I wouldn't say 35mm or digital is better, they are different, though
digital can do a pretty good imitation of film, there are major
advantages to digital, in convenience, and in the last few years,
digital low light performance has improved so much that I wouldn't think
of using high ISO film if I had a recent digital camera. About the only
place the 35mm still is king is projection. Most digital projectors
don't do justice to the captured image, whereas a well exposed 35mm
slide and a project with a good lens can fill a screen in an
auditorium. That said, the digital system is still more convenient, and
in the final analysis it's "good enough", so even there 35mm is falling
by the wayside.
Final thought, maybe 35mm film still holds an advantage in B&W, not so
much in resolution, but in the pure beauty if one can use the word, of
the prints, I've never seen a digital B&W print that matched a silver
print produced by a master.
On 2/7/2015 2:26 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
In conversation with a neighbour today whilst I was out with my camera, I
was asked if a 35mm DSLR produces better images than film does.
I really wasn't sure; the last time this really came up was when the *ist D
came out, and film was still meant to be far superior, in terms of capturing
detail and enlargement potential. So what size sensor does 35mm film equate
to? It appears that ISO 100 was deemed to be about 20MP, but later revised
to between 4MP-16MP, depending on the film, and 8 MP DSLRs produced an
'image quality' close to 16MP. This says more here (last revised 2008):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html
A question/answer in a camera magazine today suggested that 24MP 35mm DSLR
prints could be made to A3 paper size (at 300ppi) and A2 with a 36MP sensor.
This I found shows a 30" x 42" enlargement of a Velvia ISO 50 slide:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikecostolo/3750325141/
I know I've seen similar size enlargements from 35mm DSLRs that look good
viewed at a close distance from the enlargement.
I also understand the grain difference between film and digital files is
different, and I'm trying hard not to compare apples with oranges, but with
35mm 50.6 MP sensors about to hit the market, have we now reached the point
where DSLRs conclusively capture more information than film (specifically
35mm only)? Additionally, do we have to print at 300ppi? Can you reduce this
and still produce sharp enough pictures at an enlarged size - assuming the
image is a good sharp one to begin with?
I don't think I've ever had an image printed beyond 16" x 20", so I'm
curious how far it can be enlarged and remain really quite sharp, for
example as a framed print in a large family room? Larger sensors equal more
detail, which you must be able to do more with including fairly big
enlargements from a small cropped area of any given image. Are cameras
sensors getting too large at 35mm?
Malcolm
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
