Film versus digital comparison

We probably have to define what we mean by superiority. I think digital is very superior in terms of crisp, clean images. Film has a different quality altogether, not worse and not better but different.

[quote="George Lazarette"]The mags preference for digital is about convenience rather than quality. What they're saying is that digital is good enough - not that it's necessarily better.

In my own case my Z1p and an ancient Minolta ScanDual are capable of better results than my DS is, however as with the mags the DSLR is good enough and a lot more convenient.

Hi,

Just to say, the last poster is correct, digital is used by magazines and other reproduction houses because it suits their workflow and is more convenient.

..G....you are correct that the superior prints given by Cibachrome (and other similar processes) are not cheap and you do need a true professional printer, not any d&p lab or amateur lab and a professional printers time does not come cheap, but then should it? the best is not usually cheap.

If the 'earth from the air' touring exhibition does the rounds again, do check it out, it truly shows the ability of slow 35mm tranny film like no other,

Cheers Steve.

The best prints that I have ever produced were on Cibachrome. However, the paper cost £37.75 for 10 sheet 16 x12 and a one litre chemistry kit in powder form cost £ 12.99. I litre produeced about 8 prints in a Jobo rotary processor. From memory the chemical were very smelly and the process took 9 minutes per print. I still have some stock dated 1995.

Digital is much more convenient and harmless.

graham walton

Graham

Agreed when I tried years ago a few colour prints instead of b & w we used Cibachrome and it was as you said expensive and smelly. Great quality prints though.

On convenience alone digital is King.

On quality of a printed result, I think it depends who is printing and on what and with what.