Film and digital color

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2008 · Film and digital color

Tamerlin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · Film and digital color

JimBuchanan wrote:
Interesting discussion, and my only comment is the related in color, astrophotos made from B&W CCD chips. They use RGB fiilter wheels to capture the three colors and then use stacking software to get the color file. Granted these are long exposures, but it is well known the B&W chips used are typically more sensitive and higher resolution than the color chips. The process can get more complicated with luminance channels and Halpha channels, but point is 100% specificity of the selected wavelengths through filters.

All CCD sensors are monochromatic. They only measure luminosity, never color. The ones with filters just record the amount of light that the filters pass, as far as the photosites are concerned, the light could still be white for all they care.

That alone is a large part of how the CCDs made for astrophotography and other non-portable imaging applications can outperform dSLRs; the engineers designing them don't need to worry about usability concerns that would cripple dSLRs... can you imagine a sport photographer trying to capture color images by taking three pictures, one in each color, and combining them after the fact?

Dec 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM

mmurph
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · Film and digital color

edwardkaraa wrote:
Back to the original question, which raw converter produces in your opinion the best and purest reds that are similar to what one can get with color reversal film such as Fujichrome Velvia.

I have only used Lightroom or ACR recently. But, you need to calibrate for your camera!

There are online tools available, or use an i1. You will need a ColorChecker card. The high-end i1 comes with the ColorChecker DC I think (?) - extended version for digital, a $260 card.

The paradigm has recently shifted with Lightroom 2.0 and the DNG ICC Profile editor though.

Reds are pulled in best via calibration, especially for Canon. Really nails tough color matcxhes for product.

Dec 23, 2008 at 05:23 AM

mmurph
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · Film and digital color

Tamerlin wrote:

Your experience with film must be very out of date; the latest emulsions capture remarkable amounts of detail, and I'm only shooting on 4x5,

Latest revision Fuji Astia in 4x5, bought fresh and frozen. Plus Kodak Portra 160 NC. Been using those 2 films only for 10+ years (except for some Agfa.)

But we were mostly talking about smaller film, 6x7, 645 and even 35mm. There is a point where a quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference. That point is certainly reached with 4x5.

I am shooting a 1DsII, 40D, 5DII, and 5 different 4x5's. Plus a Mmaiya 645 that is sorely neglected. Bought a new zoom for it this summer and never even tested it.

Dec 23, 2008 at 05:28 AM

kidtexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · Film and digital color

Dec 23, 2008 at 03:00 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · Film and digital color

mmurph wrote:
Yes, no question, the resolution is there in 6x7. But most prints that I see from film - including the "wonderful" Ansel Adam prints that I saw last year in Chicago - look like crap. We are just so used to overlooking the smudging, dirty, random noise that comes from grain. {snip}

I just think we are so biased to tolerating film artifacts that we don't even see them, as mentioned above.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've seen "wonderful" Ansel Adams prints, as well as other large format prints from that era, and don't see the "smudging, dirty, random noise" that you suggest you are seeing. They just look great. It will be great when digital can approach the overall quality to these images (it is getting closer, however)

This is not becuase I am accustomed to "overlooking" it or "biased to tolerating" it. Most people will disagree with you on the quality of these prints and you can't try to effectively dismiss their views with such preemptive throw-away comments.

Dec 23, 2008 at 03:48 PM

Tamerlin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · Film and digital color

mmurph wrote:
Latest revision Fuji Astia in 4x5, bought fresh and frozen. Plus Kodak Portra 160 NC. Been using those 2 films only for 10+ years (except for some Agfa.)

But we were mostly talking about smaller film, 6x7, 645 and even 35mm. There is a point where a quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference. That point is certainly reached with 4x5.

I am shooting a 1DsII, 40D, 5DII, and 5 different 4x5's. Plus a Mmaiya 645 that is sorely neglected. Bought a new zoom for it this summer and never even tested it.

It was waiting for a digital back, but ....

FWIW, I have a 6 Sigma Black Belt certification in quality. Designed propriatary digital asset management systems since 1992 (large scale systems, starting at $2 million plus back in 1992.)

You must be doing something pretty horrible to your film then. I've seen a lot of scans from film, and although their quality depends a lot on the skill of the scanner as well as on the skill of the photographer, they've been exquisite... and nothing shot in 35mm format digital is even in the ballpark with medium format film. I've seen lots of people claim otherwise, but no one's ever been able to back it up with anything other than claims of authority.

Dec 23, 2008 at 04:03 PM

mmurph
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · Film and digital color

The question in this thread is about color rendition and, by extension color purity and noise. It has nothing to do with resolution, which you all continue to return to again and again.

We have two ways of rendering an image of the world, both using sensors. One renders directly from the world. The other renders from an intermediate physical substrate.

There is no analog/physical process that does not involve the introduction of noise. Noise decreases the "purity" of the color signal.

Dec 24, 2008 at 03:31 AM

mrladewig
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · Film and digital color

mmurph wrote:
We have two ways of rendering an image of the world, both using sensors. One renders directly from the world. The other renders from an intermediate physical substrate.

Which is more "real"? The physical emulsion on a substrate or the 1010110101001000...

Photography has not always relied on digital sensors and processing to produce a print.

Dec 24, 2008 at 06:35 PM

mrladewig
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · Film and digital color

Just because color rendition is accurate and precise does not mean that the result is pleasing. This is one component of the issue at hand. It seems that Adobe have finally realized that there is more to color than accuracy and now they are back tracking a bit to create profiles more like the ones the camera manufacturers have provided. Anyone who has used a Canon camera with ACR and DPP for some time will know that the resulting converted images will look significantly different depending on the raw conversion software choice or further in DPP it will change by the "style" applied. Often for reds, oranges and yellows, Canon's software produces a more pleasing rendition than ACR. There is a visible difference in the files.

There is an saying in photography that a man with 1 light meter knows the correct exposure, but a man with 2 light meters cannot be certain. Which is the "right" conversion?

On the other hand of the argument is film. Film manufacturers have spent time creating films that provide pleasing color in various palettes and contrast ranges. I wouldn't normally choose to use Portra 160NC for a landscape shot, but it produces gorgeous portraiture. The contrast, response curve and color balance built into the film is specifically tailored to this purpose. Fuji Provia and Kodak E100G are two films with a similar purpose (general purpose ISO 100 slide films). They are fine grain, provide good neutral colors and have good saturation for stronger colors. Yet the two films look different. The choice of subtle differences in palette and color rendition and contrast and saturation are the things that film photographers like. I can choose a film with a built in response and I know that I'll get a certain result. I can do the same thing in digital, true enough, but this does not take away from the qualities that photographing with film provides. Film itself is not trapped within the Prophoto RGB colorspace. Its isn't trapped by 256 or 4096 shades of red, blue and green.

When you capture digitally, you are then left to cook the shot yourself. You've got to come up with an appropriate development to match the purpose. This is stuff that the film companies did for you. Granted when you scan film yourself, you've got to do very similar work to get the scanning software to produce a good result, but the film still provides a baseline. You can choose to use the film scanner simply to replicate the film or you can choose to use it as an artists tool.

There is more to photography than clinical recording.

This discussion started off with the question:

Why can't I get color response from digital capture like the color I got from film?

There have been some constructive comments and suggestions that the OP might consider using camera calibration. But the underlying question is still there.

Dec 24, 2008 at 06:37 PM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end