Pssst... Wanna Cheap 22 MegaPixel Camera?

By: Prashphutita A. Greco

You probably already have one! That now unfashionable, clunky film-based system is capable of superlative performance, compared to any remotely affordable digital solutions.

 Critically examine the pic on this page. Look good to you? Measuring 600 X 900 pixels, it's a cropped section from a 35mm film frame and represents a mere 2.8% of the original film area. High quality film, coupled with a good (although cheap) 50mm lens, careful technique and a 4000 pixel per inch scan yields these kinds of results. Even better (though expensive!) would be a drum scan by a skilled operator. 

The only Photoshop work required was to set the clipping points (for the darkest and lightest tones in the scene). No sharpening has been applied.  

Transparency film is still superior to negative film, in terms of fineness of  grain and contrast range. With 20 slides filed in a polypropylene sheet, you have:

• Compact, archival storage;
• Minimum of 2500 MB of crash-proof, high-quality data;
• Rapid, random access ("flick n pick" technology);
• Obsolescence-proof media.

 Digital imaging is certainly the way of the future; the technology - in whatever form it evolves into - is here to stay. Though the marketing hype might give you the impression that digital is "new", I was designing, building and programming microprocessor-based systems in the late 1970s. What's impressive is the amount of processing power - and memory -  available in the better digicams these days. Also, the great strides being taken in improving the performance of the CMOS or CCD sensors, and imaging processors.

 Why, then, do I continue amassing "classic" 30-year-old film-based cameras? Why, too, do I endure ridicule from fellow photographers when using my Rolleiflex Twin Lens reflex from the 1930s (which yields a gorgeous 6 X 6cm image on roll film)?

 Simply... any of these old beasts are still, overall, far superior to anything available from the digital realm at an affordable price. Besides, it would take something like 10 individual sensors to approximate the S-shaped characteristic curve of film, which allows it to retain some detail in the shadows (under-exposure) and in the highlights (over-exposure) simultaneously.

 Purchasing a digital camera won't automagically transform you into a better photographer. All of the technical (and artistic/ aesthetic) considerations still need to be given their due attention; that will only ever be achieved through discipline, patience, perseverance, concentrated effort, continued study,  and - of course - experience.

 For the best results: slow transparency film; an aperture around two to three stops down from maximum; and meticulous methodology, such as tripod mounting, cable release, and mirror lock-up (where possible).

 An important point: whatever digicam you use now, you are forever locked into that quality level. Whereas, with film, you have the option to re-scan in the future, using the better scanning technology which will be available then.

 Tranny film is "What You Get Was There When You Saw"; that is, the finished product is the same piece of film present at the moment of exposure. That gives a tranny more "spiritual power" than any other technology. Besides, nothing beats viewing an image by transmitted light. My way of working at the moment is to scan the mounted slides if and when I need to;  for instance, to place on a Web page.

 I have also had negative film scanned at the time of developing, with the resulting digital files burned to CD: the best of all worlds!

 For the mathematically inclined: our unassuming 35mm frame has 24 X 36mm = 864 square mm of area. Choosing the perennially popular Velvia, it can resolve 80 line pairs per mm (lp/mm) for a subject of very low (1.6:1) contrast. Resolution increases to 160 lp/mm with a very high contrast subject.

 There are identical lp/mm in each dimension of the film. Now, for a sampled (digital) system to capture as many lp/mm as the lens is imaging, it must have at least twice as many pixels (picture elements); again, both horizontally and vertically. Hence, 864 X 80 X 2 X 80 X 2 = 22.1 million pixels, as mentioned earlier.

 Of course, we're not even considering the "natural" look of film, with its organic (chaotic?) variations of slightly different-shaped and randomly-distributed grains, independently "doing their thing" over three layers of the emulsion. And, the greater range of colours which film can represent. Long live film!

 << Caption >>  Fujichrome Velvia RVP, ISO 50; Canon EF 50mm, f/1.8 Mk I. Original size on 35mm frame: less than 4 X 6mm!