Jump to content

Film's character and depth


Recommended Posts

It seems to me that every time I see a photo from a digital camera, It looks

like it doesn't have the depth backwards. It always looks a little cartoonish or

something. Film, too me, always looks more deep, rich, and in general to have

more character than digital(even with software). I guess I always associate it

with digital audio and good analog audio. What are your opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that way to me, too -- that's probably why we're here instead of at the Digital Darkroom, though I do participate there as well. The image captured on film arguably has less latitude, even with print film, but there's a subtlety about film that digital doesn't seem to have that appeals to those of us who prefer that look. Maybe it's my age or because I've used film for so long, but digitally captured images have a sort of plastic, over-the-top saturation that many people prefer, especially those who've come to photography via the digital route.

 

Having said that, I've found that scanned film printed digitally is magnificent and exceeds anything an individual can do in a wet darkroom. Recent developments in inkjet technology and materials have bridged the gap between the silver gelatin print and its digital counterpart.

 

In fairness, I do think our appreciation of photography or sound has a lot to do with the standards we developed when we were first engaged by them. There's much to be said for digital photography, but those who haven't tried it will find nothing redeeming about it: the same's true with digital vs. analog sound. Kids brought up listening to their tunes on a digital boombox would find the sound of an LP coming from an analog amp scratchy and lacking that whiz-bang quality they prefer in their music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes this difference is very obvious, and sometimes not so much, depending on the lighting and subject. But yes, 80% of the times I can usually tell which is a digital and which is a film image.

 

That's why you still have a choice what to shoot. But be carefull what words you use when describing the difference, because you might start another war.

 

Let's just say, both have their own look and leave it at that.

 

Which do you prefer will be possible to tell from the equipment and materials you are using yourself.

 

I myself prefer the look of film for any artistic images, but

when you just want to photographs something to document it, I'd prefer digital.

 

Of course, "art" is a relative thing, so I wouldn't say film is more artistic, let's just say its more "dreamy", more like a dream or memory, more distanced from objective reality.

 

Digital is too accurate and realistic for my taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><i>"Film, too me, always looks more deep, rich, and in general to have more character than digital(even with software)."</i></p>

 

<p>Before I answer, please, oh please, don't let this devolve into yet another "my format's better than your's" thread. That said...</p>

 

<p>I've been shooting film for over 30 years (and still shoot it and love it), and quality digital for over 6 now and, no, I absolutely do not agree. Well shot digital, using equivalent quality gear and technique will also look deep, rich and full of character.</p>

 

<p>Are there differences? Sure, but not nearly the differences that I see claimed by those who seem bound to stake out format fortresses on one side or the other. Leaving aside the question of visible grain (which is, remember, an <i>artifact</i> of film, though one we've come to accept and even use as part of an image's aesthetic), those differences are going to be most noticeable at resolution limits, when prints are made at sizes pushing a format's boundaries."</p>

 

<p>The so-called "digital look", often characterized as cartoonish or plastic, is simply poorly implemented digital. Poorly shot and/or processed film looks bad too, though in different ways.</p>

 

<p>While most clients have to know, most outsiders who look at my work don't have a clue what I've shot digitally and what on film.</p>

 

<p>Most simply don't care.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that amateurish film-based photos look very different from amateurish digital photos? If so, you are 100% correct. I would offer that amateur digital is superior in many ways to amateur film photography. There are so many more opportunities to give people what they want from their picture-taking.

 

On the other hand, there is no difference between professional film and digital. In this case the photo is in the hands of a competent artist who can manipulate, optimize, and direct it into many different forms.

 

Sure, a photographer can use film to accentuate its characteristics. They can do the same with digital. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about prints of a typical postcard-type shot aka 'the perfect picture'. You would be unable to tell the difference between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cartoon oversaturated colors are the result of people with poor taste. They are the same ones who bought the supersaturated films because they liked the look. Same reason why all the colors/contrast are jacked up on television displays in the stores.

