|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Ok what is better, digital or film?
Is there a digital equivalent of infrared film? Would you suggest a beginner to work with film or use digital? Open to discussion. Jun 07 05 11:04 pm Link Which is better? Both. Depends on your preference and what you want to achieve. Only experience can answer that for you, not any one else. There isn't a "digital equivalent" for infrared film, but some digital cameras can be used to take infrared photographs. Some digital cameras have a filter in front of the sensor that filters out IR so you need a camera without this filter. Then you need an IR filter on the lens (these IR filters pass IR and filter out visible light). I think canon is releasing a version of the 20d (20da or something like that) that can do IR. Do a search on the web, there is more info out there. As for learning with film vs. digital, that's a tough one. They both have their advantages. Negative film has a wider latitude and is more forgiving with errors in exposure. Transparency (slide) film latitude is a little closer to digital. Before digital, some people felt it was better to learn with transparency because of the smaller latitude. It would more readily show your mistakes so you could learn from them. The nice thing about digital is that you get more immediate feedback and you don't have processing costs which helps some people shoot more freely and take more chances than they would with film. Just noticed another thread about the 20Da: https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=2446 Apprarently, though some people thought it would be capable of IR, Canon claims it's not for IR. Jun 07 05 11:14 pm Link Which is better? A compact car, or an SUV? The answer depends on what you are going to do with it. My personal recommendation is get a high quality digital SLR (like a Canon 20D) and use photoshop to create all the special effects. You'll save a ton of money on film and processing, and you will be able to have more control over your results without having to set up a darkroom as well. There are photoshop plugins that will simulate infra-red. Jun 07 05 11:22 pm Link Neither it all depends on the job at hand. As Ken said, they both have their pros and cons. For me digital is better because it gives me a return of time by shortening my workflow which is the selling point. Hm... weren't you the one interested in shooting models? In that case, I say go digital. I can give you a ton of reasons as to why that have nothing to do with the quality of either. Jun 07 05 11:28 pm Link Sony produces a line of cameras that will shoot infared.. i use it quite alot for tattoos and those special shots that dont have any light!! Infared film see heat from the object.. Digital infared uses infared light to see the object. What was the other question..lol Jun 07 05 11:37 pm Link Ah! Here's something interesting...I think all of you failed to see something in his question..."For a beginner". I personally would suggest getting a slr film camera and learning all about the different films. That in it's self will give you insight when you are working with digital... Jun 07 05 11:40 pm Link Posted by Doug Harvey: I didn't miss it. I just answered his question regarding film or digital. Jun 08 05 12:02 am Link Posted by Doug Harvey: Im not getting into that debate!! Jun 08 05 12:08 am Link There are pros and cons about both. My most recent shoot, I shot in B&W, color, and digital to see what would result. Some beautiful shots in digital looked crap in color, and vice versa. And of course with digital, you can see the shot right away and delete if possible. Try everything if possible - my digital is a cheapy one but it's helping me learn. Jun 08 05 12:12 am Link Posted by Rohit: Digital is 1000 times better to learn with. Jun 08 05 12:22 am Link http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film … mary1.html here ya go. Long story short, if you are comparing 35mm Film, using standard film ( say maybe Kodak Gold 100, or etc ), digital is going to be better, however if you are using something like Velvia 50, and you get the exposure just right, Velvia 50 is going to be far better, it all depends on the negs/slide film you use. Then again Velvia 50 is pretty expensive. All in all, the comparism becomes rather a fine line when comparing the more expensive slower speed film thats under ISO 100. Digital clearly takes the cake on higher speed film comparism. Jun 08 05 12:44 am Link i totally disagree. a friend of mine never even owned a 35mm so he got a nikon d100 right off the bat. sure he excells at figuring out whether his images are fucked up,just by looking at his histogram, but when we were shooting live nudes at a class, his d100 needed to be serviced so he borrowed his friend's 35mm. he didn't even know how to load the friggin' film. he asked me to do it. that's embarrasing man. now to answer the question: learn to do it in film first. when you're a semi-expert at taking the pictures right the first time, then move on to digital. then you can fuck up as much as you want because you bought a 4gig cf card...and have all the time in the world to smooth out zits in ps cs2 during company hours... Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: Posted by Rohit: Digital is 1000 times better to learn with. Jun 08 05 12:45 am Link Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: Posted by Rohit: Digital is 1000 times better to learn with. I agree learning with a digital SLR will take the person further then learning with film because the costs of film, processing and then prints becomes very costly. It certainly may be slow down when I was learning. Especially since the world of photography is moving in that direction, it's better to start here. It's like when I when to DeVry for electronics in the 80's. They said although tubes are still around, you need to learn about intergrated digital circuitry. It's also like a person learning to use the computer. There's no need to learn DOS although the knowledge of it has it's advantages, there's no need. Jun 08 05 12:49 am Link Posted by edrickguerrero photography: Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: Posted by Rohit: Digital is 1000 times better to learn with. This depends on how you look at it, some say with digital you do get lazy, mainly because you dont have to do certain things. The fundementals of photography is about the same on both, but loading film into a 35mm isnt so much photography but understanding the equipment. I havent shot film since I was a kid, but even with digital I'll apply the basic photography understanding, sure I may not have to load film, but the principle is still the same, course it is better to understand things like exposure and what not, and not rely 100% on chimping and the histogram that are usally added luxery. Digital isnt nessarily "easier" to learn on, just "faster" to learn on, you can correct your mistakes sooner out in the feild, and even then some people are the "trial and error" bunch, they'll jsut keep trying different things til they get it right. Jun 08 05 12:50 am Link Posted by Rohit: Sure. A digital camera that doesn't have a narrow-band IR blocking filter over the sensor. Many P&S cameras are well-suited for IR photography just by adding an 87 or 89 filter over the lens, and some [few] dSLRs can do so as well. Posted by Ken Erickson: Key word: simulate. Posted by edrickguerrero photography: Why is it embarassing? Do you know how to load a Hasselblad back? That's film, after all. How about a Leica M4--that's even a 35mm camera. What about sheet film? Jun 08 05 02:30 am Link I did this with a Hoya R79 Filter on a 50mm f/1.8 Lens for those who are curious, on my Digital Rebel. http://www.karlblessing.com/_abstracts/crw_0082/ Its probally important to note that right off the camera, the the picture will seem monochromatic, since the wavelengths are so close to each other there appears to be no special color. Alot of the popular IR shots that have distinctive color tones for certain subjects, and so on are created by messing with the very small levels existing, and almost stretching them out accross a hue. Infared in the black and white sense, for shooting models and such, typically results in giving the models the appearance of real smooth and soft skin tones while most other things will seem harshly contrasted, its often said if you want a soft portrait of a woman in black and white, look to the red channel ( course cant do that 100% of the time ). Jun 08 05 02:34 am Link Posted by Karl Blessing: this is what i was really trying to express. learn all the ways to capture your images. be well rounded in your craft. don't be one-sided, and preach why this is better than that, because the end result is really what you're after anyway. and if we're friends, don't be in a position where you don't know how to load a roll of film because i will make fun of your ass... Jun 08 05 02:40 am Link Posted by Kevin Connery: Why not? That knowledge is just a phonecall away. Jun 08 05 03:04 am Link I learned on film originally, I was shooting a lot of slide and that made the narrow exposure range of digital fairly easy to deal with. I have since been learning every day with every camera I own, digital is great in that you can test all you want and there is no additional cost for bad shots, but learning with film does make you slow down and I think Lessens the "Accuracy by Volume" approach. For someone just starting out, a film SLR is much less of an Initial cost than a digital slr, and you get to miss out on the Shutter lag so many less expensive digital camera's have. My advice on a learner camera...Well I'll go with the tried and true great learner rig the Pentax K-1000. This camera had over 25 years in production and was Specifically noted in Many photography classes. It will produce a great picture, Film is film, less expensive cameras still get the full resolution of Film, and Pentax glass is far from an inferior product. Learning is a bit of a PITA for settings, but get a notepad and when you're learning 1 hour photoprocessing isn't the worst thing you could do. Once you feel you have a firm grasp of the basics, then go get that digital SLR and take it to the next level, but I bet you wont be in a huge rush to ditch that pentax. My $.02 YMMV The short Version.. Get a used Pentax K-1000 on