Film Compared To Digital In The Midday Sun On Landscape

Last summer we went for a long trip in our RV out to the middle of the country.  When we were in the Black Hills area, which is a gem of a place to go, we went to Badlands National Park.  I took both my Minolta 600si film 35mm SLR with a 50mm f2.8 prime lens and my Nikon D5500 digital camera with the newest 18-55 f3.5 zoom lens.  The Nikon lens is the "P" version that has received high marks from a lot of people for sharpness and general high image quality.  I put both cameras in my Rick Steve's day pack.  The film camera had Kodak Ektar 100 film in it.  I had the film developed at "The Darkroom" in San Clemente.  I had the film scanned when it was developed to their medium quality scans.

With the Nikon I shot raw.  Here is the raw file with adobe standard adjustments.

The basic raw file made into a jpeg with Adobe standard adjustments

Here is the film shot right out of the camera.  

Film file right out of the camera.  

It is not as easy to see the differences when the photo is small.  If you can copy the pictures to your computer and blow them up a bit that would help.  The file sizes for both are about the same.  To me the film shot is very good right out of the camera.  The digital is only OK.  It is washed out even though Adobe had added a significant amount of color to it when I converted the raw file to a jpeg.  

If you had the Nikon camera do a jpeg file instead of a jpeg and used the Nikon Landscape setting this is the result.  

Nikon using landscape setting.

To me the Nikon landscape setting looks better than the Adobe standard.  This is an adequate photo only.  It is not nearly as good as the film shot.  

And here is the film shot after I made two very slight adjustments to it in Lightroom.  

Film shot with minor editing in Lightroom

Here is the digital shot with some significant editing.  It took me several years, many hours of training, and thousands of Lightroom edits to be able to get the picture this good.  

Nikon digital shot with a lot of editing.  

To me both of the end results are good.  Of course if they had been taken later in the day or early in the day the results would have been much better on either camera.

If you don't want to learn Lightroom and only use Apple's simple Photos app this is what you get.  

Film shot only using Apple Photos.  Very very simple edit.  

Nikon shot using Adobe standard jpeg and Apple Photos 

So what is the bottom line.  Both photos are very similar and very good considering they were taken in full sun at mid day.  To my eye on a high quality large monitor they are equal.  A few things to consider.  

• The Minolta camera is just as automatic as the Nikon.  The Minolta is from about the year 2000 and the Nikon from 2015.  But you can buy the Minolta for $30-50 dollars today on eBay.  The Nikon about $600.  The lenses on these cameras are both worth about $100.  So $130 for the Minolta and $700 for the Nikon.  
• The Minolta is about the same size as the Nikon and looks very similar.  I prefer the looks of the Nikon just a bit, and the Nikon is a few oz. less.  
• You can set both on auto and 85% of the time the pictures will turn out good.  
• If you want to make adjustments on the cameras the Minolta is far and away easier to use.  
• The Minolta viewfinder is far and away bigger and brighter.  The Nikon viewfinder is very hard to use with manual focus.  The Minolta is pretty easy, but no focus aids like my older Olympus.  Both camera makers thought most people would use auto focus almost all the time.  
• The Nikon has a complex menu system to learn.  It does have a touch screen though so this particular model of Nikon is easier than most to adjust.  
• The Nikon and the Minolta work very well to set on auto and just take pictures.  
• The Minolta has buttons and switches for adjustments that are very intuitive and simple to use and learn.  

When I originally took these shots a little over a year ago I much preferred the film ones.  They came out of the camera much better and I was still learning to get good with Lightroom.  So knowing what I know now which is better digital or film.  I have to give the nod to digital in this case.  I do enjoy using the Minolta camera more than the Nikon, but there is no doubt that not having to go through the hassle and expense of getting film developed and scanned made the digital shot easier.  If I did not already know how to use Lightroom I would go the other way and say film is better.  The camera is more fun and easier to use and you don't need to fiddle with Lightroom.  Then there is the cost of the camera and lens.  The film camera is much less costly.  You have to pay for film, but you also have to pay for Lightroom and spend lots of time learning to use it and working at your computer to get acceptable results.   

If you have any film cameras left over from the film days, use them.  Buy film.  Kodak, Fuji, and a few others still make very good film that is easy to use.  I mostly use mail order to develop and scan.