[Leica] Digital versus film

["Gib Robinson" <robinson@sfsu.edu>]

Henning, 

Thanks for the very balanced assessment of d vs f. Below are comments
from two very accomplished photographers who tend to use low-speed slide
film and have concerns about detail. Note that one -- Art Morris -- is a
Canon contract photographer and the other a long time user with
considerable resources. Both feel they have made the transition to
digital and will use film only rarely. 

- --Gib


Michael H. Reichmann: The End of Compromise (
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ ) All photography is about
compromise. We'd want 4X5" view camera quality from a Minox if we could
get it. But we can't. So we are forced to use the most appropriate tools
for the job at hand. For me this has meant that I use 35mm for wildlife
and nature and medium format for landscape. Versatility vs. image
quality. But now with the Canon 1Ds I am in what can only be described
as a state of bliss. I have the versatility of 35mm equipment and lenses
along with image quality that previously was only available from medium
format. No, I can't make 36 X 48" poster sized prints the way I can from
6X7cm scans. But I can make stunning prints up to 20X24", and that's
just fine for my needs most of the time. Combine this remarkable image
quality with the great prints that can be made with an Epson
2200printer, and at long last the digital promise has been met. So,
while I look forward to advances in all areas of imaging technology, for
the first time in my 35 year career as a professional as well as fine
art photographer I can honestly say that my equipment is producing
images that not only meet, but actually exceed my exacting demands. What
a thrill! Because I've been asked the question several times recently,
let me answer it straightforwardly here. I am moving away from medium
format and film in general, and expect that I will be doing 90% of my
photography with the Canon 1Ds and D60 from now on. I have recently sold
my Pentax 645 equipment and while I'm hanging on to the Pentax 67
outfit, I really am not sure when I'll use it next. It too might get
sold soon. My XPan and Leica M equipment stays in the mix because they
both offer unique capabilities, but frankly, working digitally has
become like a drug; image quality is so superior to film and workflow so
much more convenient that it's hard to look back. Film? Oh ya, I
remember.

Art Morris (www.birdsasart.com ) quote from his most recent newsletter:

For months, I have written that digital's post-image production
work-flow (processing, labeling, storing, cataloguing, accessing, and
distributing the images) scares me the most , and that has not changed
one iota.  I am still scared and clueless and will be calling on
numerous friends for help.  But, I am, at this point, committed to
switching over completely to digital and selling all my film cameras.
(I did expose ten rolls of film at Bosque.)  

Why the sudden dramatic change of heart?  Digital is fun.  Digital
allows you to experiment creatively (more on that in the next Bulletin
which is coming soon). Digital offers immediate gratification and more
importantly, immediate feedback.  A glance at the histogram enables you
to guarantee that your exposure is what you want.  Digital is an
incredible teaching tool.  Digital is the wave of the future, and it is
coming fast.  Film and processing costs = zero.  It is environmentally
1,000,000 times better than film.  By utilizing raw mode, it is far
easier to save underexposed images with digital captures than it is with
film.  Even if it takes a year to master the work-flow problems, I still
have a few images on film to market <smile>  It is fun!  More fun than
I've had photographing in years (and I've always had tons of fun in the
field)!




Henning wrote:

Actually, the resolution figure you want to start out with is 40 or more
line _pairs_ per mm, giving about 160 pixels per mm, or in the 
order of 4000x6000. Going higher than doubling isn't really necessary
for resolution in either the purely vertical or horizontal direction; 
it is, however, for the diagonals. 2 times the previous number should be
enough. So you wind up with 24Mpx2 or 48Mp. This could give you 
very good MTF performance up to around 40lp/mm, and a little more as you
get closer to the purely horizontal and vertical directions.

One of the reasons digital looks so 'sharp' is that it's MTF is very
good up to the resolution limit, so that things that need up to 
20lp/mm to image well are rendered extremely 'sharp' by cameras like the
1Ds, while film has a gradual roll-off where some contrast is 
lost already at lower frequencies, but on the other hand at very high
frequencies there is still information left.

In practice what this means is that images from digital cameras and
backs (and to some extent, scans) will look very good up to a point 
(a certain value of resolution), and then the MTF will drop off and
there will be no more detail. Each generation of sensor chip pushes 
this 'drop-off' further into higher frequencies.

If we make a print of a very high quality, low ISO 35mm negative taken
with a very good lens using a very good enlarging lens, etc, we 
can produce 'resolution' and detail well beyond what any 35mm based
digital camera can produce. It's just that there will also be 
evidence of grain, and a roll-off in MTF that will not be as evident in
the digital image, and usually we don't produce negatives that 
good. So in that case the digital image will look better because it has
little or no grain, and the sensor has a high MTF in the region 
that is most important to us in judging a 'sharp' image, namely the
10-20l/pmm region for the 35mm format.

Film still wins a lot of the numbers games, and will for quite a while
into the future. If you are judging just by looking at images 
taken under normal circumstances - handheld, non-optimal shutter speeds,
moving subjects, slight off-focus, etc, - digital often comes 
out ahead even now because it doesn't show grain and has very good MTF
in the most important region.

As usual, there are of course many, many other factors such as longevity
and archiving, colour balance, dynamic range, post 
processing and transmission ease, life-cycle costs of equipment vs. film
& processing costs, and others that help determine which to use.

We're in a good time right now. We have choices, can make decisions and
acquire images in various ways. The difficult thing is often 
getting the information together to make an informed choice, and only
allowing such prejudices and emotions into the equation as _we_ 
determine; ie, make informed choices about the prejudices etc. as well.



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html