 

It is not necessary to do this with digi and quite normal portrait film pictures can be made with digi. I will attach a a portrait setting with a point and shoot Canon with all the settings at normal. No Photoshop was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't belive some people have written and tried to say they see no differnce between the two formats.There is definatly a difference,digital seems a bit smoother or plasticy but I find that works great for portrait work and most people seem to like it.If they don't like it or they don't want digital (which doesn't happen often)then I shoot slides or b&w film.Either way I think both have a slightly differnt look and feel to them and enjoy shooting either way.Digital IS NOT better than film as some will have you belive,but film quality(35mm) IS NOT better than digital as others would say.They are both excellent formats that when used correctly produce great images.I hope film is not dead as some like to say because as long as it's around I'll continue to use both formats to get the results I want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following these film and digital posts for some time now and the only conclusion

I can draw, is that the format with which one is most familiar seems to work the best. In

my case, I find it much easier to get exhibition quality prints from good scans of 35 mm

slides/negs. than my attempts at RAW conversions. I use digital a lot, particularly for

general photog., but if I'm going int the field, I prefer 35 mm film. I don't know whether

it's the larger 24 x 36 mm image vs. 15.7 x 25 mm, or what, but I do find that film after

scanning seems to have more depth. Just my $.02. I'm sure there are others whose

mileage will differ.

 

Likewise, my younger colleagues, look at my film cameras with bewilderment and

fascination and wonder (how did he do that?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently saw an exhibit of 50-60 24x30" prints, all shot in similar lighting by two excellent photographers. All were printed by the same lab and the quality was first rate. But about half were shot with 6x7 chrome and the other half captured digitally.

 

After I enjoyed the photos, I went back and tried to determine which were captured on 6x7 chrome and which digitally. I absolutely could not tell. A month later that bothered me so much, I drove 60 miles to go back and look again at my leisure. I still have no idea.

 

Hey, I love film. Especially 6x6 and 6x7 (chrome or b&w). That's what I shoot. But that exhibit caused me to pull out my D70 and give it a try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>Film, too me, always looks more deep, rich, and in general to have more character than digital(even with software).</I><P>

 

The problem with such statements is that terms such as "deep", "rich", and "character" have no real meaning. They might mean one thing to you, something slightly diffent to a second person, and something drastically different to a third. Therefore, I don't think they provide even a meaningful, much less a very useful, standard of comparison.<P>

 

Somewhat (only somewhat) better terms include ones like mid-tone contrast, spectral response / spectral sensitivity, highlight clipping versus shoulder versus extended response, etc. But even these are qualitative unless backed by rigorous testing.<P>

 

Do film and digital look different? Sometimes, but not invariably and probably not (or at least not much) most of the time. In my experience, the biggest or most obvious differences have to do with 35mm B&W film grain versus digital cleanliness, especially at ISO 400 and above. Another big difference, as already mentioned, is digital's readiness to correct white balance. That's quite a help to those of us who shoot available light at home under incandescent lamps.<P>

 

But I would submit that most of the time, where film and digital look different, (1) digital is, on the whole, more realistic, and therefore, on the whole, better; and (2) a skilled Photoshop user can manipulate a raw digital file into looking very much like a film picture, especially with color.<P>

 

Don't get me wrong. I think film is still better in some areas. But what those areas are is somewhat hard to pin down; digital is closing in more and more every day. I think that those who get results with film that they prefer should use it. But they should view film as s tool with which they can get the results they like best. There's a litte too much voodoo / religion to some of these discussions.<P>

 

As for me, these days I use a DSLR for 95%+ of my shooting. If I wanted something like a group picture to be printed 11x14 or larger, I would use my film 6x6 instead of my 6 MP DSLR. If I knew I wanted B&W and wanted the best B&W I could achieve today, I'd again go for the 6x6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>Wyman, do you ever notice how the distant stuff seems to compress or something with digital.</I><P>

 

Do you mean that digital has more depth of field? If you mean a compact digital verus 35mm, MF, or LF film, that's absolutely true; compact digital cameras have very great depth of field (due to their very small sensors using lenses of very short focal length, in absolute terms).<P>

 

But you absolutely cannot judge digital by compact digitals, which by and large are not the tools of the serious photographer. If you mean a typical DSLR (Sony, Nikon, Pentax) with a 1.53x factor, the different is more subtle; all else being equal, the digital has only about 1.25 stops more depth of field, which is usually a relatively subtle difference that can be overcome. And of course, the Canon and Kodak (and Contax?) full-frame DSLR's have the same depth of field as 35mm film.<P>

 

And last but not least, differences in depth of field are hardly a film-versus-digital thing. 35mm film has substantially more DoF than does MF film, and MF film has substantially more depth of field than LF film does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say, it would be quite surprising, if digital and analog looked the same. Both have very distinct contrast curves. Digital has a very long "toe", but steep highlights which leads to bad highlight dynamics and bad colour seperation in very light colours.

 

In a digital capture, sharpening is absolutely neccessary, and gives a differnt sharpness impression than an unmanipulated analog print.

Also, digital pictures, which are not shot at minimum ISO, need denoising, and this ALWAYS removes structural details and smoothes otherwise rough surfaces.

