Womble uses film......common sense really.

So with your film bodies you may well get superior image quality with those three over digital?

link

I note the line where it says

"an important observation is the fact that the digital image cannot cope with curved details"

This is similar to the LP vs CD argument where a digitised signal cannot represent 100% of an analogue value. At some point, we can say that film grain, however small has finite limits. It would appear that the crystal still betters the pixel.

In fact, the smaller crystal grain gives less noise while the same is not true for the smaller pixel. Are we going backwards or ignoring the basic facts?

Interesting, this photography lark.

Regards

In that example, I think that I would use a longer lens rather than attempt such an extreme crop

The upscaling by 400% is done by computer program. So a human has created a way of zooming in and linking the dots by some kind of set of rules. This is an approximation it creates artefacts and is not likely to be kind on curves.

There is an argument to say that the FF sensor in a Leica is not up to the job of replicating what film can do in a Leica. Its an argument for sensors that have greater numbers of pixels.

You are right that smaller crystals gives less noise. Equally, higher numbers of pixels will give better resolution.

Whether it is better depends on which viewpoint you have. For the vast majority of people to have access to a 6Mpixel point and shoot and to be able to print off their own 6x4 or even A4 prints is better than where we were 15 years ago. Having to take a few rolls of film on holiday, not knowing if you got the shot, having to get the whole role developed. And then finding out if you had a decent shot. Digital cameras have democratised photography.

At the high end of exhibition prints maybe film has the edge. However. Seeing Richard Bryant's work at Somerset House last year I was flabergasted. Seeing a digital print over 6m wide positively shining leaping off the wall was amazing. The images were taken with a Leaf system I think and I could not fault them. I put my nose 2 inches away from the print.

Given the room filling qualities of Bryant's images I would say Erwin Puts is navel gazing and wondering how many angels he can fit on a grain of silver iodide.

Unfortunately the link doesn't want to play just now, so I'll try again later.

However, in the real world I think for most of us digital has already surpassed the quality of film. I know in theory film might resolve more, but in practice few of us can reach the standards that film might allow.

If I had my films processed at Boots (or wherever else in the High Street) then there's no argument - digital will be better.

Here is a read on Luminous Landscape with a FF camera and the Pentax 6x7 but that was 7 years ago http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
The sensor certainly has improved a bit so I think it's better to spend your money on that than on a drum-scanner, you should even be able to buy a 645D or two for that money

Not pushing one more than the other here as I use both digital and film. Purely looking at other peoples thoughts. With emphasis on "may well get" rather than "will get".

With regards to the comment by dougf8,

"Having to take a few rolls of film on holiday, not knowing if you got the shot, having to get the whole role developed. And then finding out if you had a decent shot".

This only true for certain images. Action shots are normally not repeatable but static or posed shots are, so I would say that under certain situations the instant preview is of high value.

Regards

120 film > APS-C digital > 35mm film (in my opinion)

Hence I think my days of shooting 35mm are very nearly at an end...

Mr. Erwin Puts always goes a long way to defend film and specially in combination with Leica. But....now he has to dig very deep to give film the edge above digital.
Come on guys.......ISO 16 film comparing to ISO 160 of the M9?
Apples and Oranges.....comes to mind. It would only have some merit if he used a ISO 160 film.But obviously he didn't because that would give him the wrong results.

That's an unusual line up. Film in front of digital, in front of film?

Regards

When you talk about resolving power and micro contrast using the same variables (same ISO) he is right IMO.

But when this thread is heading to another meaningless film vs digital discussion you might want to ask the mods to move it over to this thread.

Martin,

I am not looking at film vs digital. I think they both have a place. I see them as different tools. There will never be a situation of one medium being the final choice. Market factors and manipulation will see to that.

Getting back to my post content and "Interesting, this photography lark". It is a wide and varied activity with a range of formats, equipment, passions and motives.

I like film. I like the discipline it commands. That itself does not make better images. It's just another tool. I use film in situations where digital is not practical. I find digital faster yet more time consuming.

Regards

I use film some of the time because:

I enjoy using the equipment.
Some of the old equipment is beautifully made and deserves to be used, not just left collecting dust on the shelf.
I hate sitting in front of the computer even more than I already do.
Its different.
I like the challenge.
I like learning how to use different types of equipment.
It makes me chuckle when I chat to a young photographer on the NY Metro who cannot use film because he couldn't get the exposure right.
Because I cannot afford a Leaf back for my LF system.
The images look different and have a different quality to them that I (personally) couldn't reproduce in PS even though I know it is possible.
It slows me down and makes me remember all that stuff I once knew about exposure.
I find the double-take people give me when I am out and about using a Spotmatic mildly amusing.
There isn't a digital LX.
I still get good photographs using film (witness the abstract shot in the PUG magazine).

I often find that detailed tests and theoretical comparisons less illuminating than they should be. For example, the FA 43mm Ltd ought to be a much better lens than the S-M-C Takumar 28mm f/3.5 lens I bought the other week. For some reason or other, I have never entirely "bonded" with my 43 and I rarely use it whereas the 28mm hasn't been out of my kit bag since I got it. Go figure...

Best wishes, Kris.

Not really. Film beats digital by having a slightly higher dynamic range, however, digital beats film on cost / convenience / noise (all IMO).

When it comes to detail resolved I find images from my K10D beat images from 35mm film scanned to a high resolution. When I scan images from my 120 negatives to a similar resolution then there's fine detail present that the K10D doesn't even come close to.

If I could have medium format quality but with the convenience of digital I'd be a very happy user indeed.