Digital still hasn't hit the type of image quality that easily be obtained from analogue, and possibly never will.
Nothing wrong with liking obsolete technology mind.
Sure, in the same way the tractor will never hit the 'quality' of the traction engine. Nothing wrong with liking obsolete technology mind.
My mistake; I thought your original post was serious.
I'd like a non-working Nikon F4 as an ornament, IMHO the pinnacle of Nikon film cameras (I didn't like the F5). As a matter of fact, Kodak did some digital backs for F90, F801, F4 etc. Highest resolution was about 2mp and they cost (when new in 1992/3) about 10k !!! Only big business and military could justify them. I bought one for 10 quid on ebay about 6 years ago for a laugh.
I still have my Pentax MX, fully manual, works without a battery. Cleaned the contacts and popped in fresh batteries the other day and the meter popped back to life nicely too. It even agrees near enough with my D3100 on exposures. One of these days I'll run some B&W through, develop and print them on my russian briefcase enlarger which looks like this.
I'm like Rkk101, Olympus OM series are my first love, I have an OM1n, OM30, OM40 and an OM2SP, but I'd sell both of those and keep my old OM10 with manual adaptor, if I needed the money desperately.
The OM10 does everything the bigger posher brothers do and with the same lenses ends up with the same pictures 
Although for amazing depth of field and speed of film advance, a Nikon F5 with an 85mm prime lens is an amazing tool.
Digital still hasn't hit the type of image quality (namely resolution) that easily be obtained from analogue, and possibly never will.
Never? That's a pretty bold assertion. Care to back that up?
Wiki reckons the resolution of high-quality ISO100 fine-grain 135 film is roughly equivalent to around 20 megapixels. (At best, other estimates say it's more like 6 to 8 megapixels).
Consumer cameras like the Canon 600D already take 18 megapixel images using an APS-C size sensor (smaller than 35mm film).
So seems to me that if they really wanted to win that numbers game then all they'd need to do would be to make a 35mm sensor with the same density.
The OM10 does everything the bigger posher brothers do and with the same lenses ends up with the same pictures
Never? That's a pretty bold assertion. Care to back that up?
No need to be so defensive, Graham; and I did say possibly never. I'll link you to Ken Rockwell's page here on the comparisons between analogue and digital. Out of interest, he notes 25mpx as roughly the equivalent to a 35mm film (with numerous variables, obviously). But it's not as straightforward as just pixel resolution.
For what it's worth, all of my photography nowadays is done either with a DSLR (Nikon D500) or my iPhone. My FE sits on the shelf next to my typewriter (which I still sometimes write with, by the way). I was still using 35mm up to about four years ago; when I got back into photography a couple of years ago, I decided that to go with a DSLR. I love analogue photography and still find that the qualities of film are much more aesthetically pleasing than digital images. If I had the resources to have a permanent darkroom I would absolutely still use film for the majority of my photos. I'm neither pro nor anti either medium.
No need to be so defensive, Graham
Sorry, didn't mean to be. Just questioning what seemed a fairly bold statement.
Ken Rockwell is interesting but:
• it was written in 2006
• I believe he has long since changed his mind.
• the man is a well-known Internet clown!
Out of interest, he notes 25mpx as roughly the equivalent to a 35mm film (with numerous variables, obviously).
That seems much higher than other quoted figures, but okay.
A Nikon D3x is 24.5 megapixels (and that's 2009 technology - a D4 is rumoured to be due soon).
So I'm not convinced that film outstrips digital in resolution terms. Or if it does then it won't for much longer.
