Film vs Digital - Color Rendition

<p>A straight-up film scan, completely without adjustments (or just exposure control), is pretty ugly. It is one step short of a RAW (Nikonscan) or HDR (Silverfast), in which negatives are not inverted. If you have a scanned photo that looks presentable, it has been adjusted, perhaps not deliberately tweaked, but using default controls in the scanning software.</p>

<p>In other words, when Mauro ultimately shows us pretty pictures that look <strong>so </strong>much better than DSLR images, they will invariably have been adjusted in some manner. What is it then, that demonstrates the film "look"? Nothing other than the hand of the photographer.</p>

<p>The following example was the same Ektar 100 negative, taken with an Hasselblad and scanned with a Nikon LS-8000. The left panel is with auto-exposure, but all the boxes in Nikonscan unchecked, and the right panel with automation allowed (but not tweaked).</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a DSLR shot of the same subject, taken with a D2x, presented as it comes out of the camera (via ACR defaults)...</p><div></div>

<p>I skip discussion and straight to the point with my submission for this fun game:</p>

<p>http://www.martynas.org/Other/WEB/Film/1202224029_PTo8v-O.jpg</p>

<p>Huang,<br /> Many thanks for your kind words and insight, your contributions have much merit and have furthered the thread immensely, again, thanks.</p>

<p>I have a "deep passion" in countering some of the utter rubbish that is posted in the film forum, not really, more like a passing inclination. Whenever I post contrary images I am told that they are not right, condescendingly patted on the head and told "it looks quite good but", or even better, the post is just ignored. It is pointless trying to show several of you the capability of current digital cameras, you have completely closed minds, I do it because uncountered misinformation annoys me, sometimes enough that I can be bothered to comment.</p>

<p>The reason I deliberately put "my experiences" in my comments is because that is all I am comfortable saying, I use film and digital cameras, I am not anti film, quite the opposite. I use a 135 format high resolution digital camera a lot though. I have printed and sold a fair number of prints at 20x30 and 24x36. 135 format film can't compete with 135 format digital, in my personal experience. How can I show you my experience? I do not scan my slides, I have had them wet printed, or scanned in house, to Cibachrome for years, or the magazines they went to had them scanned, but they subsequently own the scan, either way I don't own scans of my slides and see no benefit it getting them scanned. Now I just ftp digital files. I can't show you my film images as a digital file and even if I could the method of their digitization becomes the sticking point, that is a classic reply by Mauro, anybody that agrees with my observations is told they don't know how to scan properly and send a few slides to him and he will scan them and show you how wrong you are, how presumptuous! When I compare my 20x30 and 24x36 prints from digital and film side by side, the digital is markedly better.</p>

<p>Now bare in mind when I say "my film" I am normally talking about slide films, I have no input in the way they are processed, I just send exposed rolls off to pro labs. My digital post work is mine and I claim no superior capabilities in that area, just competence, my digital camera is as many others too, it is not special. So "my film" is as anybodies could be, certainly nobody can claim "their film" holds more detail or tonality or whatever, and "my camera" is a standard current model. "My results" have been produced by highly regarded pro labs with vested interests in getting the best results they can, from whatever medium I send them, with experience and equipment I could never hope, or wish, to acquire. To infer better results could be achieved than by the pros I use is misguided at best, but truthfully, smacks of arrogance and bluster.</p>

<p>I know my experiences are all I can express, that is why that is all I do, I don't make rash claims and then ignore countering posts. I don't doubt Mauro's integrity, I do doubt his digital post processing abilities, his methodology and his inclination to present fair and repeatable comparisons particularly in light of his very provocative threads. Why is it wrong for me to question that?</p>

<p>So why did I start posting counters to Mauro's, Dave's and Les's posts occasionally? Because it was pronounced, and agreed upon in one thread, that a 21MP 135 format digital camera couldn't produce a 180kb in line image that compared to a scanned medium format film image for detail and tonality! I am sorry, rubbish like that needs to be held up and exposed as the utter nonsense it is. Now, could you try and explain to me how Dave can be an impartial and equally judged competitor in a competition in which he is highly biased and is also judging? That is the kind of silliness, unfairness and bias that these threads present as OK! It is laughable, don't moan at me because I laugh at it :-)</p>

<p>Here is the Tmax100</p><div></div>

<p>Velvia</p><div></div>

<p>Ektar100</p><div></div>

<p>Potra160nc</p><div></div>

<p>Porta400</p><div></div>

<p>Heres some old Gold 100. I like the colors in this.</p><div></div>

<p>Radek - <em>And where are blue river lines gone ? - river network drawing is clearly visible on velvia scan, but missing on 7D image (actually not missing, but drawn with background color tone instead of blue)</em></p>

