Re: [APML] Film vs Digital - Not Just Astrophotographers

["Paul Howell" <paul@howell-ltd.com>]

Up 'till now I have stayed out of the CCD vs. film debate. Maybe
because it just seemed a little silly, and definitely way too
emotional <g>. Anyway, I think I might have a somewhat unique
background and so here goes...

First, a little about me (I think it's relevant). After about a career
in the semiconductor chip-making field, I wanted to do something else.
I especially wanted to have a business where I could exercise some
artistic creativity. So I became a commercial photographer. Today, my
studio employs 15 people. Our main business is doing studio
photography and pre-press (image editing, color correction and
proofing for print etc.) for large catalogers. Last year I started
taking time off from work and I enrolled as a graduate student in
astronomy. I am also an avid amatuer astronomer, and I shoot primarily
with CCD (but I'm still working the bugs out).

I summary: I have shot every kind of film there is professionally:
35mm, medium format, 4x5, 8x10. I have done it in the studio and on
location. Many years ago I saw that digital would replace film in the
studio, so we made the investment and never looked back. Today, none
of our catalog clients shoot film with us. Not one. They *insist* on
digital. We have won many new clients from old-school photographers
that said stuff like "digital has no soul". Well, soul or not, those
clients are shooting with us now.

Since we also do pre-press, we know what it takes to make a good
image. And we have plenty of opportunity to compare film images to
digital. Done right, the digital images beat the pants off the film
images. Art directors insist on digital now. They can see the image we
are shooting live on the set as they make changes (our cameras have
video preview. The image when shot takes just a few seconds to
imspect, and you are looking at the *actual* image that will be used,
not a polaroid (in color).

There just no contest between film and digital in the studio. Our
studio cameras shoot a 14 bit file. Each bit is a power of two, and so
is a photographic stop. That translates to 14 f-stops exposure
lattitude! Transparency film is like 5.5 stops, print film maybe 8
stops or so. The nonsense about 'soul' probably comes from a little
known fact: film has a built-in contrast curve (gamma). By its nature,
film compresses both highlights and shadow regions. This creates a
'snappier' image. CCD's are linear. So the raw image from a CCD camera
is flat and lifeless compared to film. That's why professional digital
cameras apply a curve to the file. Presto! instant 'soul'. In fact we
can shoot with any kind of curve we like, one to encompass a wider
dynamic range on one shot, a higher contrast curve for the next.

The list of advantages goes on (color fidelity, cost and time savings,
color balance, amenability to editing...).

In the early days, at the request of a potential client that was sure
that digital didn't 'work', we did a shoot with a 4x5 camera, and then
with a digital camera without changing anything else. We processed the
digital file in our normal manner, and sent out the 4x5 transparency
for scanning by a third party to maintain an impartial comparison. We
then proofed both side-by-side. We sent the proof to the client and
they assembled a comittee of art directors and others to pick which
one was the the film image. 4/5 picked the digital image, and were
quite proud that they had 'proved' that digital didn't work. That
client still shoots with us digitally today.

As far as cost, well our cameras are expensive. About 35 kilobucks to
start. About 50 kilobucks all trimmed out with the view camera body,
work station etc. Now, our typical catalog client spends 200 kilobucks
with us annually. ROI is 3 months. Don't have have an MBA to figure
that one out.

File size. Long the achilles heel, but not any more. Our latest camera
has a CCD that is 5,0000 x 4,500 pixels and can shoot a 10,000 x 9,000
pixel image. Let's compare to 4x5 film: a typical 100ASA ektachrome
will resolve around 50 (grainy) lines per mm. Doing the math, this is
about 5000 x 6350 lines. Now our experience is that due to the grain
in a film image, you have to derate this resolution calculation
somewhat. Thus 4x5 film has about 1/4 the resolution capabilty of our
new camera. If I went Yosemite, I would leave my 4x5 home and take
this camera and a titanium powerbook.

In one area, I agree with Tony to a degree. I would *not* shoot models
on location with digital. It's too slow. I want 5 fps in that
situation. Otherwise, grab the Kodak 4,000 x 4,000 back that goes on
the back of a Hasselblad and shoots untethered. That's higher
resolution that medium format film.

Astronomy: for professional work there is no debate. For pretty
pictures, I think Rob got it right, outside of a few really big
objects, CCD is the way to go. Yes, cost is indeed a barrier. But that
will change too, just watch...


-P




----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Gendler" <robgendler@worldnet.att.net>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Film vs Digital - Not Just Astrophotographers


Uhh...another blanket comment about CCD that just ain't true.

Tony, how many people do you know who do large and medium format
landscape photography? Other than the above everything else is bettfor
exampleer
off on digital these days which includes anything previously done with
35mm, all macro photography and much of nature photography.

Regarding astrophotography your comment (I'm sorry Tony) just doesn't
make
any sense. Lets see...whats better off imaged with CCD? OK...all
galaxies,
planetary nebulas, planets, the moon, all nebulas smaller than 30
arcmin.

Whats better suited to film? A couple of dozen large nebulas and of
course
widefield imaging of the milkyway.

One other point is that the advantages of digital astroimaging has
allowed so
many more people to engage in astroimaging as a hobby. The conditions
for
successful film astrophotography are much more stringent as you know.

How on earth can you make a statement like "digital only works within
narrow parameters"? I really don't understand your comments.


Rob Gendler
Email: robgendler@att.net
Web site: http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Tony Hallas
  To: astro-photo@seds.org
  Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 1:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [APML] Film vs Digital - Not Just Astrophotographers


  Hello,

     I would like to add my comments to Joe's about digital vs.
film... at the moment, there is nothing like a low ASA 6 X 7 chrome
for shooting on location... maybe a digital back exists somewhere that
can produce a 250 - 500 MB 8 bit file that can blow up to 40 X 50, but
if it does, only Superman can afford it and then it will necessitate
having a laptop computer and all kinds of add-ons and gizmos to go
with it. With my experiences with digital, both astro CCD and
terrestrial, I find that within certain defined parameters the digital
works better than film, but those parameters are still so narrow that
if I had to pick one or the other, CCD would be out on its butt in no
time!

        Tony


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>