That's not to say film doesn't have it's advantages and clearly lots of people still get great pleasure from using it (which is what really counts).
sorry to sound stupid,but could i pick up a leica/lenses for a reasonable price nowadays (i'm guessing a big no though not that i have any cash to spend,just enquiring 
No, Leicas still fetch a premium, though I think they are more affordable than 10 years ago. Bodies are available for £100 up. The killer is the lenses, which are £200 up for the cheapest. However, there are lots of compatible lenses for Leica screw fit, so you can get and use a cheapie with the Leica body until you can afford the real thing.
alan.
ah! thanks alanl.have always liked leica cameras (just slight problem about the cost of them
Suggestions:
There is quite a trendy film revival going on at the moment so -
Offer it to a charity shop rather than bin it. Lots of people collect old cameras just for fun so even some faulty ones may be of interest.
Also try an internet search for 2nd hand sellers or look in Amateur Photographer magazine (out every Tuesday) as companies who buy and sell 2nd hand kit are listed in the back - Mifsuds is one. They have a web site and buy as well as sell. they are a well known company.
Offer it to your local camera clubs or ask them for disposal advice.
The lens if marked 'EF' will work on any modern Canon camera. There are also adaptors available for lenses to be used on other makes. See Amazon or a traditional camera shop (not Jessops!) for advice.
Suggestions:
There is quite a trendy film revival going on at the moment so -
Offer it to a charity shop rather than bin it. Lots of people collect old cameras just for fun so even some faulty ones may be of interest.
Also try an internet search for 2nd hand sellers or look in Amateur Photographer magazine (out every Tuesday) as companies who buy and sell 2nd hand kit are listed in the back - Mifsuds is one. They have a web site and buy as well as sell. they are a well known company.
Offer it to your local camera clubs or ask them for disposal advice.
The lens if marked 'EF' will work on any modern Canon camera. There are also adaptors available for lenses to be used on other makes. See Amazon or a traditional camera shop (not Jessops!) for advice.
So I'm not convinced that film outstrips digital in resolution terms. Or if it does then it won't for much longer.
It's not simply about resolution; it's about the type of resolution. It's difficult to explain to people who might not see/hear the difference (I don't mean for that to be or sound condescending); but there is a difference that exists between analogue and digital recording/reproduction (light and sound) that is, perhaps, insurmountable I've looked at example images from a D3X and, for all their impressive clarity and precision, there is still, to me, something decidedly digital about them. Perhaps it is that impressive clarity and precission? I'm not talking about whether or not one is better/worse, merely that, for some, analogue reproduction is obvious to some people and, of course, that some will find this preferable. It is is the qualities of analogue that I'm talking about, not an objective measurement of quality (standard?).
By coincidence, I was doing a Google images search for Ilford XP2 film this afternoon and the strength of the images that came up was striking. Even images with bold contrasts have a smoothness to them, a blend of tones, that seems to be unique to analogue. I sometimes wonder if, in very simple terms, this is down to the square edges of pixels, as opposed to the essentially infinite nature of analogue. There is a similarly natural feel to music recorded on high quality analogue tape, which, of course, has numerous disadvantages to digital recording equipment.
Many percussive sounds are reproduced much more favourably using analogue equipment. By favourably, I mean that they sound closer to how our ears (generally) perceive them. It's not uncommon for studios to use tape to record drums, then digital to record everything else, all in order to keep the percussive tone of the music more lively and natural. There is obviously some loss when the finished mix is digitalised. To take an example, the White Stripes' Icky Thump album is entirely analogue in recording and mixing and sounds quite sublime on vinyl - even the harshest of contrasts are able to blend smoothly. I'm not saying for a moment that I could always differentiate between analogue and digital, but my eyes and ears do seem to quite good at picking them up. In the simplest of terms, analogue is more comfortable to perceive than digital, if that makes sense.