that auction site or from KEH Get a couple of 4 packs of film 100-400 Speed Read a book or take a class Shoot, Shoot, Shoot...Take notes. once you are getting the exposure right consistantly, start working more and more on composition, when your exposure and composition are loking good, Try shooting color slide. once that looks good, then you'll know you are ready for the initial outlay of a DSLR, and the tight exposure range won't throw you for a loop! and if you keep the Pentax, you have a backup camera as well. Jun 08 05 03:04 am Link Digital color is pretty comparable to film color, but nothing rocks my world like b&w film...in my opinion, nothing beats a print made from black and white film on matte paper. In fact, I am thinking about getting slr for b&w film, and then doing my other color with digital. Of course, I also want a DSLR, as all I have now is an olympus 750. I am dying without the slr reflex that I am used to as a film photographer. Without the right digital camera, all I am doing is landscapes.  Jun 08 05 04:27 am Link Forget about 35mm film. Medium format or large format are the way to go for commercial work. If you are going to shoot 35mm, stick with digital. None of this applies to infrared. Jun 08 05 04:34 am Link Digital lets you learn composition and exposure a lot faster because you can get instant feedback. Film, at least negative film, is a whole heck of a lot more forgiving of exposure screw ups, which is why a lot of people switching film to digital are initially apalled at how badly exposed their images are. For IR, older cameras are best, newer digital cameras have better IR filters over the sensors. Digital sensors are tremendously IR sensitive, a whole lot of development work has gone into trying to reduce that. I have a CoolPix 950 that's so IR sensitive you don't even need to open it up to take out the IR filter, as long as you're willing to shoot on a tripod. 720nm pass filter works best. A CoolPix 5700 I tried was more pixels, but less sensitivity. IR shot with my D100 is excellent using a 720nm pass filter, but the exposures are way, way longer than I want them to be. I love the color versions, but if you convert them to black and white, they're very, very close to what you'd get with Maco IR film. You won't get a good sim of Kodak's EIR, though, which isn't really an IR film anyhow, nor will you get the ghosting from HIE, which is a characteristic of the thin film base and no anti-halation layer. There are a couple places on the net now that will remove the IR filters from Canon 10D, 20D, or Nikon D100. You end up with a camera that is so sensitive to IR that you can shoot most stuff hand held. It makes the camera almost useless for anything else, though. A couple pros I know are now carrying one IR body with them regularly, although a lot of the images I've seen are in the category of "hmmm, yes, it's IR" and wouldn't be much interest for any other reason. Jun 08 05 06:56 am Link Posted by Rohit: First the battle is only in your mind. You have to define the end usage of the product which you are shooting with. There are pro's & cons for everything we use, from traditional film to a digital file. I just wonder why as shooters we seem to want to beat our chest over issues such as this , when no matter what you shoot with it's your voice that is expressing the vision. Jun 08 05 07:07 am Link Posted by Fred Brown: Actually one of the reasons I asked this question in the forum about film and digital is that I was reading the book "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" by Bruce Fraser. He talks about the linearity of tones present in digital cameras. And he adds that film is designed to perceive light more or less the same way as human eyes do. So I was guessing that film might be better in terms of exposure and color. But then you see these Nikons and Canons that seem to absolutely blow away 35mm film in terms of resolution. Jun 08 05 07:45 am Link One factor that's missing in the equation is the time and money available to the beginner. I did not have the time for film. Quite simply, for this beginner, if it hadn't been for digital, I wouldn't be doing photography - at least to the extent I'm doing it now. To have instant access to the pictures, to be able to evaluate and process them from start to finish with the tools I have at my fingertips .... ahhhh. If I were more of a purist with more time on my hands, I would've learned film first. I'm not, I don't, and I didn't. Jun 08 05 09:41 am Link Posted by Rohit: Posted by Fred Brown: Actually one of the reasons I asked this question in the forum about film and digital is that I was reading the book "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" by Bruce Fraser. He talks about the linearity of tones present in digital cameras. And he adds that film is designed to perceive light more or less the same way as human eyes do. So I was guessing that film might be better in terms of exposure and color. But then you see these Nikons and Canons that seem to absolutely blow away 35mm film in terms of resolution. Film doesn't have resolution and digital doesn't have emulsion so because of this, there is no direct comparison of the