digital flatness?

Hi.

I find that images from digital cameras are flat, don�t have depth, while

images from film cameras are way more lifelike.

 

For example, if I take a picture of a lady standing in front of a brick wall

and there�s a significant distance between the wall and the lady.

With a digital camera, the resulting image will look like the following:

remember the notice board in your campus? Where sheets of paper are pasted on

other sheets of paper. It�s like a sheet of paper on another on another. Same

here, the image from the digital camera will look like the sheet of paper with

the lady image is pasted on the sheet of paper with brick wall image on it.

While the image from the film camera will look much more three-dimensional (has

more depth).

 

Does anyone notice this as well? What causes this? Can this be fixed (in

digital cameras)? Does using better lenses help?

Better skills with a camera and in the digital darkroom certainly will help. What camera are

you using?

It depends on what cameras you're comparing, If you're comparing a digital point and shoot camera against a 35mm slr or p&s. the digicam would have a flatter looking image, it would have broader area of focus , cause of the smaller sensor with smaller lens compared to the film cameras with bigger lens.

 

If you're comparing a dslr to a film slr with same lens, the result would be the same in term of depth of field.

Sounds more like you've found the deep depth of field that comes with owning a digital point and shoot camera. The small sensor and very wide-angle lenses required will give you images that are sharp from two feet to infinity.

 

If you want more of your background (or foreground) out of focus and still want to live in the digital world, you'll need to move to a digital SLR.

The problem you're describing is mostly due to depth of field. Digital cameras (unless outrageously expensive, like Canon 5D or 1Ds II) have sensors smaller than film. Which means the shorter focal length lenses give you more depth of field. Digital SLRs and rangefinders have sensors from 1.3x to 1.7x smaller than film cameras, which means significantly deeper DOF. Point and shoot digitals have sensors 2x to 5x smaller, which means very deep DOF. And it doesn't help that their zoom lenses often have terrible bokeh ("quality" of background blur) so the background that the sharp subject is "pasted" on doesn't look very smooth.

 

Yes, better lenses help, both because they're faster (shallower DOF) and because the bokeh is often better.

Let's assume all images are taken with stopped-down aperture (e.g. f/10 or above) so all images are sharp from edge to edge. Because somehow I don't think it's about depth of field.

 

I'm using Canon A620 but I've seen pictures from many other digital cameras, P&S as well as dSLRs. And they all look flatter than film.

a film image is just as "flat" as a digital one.

 

Ultimately, it is just a matter of lighting. I really doubt that two photos taken under equivalent conditions (same light, same DOF etc...) would really be that different.

Maybe dynamic range has something to do with it. Do you find large format film images "flat"?

 

Perhaps post some examples or something. Otherwise I think your vision might just be affected by some personal bias(?)

<I>Because somehow I don't think it's about depth of field.</i><P>Uh, yes it is. You also have to take into account the focal length being used, and I saw the same characteristics when I used to process and print 110 format. This is why they make dSLRs for those us who prefer to control depth of field. <P><I>P&S as well as dSLRs. And they all look flatter than film.</i><P>Really? Please provide me with a film example of your own that's more 'life-like' and more '3D' than the attached image. Here's a quick snap of my nephew with my 10D and 50mm, and if you have better examples of skin tone with film, I'd like to see them. Maybe you prefer the grainy, K-mart / Kodak Edge paper from Max 400 film version, or the 'I'm a retard and can't shoot color, so I dodge and burn my monochrome Leica images to death' versions, but I don't.

<<I don't think it's about depth of field.>>

 

Yes it is. (Your "two different cameras at f/10" is a good example of misunderstanding the differences in DOF between small sensor point and shoots and larger sensor DSLRs) You can use the DOF calculator to prove it to yourself.

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Here's a bigger version to show I'm not cheating, so either provide me with an equivelant 1000x1500 35mm film image of equivelant depth, or quite whining.

 

My apologies for the lousy bokeh and not using the appropriate Ariane manufactured lens.

I agree with Chris and that you are imagining the whole thing. All this stuff about depth of field is simply talk by people who use their DSLRs to get shallow DoF effect. A photograph looks flat becuase it hasn't been taken to emphasise depth. digital or film.

Benny, please understand that the F10 on a compact digi camera like yours, is not the same as an SLR or DSLR OR film p&s at F10.

 

the larger the sensor or film, the more 3d or depth of perception you'll gonna get, no matter If the F numbers are the same.

"All this stuff about depth of field is simply talk by people who use their DSLRs to get shallow DoF effect. A photograph looks flat becuase it hasn't been taken to emphasise depth. digital or film."

 

Creating the impression of depth is multifactorial - lighting, selective focus, dof control, and perspective all contribute. It's all part of the wonderful panoply of photography! :-)

 

How's this for creating depth?

You might be thinking the picture looks flat because it is so clean. Film has a certain characteristic look caused by grain structure, dirt etc. The TV industry in the UK has been making dramas on Digital Betacam video for years, and then processing it to look like film. This involves adding motion judder and often simulating grain. It is effectively degrading the picture. However some of the best pictures I ever transmitted were old episodes of Dallas which came in 35mm. Those were the days!

What I wanted to learn more is, when we take pictures with NO intentions to emphasize depth (with dof control, selective focusing etc), are digital images �flatter� than film?

 

Since the inputs in this forum unanimously suggest that it�s not the case, I checked again my pictures carefully. Yes I found that it�s probably just my personal bias.

 

Thanks everyone.

You are partially right. High contrast slide films such as Kodachrome and Velvia create "pop", have an edge, have extra clarity, and provide better seperation from backgrounds. All of these things yield an apparent increase in depth that you can see even when compared to Astia under many lighting conditions. It is certainly evident when compared to negative films used in low contrast light. I and others have certainly seen flat digital photos, which is probably due to the increased dynamic range of digital as opposed to chromes. Does this mean that digital images have to be flat? I don't think so. It is my understanding that images from raw capture are quite malleable.

Benny,

I agree--I've seen many digital photos that did seem flat. Or, subjects seem to have been

pasted into the picture. I don't think it's the medium per se.

 

I think I know why: with inexpensive cameras, or even better consumer cameras with all-

in-one zooms , there is often color fringing. The fringing can be very subtle, depending on

the colors and background, but I think it can give a perceptible border to a subject that

makes it seem fake or just flat, and prevents it from being perceived in a realist manner in

its context.

 

Just my theory, but I've zoomed in on lots of digital photos and seen the fringing. I have

files from a friend's Canon G-6, which takes pretty good shots, but the fringing is obvious.

I see little of this on scanned files from my F-1 with prime lenses.

Not sure how relevant this is, but when I see 'flat' images with my cameras, it's usually because I screwed up the exposure, and it got 'fixed' by being brought up. It just doesn't look as good as if I got it right. I think (looking at histogram) it's because the total dynamic range got compressed because I didn't get enough light across the entire range. My thinking anyway.

 

So, my observation would be to check your metering, and check the histogram to see the total range of exposure.

 

Just a thought, FWIW.

 

pat

It is true that the default digital images produced by most dslr's are "flatter" I find that most will slightly underexpose to preserve highlights that will otherwise be blown out (ie: a bright sky in the background).Digitals images usually require more work in Photoshop or other editing programs to get the right balance of brightness. Also, the default white balance may be contributing to washed out images. These differences are especially apparent if you are comparing digital to negative film images which can capture a woderrange of dark and light tones than slide film or digital.