Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
  

Archive 2010 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital

  
 
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


Evan Baines wrote:
One thing that I seldom see addressed:

Even if, hypothetically, you could make your digital shots look exactly like film (I don't believe you can in print, although you can probably fool someone on a screen), wouldn't your artwork be based on a lie? Why shoot on one medium, only to try to pretend its something else?


But there is very little fixed and "authentic" or "honest" about the digital medium. Digital sensors are linear devices and the images they capture have to get a gamma curve and be tone mapped to look anything reasonably close to the human perception of a scene. The kind of output you get varies with the RAW developer you choose (even with identical processing settings none are identical). I don't find it strange that digital photographers are desiring to have their images look more like film, because the interpretations of RAW developers rarely look as good as film (esp. the handling of highlights).



Dec 25, 2010 at 06:24 AM
ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


"I just can't get over the fact it looks like plastic. It's just not real.
I never understood how "process" the digtial files worth a damn."

Those two statements are closely connected... Digital images are a representation of the world, so are analog images.


People, you have to stop giving a recording medium a religious status. It is.. weird. It is ok to talk about things like the highlight shoulder or similar issues that are quantifiable and testable, but "real"? "not real" ..? Come on. Stop with the new age stuff already. If you can't actually prove or/and document something and it most likely is not quantifiable or/and testable, stop presenting your opinion on the issue as fact.



Dec 25, 2010 at 07:32 AM
kidtexas
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


ulrikft2 wrote:
If you can't actually prove or/and document something and it most likely is not quantifiable or/and testable, stop presenting your opinion on the issue as fact.


Guess we have to shut down all the Zeiss 3D threads

I agree. I shoot film, but I agree. I just like the way it looks. You can do some of the same stuff on digital, but it's just not worth my time.

From what I've seen though, (negative) film DOES have better highlight retention than digital, without having to resorting to multiple exposure/HDR stuff. Digital pretty much beats (35mm) film on all other technical measures though



Dec 25, 2010 at 09:20 AM
veroman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


pawlowski6132 wrote:
Great question OP. I always thought it was stupid to go through the AD or DA process. If you want a digital file in the end, start with a digital based capture. If you want an analog product in the end, start with an analog capture. You LOSE when you convert from Analog to Digital. If you take film and scan it, it's NOT film anymore. ANYTHING you THINK you're getting with film can be reproduced in Photoshop starting with a digital caputure. Anything. Period.


Simply not so. I wish I had the time to fully support my response, but I don't. All I can say is: when I scan an ASA 64 transparency ... which I've done thousands of times ... I end up with an image quality that's impossible to duplicate with any digital camera.

The only digital camera I've used that has come close to the look (and appeal) of scanned slide film is the Fuji S2 Pro. All others ... including my former Canon 1Ds II, Canon 5D, Canon 5D II and Nikon D2x ... are 100% digital in look, "feel" and overall appearance and have little-to-none of the richness, fullness, roundness and depth of film. How could they? They're NOT film!

Digital, by its nature, is not the real thing. It's a tear-down of the real thing then a re-construction of the real thing using zeros and ones and who-knows-what-else. A film capture is about as direct as you can get ... light hitting an emulsion. Film and digital cameras are different in just about every way imaginable. Just about the only thing they have in common is a lens.

To answer the OP's question: you do use a little (5%-10%?? Just guessing) of the film capture's original qualities. In the end, if you scan and process properly, you will end up with a print that has 90% of the original analog's IQ. Even when my prints come out with artifacts, halos, dust spots and other strange things (which means I have to start all over again!), the image has qualities that clearly say "This is a film shot!"

- Steve



Dec 25, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


veroman wrote:
Digital, by its nature, is not the real thing.


That's like the most ridiculous statement I've read on this forum. Film isn't any more "real" than digial. It's grain in an emulsion, very much like pixels, albeit not in a regular pattern.

Zeroes and ones are the two letters of the language; binary math. It's just as "real" as letters on a paper or grain in an emulsion.



Dec 25, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


AhamB wrote:
But there is very little fixed and "authentic" or "honest" about the digital medium. Digital sensors are linear devices and the images they capture have to get a gamma curve and be tone mapped to look anything reasonably close to the human perception of a scene. The kind of output you get varies with the RAW developer you choose (even with identical processing settings none are identical). I don't find it strange that digital photographers are desiring to have their images look more like film, because the interpretations of RAW developers rarely look as good as film (esp. the handling
...Show more


Define "authentic" and "honest" in this context. Then tell me how film represents these definitions more than digital. IMHO, both mediums strive to represent reality to the best of their ability. What is dishonest about that? Both film and digital can be manipulated by the photographer/artist, but it is not the medium that is not being "honest". I would note that film never really came closer to the human perception of a scene, its just a different perception than digital.

