is it possible to get the same type/ color/feel of a picture from a digital camera as you would from film or is there something lacking, i mean theres all that different type of film out there giving all types of results and after reading some of the praises that people give to film got me wondering about this,perhaps those using both types of cameras would really know, im sure this is an old debate. ps love this site! delboy

Look in my gallery and tell me if you can guess which ones are film and which are digital..... This is definitely a way old debate.....and opinions are like assh*les...everyone's got one... :~) So you may not get any real consensus here.... All I know is that I use both, and get great results from both....some of my digital prints have been mistaken for silver gel prints.... shrug and just to clarify that when I speak of digital I am not talking of 2-3MP point and shoots.... I hope no one is offended by this statement....none is meant...

I guess it depends on who's using the equipment and who's looking at the results ;) But technically speaking: no, never ever. The old discussion were mostly about which is better, easier, etc, but purely from a technical point of view, it's not possible. Although I don't honestly think that companies like Nikon or Cannon are actually spending millions in development to get digital cameras that are exactly the same as analog cameras. That IS a very big misunderstanding. Photojournalists or movie directors on a low budget that need to do a lot of post production are more likely to go digital than others. The difference is mostly that they want to trade some quality for speed. But uhmmm, the little low light photography tutorial I wrote together with Alpha some time ago makes some points about the influence of different kinds of lights on film. That's just not possible with digital equipment, simply because it's not a feature of film, but a failure of film (long exposure times make great pictures, but that not a man made feature).

Yeah, but what IS this film stuff people keep talking about?!? Is that like the clear plastic paper that melts when you try printing on it with a laser printer? (",)

well michelle, i did look at your gallery and and guessed 5 out of 5 pictures were film i didnt cheat,the five were marthas vineyard#1.m.v.vi..october days 2,flamenco dancer,elswhere, i didnt have time to look at them all but the colors on those had something, is it depth, vibrancy they just had a feel to them, i will later on check all your gallery, tulips 11 i think is film but you do not say? loved the pictures that i have seen so far delboy

oh and the type of digital camera im referring to would be something like the nikon d100

I'd say that would depend more on the digital camera (see the thread on colorspaces/gamut). Even with a camera with the resolution of a D100 or EOS 10D you still don't have the same resolving power of film. Getting to cameras like the EOS 1DS or Kodak 14n you're getting much closer (~11megapixel and ~14megapixel respectively). With an app like Photoshop, you could do faux versions of film, if you understood the properties of the film you're trying to duplicate; but that becomes highly subjective. I would say that for most people out there, they probably wouldn't be able to tell any real difference between a high quality digital photo (using lossless compression) and film. -=>Donald

Oops...lost a sentence there at the end. Before sig, line should read: In other words, there is a difference between film and digital at this point but I don't think most people will notice the difference. -=>Donald

I think I agree mostly with Don, if the images are going to be viewed on a CRT, (or even printed in a magazine). I doubt I could tell the difference. I'm not real sure I agree if the result is going to be a paper print, (or a slide for projection). I think here silver still rules; though I have seen some really nice prints from newer inkjets. There is still an area I'm researching, and am still having trouble finding the facts. That is, in the available dynamic range. Films cover a range of about three stops above, and three below, average. Within this range details can be recorded. Films, particularly B&W films, may be wider than this. Films also have an "S-curve" characteristic, which will even show something beyond this middle range. Digital cameras have a very sharp cutoff rather than a graceful S, and there is also blooming at the bright end and noise at the dark end. I suspect this relates to the depth and vibrancy characteristics you mention, but I haven't nailed down the facts. dpReview is now publishing dynamic range for various cameras, so I hope to get around to including this in the series on Zone System for Digital. In practical matters, both digital and analog cameras are tools which complement each other. Neither is inherently "better" than the other, (which is not really what you were asking in the first place).

I don't think that you can tell which is digital and which is film while viewing on the web.....They are ALL digital now.....Only in person on a print could you even begin to compare the two, so sorry ....this thread is pretty pointless.

I really don't think the thread is pointless; the original poster asked a very good question. Are there significant differences between film and digital that would cause one to be preferred over another under particular circumstances? If there were not differences, just buy the cheapest! I agree, for web viewing, it is difficult to sometimes see the difference. But there may be other reasons to sometimes choose film over digital for the image capture tool. Maybe speed? Maybe color balance, or strangeness like infrared? What is pointless is saying that only one tool is sufficient for everything, or that one media is inherently better than another, or that one class of camera is only good for "snapshots."

At what point did anyone say "can you tell the difference while viewing on the web"? Web images are inherently inferior to any film photo simply because of the limited color range that monitors have. I believe Misha is correct that there is no one digital camera available today which has a characteristic which can match all the diversities of film. Although, I can easily see a time when they program the individual characteristics into the camera and you'll be able to call up virtual film parameters within the camera (so you could shoot with virtual Velvia, Provia, 64T, ACROS, etc). I took the question to mean hardcopy and not web viewing (even though no one actually said that either). For the most part, much of what I scan in is eventually optimized for the web, yet I still shoot with pro films and scan at 2820dpi because some of them will also be output as hardcopies (either ink jet, dye sub or a projected image system like the Frontiers). There is no way any consumer or even most prosumer digital cameras can match the hardcopy output I get from Porta 400UC or ACROS 100 at what is essentially 11-megapixels with the huge exposure latitude that these films have. Another thing that still bothers me about digital cameras (even as I save for my DSLR) is that on the day I buy it, the image sensitivity of the camera is set in stone. If it has a top setting of 800ISO then it will always have that top setting while even my 13yr old EOS 630 is capable of attaining 6400. Also the fact that the digital noise level at a given ISO will be consistent while as films are reformulated and introduced the grain gets better and better (anyone seen the ultra-fine grain of the new Portra 400s?). Ah well...always trade-offs. -=>Donald

I don't think that you can tell which is digital and which is film while viewing on the web.....They are ALL digital now.....Only in person on a print could you even begin to compare the two, so sorry ....this thread is pretty pointless. Heh! Which was sort of my point....in looking on the web how could you tell...? Maybe delboyo has a highly trained eye, because I wouldn't know by looking which were which. I can only bring my own personal experience to the table....I am not a professional nor a tech-head.... I only know that in my experience with my cameras, both digital and SLR, I get good results with both....and then by good results that would be my opinion. Since my good may be crap for someone else... :~) I'm not sure this thread is pointless though.....some good points have been brought up.

Apols for coming to this thread late (My "normal" life gets in the way!!) As per Misha, I too have used digital and film setups selling images taken on both media. I have also had one mistaken for the other and vice-versa. I agree with what others have said. Both mediums complement each other, each has its merits and de-merits. Again, following Misha's lead - I mostly shoot my work in a Studio or studio-like environment. All of this is now done digitally. However, I am occassionally sub-contracted by a professional, who is also a friend, and we cover various outdoor shows (Custom cars, bikes, trucks etc). For these events I will most always use film, carrying the digital as a backup. This is because I think film has the range to cope with most outdoor lighting (especially the gloomy grey stuff we call light in the UK). Digital suits me better in the studio, 'cos if the camera can't cope, I can tweak the lights etc to suit. I can't yet tweak the weather (although I'm working on it!). Just by 10 pence worth!! Dave :)