There is a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to new technology. Film/digital; tape/digital; valve/transistor all come to mind. One of the main advantages of digital is that it does not suffer from the same noise that analogue does. CDs sounded 'high quality' when they came out because there were no cracks and crackles that we were used to with vinyl. This difference was deemed to make digital 'better', without paying any attention to the fact that other aspects of the sonic reproduction had in fact changed. You might be surprised to know how much recording studios spend on analogue emulators in an attempt to recreate the feel and warmth of tape recordings. I mention all of this because sound recording is further down the digital road than photography, especially in the consumer market. I honestly don't think that digital can look or sound the same (same; not necessarily better/worse) as analogue, and yet that is what is being strived for in the digital world. So the question has to be: why? Personally, I think that it's because a good analogue representation is closer to the way the human eye/ear would perceive the original - with infinite blend between different light/sounds.
(pardon me that all of that is a somewhat rattled off; I'm doing a couple of other tasks at the same time this evening)
Three_Fish: you're into qualitative areas now and I don't have enough experience with either medium to disagree, even if I wanted to which I don't. If you like film then carry on and have fun - I'm not going to say otherwise.
I sometimes wonder if, in very simple terms, this is down to the square edges of pixels, as opposed to the essentially infinite nature of analogue.
This bit I can answer as it is closer to quantitive so... errr.. possibly.
Analogue isn't infinite tho. It has similar limits, constrained by the size of individual chemicals on the film emulsion (i.e. grain) hence the 20 megapixel assumption. But the irregular spacing of that grain and the variance in its photosensitivity does give a "texture" and likable fuzziness that isn't present in digital.
A counter-argument might be that the vast majority of photos are now consumed digitally too and never make it to "print" so that intangible analogue warmth/fuzziness is lost anyway.
By coincidence, I was doing a Google images search for Ilford XP2 film this afternoon and the strength of the images that came up was striking. Even images with bold contrasts have a smoothness to them, a blend of tones, that seems to be unique to analogue.
So you were looking at digital images of analogue prints and you saw smoothness and blends that digital images will never be able to replicate.
Interesting... 
personally I do it as a hobby that gets me away from the computer
you can set yourself up quite cheaply by stalking fleabay
and it's fun 
So you were looking at digital images of analogue prints and you saw smoothness and blends that digital images will never be able to replicate. Interesting...
Good try, but the method of representation of the image is not the same as the method of recording, as per the example of recording drums using tape, even though the final representation will (usually) be digital. As I thought was obvious, I'm not saying that I can explain this, merely that I can observe it.
This photograph is digitally represented after being digitally scanned and digitally processed; but it is still quite obviously captured on film:
Analogue isn't infinite tho. It has similar limits, constrained by the size of individual chemicals on the film emulsion (i.e. grain) hence the 20 megapixel assumption. But the irregular spacing of that grain and the variance in its photosensitivity does give a "texture" and likable fuzziness that isn't present in digital.
Fantastic; thanks for clarifying. See, I'm trying to explain it in terms of my own knowledge/experience, which is not ideal. Perhaps, then, it is, as you say, simply the texture and fuzziness, and, perhaps more importantly, the irregularity of it, that gives the depth and warmth (a common phrase when describing analogue sound recordings/playback). This ties into my square-edge theory of pixels and the almost clinical, sterile precision of digital recording (sound and light). I suppose the 'digital is better' argument could be derived from the fact that digital = neater. If light were always reflected equally and uniformly off perfectly formed objects, and our eyes and brains were comprised of neatly ordered, equally sized receptors and converters, then perhaps there would be an objective argument.
If you like film then carry on and have fun - I'm not going to say otherwise.
I hope that wasn't an attempt to patronise me? As I said, I am for all intents and purposes a digital photographer; but I am so with the recognition that it is with different results than if I used a film camera. I'm not really trying to have an argument, to arrive at a point where either of us, or anyone else, thinks "well, yes, analogue/digital must be better", just that there is an observable difference and that I have not seen any evidence that digital can, at the point of first recording, imitate analogue (or indeed that the reverse is true). Only time will tell whether or not my feeling is true that this may always be the case - neither of us can do more than make an assumption. That audio-digital has been trying (and failing) for so many years gives me cause to retain on to my belief; although at the same time I accept that it may not be a perfect parallel.
