advertisement


It's official - Digital is better than Film.

I'm not sure what is proved by enlarging a 35mm negative to that size. There would have to be some form of unsharp masking in order to produce anything sensible at that size of enlargement. We don't know whether transparency or negative film was used, or what type. No tripod was used for the shoot (unbelievable). No details given of either the film development, or any post-shoot adjustment applied to the digital image (which you'd have to assume was in a RAW format).

I am quite sold on the quality of my Canon 5D, and the flexibility it offers (especially when shooting RAW), but I'm also convinced that film, especially medium and large format, can offer something quite distinct and equally valuable.
 
Pah! They should have compared the D700 to Instax or Tri-X. Just try to get that look with your fancy computer camera.

Joe
 
All I gathered from that comparison is they show the Nikon digital camera to be better than Nikon film camera.

Propaganda.
 
The print is the speaker in hi-fi terms though, and the better source here was clearly digital. It wasn't even close.

Full frame DSLR like Canon's 1Ds series left 35mm film behind a long time ago.
 
Rack Kit said:
The print is the speaker in hi-fi terms though, and the better source here was clearly digital. It wasn't even close.
Click to expand...

Both sources are digital, since the film shot is scanned from a negative and the print is made from the digital file. The test doesn't really show anything interesting at all about the qualities of either medium, which are undeniably different. To try to conclude anything about the "superiority" of either from something like this is just silly. If you want to print enormous images the size of a building perhaps a digicam is a better choice if you are mostly concerned with colour fidelity and blunt resolution, but none of us ever need to make prints like that, and colour fidelity and blunt resolution are the wrong way to judge the qualities of either technology anyway. Film(s) have specific characters and qualities, which make them useful and interesting to shoot regardless of the performance of modern digicams.
 
If fidelity were the only criterion I might agree that digital is better than film, but there's so much more to photography than if your colours are spot on. If that were the case B&W films wouldn't exist at all, nor would any colour film except for Kodak Ektachrome EPN.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top