<p>I believe that's discussed in the thread. Most of the differences are actually in my copy of the map. The people contributing each had their own copy of that map which is an unfortunate variable.</p>

<p>That said there are one or two river lines which the 7D seemed to miss in terms of color. But I don't know if that was due to the beta nature of ACR. I haven't since reprocessed those test files using the latest ACR. I must be losing interest in these kinds of tests and debates.</p>

<p>Les - <em>The area shows precisely the processing degradation that happens when you try to sharpen detail lacking from the digital capture that the film resolved. </em></p>

<p>No. It shows the degradation that occurs when you view the samples under excessive digital magnification/interpolation. More than half the pixels in that particular 7D screen sample were PS created during enlargement. That degrades the overall resolution and IQ. This was discussed in the thread.</p>

<p><em>Just represent the similarly processed file else you might be thought as biased . . . ;-)</em></p>

<p>Those are not the best samples. And they do not show any real color detail. My post was in relation to Mauro's statements about <strong>color</strong> detail and Bayer color sampling/interpolation.</p>

<p><em>Let's have fun with this exercise. It just came to me this is a great opportunity to test those film emulators people rave about and see how close they come to the real film. Do you use any of them? -> That could be your entry.</em></p>

<p>In a few days I could take the time to do this, but I would need to start with the RAW files. (You may have posted a link that I missed. I'm very quickly skimming the thread.)</p>

Scott Ferris,

<p>I assume most of us here are mature enough so I'll skip all the sarcasms as those are again, useless noise. </p>

<p>Let us just concentrate on your point of how to 'contribute' to a thread like this, whether it's to make useful suggestions on methodology, or to point out what method is flawed, or even to participate. The least relevant would be "my experience count more than yours because I earn 100 Million from selling my digital photo or 1000 magazines used my digital photo" kind of silly statement as you could throw credentials however you like, it still won't change the fact that my experience tell me what I know and I believe plenty of us do agree on this point. </p>

<p>Isn't it silly to have an argument as you mentioned when you have your points countered by the others claiming how they use their standard to measure against yours, and yet you use your own benchmark or experience as the ultimate to say what other have to say as 'utter rubbish'? Isn't that equally condescending? To me, your experience could very much be 'utter rubbish' (I'm not saying it literally, but use it as an example how it'd sound like with role reversed) because you can't extract more than what a 21MP digital camera can from a medium format film. I certainly can. Many of us can. But you don't see me (I don't know about Mauro, Les, Dave or anyone. Do you guys do that?) jumping into a digital forum and announce to everyone there that Medium Format film has a higher resolution than 5DII as if Christopher Colombus found America, and tell them to shut up since all their experience is 'utter rubbish'. Remember how LL say 3MP D30 is better than 135, 6MP D60 is close or better than Medium Format, and latest, 80MP better than 8x10? And many think of LL as the point of reference in photography so what they say MUST BE TRUE! If you can do better with digital, fine, but it's not the gold standard. So does anyone who can get better result with film. </p>

<p><em>I can't show you my film images as a digital file and even if I could the method of their digitization becomes the sticking point, that is a classic reply by Mauro, anybody that agrees with my observations is told they don't know how to scan properly and send a few slides to him and he will scan them and show you how wrong you are, how presumptuous! When I compare my 20x30 and 24x36 prints from digital and film side by side, the digital is markedly better.</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

When you brought up the point of scanning as mentioned by Mauro, could you explain how on earth did he extract the level of detail that he showed in many of the previous thread? Anyone with the slightest background of scientific theory would have formulated an outcome that it's either:</p>

<p>a. There is really that much detail in film, you and many other can't extract it out.</p>

<p>b. Mauro is lying, he crop the digital file so much as to use 1 MP against the full area of 35mm maybe?</p>

<p>So which one is true? Or a combination of many other factors, like none equal playing ground as many have cried foul on the previous thread of "high ISO film vs digital", now with the handicap on the film?</p>

<p>At one point you say</p>

<p><em>I don't doubt Mauro's integrity, I do doubt his digital post processing abilities, his methodology and his inclination to present fair and repeatable comparisons particularly in light of his very provocative threads. </em></p>

<p>Latter on you say</p>

<p><em>I am sorry, rubbish like that needs to be held up and exposed as the utter nonsense it is.</em></p>

<p>Sounds very much to me you're questioning Mauro's integrity.... And "How presumptuous" were your words, but use against your own line of "doubt his post processing abilities". Ouch...</p>