"Some" digital photographer (I add the word "some" become it is quite clearly not all) would like to make their image look more like film images because they find that perception of reality more subjectively appealing, or in fact they may be used to seeing the world through film, so that is what looks "right" to them. To "look as good as film" is something that is quite subjective, because on quantitative technical measures alone, digital is clearly at least "as good".




Dec 25, 2010 at 10:26 AM
ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


kidtexas wrote:
Guess we have to shut down all the Zeiss 3D threads

I agree. I shoot film, but I agree. I just like the way it looks. You can do some of the same stuff on digital, but it's just not worth my time.

From what I've seen though, (negative) film DOES have better highlight retention than digital, without having to resorting to multiple exposure/HDR stuff. Digital pretty much beats (35mm) film on all other technical measures though


Indeed, the dynamic range/highlight response can be measured, and BW-film often beats digital here. Some speciality films also beats digital on resolution. And I think that these are valid points. I also love how a few films "look", but that is a 100% personal preference that I can't really quantify or use as an argument for anything else than "well, I like.."



Dec 25, 2010 at 10:36 AM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


pawlowski:

ONE thing that film does better than digital is retaining highlights.
With scanner/printers like Fuji Frontier 370/570 you can extract a ridiculous amount of highlight detail and have it printed beautifully. This, despite the fact it is a analog to digital solution. I don't see how digital will catch up with this anytime soon.

Negatives that have been three/four stops overexposed still have enough latitude to bring it back gracefully. When digital clips... ...it clips. And bringing it back gracefully to a natural looking print is damn hard.

You can "shift" your dynamic range to better suit the negative with those printers, if you know what I mean. Zipping through a roll of 36 with all corrections for under/overexposed/color shift is so fast when you know your printing it makes digital RAW and digital post pro look feel like it takes forever.

There is lesser headroom when printing slides from the Frontiers and the shortcomings resemble those of a digital file when it comes to bringing back highlight detail.



Dec 25, 2010 at 10:39 AM
veroman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


Makten wrote:
That's like the most ridiculous statement I've read on this forum. Film isn't any more "real" than digial. It's grain in an emulsion, very much like pixels, albeit not in a regular pattern. Zeroes and ones are the two letters of the language; binary math. It's just as "real" as letters on a paper or grain in an emulsion.


If you tear down a house or building and then re-build it to exactly the same size, standards, etc., with exactly the same materials inside and out and exactly the same furniture, etc., it will still not be exactly the same as the home or building it replaced. There will be deviations from the original that many may not see, but there will be deviations nonetheless. This is what digital does ... tears down then re-builds. In many respects, it's is the uniformity of the pixels vs. the somewhat random nature of film grain that accounts for some of the difference. And are you suggesting that the re-construction "code" of ones and zeros is the same as light hitting an emulsion directly?

This same argument has been going on for years and years with analog audio vs. digital audio. I prefer analog. The best digital audio sounds flat and artificial compared to the best analog recordings. And direct-to-disc recording (the record actually being cut while the musicians are playing; no tape deck in the recording chain) puts digital recording to shame.

If there's one thing about film vs. digital that continues to amaze me is that even the most emotionally-filled digital images suffer when an image is soft or when they contain noticeably high levels of noise. When an image contains both softness and noise, we pretty much regard it as a not-too-good or even poor capture.

And yet, softness and grain in a film image doesn't negate or hide the emotion, if it's there. The subject matter almost always comes through, as was evidenced by the recent Henri Cartier Bresson exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Lots of grain. Lots of softness (MOST of the images were soft). But what pictures! Nobody cared about or commented on the softness and grain/noise. And yet, that's almost always the first thing we notice in a digital capture when it's there. This, to me, is one of the great plusses of film vs. digital.

- Steve





Dec 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM
ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


veroman: analogue film and digital sensors both do the same. They record what is seen trough the lens. The metaphysical (religious) thing you are going for just does not cut it. Seriously.


