It's a valid comparison if that's the only equipment available and for those specific working conditions. If you want to point out the differences in one particular variable (5DII vs. Ektar 100) the comparison should be done with the same lens on either camera. And if the detail recored in these photos is typical neither lens is one I'd go out of my way to purchase.
Zaitz wrote:
It is a fairly challenging scenario if you wish to keep the sky somewhat detailed and colorful while retaining a realistic amount of exposure on the face. Up to the photographer on where to balance it I suppose. The crop is the -2 underexposed photo. He says no doctoring but I think we know the 5d doesn't push shadows well so if he went through aperture with the underexposed photo and lifted the shadows a bit that would account for the increase in noise. I wasn't looking at that though and just looked at the sky and colors. Portra and Ektar have an incredible way of handling harsh highlights.
"5D mk2 raw files processed in Aperture for max detail
Ektar scaned on a Fuji Frontier for best color
No doctering up on either"...Show more →
That's kinda ironic, both are pretty much processed in the most limiting way possible. Aperture is not the best RAW converter for Canon files and a Frontier is pretty much a guarantee of shitty scans. The processing is biased in favour of the 5D though, since Aperture's processing is merely not the best (could have been worse, they could have used SilkyPix), but a Frontier's scans are awful on defaults and merely bad if driven by a competent operator.
telyt wrote:
It's a valid comparison if that's the only equipment available and for those specific working conditions. If you want to point out the differences in one particular variable (5DII vs. Ektar 100) the comparison should be done with the same lens on either camera. And if the detail recored in these photos is typical neither lens is one I'd go out of my way to purchase.
Both lenses are good but not outstanding, based on the images focus seems off on the Nikon shots by a bit. Both are shoot at nowhere near optimum aperture (unsurprising, given the film and light, they ran out of light and had to open up ). The scanning/processing is lousy and the test is a better demonstration of how to make competent gear do a semi-decent lo-fi impression rather than a demonstration of how to produce high-IQ images with either medium.
telyt -- Yes, I agree, it should be the same lens, at its best aperture, on a digital and film body. 5D2 and EOS 1, 1N or 1V would be fine to conduct the test.
*******************
As I said, comparison should be under decent lighting conditions, with a range of colors and neutrals, to get most recorded info at the best exposure. For "real life" scenarios, a series of comparative shots would be made ideally, and averaged in side-by-side comparisons.
It doesn't seem hard to do -- it's the sort of A-B comparing I do whenever I buy gear (usually used). I'm sure plenty of other people do to, maybe just not specifically digital/film comparisons.
I would like to see more film vs. digital comparisons. Seems an interesting area that doesn't get as much attention as it deserves.
The digital picture was taken with a Canon L lens, but the film picture was taken with an old AIS lens. Couldn't you borrow a Canon film body to use the same L lens on both image comparisons?
First of all, the lens is not using its better imaging range for either film or digital (used at, or near, wide open). Second, the extreme and unbalanced lighting is not effective for showing tonal and granular gradations. Third, the shots have underexposed areas (man) and flare from large bright sky.
Such a comparison needs to be done under better conditions and use of the imaging tools.
Yup! I think I called this page gay and the photog a doofus back when it was made some years ago. I think everyone here (both film and digital shooters) tore it apart and being silly and inadequate at the time. And yet it's been used about 10 times since then as "a good comparison". <shrug>
altern3 wrote:
I challenge anyone to shoot similar boring scene with film and get the same dynamic range and detail... And post it here. This is not a challenge, this is an offer to prove me wrong.
telyt wrote:
Pointless if the comparison photos are not the same scene in the same lighting. Too many uncontrolled variables.
telyt wrote:
And if that's typical of this lens the L designation doesn't mean a lot.
It's not unlikely that the L lens has higher contrast than the Nikkor 35/2, which increases the problem with the blown highlights (or the noise in the shadows). Nevertheless I would expect a similar result even with the same lens.
DaveOls wrote:
The digital picture was taken with a Canon L lens, but the film picture was taken with an old AIS lens. Couldn't you borrow a Canon film body to use the same L lens on both image comparisons?
Right!
Even a simple adapter would allow the AIS lens to be used on the Canon (this is the Alt forum, isn't it? )
The point really isn't about ultimate lens quality, just decent quality, with the same lens on two different types of camera. There's nothing wrong with going the highest quality gear and completely controlled testing procedure, but as Bif says, this doesn't even approach informational results. Now it's turning into a benchmark test every time it gets citation and accolades! Doofy Testing Labs, Inc.
AhamB wrote:
It's not unlikely that the L lens has higher contrast than the Nikkor 35/2, which increases the problem with the blown highlights (or the noise in the shadows). Nevertheless I would expect a similar result even with the same lens.
telyt wrote:
I was looking at the image detail.
Right, in that respect I wouldn't give much credit to this comparison, but detail usually isn't put forward as a strength of small format film (at least not in this forum). I think it's the highlight handling that is difficult (if not impossible) to achieve with digital that is shown nicely in this comparison (even though the different lenses are muddying the waters here).
This is Kodak Tri-X souped in Rodinal, which gives a harsh grain an not the best tonality. Still I haven't had any luck trying to mimic it with digital.
If you knew what mid tone contrast actually is, or for that matter basic contrast, you wouldn't have posted that image as an example.
Before the respected author of that article decides to settle this argument, at least he should know the basics of how to take a competent picture if not a good one.
Skill in writing or talking or general knowledge - none of that means skill in taking photographs.
I'm sorry if the comparison has already been posted here and bashed. I was posting mainly in response to the point that digital has a higher DR. That's it. In regards to sharpness, color etc, I agree it's not a comprehensive (at all) comparison.
mawz, why do you say the Frontier is so bad? It seems that it's the scanner of choice for many very good wedding photographers. Not for the scan size, but for highlight retention, skin tone, and color it seems to be pretty darn good.
altern3 wrote:
Before the respected author of that article decides to settle this argument, at least he should know the basics of how to take a competent picture if not a good one.
Skill in writing or talking or general knowledge - none of that means skill in taking photographs.
Can you give us an ETA for your perfect technical comparison between film and digital, color and BW would be preferable. Or maybe just a link to your website that I'm sure is full of excellent examples already.
I'm just a film newbie and amateur and would love to learn from your vast experience. Thanks
Bifurcator wrote:
I think this thread has gone completely bananas!
Despite all the tangents of this thread, I think I've learned quite a few things. Now that the rain has stopped where I am I think I might need to get out and spend less time online
I mostly mean the tone of it. But yeah, shooting is always more fun than chatting.
zalmyb, No need to apologize. No one expects everyone to read back through all the posts over the past three or four or years!
I was mostly remarking from my own puzzlement over why such bad comparisons get used as good ones. People can't see it? Or is it the "it's written on the internet so it much be true and correct" syndrome. <shrug>
)
Oh wait, that's what I work with the most in all my B&W images.