 

Add Bayer interpolation, which always corrupts details.

 

When "film" prints look like digital, they do so because they were scanned and printed, and the operator tried to copy the "en-vogue" digital look by overdoing colour manipulation, de-noiseing and sharpening.

 

I am still amazed what fantastic look could be created just by chemistry, while digital which should have (in theory) unlimited capacity for calibration still looks strange at many motivs. In my eyes, a good digital print is still no match for a good (!) analog print. But, BTW, it is much easier and faster to produce a useable picture under most circumstances by using digital.

 

A lot of people prefer the artificial, clean sound of a digital piano over the natural one. All the "Aaahs" and "Ooohs" in the photo.net-galery for plastic birds and plastic landscapes speak the same languange. That' s just the way it is.

 

Thankfully we amateurs do not have to sell our stuff.

 

Regards

 

Georg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question asked me earlier,the main differnce I notice (IMO) is a slightly smoother and cleaner look to things that should show a hint of texture (skin, rocks, etc). The other thing is blown highlights with digital look terrible especially with B&W.I read someone mention colors earlier looking a bit off but I think with digital that varies from camera to camera and also varies from film to film with film,I don't find the color thing a problem.I find the smoother and cleaner look of digital is good for portrait work which is what I use it for.I tried shooting landscapes with it but was happier with the results I got from slides.Also black and white I always shoot with film.I find even if its scanned and printed it still looks better than B&W from the digital camera.I'm sure someone will say they can photoshop the crap out of something and it will look the same(to them).But I can't justify spending time sitting in front of the computer tring to get something I can get with good exposure and firing the shutter with film,but thats just me.The person who mentioned going to the gallery earlier,chances are the film pictures were scanned (AND) photoshoped because thats about the only way you wouldn't be able to tell the differnce between digital and 6x7 film.But then again he could have one of those $40,000 medium format digis,I have not seen images from those so can not comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations to Dave Redmann for being the first to identify the depth of field difference as one of the technical reasons why film and digital have different looks. I'd like to expand on that. There is also a problem with wide aperture lenses with digital. If the digital sensor were flat (like film) a photographer could use a wide aperture lens to get the same selective focus (lack of depth of field) as in a film camera. Since the digital pixels are not flat, there is a limit on how wide the aperture cam be. If the light is coming from a shallow angle, then some of the light gets shadowed by the three dimensional structure around each pixel.

 

Another problem with DSLR's is that most are built to use the same lenses as film cameras yet most have smaller sensors. A 35mm lens would be a normal lens for many DSLR cameras. While it is easy to find f/1.4 50mm lenses, it is hard to find an aperture this wide in a 35mm lens. It is not impossible, but the spacing between the sensor and the lens mount (which is a holdover from film cameras) makes it hard to design a wide aperture short focal length lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also posting this on my photoblog at http://mawz.livejournal.com

 

Film and Digital are two very different things. Each has some significant advantages. for this, I'm only comparing 35mm film to 35mm-type DSLR's. I'm essentially ignoring digital P&S's as well as medium format digital and large format scanning backs.

 

Film's Advantages:

 

1. Far more control over the basic respons of the sensor/film. With digital, you're essentially locked into one of the similar sensor types. You've got Canon's CMOS sensor line (Differing MP and performance, but very similar colour response across the 5 current sensors), Sony's 6 and 10MP sensors (Used in all Pentax and Sony/Minolta DSLR's as well as Nikon's low and mid-range DSLR's) and Panasonic's Live-MOS sensor (used in most 4/3rds DSLR's). There are a few outliers (Fuji's own sensor, Leica's two oddballs, Foveon's in the essentially dead Sigma line, Nikon's CMOS and LBCAST pro sensors, etc) but the vast majority of sensors are those three families, each of which is fairly similar in basic response. With film, you have literally dozens of different emulsions, each with it's own unique signature. You can easily handpick films for your exact needs. Need saturated greens and high contrast? shoot velvia. Need a classic B&W look, go for Tri-X or HP5+. Need to look like Canon digital? Superia Reala. With Digital, you're pretty well stuck with a particular colour sensitivity when you buy the body. Sure you can post-process, but scanned film can be post-processed as well.

