Again with the Digital Vs. Film!

OK, you might think this is getting boring but I found this article from a professional medium format user very interesting.

Source: Shootout

State-of-the-Art 35mm if like me you’re excited about the dramatic changes that are taking place in photography right now and want to know what’s happening at the bleeding edge, then you will likely find this of interest.


I chose Fuji Velvia as the film to use on the Pentax because it is the highest resolution colour film available. Not the finest grained — that honour goes to Fuji Provia 100F. But there is no colour film that can touch Velvia for resolution. The Canon was set to ISO 100, even though Velvia is rated at ISO 40. I could have set the Canon to ISO 50, but this is a reduced dynamic range setting, and in any event I was looking to primarily compare resolution, not grain. Digital has finer grain by far than film.

I am only left with the conclusion that I no longer retain any advantage in shooting medium format film. It’s more expensive, less convenient and produces lower quality images. The range of lenses available to me is much greater with 35mm digital, including the availability of longer lenses, wider lenses, more zooms, Image Stabilization, wider aperture primes, and tilt / shift lenses. You can see where I’m going, can’t you? At least this is the case using the tools and techniques that I have learned over the past 7 years of working digitally and the past 35 years of traditional darkroom work. Would this conclusion be any different if I used a different scanner, different film, and different medium format set-up? I can’t say for sure. I don’t think so though. Do you believe otherwise? Then please go out and do a similar test for yourself

So one photographers opinion? While he had other photographers help him in his tests this comment stands out for me (my emphasis)

For the past year I have been shooting for various magazines, – Vogue… Harper’s Bazaar…Vibe – with the Canon 1D and recently with the 1Ds. I was told by the math-bound technocrats that I could not print a double page spread with the 1D. – a Vogue spread is 11×17 – only to prove them wrong by printing a Kodak Approval print for the 1D file against the 6×7 film 200mg file drum scanned on a Crossfield. When I asked the printer to pick the Kodak Approval he thought was best; he picked the 1D Kodak Approval. No contest!

…. It is my experience that the 1Ds images appear to be almost grainless and sharper than 6×7 film. Compare prints — any size — from each format and the 1Ds print is chosen every time. — Melvin Sokolsky

I guess these are only opinions but I think if people, professionals, are making these calls now (2003 actually), how much life in general use has film got? Not much by my reckoning. Let the luddites and sentimentalists stick to the old school, my money is on digital!

3 Comments

  1. Posted January 16, 2006 at 5:04 pm by MarkT | Permalink

    zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Digital isn’t film, film isn’t digital, some bloke on the internet says medium format isn’t as good as digital (it must be true). Let people make their own minds up, but give them balanced information about both formats before pushing them down one route. Just because something is more accessible and popular doesn’t mean it is better (I point you at mcdonalds).

  2. Posted January 16, 2006 at 5:22 pm by Chris | Permalink

    I thought you would like it :O) This will be my last comment or post on the subject as I have no interest in film other than to bash it ;O)

  3. Posted January 16, 2006 at 5:44 pm by MarkT | Permalink

    I give you a week.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>