Which do you prefer - digital capture up front (i.e DSLR) OR capturing it on film and using a film scanner/having it scanned?

I always prefer digital capture up front over scanning.


Which do you prefer - digital capture up front (i.e DSLR) OR capturing it on film and using a film scanner/having it scanned?

Since I only shoot transparencies and no digital, I prefer capture on film and then a digital drum scan for the purpose of printing (on a Chromira or if larger than the machine can produce on a LightJet).

Rich

Film for me - I can't justify the cost of a high-end digital camera, and the question of the future-proofness of digital storage media is far from resolved!

I would have to say that I much prefer film for the initial capture over digital. Digital still cant match large format film, and even if it could I love the feeling of working with a large format camera, and seeing the negatives or transparencies for the first time, and of having to slow down and think about what I am doing.

Having said that, nothing beats the convenience of digital. Great for snapshots and the like, but I just prefer film and then scanning.

Film for me as well, in my case mostly colour negative. For most of what I want, and by my own criteria (which may not be shared by anyone else) colour negative film is preferable to digital capture.

Best, Helen

I prefer scanning my favourite media!
Maybe to another thread, please prove me, that a direct digital capture beats a top quality drum scanned film negative originated file!

Cheers

André

Negative B&W film and sometimes slide film.

I shoot 90% chrome the rest b/w. I scan everything on a nikon coolscan 9000 - for prints up to 12" x 12" (the biggest I ever print) the nikon cant be beat.

Gotta go with B+W film and scanning for my personal fun stuff, using film, especially large format, is just too much fun to change.
That said, it's hard to beat digital for color and work for clients who want "instant feedback/instant results"...I never shot a Polaroid that got the same "WOW!" results as a nice full screen shot from my laptop.

I shoot film and scan it. Gave digital a try but gave it up a year or so ago. I just really missed handling the film, and couldn't quite get the results from the captures that I get from film.
For me, there's just nothing at all like working with film, especially large format.

I agree with you Tom. Did the same and tried digital for about 12 months, but there is something special with film. I am happier with the reults on film too, and as you say, especially with large format

I started out with film/scanning but at present I am doing about 75% digital capture and the rest film scans. But the mood swings back and forth for me, this week for instance, I am using my Nikon F4 and EM cameras and will be scanning four rolls of film.

When I've seen my first 6x9 slides on the lightbox, I knew that digital is nothing for me. If a customer or project should request/require it, ok, I'd go out and grab a Fuji S5 Pro because I have lots of Nikon prime lenses. Or preferably rent one.

Digital can't beat the sharpness, tonality/dynamic range, colors, vividness and crispness of 6x9 slides. Never. OK, maybe in 10 years. But I know I'll still love to be able to pull the slide out of the folder and just view them by holding them against a window pane without having to start a computer.

I'll be spoiled for the rest of my life. Or maybe addicted?

if the scene I'm shooting isn't moving, and I happen to have my 4x5, and I happen to have my laptop, and I happen to have my BetterLight scanning back, then yes I prefer to shoot digital.

However, 90% of what I do is shoot film then scan. My in-depth tests indicate that a BetterLight scan back beats (just barely) a 4x5 scanned color neg in terms of sharpness and dynamic range, but for all practical purposes they are equivalent. A 4x5 chrome "may" (or may not) be slighty -- with the emphasis on VERY slightly -- sharper, but it will lack the dynamic range of the BL which is a full 11 stops.

NOTE: DSLRs only deliver about 6 stops of dynamic range (some even less), so there is no comparison here.

Too simple a question as pointed out in Michael's answer above. If you shoot 4x5 or larger film then film generally takes the day ... the BeetterLight back is great but has very limited applications. If you are shooting smaller formats then there are many tradeoffs; film size v sensor size, etc. Bottom line, however is that the best of the MF digital backs will outperform MF and 35mm film and the Canon 5D or better will outperform 35mm film.

If you shoot film because you like film, great but if you are seeking the best possible image and are shooting smaller than 4x5 then you need to carefully examine digital capture.

The digital cameras I can afford have an "enhanced video" look to them that I really do not care for and it seems you have to spend inordinate amounts of time defeating the automatic exposure and focus controls to even obtain an exposure within a 1/4 of second from pushing the shutter release.

But what really bothers me about digital is the lack of latitude of the sensor as compared to a good medium-speed filmstock; I need the analog compressive qualities of emulsion...

Your mileage may (and probably will) vary.

I mostly shoot MF film and (less so) 35mm and 4x5 film.

I am about 95% a film shooter and 100% a film scanner.

I scan in either RAW (Nikon NEF) or TIF format which result in huge files (68mb for each 35mm frame) that result in incredible detail. I'm now adding Medium Format and just ordered a Nikon 9000ED to replace the 5000 - not sure how big those files are going to be - but cannot wait to see the details! ;)

Shooting film is a visceral thing for me. The act of loading a film camera always seems like a "affirming event" that I am once again equipped to explore my vision. I just don't get the same feeling when I pop the CF card into my D-70.

But what really bothers me about digital is the lack of latitude of the sensor as compared to a good medium-speed filmstock; I need the analog compressive qualities of emulsion...

This is my largest gripe with regard to digital capture. It is why I tend to ignore the statements that say digital x is now better than film cameras in x size. The other item that bothers me is the one size fits all mentality of digital capture. I was thinking today about how much freedom the mamiya 6 offered. It allowed me to shoot quality MF without the burden of lugging a mf slr (not to mention tripod, and film back -- for the weight I'd rather shoot lf) . My thoughts ran to the idea that a 35mm sized DSLR will, at some point, offer me the same freedom with similar quality. Sadly, I've fallen in love with film's input into the process of creating. For now and the foreseeable future I'll capture on film for my art. I can see all of my professional work going digital. Customers all want files, they couldn't care less how the image was captured, the turn around and risk mitigation is far better. I'd switch sooner than later, but for price and the need for PC.

Originally Posted by kino
But what really bothers me about digital is the lack of latitude of the sensor as compared to a good medium-speed filmstock; I need the analog compressive qualities of emulsion...

If you shoot raw this is not an issue. I shoot allot of architecture magazine layouts. I shoot film (Fuji Astia, Provia and Velvia) on the structure and DSLR on the people shots because I don't like to have to bracket people. I have no problem getting the digital files to have the same "look" as the film. I can do this with b&w and color negative film too.

There are many reasons to dislike DC or prefer film. For instance I prefer working with a view camera. I like the slow deliberate process, but any competent worker can do with digital files anything you can do with film as long as the capture file size is sufficient to match a given film size.