Film vs Digital: How much cleaner is it ?

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>It sounds like a person can spend a lot of time fixing something they would have discarded in film. It seems like the slik purse, sow's ear argument, accept in digital editing, you can make a purse out of it, given enough effort. How much time do you spend just enhancing a good shot ? What percentage need lots of time to make right ?</p>

<p>I have to believe THIS is why beginners, who upgrade from a P&S camera are disappointed with a DSLR. The shots don't look right, directly out of the camera. This seems unintuitive. The more you spend the more you have to WORK to make the results look good.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The trouble here in Europe is you can't get a medium format dedicated film scanner. Nobody makes them anymore except Hasselblad and they cost a fortune.</p>

<p>@John - re: <em>"It sounds like a person can spend a lot of time fixing something they would have discarded in film..." and "The shots don't look right, directly out of the camera..."</em></p>

<p>No. IMHO, you have it backwards. In the old days, when shooting film, all of us would probably have been perfectly happy with a hypothetical shot of the level you are describing, because (a) the standard was lower in those days, and (b) if you were shooting print film, or printing from chromes, the lab you used was making the corrections that now have become the responsibility of the photographer. If anything, the JPGs that come directly out of digital cameras, because of auto exposure and color, look, on average, considerably better than chromes that come out of even relatively modern film cameras such as the F5.</p>

<p>@Antonio - Yes, I have a happy history with film dating back to the mid 1960's when I began having my images published / purchased. </p>

<p>My comments were not directed to a photographer such as yourself who knows both film and digital methods and has made a conscious choice to use film for artistic, emotional, "look", uniqueness, or a host of other reasons. My comments were more directed to the OP who stated that he wasn't a pro (presumably, either commercially or artistically), and who clearly has vastly less experience with digital PP.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It sounds like a person can spend a lot of time fixing something they would have discarded in <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00XhcT?start=100" target="_blank">film</a>. It seems like the slik purse, sow's ear argument, accept in digital editing, you can make a purse out of it, given enough effort.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, you can't make steak out of hamburger no matter how fancy your stove is. Photoshop can't turn bad light into good or save you from compositional mistakes. However, there are a lot of tools at your disposal in the digital world. For instance, you can vary color saturation and contrast easily. With film, you do this by selecting the right film in the first place. With digital post processing, you can make these decisions after the fact.</p>

<p>You can blend multiple photos into a single image. These could be wide panorama shots, focus stacks where the camera focuses at different distances to the camera, or stacks of different exposure values so the bright sky and dark foreground both come out clearly.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How much time do you spend just <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00XhcT?start=100" target="_blank">enhancing</a> a good shot ? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me, personally? Probably somewhere between three and ten minutes. I typically adjust contrast, white balance, sharpening, and color. I usually add lens correction (to delete unwanted distortion, vignetting, and chromatic abberation) and a dash of cropping or straightening (it's not uncommon to be off by half a degree when hand-holding shots). If I haven't used a T/S lens I might adjust perspective control a bit. I might remove a bird from the sky or larger freckles from someone's face, and I'll clone out sensor dust spots if they exist. I might lighten or darken a section of the image using simple editing tools, and I might decided to burn the edges a bit if I want a classic look.</p>

<p>If this process takes much more than ten minutes, though, I would probably abandon the image and move onto the next one. There is a point of diminishing returns, and after a while the image will just start to look over-processed. Some people don't mind an over-processed look, but it doesn't suit the style that I want to convey.</p>

<p>Using Lightroom, I can copy adjustments from one image to another very, very easily. If I took thirty shots in the same light, I can set them all to the same white balance and contrast once I set these values for one image. This kind of processing economy does not exist in the film world.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What percentage need lots of time to make right ?<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not many. Just the ones where I need to combine shots (not that often) or do a demanding edit to save the photo (very infrequently). I shoot to get the image right in camera for the most part. But that's my preferred workflow. Other digital shooters love to monkey around for hours in Photoshop, so they do things differently. I don't think their shots look any better than mine, but I suppose that they have reasons for all of that tweaking. I'd rather just get the post-processing over with so I can go out and shoot some more.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have to believe THIS is why beginners, who upgrade from a P&S camera are disappointed with a <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00XhcT?start=100" target="_blank">DSLR</a>. The shots don't look right, directly out of the camera. This seems unintuitive. The more you spend the more you have to WORK to make the results look good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All digital cameras (P&S, DSLR, etc.) create something called a thumbnail, a small version of the photo that has been fully rendered with all of the camera settings. This thumbnail will look "correct" right out of the camera if you have chosen the correct optimization settings (like selecting the right film and filters). If you decide that this version looks right, you have no more work to do except to save the file as a JPEG, TIFF, or some other useful format.</p>

