matter what i would say, or countless other "experts" before me have said. digital is here to stay, and film will continue to become more and more of a lost art form. actually, i think its been a lost art form for many years already, but thats just me :)
this is more a subjective comparison of the subtleties that make up digital/analog images, spurred by a conversation about some cat using his k-1000 in place of spending fat cash on a 5D (full frame sensor slr). the conversation eventually degraded into a film/digital/noise/grain/resolution debate of course, (the mere mention of film opposed to digital just seems to get people's panties in bunch or something ;) go figure... (and i admit that asking "which is better..." was a mistake on my part, i should have just said i'd demonstrate the differences - my bad).
on a side note, i coveted a 5d for a while, but when i think about it - i dig my 1.6 crop - in fact, what i really covet is another peleng fisheye (allen - i have the old one if you still want it).
anyhow, i shot and processed a roll today. sadly, i didnt capture anything very compelling, but i did manage to capture some similar images with each camera. also got a keen deal on processing -just over $5 for processing, prints, and a cd...
the digital images are as shot, no post processing. film images are also as shot, straight from the cd/scans
100% crop comparisons:
these are touched up a bit:
film was scanned at a pixel size of 1818x1228 - sort of small compared to the 3072 pixels of the digital camera. for 8x10's, these will have to scanned at a higher res. that said - the scans looked surprisingly good, if not a little oversharpened and maybe just a bit contrasty. but the colors looked great, and i still dig the look of grain on screen. the 4x6 prints were crisp, colorful and grain free.
at 100% zoom, the low resolution of the scans became quite apparent, and the digital files held much more information (of course). but when displayed on a screen at normal viewing size, neither film nor digital appear defficient.
digital was shot in raw as well as iso 400 - and the unprocessed raw files were quite flat and soft compared to the scanned film. but that is to be expected, you shoot raw to allow for widest range of adjustments in post processing.
once edited, the digital files were as poppy as the film images. will do some prints of the edited images to compare - 4x6 and 8x10s in a couple days.
this is not really an argument about which is "better" overall...("better" was sort of tounge in cheek in the first post) i made that decision almost ten years ago, when "cheap" dslr's cost 5k or more - and i traded my film slr for a 3 megapixel point and shoot... besides, it doesnt matter what i would say, or countless other "experts" before me have said. digital is here to stay, and film will continue to become more and more of a lost art form. actually, i think its been a lost art form for many years already, but thats just me :)
this is more a subjective comparison of the subtleties that make up digital/analog images, spurred by a conversation about some cat using his k-1000 in place of spending fat cash on a 5D (full frame sensor slr). the conversation eventually degraded into a film/digital/noise/grain/resolution debate of course, (the mere mention of film opposed to digital just seems to get people's panties in bunch or something ;) go figure... (and i admit that asking "which is better..." was a mistake on my part, i should have just said i'd demonstrate the differences - my bad).
on a side note, i coveted a 5d for a while, but when i think about it - i dig my 1.6 crop - in fact, what i really covet is another peleng fisheye (allen - i have the old one if you still want it).
anyhow, i shot and processed a roll today. sadly, i didnt capture anything very compelling, but i did manage to capture some similar images with each camera. also got a keen deal on processing -just over $5 for processing, prints, and a cd...
the digital images are as shot, no post processing. film images are also as shot, straight from the cd/scans
100% crop comparisons:
these are touched up a bit:
film was scanned at a pixel size of 1818x1228 - sort of small compared to the 3072 pixels of the digital camera. for 8x10's, these will have to scanned at a higher res. that said - the scans looked surprisingly good, if not a little oversharpened and maybe just a bit contrasty. but the colors looked great, and i still dig the look of grain on screen. the 4x6 prints were crisp, colorful and grain free.
at 100% zoom, the low resolution of the scans became quite apparent, and the digital files held much more information (of course). but when displayed on a screen at normal viewing size, neither film nor digital appear defficient.
digital was shot in raw as well as iso 400 - and the unprocessed raw files were quite flat and soft compared to the scanned film. but that is to be expected, you shoot raw to allow for widest range of adjustments in post processing.
once edited, the digital files were as poppy as the film images. will do some prints of the edited images to compare - 4x6 and 8x10s in a couple days.
No comments:
Post a Comment