That said, I wonder if a digital sensor could be made from uneven sized/spaced pixels? Could there be some way of disturbing the uniformity to soften the contrasts whilst still retaining clarity? I need to talk with somebody who knows the answers to such questions...
I hope that wasn't an attempt to patronise me? ... I'm not really trying to have an argument
No no, sorry if it sounded like I was. I was just trying to be clear that, (like you I think), I find the discussion of the differences interesting, but the debate rather pointless.
Good try, but the method of representation of the image is not the same as the method of recording
Agreed, the capture of a digital image is always fairly precise and "clean", but if a digital image of a film photo still looks satisfactorily "analogue" then that suggests that someone with good photoshop skills could simulate the same effect. Even some of the automated filters and apps that seek to replicate "vintage" photos do a pretty good job.
Your example image is a good one as the most striking thing to me in it is the nice soft fuzziness and the pronounced random grain, both of which are far harder to achieve digitally and would normally involve a bit of work in post.
That said, I wonder if a digital sensor could be made from uneven sized/spaced pixels?
Interesting idea, but I suspect the practical fabrication costs would be way too high as randomness is harder to automate and program for.
I think the practical approach is to capture more detail and then add the random grain in post.
I think the big diff between digi and film is the fall off in light, that image above illustrates it well.
Having said that I can't think of one working fashion photographer shooting film these days.
I've recently sold all my Canon digital equipment and bought a Leica X1 digital compact.
Been captivated by the image quality and the simplicity of taking photographs again.
Seriously thinking about getting a Leica M6 or M7 and returning to film.
Jeez, this is getting rather technical! Film cameras are great, digikal cameras are great!
Lets use them and take lots of pretty pictures!
racefaceec90 alanl is right, the Leica bodies are available pretty cheaply and although I have a few (read a lot) of Leica lenses , my favourite is a Jupiter 8 50mm f2.0 lens. Like this.
They do have quality issues, you can find one being better than the other. But for £30 or so compared to £200 or so, they are ace! I normally run one on a Voigtlander Bessa R.
This is my dog taken with the combination above on Kodak Portra 160VC
I've looked at example images from a D3X and, for all their impressive clarity and precision, there is still, to me, something decidedly digital about them.
This could well be because you know it's a digital image.. so your appreciation of it could be coloured by nostalgic thoughts of care and effort and the smell of the chemicals and what not. I'm not having a go here - but it's important to be aware of how and why we feel the way we do of course.
Re the resolution of film vs digital - ISO 100 is one thing, try comparing ISO 1600 on a full frame camera with ISO 1600 film.. I once used black and white ISO 3200 film. Yes it was very grainy, but the pics were fantastic.
And that's the point here - who cares? It's art. You might as well say paint and canvas is obselete and worthless.
I think this nicely illustrates the problem with photography as an art form. Artists in photography are vastly outnumbered by techies who think resolution is really important (not singling out anyone on this thread of course - all the good contributors seem to be present and correct )
Still use my ME super I got for my GCSE back in 1988
And that's the point here - who cares? It's art. You might as well say paint and canvas is obselete and worthless.
Agreed, which is why I think a print vs digital discussion is interesting (which I think we've managed here) but a debate is rather futile.
Artists in photography are vastly outnumbered by techies who think resolution is really important
Yep, self-confessed techie with little or no artistic talent here. 
But to be fair I only mentioned resolution to discuss Three_Fishes point.
Whilst we've got some film camera experts on the forum can anyone give me a link to the tool I need to remove the wind-on lever from my old Rollei? From the scratchmarks on the picture you can see that I've tried improvising but with no success so far. I don't want to further damage the camera.
Also, I wondering if the thread unscrews clockwise instead of anti-clockwise due to the direction that the wind-on lever works to.
