Although the film has been converted to digital it is clear how much better film is at rendering water.I guess a scanner ccd can pick some of that up from slow scanning vs. fast capture ccd in a camera.I can imagine how much better the film is off a computer screen, the digital image will never get any better than what you see here.You can get rid of most grain to nearly non existent thru scanning techniques,software and film choice.You can’t do anything about lost detail.

It’s a lot of work and there are firms recognizing organization’s need to properly archive data (ie photos). A colleague, ColinRowe.ca set up Archi-Media.ca to help organizations properly manage photo data.

There is a lot to know!
Harry

If I am shooting stock that is unique – not generic – and I want to have most sales possibilities I will shoot film. Until recently it gave better, big file sizes. From what I understand, now with the D3x the results will be similar but different. But D3x = US$8000. Roll of film = $10. Film is often cheaper if you know how to shoot effectively.

Anything with archival considerations I would shoot on film. Why? Film is infinitely more archival than digital technologies. It is a stable medium that has been around for a century. It will not crash. It will not get lost because nobody can access the information on the old technological media (ie can you find a record player to play a vinyl record.) Floppy discs, CDs, DVDs, SCSI systems, USB, Firewire, eSATA technologies are becoming obsolete so fast you stand to lose data because of redundant systems.

Some people say “Oh we’ll transfer our files to new media.” Good luck!
Check my Exposed! Newsletters for related topics:
http://www.harrynowell.com/ottawa_photographer_newsletter.htm

Harry
http://www.HarryNowell.com

I m very intrigued by one thing: you said “Unique stock for possible large scale uses – film. Anything with archival considerations – film.”…why is that?

Actually, what I m doing is night photography in natural light, ie lots of shadows and sometimes burned neon light. When humans are present, neons create deep shadows too. Everything is done in nega color (Fuji 1600 ISO). I have two types of final products. Either fine art, pretty large, print (in that case, it is processed analogically with semi-mat paper) or a slideshow (in that case, I scan the film, ideally on an Imacon and then use a digital projector).

I am actually pretty Ok with the fact of having film grain – I like the visual effect of it and it match the topic of the pictures.

Because of practical considerations (no need to scan, possibility of taking much more pictures, possibility to shoot at 3200 or even 6400 ISO with the newest full frame sensors), I m very tempted to turn digital. Yet, I m still wondering, mainly about 3 things
- Is image quality (ability to capture fine details in shadows, etc) the same? Hence my earlier question about the size of a scanned file (140 to 300 Mo) vs a RAW file from Canon 5D Mark II (25 Mo)
- Is feeling the same – I m afraid digital means no more “grain”. I ve been told images are much “colder” although I m not sure what it means.
- Last, large scale uses and archival possibilities are also very important

I hope all these details were not too long and boring.. sorry about that. Your guidance and advices are really really much appreciated!

Thanks so much in advance.

Grain will show in a scanned file. But what film are you using? Slide? Neg? Velvia 50iso? consumer Kodak 400? It all makes a huge difference. Also what is your final product? A billboard, a postcard, 10′ x 15′ fine art viewed from 6′?

There is no one correct answer. We choose our tools depending on the client’s needs. Magazine work – digital. Important portrait – film for archiving. Unique stock for possible large scale uses – film. Web based applications – digital. Anything with archival considerations – film.

Also the look of film or digital is an important issue when choosing.

We have resisted digital for much stock and other work because of the small sizes available until recently (see blog post re Nikon D3x:
http://www.harrynowell.com/blog/2008/12/16/180-fun-photo-business-ideas-on-youtube-video/ )

Good luck- there is more to film vs digital than file size and grain!

Harry
HarryNowell.com

Even back when the Canon 1Ds was in its first generation at 11MP, the magazine Professional Photographer ran a test comparing it with high-quality scanned film, and the digital version won in resolution and color fidelity.

May I brother with a question regarding argentic vs digital debate?
I am currently shooting in argentic with a 35 mm Canon EOS and I am hsitating whether to move digital or not.

I recently scanned by best pictures for safety and realized that a 16 bit TIFF file from my medium range scanner (Nikon Cool scan – 4000 dpi) weights nothing less than 135 Mo (half of that if in 8 bits). When I use a more professional Imacon scanner (6300 dpi), the file goes up to 300 Mo.

I was very surprised to discover that when you shoot with a top range digital SLR such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, the largest raw file per shot is around 25 Mo…which was very surprising to me

Does that mean that images produced by a full frame sensor DSLR such as the EOS 5D Mark II are of much lower quality (much less detail / information) than the scanned images from a conventional 35 mm film?…or am I confused ? Is there a correlation between the size and image quality?

Thanks a lot for your kind help!