Why does film photography 'look better'?

kazzer

I cant put my finger on it. Its like a digital photo looks 'computerised' (grainy?) or something when printed - even if its from a decent point-and-shoot at high resolution. Theres just something about a print from a film camera, even a cheapo 35mm, the photo just looks more 'natural'. Hard as it is to admit, I preferred the prints from my cheapo 35mm kodak avdvantix, to my €300 canon digital camera. But then theres the instant feedback and convenience of the digital camera that makes it hard to go back to film....

Would a entry dslr give me similar results to film? Maybe I just need to start using the manual mode of my digital camera a bit more!

DublinWriter

I'm only an amateur, but I'd guess it would be down to the nature of film photography producing a resolution at the molecular level of the photosensitive chemicals used in film rather than the discreet and finate amount of resolution, albeit ever increasing, that comprise the individual pixels in digital photography.

DaireQuinlan

kazzer wrote: »

I cant put my finger on it. Its like a digital photo looks 'computerised' (grainy?) or something when printed - even if its from a decent point-and-shoot at high resolution. Theres just something about a print from a film camera, even a cheapo 35mm, the photo just looks more 'natural'. Hard as it is to admit, I preferred the prints from my cheapo 35mm kodak avdvantix, to my €300 canon digital camera. But then theres the instant feedback and convenience of the digital camera that makes it hard to go back to film....

Would a entry dslr give me similar results to film? Maybe I just need to start using the manual mode of my digital camera a bit more!

I think at low iso's its a bit of a toss up film/digital wise, although digital tends to be a bit homogenous whereas every film will have its own distinctive look. At higher iso's the differences become more and more apparent. There's a world of difference between film grain and digital noise. I prefer the former. I'd have to say though, if I was given an A4 print of some shot taken on (say) reala and asked to compare with a shot taken using some digital camera (dslr/compact doesnt really matter) , I would very probably find it next to impossible to tell which was which. And this from a person who shoots film exclusively.

-edit-
Actually, just reading over your post again, A lot of the difference is very probably down to DOF. I think a lot of people don't quite realise what they've left behind swapping a 35mm or APS frame size on a cheap consumer AF film camera for a sensor the size of their thumbnail on a reasonably expensive P&S with a lens of actual focal length of about 6mm.

CabanSail

Another factor is that a P&S set on Auto will allow the ISO to adjust upward in lower light. We all know that those small sensors do suffer from noise quite easily, especially with the high MP of many these days.

The film camera will, of course, have the ISO fixed by the film & so just be underexposed if the light is insufficient.

AnCatDubh

I often look at old film based prints and end up being in awe at the smooth silkyness to the texture of the print - while technically the modern cameras are probably more capable of assisting the photographer to get a better capture there are some limitations in what the technology can replicate.

In particular the dynamic range of film appears to be far greater (read better) than the best of DSLR's (someone feel free to correct if i'm wrong here - its only a feeling rather than fact). In addition to being far greater it would appear (again only my suspicion - correct me if i'm wrong) that film's dynamic range is more granular.

Having said all of that - I still have my feet firmly in the digital world

ThOnda

Film has greater dynamic range. The cramped space of the tiny sensor in compact cameras produces lots of problems in the picture. It is like comparing A3 size print from 35 mm film and medium format film.
The race in increasing the pixel count does not help at all.

nilhg

Just a coincidence I was reading this, I suppose the only thing to say is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Heinlein

AnCatDubh wrote: »

In particular the dynamic range of film appears to be far greater (read better) than the best of DSLR's (someone feel free to correct if i'm wrong here - its only a feeling rather than fact). In addition to being far greater it would appear (again only my suspicion - correct me if i'm wrong) that film's dynamic range is more granular.

Not sure what you mean by granular, but film's dynamic range is not only greater, it is also exponential, as opposed to more or less linear for digital censors. Thus film is essentially closer to what our brain's visual system is doing.

Very roughly, "exponential" dynamic range means, for the same contrasty scene, same exposure, same lens etc, film may have less burnt areas and more details preserved in over- and under-exposed areas, compared to the digital variant [edit: while the "normal" areas will look similar on both]

But that's probably all you can say in defense of film.

Mr. Grieves

kazzer wrote: »

Would a entry dslr give me similar results to film?

A lot of the differences between film and digital mentioned here (depth of field, noise and dynamic range) are a function of sensor size. So, yes a DSLR will give something closer to film, and the ability to shoot RAW rather than jpeg adds alot too, but even a full frame DSLR won't match the dynamic range of film.