two. In short, only digital images have resolution. In terms of film, there is more room for error and depending on the film type, there are other goodies but that can easily be offset by shooting a correct exposure just as you would have to do if you were shooting chrome film. This is why I say neither is better then the other in general. As Alex said you have to define your final product. Jun 08 05 10:45 am Link Posted by Rohit: Speaking only to the infrared issue, that's a hard question answer. The reality is there are several different types of infrared film and they all having different "looks." There's Kodak HIE (which glows), Maco, Konica, SFX. Each of those have different sensitivity levels and each are affected differently by what kind of filter you use on the front of your lens. From there, how you process (what kind of film developer and method of development) determines how your negative "looks," and THEN from there, how you choose to output your image (meaning are you going to print it on enlarging paper in a traditional darkroom? If so what paper do you use? What developer? Do you tone it? If so which toner? It's not that it's complex, per se, it's just going traditional film route the whole way offers many different possiblities, and if you don't have the time or temperment to experiment and play then it might be better for you (in terms of sanity) to go digital. Personally, I like the look of traditional kodak HIE, processed to produce a negative which I print in a traditional darkroom and then tone. There is a richness on the paper to me that I haven't been able to duplicate digitally. But to get from point A to point B takes a bunch of time and effort as well as expense. Like I said, I find it worth the effort, but I know many who would prefer to sit in front of a computer instead. Jun 08 05 01:28 pm Link For a beginner I would suggest a dSLR. Digital gives you a much shorter feedback loop for making setting changes and seeing what effect they have on what you're doing. Since all the shot data is embedded within the file, you can even return to a photo you took months ago and know exactly how you accomplished it settings-wise. dSLR's give you a "look" that's closer to 35mm film and gives you the flexibility to experiment with different photographic techniques - unlike digital P&S cameras that are incapable of reproducing certain effects. The dSLRs available for under $1,000 are truly amazing cameras and you can even get deals on cameras like the Canon Digital Rebel 300D for around $500 - that camera can producing stunning results in the right hands. Jun 08 05 01:53 pm Link Posted by Fred Brown: Posted by Rohit: Posted by Fred Brown: Actually one of the reasons I asked this question in the forum about film and digital is that I was reading the book "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" by Bruce Fraser. He talks about the linearity of tones present in digital cameras. And he adds that film is designed to perceive light more or less the same way as human eyes do. So I was guessing that film might be better in terms of exposure and color. But then you see these Nikons and Canons that seem to absolutely blow away 35mm film in terms of resolution. Film doesn't have resolution and digital doesn't have emulsion so because of this, there is no direct comparison of the two. In short, only digital images have resolution. In terms of film, there is more room for error and depending on the film type, there are other goodies but that can easily be offset by shooting a correct exposure just as you would have to do if you were shooting chrome film. This is why I say neither is better then the other in general. As Alex said you have to define your final product. This isn't quite true, Fred. "Resolution" in terms of digital files is one thing, but "resolution" in terms of the resolving capabilities of a camera is perfectly valid for film or digital. Each lens has a "resolution" - a limit to the amount of detail that it can resolve and the same can be said for film. The resolution of lenses usually greatly exceeds to resolution of either film or digital capturing media, but we're now getting to the point with the better dSLR's where the sensors are outpacing the lenses. I have friends who've abandoned some lenses because their 12MP+ bodies have exposed flaws in their lens lineup that wasn't apparent with film. Jun 08 05 01:58 pm Link Posted by Sam Bennett: Posted by Fred Brown: Posted by Rohit: Posted by Fred Brown: Actually one of the reasons I asked this question in the forum about film and digital is that I was reading the book "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" by Bruce Fraser. He talks about the linearity of tones present in digital cameras. And he adds that film is designed to perceive light more or less the same way as human eyes do. So I was guessing that film might be better in terms of exposure and color. But then you see these Nikons and Canons that seem to absolutely blow away 35mm film in terms of resolution. Film doesn't have resolution and digital doesn't have emulsion so because of this, there is no direct comparison of the two. In short, only digital images have resolution. In