Dec 25, 2010 at 11:57 AM
veroman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


ulrikft2 wrote:
veroman: analogue film and digital sensors both do the same. They record what is seen trough the lens. The metaphysical (religious) thing you are going for just does not cut it. Seriously.


I trust my eyes. There's nothing metaphysical about it. And you're right ... film and digital sensors do the same thing. It's HOW they do it that we're talking about. Surely you recognize that they do it differently.

- Steve



Dec 25, 2010 at 12:25 PM
ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


They do it differently, but neither is more real or less real than the other. They are not dissembling reality and rebuilding it. They are both recording it. I have printed nikon d700 images on baryta paper and had some of the old guys at the darkroom hail my darkroom-skills. I get that a lot of the older generation think that this fiddling on a computer isn't "real", and that is alright with me, it is all about preference. Just don't tell me that my recording media of choice is less real than your..


Dec 25, 2010 at 12:56 PM
veroman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


ulrikft2 wrote:
They do it differently, but neither is more real or less real than the other. They are not dissembling reality and rebuilding it. They are both recording it. I have printed nikon d700 images on baryta paper and had some of the old guys at the darkroom hail my darkroom-skills. I get that a lot of the older generation think that this fiddling on a computer isn't "real", and that is alright with me, it is all about preference. Just don't tell me that my recording media of choice is less real than your..


Ok ... it's not "less" real. But it sure is a differently reality. I'm going to celebrate Xmas now with my wife and family. Happy Holidays ....

- Steve



Dec 25, 2010 at 01:32 PM
Spyro P.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


ulrikft2 wrote:
veroman: analogue film and digital sensors both do the same. They record what is seen trough the lens.


Actually no... I used to think this is correct but then all those discussions about bayer V foveon sensors confused me. Film records, but It seems most digital sensors* half record, half imagine and reconstruct pixels via intrapolation. Or have I got it wrong?

*except (to some extend) scanners, CCD and foveon sensors.



Dec 25, 2010 at 02:37 PM
ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


Spyro P. wrote:
Actually no... I used to think this is correct but then all those discussions about bayer V foveon sensors confused me. Film records, but It seems most digital sensors* half record, half imagine and reconstruct pixels via intrapolation. Or have I got it wrong?

*except (to some extend) scanners, CCD and foveon sensors.


Well, that is pretty much true of all recording, no? You cannot record _everything_ so you approximate and wether you do this by bayer-arrays/interpolation or other analogues methods, is not really important?



Dec 25, 2010 at 03:23 PM
Spyro P.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


ulrikft2 wrote:
Well, that is pretty much true of all recording, no? You cannot record _everything_ so you approximate and wether you do this by bayer-arrays/interpolation or other analogues methods, is not really important?


But film records, it doesnt interpolate.
I'm not sure if it is important or not... everyone has his own sense of importance, photographers is a group with tremendous diversity, different goals and expectations.



Dec 25, 2010 at 03:31 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


Spyro P. wrote:
But film records, it doesnt interpolate.



So what?




Dec 25, 2010 at 04:21 PM
Spyro P.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


Lotusm50 wrote:
So what?



Like I said, I dont know



Dec 25, 2010 at 04:37 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


Spyro P. wrote:
Like I said, I dont know


And it really doesn't matter. Shoot with what gives you the results you want to achieve. I shoot b&w film because I like it's look when I print it on epson exhibition fiber. I have never achieved the same look using digital and whatever post processing I know. I don't care if this has something to do with the way film captures light, all I care about is the final results.



Dec 25, 2010 at 05:13 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Film vs Digital or Film = Digital


veroman wrote:
And are you suggesting that the re-construction "code" of ones and zeros is the same as light hitting an emulsion directly?


No, I'm suggesting that digital and analog are two different "languages", saying the same thing. None of them can describe reality to 100%, but they will sound or look a bit different. One of them doesn't have to be more "true" than the other, because non of them are truly true.

If you explain something in spanish, it won't sound like the same truth explained in german. Subtle things will get lost in both explanations.

This same argument has been going on for years and years with analog audio vs. digital audio. I prefer analog.

So do I, but I'd never claim that analog is more true. It just sounds better to my ears. Probably because it has flaws that add character. It could as well be a step away from the truth. Excluding things that would distract the listener if it was there.

And yet, softness and grain in a film image doesn't negate or hide the emotion, if it's there.

Nor does digital noise, if you don't want it to.



Dec 25, 2010 at 06:03 PM
1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.