<p>The work begins if and when you want the image to have a different look than the thumbnail's version. You'll have to dig into the raw file and process it from scratch. This can seem daunting at first, but as you gain experience you'll learn tricks and procedures that help streamline the process.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Dan.</p>

<p>That makes sense.</p>

<p> </p>

John. What I think your are really asking is that is a move to digitial worth it as a major culture change for you. I think there is a significant learning curve. I closed my film photo business in 2002 and converted to digital for my own use thereafter.. The business was all film including 645 for wedding formals. I thought that digital would be much easier. It is not - because in some ways of all I have had to learn about lighroom and photoshop and digital printing. I still go regularly to Lynda on line for classes on PS and LR. There a vast number of classes just on Lightroom and CS-5. This is, of course, by choice. I am much more creative with digital because I don't have to make a new print in a smelly and hot darkroom which could take maybe a half hour or when I miss on the color balance. I printed color. I can now make changes on the fly in seconds when needed and to a number of photos at the same time. The long and short of it is that I can make many more showable color prints because they take one tenth the time of my darkroom prints. I have made showable prints with 6MP from a Canon D60. I have considerably improved my equipment inventory since the D60. I shoot swimming at 3200 ISO on a 5D in bad light because I get usable pictures for printing and posting out of that now old full frame body. I used to shoot newspaper sports with TMax 3200 that were grainy and looked muddy in print. From a practical standpoint usable high ISO capability has improved considerably with digital. We used to push TMax 400 to 800 and thought it was a big deal. Now you just change the dial. I no longer have a darkroom; just a good printer the latest PS and Lightroom. To be honest I have made some very nice digital prints by scanning 645 transparencies (velvia) but I don't like to scan that much and it is not as fast as processiing digital directly. I don't care which is better at the pixel level. What is important to me about digitial is the ability to quickly batch process pictures, the enormous flexibility in photoshop and LR, and the great control I have over process. My wedding business was active enough during certain times of the year that I could not do my own processing and it is hell to wait and wonder if my film weddings came out from outside processing. I used to fly airplanes with tail wheels and round engines and they were a lot of fun. Film for me was a lot of fun and very interesting but tempis fugit and pilots no longer have to learn how not to ground loop a tail wheel airplane and put up with the torque of a big round engine. They have become increasingly digital with automation assuming more and more of their duties. I still love old cars and would like to have my extensive array of Bronicas back except for carrying six backs to a wedding and having to reload the damn things on the fly during the wedding. It is much easier to change a card. My backs held fifteen frames. I would never enter into the image argument because I have gotten commercially usable pictures from both. As an old pilot who is used to complex equipment I think that digital has a level of complexity that I did not expect when I first went into but damn some of the results I get are really exciting. Having said all that I could go back to film and be quite comfortable. I don't think there is any winner here. Just a culture change and a learning curve.

<p>What really stands out is... comparsions on this post are made through <digitized> film pictures (to be shown on the computer screen) with native digital pictures - to me, a sort of a 'twist'. I a have done a 'lot' of pictures with film, in the past, but nowdays, only digital. My desktop 'lab' is very demanding and satisfying. And I have made quite large blow-ups - 1,5 x 2 metres - from Iso 1600 digital shots, 4/3 format, that with adequate processing are quite in order, relating to resolution & noise & colour. By the way, good glass is a must! - David Pennington, Brazil.</p>

<p><strong>Dick</strong><br>

You are right about everything. However, you speak from a pro point of view. I am not a pro and don't have to deal with fast production and demanding clients and I realized that for me it is more exciting and absorbing to shoot with film than it is with digital for a few reasons, first of all the fact that I have limited shots and I cannot see my pics until after development, that is a key factor in the success of the shooting. This "handicap" forces me to observe and think a lot more than I would do with a digital camera.This is for me the main reason why I am not switching to digital, besides the fact that in order to match my analog gear I need to spend serious money. Pixels and grain don't really bother me, I actually use them for more artistic or graphic purposes.</p>

<p>I also want to add that for me there is no practical difference between film and digital because I use both of them for different purposes. Some photos I must do with film, no question about it. The same with digital. They are different media and cannot be compared (IMO).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that I have limited shots and I cannot see my pics until after development, that is a key factor in the success of the shooting. This "handicap" forces me to observe and think a lot more than I would do with a digital camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a good point, and I feel the same way. The immediate feedback of digital is extremely helpful for a professional assignment when you need to know that you "got the shot." But for a personal project, the "sensory deprivation" of not seeing your film output until hours, days, or weeks later can be a powerful (if not humbling) tool in the creative arsenal. For metering, focus, and composition, you get no second chances. It has to be RIGHT.</p>

<p>The excitement that I feel when I walk into my lab to pick up a set of chromes is uniquely wonderful and more than a little terrifying. If you have done your job correctly, that moment is like Christmas morning for grown-ups. And if you haven't, you realize quickly that a lot of time, effort, and planning has just gone down the drain.</p>

