SAVING Money With Digital??? (Caution: Rant!)

Paul,

While reading through Grey's article it seemed he was taking a balanced approach for the first few paragraphs (although, as Eric said, he didn't point out anything digital can do "better" than film, rather than more conveniently). Then I found the following jewel:

"Current six-megapixel digital SLR cameras effectively match the quality of film up to about 16”x24” prints."

Ummm... yeah.... well... credibility? gone!

Strangely enough Mr. Grey's boss, George Lepp is quoted in a recent edition of Outdoor Photographer saying:

"As good as today's 6-megapixel digital cameras are, they don't quite match or surpass the information contained in a quality 35mm film image for large published photos."

Not only do they not surpass - they don't even match. And this from a prominent guru of the digital revolution (who actually makes photographs professionally, unlike Mr. Grey).

Egos aside, the numbers don't add up. A 6mp image may interpolate beautifully because of the clean capture but there's no way it can physically hold as much detail as fine-grain film.

Guy

Guy,

In defense of Tim Grey, George Lepp (the digital guru you quoted to counter Tim's comment) made an identical statement during his NANPA workshop 7 months ago. While only George Lepp can tell you what he currently believes, the article in OP probably gives a pre-workshop opinion (I'm basing this on the timelag for magazine publications, usually greater then 6 months). Perhaps he changed his mind after playing around with the cameras more?

Chris,

One has to wonder what other factors were involved in him changing his mind (or being otherwise ambiguous). I guess that's all the more proof that these things are a matter of opinion and even those in the know can't quite make up their minds
You're a man of the academy - let's work out the math. A 16x24 printed at 200dpi (probably the minimum you'd want to go for most display purposes) requires a 15.4 megapixel file. If you start with 6 megapixel your final image will be made of about 40% real detail (from the 6 megapixel capture) and 60% interpolated data that may look nice but cannot recreate what was not there to begin with.
A 35mm frame scanned at 3200dpi (not a stretch) will yield about 13.6 megapixels, meaning close to 90% of the final image data comes from actual captured detail and only 10-12% is added by interpolation.
Digital capture may provide cleaner interpolation but cannot hold the same amount of detail. As for what makes up a more pleasing result it up to the viewer, but a blanket statement saying they "effectively match" is pure hype. They may match in a simple scene made of few elements, but this will likely not be the case where a large amount of small detail is of importance.
I'm not knocking digital technology. I can't wait for something *I* can use to replace 4x5 film with. I just think people making choices for convenience or buying into marketing hype sometimes try to justify it to themselves in terms of improved results, and those who stand to make a profit from it are plenty happy to encourage them. The fact is the numbers don't really add up to support it. Nobody can argue personal opinion, but when you make hard and fast claims that can be disproven mathematically, you only stand to discredit yourself.

Guy

Guy Tal wrote: - let's work out the math. A 16x24 printed at 200dpi (probably the minimum you'd want to go for most display purposes) requires a 15.4 megapixel file. If you start with 6 megapixel your final image will be made of about 40% real detail (from the 6 megapixel capture) and 60% interpolated data that may look nice but cannot recreate what was not there to begin with.
Guy

I would present something for some thought: Perhaps the computer CAN create what was not there within visually discernable limits. I know when I am viewing a large print, I am not going to see every grain of sandstone, or recognize if the grain next to it was created by a computer or was originally there. I think ultimately that is what it comes down to - visual equivalents. But this is digressing quite a bit from the original topic, so to bring it back - I say those pixels still cost a lot of money, no matter what created them!

Guy Tal wrote:Mud,
Many film photographers take full advantage of digital technology. Image capture is just a small part of the process. Whether you capture a digital image or scan your film - the paths converge from then on. Photoshop, digital printing, and online image sharing are available to both digital and film photographers. The only difference in that regard is the added step (scanning) for film.

Guy

Guy,

That "added step" is a HUGE one! I cannot tell you how much I hated scanning and then spending hours with the clone tool cleaning up the dust and scuffs.

And speaking of image capture, my percentage of "keepers" is now 1000% higher than with my film camera since I know whether or not I got the shot because of instant review. This in itself is priceless.

The new anti-dust and anti-scratch software has done away with all of the fussing to eliminate dust spots. A gentle application of an anti-static dust brush now does the trick.

This topic has gone a bit off topic since Lillian wanted to discuss whether digital saves money over film, not whether one or the other is better.

