A professional photographer (whos name I have forgotten) said in a television interview recently that he continued to use film in preference to digital, which he said was fine for amateurs. That got me wondering if a photo, shot on say, a 20Mp (or higher) pro camera, would pixellate on enlargement to a greater visually unacceptable degree compared to a similar image spoilt by film graininess when enlarged to a similar degree. Unfortunately, the photographer in question didn't go into detail as to why he preferred film.
Film grain v Pixellation
It wouldn't, but that's pretty irrelevant. If it's the look of film they're after, then it's easier to just use film.
Just my opinion, but here's what I think...
It's not really about resolution - a typical frame of 35mm film has something like 13-15 million grains, so let's say film is 15 "megagrains". So less than your 20MP+ camera, and about the same as a good DSLR has in terms of pure resolution. To me the difference between film and digital is not that simple though. Film simply responds differently to light than a digital sensor and which you prefer is down to personal preference.
Give me two really good, well shot images, one film and one digi, and 8 times out of 10 I'd probably prefer the film image. Add in the convenience and sheer number of shots you can take with digi though, and the odds of getting a good shot are much higher with digital. Swings and roundabouts really - I still have a soft spot for film myself, but I've been in the business (not as a photographer, I should add!) for a long time and there may be hint of rose tinted specs going on
If you're interested in film as a medium, take a look at www.choose-film.com - there are some very talented photographers there with some great images.
It's not really about resolution - a typical frame of 35mm film has something like 13-15 million grains, so let's say film is 15 "megagrains". So less than your 20MP+ camera, and about the same as a good DSLR has in terms of pure resolution. To me the difference between film and digital is not that simple though. Film simply responds differently to light than a digital sensor and which you prefer is down to personal preference.
Give me two really good, well shot images, one film and one digi, and 8 times out of 10 I'd probably prefer the film image. Add in the convenience and sheer number of shots you can take with digi though, and the odds of getting a good shot are much higher with digital. Swings and roundabouts really - I still have a soft spot for film myself, but I've been in the business (not as a photographer, I should add!) for a long time and there may be hint of rose tinted specs going on
If you're interested in film as a medium, take a look at www.choose-film.com - there are some very talented photographers there with some great images.
The number of grains used to capture the image in 35mm film very much depends on the sensitivity of the film, much like the sensitivity / useful megapixel resolution trade-off ratio with digital cameras.
A good 8MP or higher DSLR is generally considered these days to be superior to any 35mm film camera for most uses (provided it has an equally good lens), "good" meaning a quite large sensor and not one of the tiny sensors used on compact cameras (no DSLR would have one of those tiny sensors anyway).
Film cameras are potentially more flexible in one way in that they can use very low sensitivity film to achieve a very high resolution, but even that advantage is pretty much removed by the latest generation of digital sensors which combine high resolution with adequate sensitivity.
Film cameras are really a dead-end product now as all the advantages film cameras offered have now been removed (with the possible exception of large-format film, but it is only as matter of time before superior digital sensors make them obsolete as well).
A good 8MP or higher DSLR is generally considered these days to be superior to any 35mm film camera for most uses (provided it has an equally good lens), "good" meaning a quite large sensor and not one of the tiny sensors used on compact cameras (no DSLR would have one of those tiny sensors anyway).
Film cameras are potentially more flexible in one way in that they can use very low sensitivity film to achieve a very high resolution, but even that advantage is pretty much removed by the latest generation of digital sensors which combine high resolution with adequate sensitivity.
Film cameras are really a dead-end product now as all the advantages film cameras offered have now been removed (with the possible exception of large-format film, but it is only as matter of time before superior digital sensors make them obsolete as well).
Originally Posted by PrinceGaz:
“The number of grains used to capture the image in 35mm film very much depends on the sensitivity of the film, much like the sensitivity / useful megapixel resolution trade-off ratio with digital cameras.
A good 8MP or higher DSLR is generally considered these days to be superior to any 35mm film camera for most uses (provided it has an equally good lens), "good" meaning a quite large sensor and not one of the tiny sensors used on compact cameras (no DSLR would have one of those tiny sensors anyway).
Film cameras are really a dead-end product now as all the advantages film cameras offered have now been removed (with the possible exception of large-format film, but it is only as matter of time before superior digital sensors make them obsolete as well).”
“The number of grains used to capture the image in 35mm film very much depends on the sensitivity of the film, much like the sensitivity / useful megapixel resolution trade-off ratio with digital cameras.
A good 8MP or higher DSLR is generally considered these days to be superior to any 35mm film camera for most uses (provided it has an equally good lens), "good" meaning a quite large sensor and not one of the tiny sensors used on compact cameras (no DSLR would have one of those tiny sensors anyway).
Film cameras are really a dead-end product now as all the advantages film cameras offered have now been removed (with the possible exception of large-format film, but it is only as matter of time before superior digital sensors make them obsolete as well).”
Whilst I agree that film is pretty much dead now, I don't agree that an 8mp DSLR is better than any 35mm unit.
Good quality film, with a decent lens easily gives more resolution than most DSLRs of the moment - typically an equivalent to 20+mp.
There are larger format DSLRs though, and they're utterly incredible. 40+ mp!
I feel to have the technical equivalence or superiority over the best resolution that film can offer, you're looking at having to use at least a 1Ds Mk3/5D Mark 2 and then up up and away into Hasselblad territory.
My next cam
http://www.dalephotographic.co.uk/ma...line/_H4D%2060
My next cam
http://www.dalephotographic.co.uk/ma...line/_H4D%2060