 

2. No Speed/Resolution dichotomy. Unlike digital, where you have to give up resolution to get high fps rates, with film you can have as much as 13.5fps while still using the highest resolving emulsions (you'll get better results shooting single-shot on a tripod of course, but you can switch back and forth on the same body). With digital you need to pick between high resolution and high speed, with the sole exception of the Nikon D2X/D2Xs bodies which allow you do give up field of view for speed with their 2x crop High Speed Crop mode, but that's very much an exception. And getting reasonable performance (fast AF, 4-5fps) is relatively cheap because it doesn't massively drive up the cost of the body. 3fps can be achieved by all but the cheapest bodies (Most mf bodies with a winder can do it, low-end AF bodies usually can't). Also your buffer sizes are much more generous on film, with the smallest being 12 frames (12 exposure rolls) and 24-36 being common.

 

3. Better wide-angle performance. Full-frame 35mm bodies are limited by physics on their corner performance as they are only sensitive to light which strikes the sensor near the perpendicular. Film is sensitive to any light which hits the film, at any angle that doesn't pass through the anti-halation backing. This means that film is much less sensitive to certain issues with ultra-wide angle lenses. Especially the widest rectilinear lenses (the Voightlander 12mm f5.6, which can't actually be mounted on any DSLR, only Nikon bodies with true mirror lockup and the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6). If you shoot wider than 24mm, and need the best corner performance, be prepared to buy the most expensive wide lenses (Leica R 19/2.8, Carl Zeiss 21/2.8) if you want good performance on FF digital. And past 18mm or so, leave it to film, as the corner performance gets even worse.

 

4. Exposure latitude. Film, particularly Colour Negative film, has far more exposure latitude than digital. Digital has almost no tolerance for overexposure and very little for underexposure unless you want significant noise. B&W negative film can easily be developed according to need, pushing or pulling film is easy and common. Fast C-41 colour film can tolerate 1-2 stops of underexposure and still give a usable image.

 

5. Capital costs. Good film gear is cheaper than digital, with used pro cameras costing about the same as low/mid-range digital bodies(A used F5 or EOS 1v will cost you the same as a new D70s or Rebel XT). Also wide-angles are much cheaper for a given field of view, as the full-frame DSLR's need top-end glass to get performance similar to mid-range glass on film, and cropped-frame bodies need much shorter lenses for the same field of view, which cost more. It's a lot cheaper to buy an AF 20mm than to buy a 14mm to get the same FoV on 1.5x sensors (Pentax excepted, as they do make a 14/2.8 for cropped sensor bodies that's reasonably priced).

 

6. Battery independance. Film cameras don't necesarily need batteries. Get a mechanical camera and your meter batteries are good for 1-2 years, and it still works without them. No worries about dead batteries when you're in the boonies with such a beast.

 

7. Compactness. No digital can match the size/performance ratio of an Olympus OM or similar sized SLR, let alone a Leica CL or a Yashica T4 P&S's tiny size. While Digital P&S's can beat them on size, they don't offer the performance benefits of compact film cameras (which can use the same film as their larger brethren).

 

Digital's advantages:

 

1. Speed. You can produce finished images out of the camera in a pinch. A must for PJ's and sports shooters who can upload images before the event is even over. Film must be developed, which inherently slows things down. For the amateur and student you get instant feedback.

 

2. Incidental costs. There essentially are none for digital. Film has a per-frame cost due to buying film and paying for either chemicals or development. Digital has essentially no cost after you buy the camera (I consider storage & print costs to be irrelevant, as both require the expenditure).

 

3. Per-shot ISO. Unlike film, where you're stuck with an ISO or EI per roll, with digital you can select ISO per image, within the range of the camera. Of course, the ISO range is much more restricted (50-3200 at best vs 6-6400 on most good film bodies). This can matter in fast changing light. In fact you can now even have ISO-priority AE on the Pentax K10D with it's Sv mode.

 

4. High ISO performance. While Film gets more latitude for exposure mistakes, Digital simply produces cleaner images at high ISOs. 800 on a 6MP camera like the Nikon D50 will match or beat 400 speed film. At 1600 there simply is no comparison, a good sensor produces better colour and more detail. That said, sufficient exposure is necessary and Digital loves overexposure, right until you start hitting saturation limits (and then it all goes to crap).

 

5. Storage. You can get far more images in a given amount of physical storage with digital. All you need to shoot for an entire vacation is a couple of decent sized cards (2-4GB) and a paperback sized image tank. That would handle the same number of images as a backpack full of film canisters.