I request that we try and maintain better focus in this thread. If you would like to discuss other items, then please start another thread in the most appropriate forum. (Digital topics or Photography topics)

This thread should try to help Lillian understand whether or not saving money is a benefit of going digital.

I'm late in this, but I like digital. I shoot both and each has its place. I find that with Digital, I shoot lots and only process a chosen few. I just processed a new image and it was better than Ithought it would be. Each image takes more time to process. Scanning is similar, lots of time to scan, then adjusting, dust removal, etc. Both are good. I prefer the instant feedback of digital. I could go either way, but do not like the time it takes to scan film. That probably is due to the fact that my main drive (which was not backed up and lets not go there since it has been talked to death. Suffice to say, the drive was given to a shop to add to a new computer which was designed to make backups easy and they overwrote the whole drive. I just won the law suit)
I dread rescanning the 3000 images that were destroyed. I still have the film. So there is a trade off. My digital images have a work flow that usually creates backups before putting into the computer.
It is great, in this age of travelling not to have to put your film through security again and again.

Anthony Medici wrote:<snip> This thread should try to help Lillian understand whether or not saving money is a benefit of going digital.

Ah, heck, I don't mind... let it wander. I already know I'm not saving money, but I probably could if I took more pictures. The original post was more of a frustrated rant than a genuine question.

Lillian Roberts wrote: Ah, heck, I don't mind... let it wander. I already know I'm not saving money, but I probably could if I took more pictures. The original post was more of a frustrated rant than a genuine question.

I just don't want it to drift too far into a film vs digital holy war.

Let me have a try at calculating my real cost for going digital.

When I shot film I owned the following with purchase price:

Nikon F5----------------------2,000
Nikon F4s---------------------1,000
1.7ghz computer-------------1,800
Light table----------------------100
Loupe 8x------------------------150
Nikon LS 2000----------------1.200
CD Burner for scans-----------250
Epson 1270---------------------350
100 rolls of film minimum-----500
Developing minimum----------800
Batteries per year------------- 150
ink and paper-------------------300
occasional Frontier print-------300
Photoshop 7.0-------------------600
Epson 2450 scanner------------400
Total----------------------------9.900

Digital:

Nikon D1 (refurb)-------------2000
Fuji S2 Pro---------------------2000
same computer----------------1800
Laptop--------------------------1500
card reader-----------------------40
image tank-----------------------300
Cards---10 up to 512----------- 600
same printer---------------------350
same cd burner------------------250
CDs-------------------------------300
Photoshop 7.0 same------------700
ink and paper--------------------300
Occasional Frontier print--------300
Nikon Capture--------------------120
2nd hard drive--------------------200
Batteies and chargers------------150
Total-----------------------------10,910

When you factor in that I already had the laptop the costs are even more favorable for digital. As you can see, many of the items are duplicates in both film and digital. My cost will go down assuming that I do not succomb to the dreaded equipment acquisition syndrome or in my case NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome). Sure the cost of digital equipment is higher and the resale value lower but every endeavor has a cost and if your only concern is resale, then perhaps gold and silver is a better thing to buy. Besides, people said "great pictures" from D30, Fuji S1, Nikon D1 cameras and the only real need to upgrade often is in the mind of the upgrader.

Factor in the time I spent light tabling the slides, scanning slides and negatives, adjusting them in photoshop and the issue has certainly skewed in favor of digital. Add in the fact that I will not need to replace my CF cards often as you do with each and every roll of film and the second year cost improves more. For me, digital is the way to go. I sold my film cameras since I took one roll-----1 ROLL---of film on my recent trip to Germany with my since departed F5. I took literally over a thousand images with the D1. I suspect that on my trip to Romania in 40 some days, I will take several thousand with the D1 and S2. I have improved my technique, the quality of exposure with digital due to the immediate feedback.

I think Mel's comments and his description of his gear and shooting habits confirms what we all suspect/know. It is the individual's needs that dictate which train we ride on. For example, my film bodies are much less expensive than the ones he mentioned (mine are F100, N90s, and the N75 a $99 wonder), and I spend about $5 to get a 36 exp roll of chrome developed. Also, my film costs probably $5 a roll as an average not a minimum.

Let's enjoy our photography and keep posting those images for comment, critisizm and improvements. Good Shooting.