General > General Technical Chat

Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right

<< < (9/43) > >>

eti:
Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

bd139:

--- Quote from: eti on June 19, 2022, 09:02:15 am ---Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

--- End quote ---

Absolutely no way. It really doesn't actually matter which is superior from a physics perspective or any theoretical side because photography is 80% subjective art and 20% technology.

Now the important bit is digital is far far better because of the opportunities it creates post capture which cannot be replicated by any film workflow in the art department. The end product is what is important.

A fine example here. I blew the sky out on this completely



But it was shot in 14-bit RAW which meant the sky could be pulled back out again



Try doing that with an enlarger and some colour paper...

Have been doing photography for about 30 years through 35mm film, large format and digital and at film is as dead as anything. Film is good fun but that's about it.

Now for the kick in the teeth. Most smartphones are better now than any 35mm body on the market. The only poor area is the lenses. In fact the most important bit of photography are the lenses and the post production workflow. Everything else is moot.

Shot on a iPhone. It even mustered some bokeh...



The real point is that you can argue about physics until the world implodes but you can take really damn good photos with a potato if you know what you are doing. And good is subjective and not related to physics at all. I've printed stuff out of my old 6MP D70 fairly large and it looked great.

ebastler:

--- Quote from: eti on June 19, 2022, 09:02:15 am ---Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

--- End quote ---

Rather than making categorical statements, it would help if you define what "better" means to you.

With photographic film you get a tradeoff between resolution (grain size) and sensitivity and dynamic range (ISO value and the range of gray values which a "spot" on the film can assume). With digital cameras you get a similar tradeoff (larger pixels have a larger full-well capacity, hence larger dynamic range). For digital cameras the physical pixel size and dynamic range are "hard-coded" in the sensor, while in analog photography you can use different film types. But digital cameras can adjust the resolution vs. dynamic range balance too, by binning pixels together.

If you use "spatial resolution * pixel dynamic range" as your performance critierion, I am pretty certain that digital sensors beat analog film for any chosen balance of resolution vs. dynamic range. If you choose "spatial resolution * low-light sensitivity" as your performance criterion, I am very certain that digital beats analog.

Don't take my word for it: See e.g. https://www.imaging.org/site/PDFS/Papers/1998/PICS-0-43/622.pdf; the key figure is attached below. Hint: That is a 1998 paper. Digital sensors have made more progress than film since then...

eti:
My late friend, Peter Whitehead, was tour cameraman for the Stones and was friends with, and did promos for Pink Floyd (He lived next door to them) and also The Dubliners.  He worked extensively with the BBC, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £50,000 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was falconer for the King of Saudi Arabia, and friends with Howard Marks, David Hockney, Michael Caine, ex boyfriend of Marianne Faithfull… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of pop music video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

>> https://www.independent.co.uk/obituaries/peter-whitehead-film-counterculture-swinging-london-rolling-stones-led-zeppelin-beat-poetry-a8964856.html

I’ll always take his word over armchair amateurs (and this isn’t even a photography forum!!)

bd139:
You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

The subject is more important than the media and you just confirmed it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod