Oppenheimer: Is Film really better than Digital? 

I remember my father's Decca recordings of classical music from the 60's, they were beautiful. I also learned photography from my father who worked in a studio and knew how to get the best from film, I have his camera too. Your video os very interesting, I have watched in three sections to listen with enough attention. I knew many of the tings you covered yet had not put them together as a whole which you have done. My passion is still with film, I currently have 10 film cameras loaded and in use. I use films which suit the lenses and how the cameras feel in use. WHen photographing on digital I watch histograms and use exposure compensation to keep the highlight detail, it is rather like phographing on Kodachrome. I got to know Kodachrome well I could visually assess the tonal range of a scene or subject and instinctively dial in compensation to suit. I also like the old school Pentax cameras which have meters set up for the minimum necessary exposure for slide film and compensating for print film is easy, as long as a light metere is consistent I can learn it and expose accordingly.

Thanks for this excellent presentation. My earliest exposure to digital photography was the NewTek DigiView for the Amiga 1000. The files have all gone missing, unlike my 35mm negatives that have survived the test of time. There's a documentary called "Warhol and the Amiga" that covers how a data extraction team came 30 years later to get images off of Andy Warhol's computer. They faced many hurdles and finally managed to get at least several pics including a digital painting of Marylyn Monroe. I use both digital and film. Since digital has changed so rapidly over the years, it's a bit of a bummer because my body of work is a conglomeration of all kinds of images from various sensor sizes, color palettes and whatnot. If I had shot it on film and stuck to one emulsion for the whole shebang such as Kodak Tri-X, I'd have a more cohesive body of work. It's like I've been experimenting around with crayons and colored pencils and pens and it's all a crying shame with 30 years down the drain. :)

In reality, film is ultimately digital in the sense that there are a finite number of molecules on the celluloid strip to react when exposed to light. It's just that they are many more molecules on film than pixels that can be packed onto a digital sensor that we are able to design and manufacture.

Dead simple short answer? YES.

I think digital for movies is "better" for producers. I mean really, think about cost of digital and film. No film, no development, no tons of people cutting and putting celuloid together. Just digital file, software license and few guys who can do everything with some click of mouse, applying LUTs and so on. Same with photography. I shot on color film, with print, development and scan is... 4$ (more or less)? Digital is free. No money involved at all unless you print, but even then it is fraction of analog. That said, I love film, have favorite stock, favorite cameras, use them, have darkroom etc. Still, after one try no one will convince me to shot airshow at film again. I am not rich enough :D

No. It's DIFFRENT than digital. Better or worse depends on your aesthetic. Shoot both, it's fun.