I need to remove the top of the camera to sort out a problem with the film compartment opening mechanism and the wind-on lever's the one obstacle I haven't managed to remove 
Mmmm OM's. My first SLR was an OM10 in the mid 80's. Never missed a beat and went all round the world with me. I sold it on but kept a motly collection of OM1/OM2 and an OM4 plus lenses, drives etc. My fav film camera that I've also kept is an old Minox GTE. Dunt get any use now but is an old friend and lives in a drawer.
See I'm the same as boblo, my experience with my OM10 has been fantastic, it's been used and abused for years! When I was younger I was in the forces and it went everywhere with me. it got damp, cold, hot, humid, and never missed a beat and still doesn't now!
I've still got an OM1n from 1982, it was a great camera to use and learn with. When I was doing it for a living I was asked what camera I wanted and chose the, at the time, brand new Nikon F4. Within a couple of months I'd almost stopped using it having found an FM2 on the shelves that no one was using. I bought one for myself in the end which I still have. What I'd really love now is a camera like the OM1 or FM2 that's fully manual with a digital back.
No no, sorry if it sounded like I was. I was just trying to be clear that, (like you I think), I find the discussion of the differences interesting, but the debate rather pointless.
All good; thanks for clarifying. It was unwise of me to assume an argumentative tone; but you know how the forum can be...
Even some of the automated filters and apps that seek to replicate "vintage" photos do a pretty good job.
Indeed. iPhone apps like Instagram, Hipstamatic, Noir and Lomo do a pretty decent job of blurring the edges at low resolution. The images look quite awful when they're blown up, but in the small scale they are rather impressive. I like lo-fi stuff a lot and have a huge collection of Instagram'd images! I also enjoy trying to replicate some of those effects on DSLR shots in Lightroom.
This could well be because you know it's a digital image.. so your appreciation of it could be coloured by nostalgic thoughts of care and effort and the smell of the chemicals and what not. I'm not having a go here - but it's important to be aware of how and why we feel the way we do of course.
Thank you, doctor; but you underestimate my sense of self-awareness and rationality, not to mention my ability to separate my sentiments from my reason.
You're right, though, in that foreknowledge can blind us from drawing correct conclusions.
And that's the point here - who cares? It's art. You might as well say paint and canvas is obselete and worthless.
As Graham clarified, we're just discussing the subject here, not trying to impose an objective truth. I was talking about a collection of my photographs a couple of nights ago with somebody who is studying painting and fine art. He doesn't really see photography as a serious expressive artform and also commented that one of his lecturers refuses to acknowledge digital photographs as photographs, insisting upon referring to them as "digital images". Just like with riding, people love their niches and love nothing more than to deride another in order to protect their sense of ID.
Artists in photography are vastly outnumbered by techies who think resolution is really important (not singling out anyone on this thread of course - all the good contributors seem to be present and correct )
You're probably right, although both artists and techies are outnumbered considerably by people who don't really give two hoots either way. You will, however, find that people with a serious, professional artistic interest in photography - although by no means excluding enthusiastic amateurs - will often have a sound knowledge and appreciation of the technical side (at least the parts that relate to their work). It's much easier to achieve expression with photography if one knows how the tools work.
Steve
Thank you, doctor; but you underestimate my sense of self-awareness and rationality, not to mention my ability to separate my sentiments from my reason.
I wasn't accusing you of that, since I don't know you It was an academic point of which you seem to be aware, which is all good.
one of his lecturers refuses to acknowledge digital photographs as photographs
To me that's pretty daft!
Just like with riding, people love their niches and love nothing more than to deride another in order to protect their sense of ID
A very valid observation.
It's much easier to achieve expression with photography if one knows how the tools work
No arguments there, but of course any artist has to understand his medium.
'but I'd sell both of those and keep my old OM10 with manual adaptor, if I needed the money desperately'
Want another one? I'm selling mine at the moment, with manual adaptor, 200mm lens, 2x convertor and stock 50mm lens. All in a lovely (and dusty) bag.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
