A friend and I went into a healthy debate wether the digital era was going to eclipse film in the realm of photography. He was a film user, and I of course, defended the digital era.
A lot of points were raised – different perceptions, yet all valid arguments.
I guess the quick answer to the title (is film dead) would be certainly not. However, will that be the case eventually?
Aye there’s the rub…
“view post”
“view post”
I guess we agreed that the answer could be different depending on the time you ask the question. When digital photography was first introduced, absolutely no serious photographer would even consider it.
It all boiled down to quality and preference. And there was a time when film was the undeniable winner on both counts, usually the latter (preference) attributed to former (quality). Film resolution, when translated digitally, was theoretically pegged at 20MP. Even as digital technology gradually improved, film was still the obvious choice. How can a 1, 2, 3, or 4 megapixel camera ever match the theoretical resolution of 20MP in print? And lets not forget the magic of silver halide, and how it reacts to light. Digital sensors were also at their infancy at that time, digital never had a prayer.
There is actually so much more factors involved, so I invite you to read up on this site (thanks to Nono for the link)
I will quote this:
A 16 megapixel SLR should yield the equivalent of a good 100 ISO 35mm slide. Applying the principles we learned in the Megapixels and Image Sizes section above, we can say there is only roughly a 16% image size increase between a 12 megapixel image and a 16 megapixel image. So, a 12 megapixel SLR should produce results “close” to good 100 ISO 35mm slides.
But for those concerned with maximum detail in their images or large prints, and willing to shoot slower slide films, digital cameras will need to approach 20 megapixels to compete with the best films at 35mm, and 56 megapixels and 75 megapixels respectively to compete with those films in the 645 and 6×6 formats.
Aside from the obvious knowledge the article imparts… one can also deduce without question that though film and digital are apples and oranges, one can still quantify a relationship between their output.
Simply put, take the BEST film setup example there, and it states a whopping 75MP count to match it. Obviously digital in that respect has still a loooooong way to go. And of course we have the whole “sensor” issue to address as well. I mean you can have all these megapixels to match output, but if you have a crappy sensor, then it’s all a futile excercise.
Hence the short answer, as I said is film definitely isn’t dead.
Now lets take the two technologies side by side and compare their improvements over time.
As Nono would say:
digital has achieved in 10 years what film has achieved in 50.
Very true. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who would be ahead if they were invented at the same time. And it also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that digital can and will eventually surpass film. I think we’ve hit the 20MP count these days (those really expensive digital backs) But that’s far from the supposed 80MP needed to match the largest film setup. We also have ever improving sensor technology – which strives to eventually match how the human eye sees things. Judging from moore’s law, and the market, and the economy, there’s no doubt in my mind that film will take a backseat eventually. Not now, but eventually.
So film isn’t dead. Film is still the better choice for anything larger than 35mm. Film in the black and white industry too is arguably better since sensors have lousy B&W capabilities compared to film, that’s why I’d rather shoot colored then post process the hell out of the colored image afterwards. I think this is one of the few situations that film actually is easier to use than digital hehehehe, such irony.
Again: Film isn’t dead… but its days are numbered hehehe. Ok fine, its years are numbered