 

6. Better battery tech. Apart from the Nikon F6 (which can use the same batteries as the pro D2X and D2H in it's MB-40 grip) no AF film camera offers the modern battery tech of today's LiIon rechargables that are so common among DSLR's. This means you're stuck with either poor shelf life (NiMH in AA or packs) or memory (NiCd) issues with rechargable batteries on film. And many film cameras use the over-priced Lithium cells in various forms (CR-V3, CR2 or CR123 typically) which re difficult to find outside of the city. Higher-end film bodies and most older manual focus bodies lack this issues thankfully, using AA's or SR44/S76 type batteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good summary Adam, to which I'll add for digital's advantage - the adjustable white

balance. However, I still prefer my ancient Nikon FE2, plus three lenses, 24, 35, and 135

mm for rough and tumble backpack backcountry travel. The FE2 offers the combo of

small size, durability, speed (set it on A, and just read the shutter speed in the finder), that

I have yet to duplicate in digital at any cost. The distance markings on the MF primes make

for quick focus. I have a Nikon D70s and have gone on an endless quest for lenses to

equal the IQ of the fore-mentioned primes. I've very seriously considered the $$$$$ for a

D200, but it's time for a pause.

 

I'm headed out to Papantla, Veracruz, Mexico in a few weeks to record indigenous dances,

and I'm likely to take just the FE2 and F100, and leave the digital at home. No chargers,

readers, laptops, etc. K.I.S.S. If it were a wedding, family event, school function, etc. I'd

use the dSLR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>[D]igital pictures, which are not shot at minimum ISO, need denoising . . . .</I><P>

 

This is absolutely not true. I have never seen the need to do anything about digital noise at any sensitivity other than ISO 3200. Digital noise is similar to or less than film grain at any speed / sensitivity, <I>especially</I> at high sensitivity. I have compared 35mm Fuji Superia 1600, Konica Centuria Super 1600, and Ilford Delta 3200 (at 1600, 2000, 3200, and 6400) with ISO 1600 and 3200 pictures from my Maxxum 5D 6 MP DSLR, and the digital is much cleaner.<P>

 

The statement about digital noise suggests your frame of reference / point of comparison is with compact digitals, which is being grossly unfair to digital. How about if we limited film users to a Minox?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>Film's Advantages . . . Far more control</I><P>

 

I totally disagree. Control is digital's biggest advantage. You can change the color response, contrast, etc., <I>after taking the shot</I>, which you cannot do (or can't do much) with film. Also, you can fairly precisely control colors, cropping, etc. in a way that is somewhat difficult to do even with a custom lab and nearly impossible to do with a neighborhood photofinisher. With digital, the sensor is just the staring point--try adjustments like curves or even levels.<P>

 

<I>Film's Advantages . . . No Speed/Resolution dichotomy</I><P>

 

Again, this is wrong. In general, faster films have lower resolution. Reala has more resolution than NPH (I understand Pro 400H is the same emulsion). Provia 100F has more resolution than Provia 400F. TMX (T-Max 100) has more resolution than TMY (T-Max 400). Just look at the film manufacturers' own specifications--the data sheets are there for download at their web sites. If we use the standard measure (MTF response at 50%), we see that Reala is about 10% higher resolution than NPH, Provia 100F is about 20% higher resolution than Provia 400F, and TMX is about 20% higher resolution than TMY. Digital SLR's are likely to preserve more resolution than that. Again, don't treat all digital as if it were from a compact digicam that combines pixels at high sensitivities to reduce noise (and with it resolution).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, everyone, let's not digress, the issue here is about "film look" vs "digital look", not generally why this digital camera and that digital workflow is better than that film camera and this and that lens, etc...

 

I think people talk alot about "film look" and "digital look" but I yet have to see someone define what that means. Where are the pictures in this thread?

 

I my experience, yes, some films, especially slide films have color response that are not as easy to obtain from a digital camera. My two samples of "film look" would be

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4072130 (Sensia)

 

and

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4072130 (Kodak 100GX)

 

As hard as I tried to get a similar "look" from my new Rebel XTi I still haven't managed. Maybe it's my inexperience - I would welcome similar/conflicting samples/oppinions from fellow photographers. Let's see your photos! But let's leave equipment out of the picture (pun intended)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why digital and film folks can't find a common language is because most people who love digital see quality in "correct" images with natural color reproduction, high sharpness and resolution. In other words realistic images. All things which can be gained by shooting film too with some skill, but that's not the whole point of shooting film.

The more perfect film gets, the less reason there is to use it (because there's always digital for perfect images)

 

Why do some people still record, or rerecord to analog tapes and back to digital, because they distort, and leave character to the sound.

 

Same way film leaves a character to the image, it distorts it in an attractive (to some) way.

 

Sometimes a badly processed roll of film is a work of art, sometimes it's junk, sometimes fading or underexposure can bring an interesting twist to a frame, sometimes it's a mistake

 

It seems to me some people are trying a little too much to be photographers, making sure everything is just perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...