<p>Lastly, just in case you do not understand this thread being a competition, there's no such thing as "digital wins" or "film wins". The result is solely base on how closely the participants could adjust the colour from the digital sample to match with Mauro's original scans. You seemed to have a preset mind on this must be a 'digital sucks, viva la film' thread since it's started by the (in)famous Mauro. You also seemed to form a very biased opinion about Mauro's 'evil intention' that even before the match is started you already cry foul (isn't that the 'completely closed mind' you said?) This part you should pick up. Notice here the results is based on<strong> how close it matches</strong> the original file, not <strong>how much better it looks</strong> than the 'crappy digital files'... Who cares if you change green to red or blue to yellow, as long as it matches the <strong>ORIGINAL</strong> the best! Even you could participate. So the question about Dave being a judge is just a none issue raised by you.</p>

<p><em>That is the kind of silliness, unfairness and bias that these threads present as OK! It is laughable, don't moan at me because I laugh at it :-)</em></p>

<p>Now does all these sound silly, unfair and bias when the so call point of contentions were never there to start with? Now that is what makes me laugh... :-)<em><br /></em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Scott Ferris said - So why did I start posting counters to Mauro's, Dave's and Les's posts occasionally? Because it was pronounced, and agreed upon in one thread, that a 21MP 135 format digital camera couldn't produce a 180kb in line image that compared to a scanned medium format film image for detail and tonality!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Scott, could you point out the post where I said a 21mp camera couldn't produce a 180kb file that would match a MF scan? You come to this thread acting some some kind of savior to correct all of our bias, etc. I can tell you this much, I have never said anything like that at all in any thread. If you're going to make up information to further some axe to grind, don't include me in your fabrication. What you have posted there is an outright fabrication. Period. </p>

<p>If you wish to participate in this thread then feel free to do so and have fun doing it. If all you're going to do is make things up, while telling everyone I'm biased, then I don't welcome any input you have.</p>

<p>I go with what I see from film and digital. I don't make things up. I have no need to lie about what I'm seeing to try and convince the world to use something inferior. As to MF vs 21mp digital, that's another discussion. If you're curious, then I'll tell you that for a fine grained film from a good scan....the film will beat the 21mp file. If you disagree, I don't really care.</p>

<p>I'm sorry Mauro, I've had enough nonsense from people like Scott to last a lifetime. I will not participate in this when my integrity is being called into question. Let Scott be the judge. He obviously has more knowledge and experience than any of us biased working pros out there.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p><em>"Now does all these sound silly,"</em></p>

<p>Unfortunately, yes, the subtlety and nuance of what you are trying to communicate is lost in your abilities to convey those sentiments in English (my only competent language), this is not a slight on you, I just don't understand most of what you are saying so I cannot reply to it. I do understand you think I am bad and wrong.</p>

<p>Several things I can say though, I don't assume my experience is more important than yours or Mauro's, I just point out that it is very different.</p>

<p>I am not Michael Reichmann and I did not make claims about early low megapixel digital cameras. Further he has not said a medium format 80mp camera beats an 8x10 film camera, he has set a challenge to compare the two because he thinks it would be interesting. I have no interest in an 8x10 camera or its output so I have nothing but a passing interest in his comparison.</p>

<p>I think the problem I have with Mauro's findings is not his undoubted abilities with a scanner and film, he is obviously very capable in that field, it is with his digital results. My digital results are way different to his, you mentioned the previous thread, what about the difference between my high iso image and his? Nobody addressed that. Am I lying? The image EXIF was intact! The only acknowledgment of it was a condescending "Looks good"!</p>

<p>I still don't see how a competition, set up by a biased individual and judged in part by another one, who is also a competitor, to replicate something that has not been seen, with something they did not take, is anything but a series of guesses. Having a series of guesses is fine if that is what you title it and set out to do with it, but that is NOT a measure of digitals abilities to replicate film colours.<em> <br /></em></p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>If I have offended you then I am truly sorry. I offer an apology and an olive branch. You were not a participant in the thumbnail thread, but in the threads we have all been involved in you have always been solidly in agreement with Mauro.The main protagonist in the thumbnail thread was Q.G. de Bakker, a Photo.Net hero!</p>

<p>I do not portray myself as some kind of saviour, I just occasionally try to stem the torrent of threads from the film forum that have vastly different results to my own. I am not trying to make people change what they use either, I use both, happily, but when film crusaders make constant comparison threads that are unfair and biased I think a counterpoint is needed. I use what I use, I get the results I want and need from that, I don't care that some film users can't seem to get good results from digital, but I would hate readers who don't have our experience to believe that digital is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads.</p>

