Sick of Digital, Going back to Film?

[Minoxman]

What exactly are you saying? Can you tell the difference or can't you? Now you're saying you can't. Previously, you said you can, as per your earlier posts:

[1] I was comparing sharpness of a digital print to a darkroom print of the same size. In your previous post you said digital gives a sharper image? Yea right again.
Aberation do mean loss of sharpness, and it's evident even from a pro lab's 8x10 print. Tones do split(aberate) causing marginal blurrness effectively.

[2] Sharpness digital? You ok or not? My firend uses a 6MP dslr and at 8x10 I can already see facial skin tones abberating.

So which is it, can you see banding, or do we need to be superhuman before we can tell a difference at 8x10?

Do you actually know what you are talking about? I said I can't believe people are picking up digital prints to be sharper than darkroom prints or even slide prints of the same sizes.
Just leave it la pal. Do what you like la.

 

[nightpiper]

Sharpness digital? You ok or not? My firend uses a 6MP dslr and at 8x10 I can already see facial skin tones abberating.

sorry but this aberrating, is it the kind of blotchiness & dirty patchy colour that appears on an enlarged print with a small file size (jpg compression artifacts)? that reminds me of cold storage posters. the cow in the field look so pixelated when view from just 2 feet away.

i shoot film, so my knowledge with this digital printing stuff is very limited. do shed so light pls.

 

[Minoxman]

sorry but this aberrating, is it the kind of blotchiness & dirty patchy colour that appears on an enlarged print with a small file size (jpg compression artifacts)? that reminds me of cold storage posters. the cow in the field look so pixelated when view from just 2 feet away.

i shoot film, so my knowledge with this digital printing stuff is very limited. do shed so light pls.

Blotching, fuzzy, patchy , unsettling uneveness within sections of the prints from a 6mp digital file from a fuji lab. I have never seen this sort of thing from a slide or from a b/w room print.
But then again, I could be losing my vision.

 

[YSLee]

I've never seen anything like that from a digital print out either.

nightpiper, I see you still think there's some mystique behind the D1X. There isn't. It's electronics has been outclassed by the D100 and the D70. The reason why it was much more expensive is because of its build, and a few other features which are not related to its electronics. As Jed has said, it's a 5.2 megapixel camera, with much less vertical resolution. Oh, and also because there isn't a replacement of it yet. See prices of D1H vs D2H.

 

[Ansel]

Sharpness digital? You ok or not? My firend uses a 6MP dslr and at 8x10 I can already see facial skin tones abberating.

There is obviously something wrong with your friend's 6MP DSLR. My D70 produces some of the most socks-blowing images I have ever seen at 8x10 or 8x12.

Before I bought my D70, I always thought big prints from digital images can never beat same size prints from film. Well, it depends on how big you are talking about.

Repeat my first paragraph, at 8x10, I dare say, a good 6MP DSLR image printed by a good Fuji Frontier lab, can blow you away as well as any good 35mm film image you can find. I am saying this from experience.

Don't look at a poor sample of digital print and say that digital is lousy. I can also look at a poor print using poorly exposed film and say that film is lousy!

 

[Zerstorer]

Minoxman, what you saw could be due to exposure errors or simply incompetent handling of a digital file. A well shot image from a 6MP DSLR should have no problems at 8X10. I've printed 8X10 from a 3MP image upsampled and still it doesn't exhibit the artifacts and aberrations you described.

Digital prints may however look too clean or homogeneous, especially if interpolated.

 

[TME]

Whoa.... quite a powerful discussion... can feel the heat manz...... :sweat:

 

[showtime]

Do you actually know what you are talking about? I said I can't believe people are picking up digital prints to be sharper than darkroom prints or even slide prints of the same sizes.
Just leave it la pal. Do what you like la.

it really depends on the scanning... i think that there is nothing that can beat a good drum scan. if we are refering to the scans made in walk in labs, yah, those are not that good.

 

[engineermunn]

Aiyoh.... I see 80% of the replies here totally off topic leh!



