Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › 35mm film low light performance vs. digital?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

35mm film low light performance vs. digital? - Page 3

post #31 of 36
Hi Guys,

Raymond invited me after the Medium Format photo of Granton Harbour was posted. My take? Use whatever makes you happy I use my Nikon D3 in my portrait studio, for all shots. I use my D3 for 95% of my landscape work too, and love it for low light tasks.

I use my Medium Format 120 Mamiya for the days when I want to chillax, slow down, and just enjoy trying to get a nice photo. I'm happy to wait for the right light, and happy to wait for it to be developed....

I don't see any reason to exclude a technology, both film and digital have many benefits, I personally love the low light capability of my D3. I can't really comment if it's better than film or not, I don't do much low light shooting....other than long exposures of course.

Gary.
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post
I'd say the new full frame sensors like the D700, D3, and also not quite as good, but 5d mkii etc are better than film.

It's a complicated question though really, because what do you mean by better? You mean which looks better, and since film and digital produce different kinds of artifacts at high iso, it's subjective. Film pushed to high iso yields grain, and digital yields noise. Most people prefer a very grainy image to a very noisy image, so film has the advantage because if you could somehow compare a digital and film print with the same amount of artifacts (grain/noise) then film would look better. So digital has to produce less high iso artifacts to look about the same, I would say.

I don't think your 40D will produce better looking high iso images than film because of this but it's really a personal preference. The first time I've been happy with digital high iso was with my D3.
What I was thinking too, and when you add cost to the equation (D3 vs Elan) I'd say film win.
I have seen spotless images taken in the 3200 domain digitally, but never with film. But using a digital camera in the same price class as the Elan shooting images at high ISO will give nasty artifacts, while film, though being far from artifact free, will be more aesthetically pleasing.
post #33 of 36
Thread Starter 
I ordered an Elan IIe and some film. I think my 40D does a decent job at iso 1600. With Lightroom and Photoshop I'm able to muster some decent looking images for being a complete amateur.

I figure when I go shooting with a friend, I can give them my Canon 40D, and I'll use the 35mm.

I read that high sensativity film like ilford 3200 is really around 1200 and has to be "pushed" to those higher levels when developed. How does this work? If I'm dropping off at film at the camera shop, do I worry about it, ask them to make judgement calls?
post #34 of 36
If its a good processing shop they should be able to handle things.

In the long run for low light (concerts especially, where youre depending on some one else lighting the scene) digital is the way to go. Either canon/nikon's mid 1k offerings will do things that were very difficult to pull of in the film days. Once you move up to their highest end models youre surpassing film in its low light (fast exposure) limits.

For me, Im on the opposite end as InspirePhoto. For studio or on location use I prefer medium format film to my nikon. However my work is studio or location based lighting focused so my needs are different than say a concert or live event photographer. That said for the live impromptu stuff I dont even think, I go for my nikon set up.
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewport View Post
I ordered an Elan IIe and some film. I think my 40D does a decent job at iso 1600. With Lightroom and Photoshop I'm able to muster some decent looking images for being a complete amateur.

I figure when I go shooting with a friend, I can give them my Canon 40D, and I'll use the 35mm.

I read that high sensativity film like ilford 3200 is really around 1200 and has to be "pushed" to those higher levels when developed. How does this work? If I'm dropping off at film at the camera shop, do I worry about it, ask them to make judgement calls?

Nice to see you came around to a sensible decision!

Yes - Ilford Delta's true ISO speed is ISO 1000 (or thereabouts). It is a unusual film - unusual for its extreme push-processing abilities. You will get the most out of it by shooting it (pushed from ISO 1000 - ISO 128,000) in low light (usually specular light for harder contrast) and developing it a POTA like developer ('explosion development) or Ilford Microphen, a specific push-developer.

Kodak TMax ISO 3200 film is probably truer to its own ISO speed. Either will give very unique hard and gritty real life style images without digital artifact. No need to fake adding in grain with photoshop either so enjoy!

Or not ~ if you're dropping your film into a develop & process shop. Are you not developing your own film? If so, maybe you should've stuck with digital after all then lol.
post #36 of 36
Even as a die hard film user, I have to agree that nothing beats a good quality DSLR when it comes to fast action or low light. I don't remember the last time I've touched a roll of 35mm film.

Film is still superior in my opinion when it comes to medium or larger formats. It makes you slow down and think about and ultimately understand, the process instead of 'machine gunning' shooting with a DSLR.

Both will end up costing pretty close to the same amount. High quality film DSLR's are expensive as well as good film scanners, chemicals and the film itself.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › 35mm film low light performance vs. digital?