terms of film, there is more room for error and depending on the film type, there are other goodies but that can easily be offset by shooting a correct exposure just as you would have to do if you were shooting chrome film. This is why I say neither is better then the other in general. As Alex said you have to define your final product. This isn't quite true, Fred. "Resolution" in terms of digital files is one thing, but "resolution" in terms of the resolving capabilities of a camera is perfectly valid for film or digital. Each lens has a "resolution" - a limit to the amount of detail that it can resolve and the same can be said for film. The resolution of lenses usually greatly exceeds to resolution of either film or digital capturing media, but we're now getting to the point with the better dSLR's where the sensors are outpacing the lenses. I have friends who've abandoned some lenses because their 12MP+ bodies have exposed flaws in their lens lineup that wasn't apparent with film. Well, yea. The way I convert my film images to digital is by scanning the negative, but at 1200 dpi or so it doesn't matter how much finer you go. The details remain the same. Similarly in digital cameras the resolution gives an upper bound to detail. Generally 6 MP can produce film-like 8x10 prints from what I know. But now you have way above that in 35mm dslrs. I apologize for any misunderstandings. Jun 08 05 02:27 pm Link Posted by Rohit: I like infrared film a lot, because it's so surreal and you can't get the same "bloom" with digital infrared as you get with HIE or Konica. On the other hand, digital infrared is really cheap (90% of my infrared negatives are tossers because it's hard to meter accurately in infrared) Jun 08 05 02:49 pm Link Ok what is better, digital or film? Never use a screw driver to hammer in a nail. Jun 08 05 03:00 pm Link Posted by David Moyle: Ok what is better, digital or film? Never use a screw driver to hammer in a nail. LOL Jun 08 05 03:05 pm Link I'm going back to Flintstones technology. Inside my new camera is a monkey hammering images into stone with a chisel. Frame rate is about 1 every 10 minutes or so. Dammit, forgot my meds again..... Jun 08 05 03:07 pm Link Posted by LarryB: You know I think someone would pay to see a monkey cramed into a box chiseling away at a nude photoshoot. Jun 08 05 03:10 pm Link Posted by David Moyle: Ok what is better, digital or film? Never use a screw driver to hammer in a nail. What about this screwdriver where the back end is shaped flat enough to be a hammer? Jun 08 05 03:12 pm Link For IR? Film no question. You need to control and long exposures for use of certain filters. I'm assuming you're shooting Kodak EIR e6 process infrared color slide film or maybe that Ilford k process black and white negative. Digital has it's place. Film has it's place. And a Deardorf 8x10 with glass slide has it's place. Old school wood and brass cameras REPRESENT! Okay, I'm done now. Jun 08 05 03:35 pm Link Film vs Digital... lamest argument ever. KNOW BOTH. But realize that to really understand your digital, you need to understand film. Almost every aspect of your digital/photoshop process is based on something from film. Curves, histograms, dodging/burning... all that is based on something from traditional photography. The better you understand film (and real exposure - not just what you see on your LCD) the better you'll understand why your digital is doing what it does. And understanding that will allow you to really control it and get what you want out of it. Someone mentioned C-41 vs E-6... you have to know how to shoot for the idiosyncracies of both. Same with shooting JPEG's vs RAW. If you're familiar with the latitude of negative film, you'll be able to draw the comparison when shooting RAW files... same with shooting JPEG's - more like shooting slides, because you won't have the same latitude. I don't know... I just think that without knowing your film, you'll never really be able to control your digital beyond just getting a decent exposure. If you wan't to find a "style" beyond just a clean shot, then know film. It's been said, but I'll say it again... they both have their places. But the better you know one, the more you'll be able to milk out of the other. And thats the only way you'll be able to figure out which works for what you're trying to acheive. And ultimately, that's what you need to figure out - equipment doesn't mean shit if it's not what you need to say what you want to say. You can have all the equipment in the world. But if you don't know what you're trying to achieve, it won't make a lick of difference. Jun 08 05 03:55 pm Link Posted by Brian Kim: Very cool!!! Never shot the 8x10 but I got a 4x5 with the film holders. I even have a holder for 120 film. Jun 08 05 04:17 pm Link Posted by BlacklistVisual:
Jun 08 05 04:56 pm Link |
But yes every equipment has their uses, just digital appealed to most of the common ones, especially those that are time-sentative.
I don't have much experience with digital, besides color correcting nef files for a photographer. I guess my question is quite vague because of that, but due to the postings I have a better understanding now. Thanks!