I said that I was getting sick of Digital.. so now contemplating on GOING BACK to film.... ok.... perhaps I should've said that I might want to concentrate more on film.

Someone assumed that I have a DSLR... that's correct - a d100 to be exact. I started photography more than 10 years ago with a Nikon FM and FM2. All the while I relied on manual operations (obviously), so i have no problems with twitching camera settings to get the desired effects.

On the D100, there is a human tendency to make use of the snap-as-you-wish, delete-later habit. Isn't this the MAIN reason most film users switched to digital? Wasn't it one of the enticing factors?? Less film, less developing, etc?

Ah HA! So that's what I thought so too... until start to do wedding days and events... darn, even product shots too. You keep snapping and snapping (with technical adjustments ah.. not mindless triggering, please). When uploaded, everything seems the same... just abit of slight differences...
Alot of photogs (including myself), will never be fully satisfied with the shots we take. We usually need 2nd or 3rd opinion.

At this point, anyone feels that the "best" shot is not captured? So many to edit.... not shack ah?

With film (like last time)... there's film discipline... cannot anyhow shoot.

Also, technology keeps improving.... saying that I (or anyone else) will continue to keep my D100 workhorse for the next..... 2 years is quite insane. By then, it'll become so obsolete, the PCs will not even be able to support the device! Digital devices are not independent devices. There are many peripherals that go hand-in-hand with it.

Film cameras are independent.

And that's why I wanna go back to film photography.

 

[nightpiper]

do u guys print those digital files yourself or bring to photo labs? any differece? the last time i saw a print of 8x10 from a 3.3MP it was horrible. the guy told me that the print was untouched by any software & just printed off from the file in the lab.

anyway, i haven't touch a D1x or D100 to make a comparison. is the D100 really better? how does it compare in terms of noise, colour, details, etc? also went to read a review on D1x just now & realised that its a 2001 DSLR. i guess being an electronic 'gadget' is easily made obsolete by future generations.

thx for sharing your experience.

 

[jbma]

Aiyoh.... I see 80% of the replies here totally off topic leh!



I said that I was getting sick of Digital.. so now contemplating on GOING BACK to film.... ok.... perhaps I should've said that I might want to concentrate more on film.

Someone assumed that I have a DSLR... that's correct - a d100 to be exact. I started photography more than 10 years ago with a Nikon FM and FM2. All the while I relied on manual operations (obviously), so i have no problems with twitching camera settings to get the desired effects.

On the D100, there is a human tendency to make use of the snap-as-you-wish, delete-later habit. Isn't this the MAIN reason most film users switched to digital? Wasn't it one of the enticing factors?? Less film, less developing, etc?

Ah HA! So that's what I thought so too... until start to do wedding days and events... darn, even product shots too. You keep snapping and snapping (with technical adjustments ah.. not mindless triggering, please). When uploaded, everything seems the same... just abit of slight differences...
Alot of photogs (including myself), will never be fully satisfied with the shots we take. We usually need 2nd or 3rd opinion.

At this point, anyone feels that the "best" shot is not captured? So many to edit.... not shack ah?

With film (like last time)... there's film discipline... cannot anyhow shoot.

Also, technology keeps improving.... saying that I (or anyone else) will continue to keep my D100 workhorse for the next..... 2 years is quite insane. By then, it'll become so obsolete, the PCs will not even be able to support the device! Digital devices are not independent devices. There are many peripherals that go hand-in-hand with it.

Film cameras are independent.

And that's why I wanna go back to film photography.

I see it coming when you started this thread hehe. I really did. It only a matter of time. Digital vs film....and another potential heat generator....Canon vs Nikon. Honestly I feel it is pointless to go about debating these 2 topics. It will never end. To each his own lah. What you prefer is up to you. There is no wrong or right. Just personal preference. So let it be.

 

[YSLee]

Hey, I don't see why you can't practice the same discipline with a D100.. you might still shoot more than film, but at least it will be more meaningful, instead of 318950 shots of the same scene.