<p>Again, offending you was not my intention and for that I apologise.</p>

<p>Scott.</p>

<p>Ah well, as I said on page 2 we have descended into the usual slanging match. No-one will accept anyone elses viewpoint, everyones methods are said to be flawed and another 13 pages are wasted on the same old same old. I would take up fishing but then it would be sea is better than coarse, fly is better than ledger etc etc. Just go shoot pictures for god's sake!</p>

<p>I will accept and embrace others viewpoints. What I find difficult to accept is other peoples results that are vastly different from mine and many others. If that is wrong, then yes, go fishing.</p>

<p>I can't go shoot pictures this week, it is all office work. Next week should be different though :-). Maybe just start another pointless film vs anything thread next week.............</p>

<p>"In other words, when Mauro ultimately shows us pretty pictures that look <strong>so </strong>much better than DSLR images, they will invariably have been adjusted in some manner."<br>

Edward,<br>

That scan is definitely ugly and I never get scans like that. There is definitely a problem somewhere (film or scanner) since you said you are not playing with adjustments just using Nikonscan with auto exposure.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you for the participation Martynas and Stuart. I am uploading the results now.</p>

<p>Edward, the scans for this exercise have no adjustments.</p>

<p>I cannot explain why your scan looks bad. I will mail you the Ektar film cut from this exercise after the contest is over so you can run it and test your scanner against my unadjusted scan.</p>

<p>Your entries have been posted here:</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1200954042_dD4Vs</p>

 

<p>Daniel, let me know how I can get the RAWs to you. They are large.</p>

<p>Scott Ferris,<br /> Please pardon my rudimentary English as that's certainly my 3rd language, a distant 3rd by the way. If you do not understand what I say, then I'll just put it in point form. Btw, do you not understand the above 2 points about scanning that I ask you? Really? If you need further explanation please do not hesitate to ask for it. Is the answer 'a' or 'b'?</p>

<p>Now in order not to let my meaning engulf in the sea of advance English that I've yet to master, here are the points.</p>

<p>-I don't think you must be a bad person or wrong, I don't even know you. I'm replying to what you said earlier</p>

<p>-You have your right to voice out your disagreement and experience in any thread</p>

<p>-When you voiced it out, you say the other must be wrong because it doesn't match your own experience</p>

<p>-When, Mauro or anyone say the reverse, you say he's biased</p>

<p>-Doing so, aren't you biased as well (that is if I've an equally closed mind)? Unless you're the ABSOLUTE standard?</p>

<p>-What does it mean when you say<br /> <em>"I would hate readers who don't have our experience to believe that digital is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads."</em>?</p>

<p>-Can I put it to you that when you say you can't get better result with film, that your digital result is lightyears better than film result, then the above statement of yours can be changed to<br /> <em>"I would hate readers who don't have OUR EXPERIENCE to believe that FILM is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads."</em> ?</p>

<p>-You said<br /> <em>"I will accept and embrace others viewpoints. What I find difficult to accept is other peoples results that are vastly different from mine and many others."</em></p>

<p><em>-</em>So if other peoples results are <em>'vastly different'</em> from <em>"yours and many others"</em>, they must be WRONG, and err, lying? Could it be that you're wrong?</p>

<p>-Last time I read a little bit of history of modern physics. When Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity which gives a result<em> 'vastly different'</em> from Newtonian laws, <em>'many others' </em>think he's absolutely wrong, because it's '<em>vastly different</em>' from the day to day findings of <em>'many others</em>', and he's not a 'professional'. He's just a CLERK! :-)</p>

<p>-This is what you said in an earlier reply<br /> <em>To infer better results could be achieved than by the pros I use is misguided at best, but truthfully, smacks of arrogance and bluster.</em></p>

<p><em>-</em>It was lucky that Einstein didn't get labeled as a 'misguided' person 'smacks of arrogance and bluster' by the 'pros' then :-) LOL The 'pros' embraced his theory with an 'open mind'. But I guess it's different to talk about science as it applies logic, and photography is more of art than science, hence logic has no place.<em> </em></p>

<p>-As for this competition <em>'set up by a biased individual and judged in part by another one', </em>any kid who never shot a single frame of film in their lifetime, who knows basic colour tweaking in photo editing software, can participate.</p>

<p>-Why must it be digital vs film? Why can't you see it with 'open mind' that who best guess the outcome wins?</p>

<p>-Isn't it simple as that? You formed an opinion that Mauro has a secret agenda to give the digital worst possible 'look'. If that's the case don't you think Mauro should just tweaked the 40D shots first before letting us use them as a starting point?</p>

<p>-Or Mauro tweaked the film scans so that they look so much better than the digital shots, and whoever that can 'praise the film' better wins?</p>