Is Analog film likely to have more fine data within it's optical sensitivity range?

The ability for digital sensors to deliver high resolution numerical reference to the tonality and hue of a scene is limited the A/D convertors and everything else in the digital chain.

Potentially, analog film might be capable of recording much finer levels of changes in light intensity, even apart from resolution differences in lp/mm. If that is true, then high resolution scans of carefully exposed film film might provide, in some cases, superior transitions in shading.

What evidence is there to support or refute this?

Asher

Run a test--drum scan of a sheet or frame of film of your favorite type and format and a digital image with the equipment that is available to you, and see what you prefer. My sense is that film and digital are both capable of providing enough resolution for most general photographic purposes, and it's a matter of what look you like and how you like to work and what is practical for any particular goal.

I am sure there are applications where one needs to be at the limits of resolution--scientific, surveillance, reconaissance, etc.--but how often is it the case that insufficient resolution is the main problem with the kinds of photography that we usually do, presuming we can focus competently, use a tripod when practical, and otherwise exercise good technique?

This is seat-of-the-pants so........

I'm going to say no, not until you get to 4X5, and then only when the greatest of care is used.

But, I've often talked about the 'brute force' of 8X10. I do believe I am seeing incredibly smooth gradation and tonality in contact printed 8X10 format. When it comes to the old time lenses and black and white film in 8X10, nothing comes close. Try to do a hollywood glamour portrait with a digital camera and hold it next to a real one done with a pre-war Cooke and contact printed.

I agree with Jim that nothing beats a good contact print, as long as the final print size is suitable for your purpose.

David A. Goldfarb said:

I agree with Jim that nothing beats a good contact print, as long as the final print size is suitable for your purpose.

Click to expand...

That then makes my point. The analog film should have a much greater amount of subtle information in the gradations of grey that digital at 14 or 16 BIT cannot match. I wondering if a high resolution scan of B&W film, especially LF would always give more beautiful soft tonal gradients than a file started from a digital back, especially that file would be robustly conserved even if enlarged.

I'm not just talking about resolution but how the tonality is written.

Asher

I guess I'm not sure what sort of digital image would be equivalent to a contact print for comparison. Even if one made a 1:1 print, where the pixel dimensions of the original file equal the pixel dimensions of the print, they aren't necessarily the same pixels. One of the attractions of a contact print is that you remove a whole optical system from the project.

If you're considering at enlargements, I'd add projection printing to the mix. LightJet prints from drum scans can be very impressive, but projection prints made with a glass negative carrier, apo lenses, and properly aligned system can also produce very impressive results. Most of Burtynski's prints, for instance, are projection prints from large format originals.

But then there are other issues like the aesthetics of a small sensor photograph vs a photograph made with a large sheet of film, DOF characteristics, available lenses, and such.