 

[AReality]

do u guys print those digital files yourself or bring to photo labs? any differece? the last time i saw a print of 8x10 from a 3.3MP it was horrible. the guy told me that the print was untouched by any software & just printed off from the file in the lab.

Because the algorithm used to enlarge the file to fit a 8x10 is horrible?

a 8x10 print from a 3.3MP won't be that bad if you know how to manipulate digital images, instead of letting the lab do it. But then again, it depends on which lab...

 

[nightpiper]

Because the algorithm used to enlarge the file to fit a 8x10 is horrible?

a 8x10 print from a 3.3MP won't be that bad if you know how to manipulate digital images, instead of letting the lab do it. But then again, it depends on which lab...

don't mind i ask again: why digital files cannot be like film & send straight for printing? how come must manipulate first then can get good results? pardon this ignorant question. i thot if the pic is taken correctly first time round, there's no need to manipulate & can go straight to the lab. am i mistaken to have such a thot?

 

[TME]

don't mind i ask again: why digital files cannot be like film & send straight for printing? how come must manipulate first then can get good results? pardon this ignorant question. i thot if the pic is taken correctly first time round, there's no need to manipulate & can go straight to the lab. am i mistaken to have such a thot?

Actually why not..... but often because digital photography allows us to correct the image to our hearts' content (after all it is easily accessible), so we do the editing.... think about film... if u screwed up or the exposure is a tad off, can u do anything about it? (Short of developing the film yourself or get a lab to do corrections).... there's probably only so much u can do without incurring much expense and perhaps time in getting to the lab and back again to collect the print.... oten we just accept that we did get it and just shoot another roll....

 

[Parchiao]

Can someone confirm if I have got this right, that the output of a 5MP odd when blown up can be as good as slide, provided that both the equiptment is good to begin with and the workflow is correctly executed, either one, or neither one such that you can always get good prints (blown up that is)?

 

[Ansel]

Can someone confirm if I have got this right, that the output of a 5MP odd when blown up can be as good as slide, provided that both the equiptment is good to begin with and the workflow is correctly executed, either one, or neither one such that you can always get good prints (blown up that is)?

Blown to what size?

5.0 MP typically means the image is 2560 pixels x 1920 pixels. This translates to :

8.5 in x 6.5 in if printed at 300 dpi
12.8 in x 9.6 inch if printed at 200 dpi.
17 in x 13 inch if printed at 150 dpi.

A state-of-the-art Fuji Frontier Lab system typically print between 150 dpi and 300 dpi. Trust me, even at the "low" end of 150 dpi, it is already very sharp with Frontier technology.

So in summary, your 5.0 MP image, given that it is well exposed and focused, etc, should be able to yield a very good enlargement up to 17 inch by 13 inch.

If you are keen, I can show you some of the prints I made. I can bring them to the office. (You should still remember where my office is, the last time you came to collect the Nikon scope converter from me?)

 

[AReality]

Actually why not..... but often because digital photography allows us to correct the image to our hearts' content (after all it is easily accessible), so we do the editing.... think about film... if u screwed up or the exposure is a tad off, can u do anything about it? (Short of developing the film yourself or get a lab to do corrections).... there's probably only so much u can do without incurring much expense and perhaps time in getting to the lab and back again to collect the print.... oten we just accept that we did get it and just shoot another roll....

To add on...

Shooting digital doesn't involve only shooting & storing the images in flash cards, & immediately send to the lab for printing. Shooting digital lets you have more control of your pictures. You can crop, resize, correct the colours, paintbrush the unwanted distractions. It depends on how far you're willing to go. Of course, if you got it exactly as what you wanted the first time round, then there's no need to photoshop them.

For example, on a hazy day, you took some snapshots with your P&S digital camera. Yes, you can digitally remove the haze, & you'll have a much better picture than if you just send it to the lab (also depends on the efficiency of the labs).

 

[akane]

very OT

with digital..next time you will see more and more people wearing specs or those already wearing specs with thicker lenses (because need to sit in front of PC whole day to post process?)

kekekeke

 

[Minoxman]

I must be blind then. I'll let you guys have it then. Remember, have fun. ;p