<p><strong>Dan</strong><br>

Exactly. That's why digital and film cannot be comparable, they are different media that serve different purposes.</p>

<p>Now, to go back to practical, I believe the economical side is also important. Many say that film is too expensive and digital is more convenient; in terms of practical everyday use, digital is definitely the right choice but in terms of money I am going to go ahead and disagree. I pay about 30 bucks for 50 sheets of Ilford RC (24x30) and the same for 25 sheets of baryta paper, that is still much better than the best digital printer paper you can find. Then I need 10 bucks for each 3 liquids and my enlarger I got for 35 bucks at second-hand store. In the darkroom, I can make about 10 gallery-quality fine art prints out of a 25 pack. How much are you going to pay for 10 state-of-the-art digital prints of that size done by a good lab? I'll tell you, at least 20 or 30 bucks each. And a printer able to get you real professional results is well over 1000 bucks. Then a good computer, a good screen, a good software... all of which needs to be changed after a few years...</p>

<p>Film too expensive? Sorry, I don't buy it. It's just another false excuse to make consumers spend tons of money in technological toys and use 10 percent of their capabilities.</p>

<p><strong>John W.</strong></p>

<p><a href="../photo/10279437" target="_blank"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10279437-sm.jpg" alt="" /></a> <a href="../photo/11901257" target="_blank"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11901257-sm.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p>(Click to open in new tab) First image is shot in very low light with no tripod; Ilford Delta 3200, very grainy film and very rich and expressive if used properly. Second photo is shot with a Canon 40D and 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM (bad in low light) also with no tripod; the image is a lot cleaner but also a totally different thing. It would be difficult to reproduce in Photoshop the beautiful grain you see in the first picture. Possible but the results would be artificial. Grain is not necessarily bad, it depends what you want. Regards.</p>

<p>Well, if you need a digital just to know if you have an image or not than you are not much of a photographer or a profesional. I can ecxapt pro using it for vinning time but else?<br>

And even if you have a digi and working on the streets or if you are a phtotoriporter and missing your picture you vill never gonna get your second chance. Things happen fast and one second is not like the other. So what you wanna see? You can't se the results of the missed image anyway.<br>

Just look into my street shuts uploaded here and tell me which image you think you could have had a second chance.</p>

<p>BTW: If you are taking pictures of dead things than you do have enough time to think so you can make it right, don't need to check anything. When you walk into that lab or develop the film by yourself you know that you got your image don't you?</p>

<p>The digital is cleaner, but you can can clean your film images up with software like Neatimage....The film technology is old, so you'll save $$$ in the long run without having to constantly upgrade......In a few years my $$$ DSLR will become a paper weight.</p>

<p>The film technology is old? Nope. It just had more than 100 years to develop, and still is under development. Kodak and Fuji churn out new emulsions every year, modifying = improving resolution, color rendering, dynamic range.<br>

I've never used Neat Image or any other noise reducer. Printing my scanned files to a size up to 3 x 2 meters (around 9 x 6 foot) delivers great results.<br>

My cameras are between 6 and 22 years young, have always been serviced (either once every two years or every year), and I know they will work the next 20 years. Knowing that film will improve, it is like an upgrade of the sensor.<br>

Cost of film: one assignment pays between 1.500 to 3.000 Euro per day. Even if I use 10 MF films (=80 chromes) the costs are marginal. No need to upgrade any 'RAW' developing software, PhotoSoup or anything like that. <br>

If you master the art of scanning, the results of using film will blow your mind. Who has ever seen a 6x9, 4x5, 5x7 or even 8x10 slide on a light table?<br>

BTW, the chaotic structures of film deliver a much higher resolution than digital. The human eye is made to resolve chaotic structures, but fails when confronted with ironed out mathematical structures (pixels, particularly when enlarged).<br>

I can print a scanned 6x9 slide to 110 x 73 cm or 43" x 28" @ 300 dpi. Try this with any digital system. Not even the MF digibacks come close.<br>

Some people talk about grain. That's what they might see on their computer screens if they blow it up to 400% or higher. But just compare a large format print of 210 x 140 cm made from a film image and a digital file, and you will see that the 'ugly' grain the pixel peepers are talking about deliver much more detail in reality, due to the µ structures and µ contrast.</p>

<p>Yeah one of mine is from 1898 and just got refurbished a couple years ago and I think it's no need to upgrade for another 100 year. :-) And I print everything myself. Why? Because I know how. :-) Don't need mashines and I don't make posters that I leave for the printing industry. I do hand made prints.</p>

<p>I know......I hate forking over $1500+ for a new digital system every 3+years. With the film camera, you buy it once. I do still need digital for the low light high iso areas where film is limited......or too grainy,,,,but $$$$- I'd rather spend in on photographic vacation............</p>