film like vinyl?

<p>my old Canon 4200F scanner finally jammed (I think) but it never liked Vista and I was surprised I managed to use it anyway for several years. My new 9000F is very impressive with Photoshop included and I'm glad I was forced to buy it. Point is while doing a bunch of newly shot OM4ti test scans it struck me how colour rich and 'thick' the pics were and I found myself thinking about film and my old vinyl records in pretty much the same way. There seems to be more than a subtle quality plus to film although they say there isn't. I have a Canon point and shoot 'computer' for family occasions and holidays and I don't think I've ever matched my OM results. All in the mind or maybe I need a more expensive photo taking computer!</p>

<p>Hi Jerry, I don't know who "they" are but the subtle differences of scanned film verses digitally captured images have been well documented and discussed at length over the years especially in areas of image granularity and highlight roll-off, so your perceptions are real.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe I need a more expensive photo taking computer!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I would say if you had a professional level digital SLR on the same level that your Oly was in it's day, you would perceive a noticeable quality improvement over your P&S camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film like Vinyl?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe in some ways. Like the difference between pressed vinyl and CD's, much of the perceived quality is subtle and lives in the mind and ears (eyes) of the user. Some of my audiophile buddies love their high-end record collection, and have correspondingly high-end equipment to play them on. They consider 16-bit CD's to be "harsh"(they sound fine to me) but they don't complain about the HDtrack 24-bit downloads. They say they can hear the difference. Fine. Don't even mention compressed MP3 in conversation to these guys even though many folks find them fine though cheap ear buds. Every user is different. I can easily tell the difference between an image that is an uncompressed TIFF as opposed to a JPEG that has been highly compressed but most non-photographers can't. And that's a BIG difference. The difference between a scanned neg and a digital capture, as you discovered, is pretty subtle. So while we photographers go on and on about it, to most viewers it's a non issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I would say if you had a professional level digital SLR on the same level that your Oly was in it's day, you would perceive a noticeable quality improvement over your P&S camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. The P&S has a tiny little sensor (leave alone quality of lens questions and film speed / ISO questions) while the Oly is shooting "full-frame" film. The Oly is recording much more information than the P&S. Having shot a 5D I can tell you the differences vs. film is a lot closer with a full-frame DSLR. To me (granted I'm not a professional) digital vs. film is less about the amount of information you have to play with as it is about the final look - there is no way for the average Joe (i.e. me) to achieve film effects in a digital environment without serious investment in time and money.</p>

<p>Caveat - I'm talking about 35mm film here. I'm firmly of the view that even a full-frame DSLR has nothing on MF when it comes to rendering depth and detail.</p>

 

<p>There's no doubt that films each have their own little 'traits' and so will look different off the hot plate.<br>

Whether the effects are something that couldn't be done in digital with the right PS tweaks, is another story.</p>

<p>If it makes you feel better that "film is so superior," enjoy yourself, especially as you blur-en-masse or individually spot all those dust specks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Film and digital together.</p><div></div>

<p>Stuart, your examples do look quite different but your film image, for some reason, shows excessive grain so I don't I don't feel it is the best example to compare. I don't have an A/B example handy but this is a 35mm frame scanned in a drug store, not a high end scanner, and nothing done to it other than slightly cropped (about 15%) It is Fuji Superia at 400 ISO. While you can begin to appreciate some grain in the image it's not nearly as pronounced as your example.</p><div></div>

<p>Re; Stewarts samples.<br>

I was thinking the same thing Louis. Even my 1/2 frame 35mm negs shot on Fuji Neopan 400 and then converted to digital via a Vivitar macro on an Olympus E-410 show less grain than that. In fact I was quite suprised by how well the few negs I photographed held up. I'm still working a fixed lighting arrangement for copying all my 1/2 frame negs with my DSLR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> "...there is no way for the average Joe (i.e. me) to achieve film effects in a digital environment without serious investment in time and money."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Kayam, You hit the nail with this one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jerry,<br /> IMHO, when someone master Film in terms of processing, scanning and enlarging, then it's no reason to buy digital equipment. Only high-end digital equipment will give (me) the quality I would accept. I had few digital cameras and didn't like the results. And started to hate digital images when went back to film and good film cameras.<br /> Also, I can't look at some images in National Geographic... State-of-the-art equipment, best photographers, editors, good paper and all You got is a low-contrast image without snap and with burn-out highlights... That was a big shock... <br /> Then I discover infinite palete of colors of Fuji Reala... No more digital crap, problem with magenta haze, white balance etc...<br /><strong> Really, with old Minolta SLR, Minolta MD glass and professional scanning I can have beautiful images, far better than from fancy DSLR, more appealing to the eyes.</strong><br /><strong> Bottomline: Of course Your P&S Computer can't rival with OM camera. I would suggest to sell P&S and get high quality film P&S like Contax T2 or Fuji Klasse S. </strong><br /><strong> </strong><br /><strong> Yes, I'm also a huge fan of Vinyl records, with proper equipment to understand the real beauty of LP experience. <strong>It's not about nostalgia and that lovely sizzling :)</strong> </strong><br /><strong>Like with everything; The more You know, the better results You'll have. </strong><br /> With turntable and cartridge You need to spend time adjusting the arm level, tracking force, cartridge vertical and horizontal positions, anti-skating, try protractors, cables etc. Then You know You have real vinyl experience. <br /> I have some good cameras, and couldn't ask for better quality. And can only blame myself for bad results. The same with Audio equipment: It's high quality and I spent long time tuning it. Now I'm really enjoying my LP collection.<br /><strong> Worn-out LP with softer treble let me forget about the equipment, it's only Music in my room. The same with Film as a medium, tones, colors, grain, all is more appealing to eyes than digital images from the DSLR computer. </strong><br /> But there is one difference: You don't need expensive film camera to have nice 20x30"picture on Your wall but You do need good, well adjusted equipment to reveal a beautiful quality of vinyl records... <br /><br /><strong> CD technology and DSLRs are very similar: Give You excellent detail, maximum information but in much more harsh, unnatural way.</strong><br /><strong> LP's and Film pictures are more natural, more beautiful and gives You real Artistic experience. </strong><br /><strong> Film don't lie. Vinyl don't lie. No computers involved...</strong><br /><em> M.S.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only counterpoint being - a good point and shoot, will make an excellent image on a piece of film. The whole "stop complaining about your p&s, get a DSLR" sentiment is funny and misses the point by a country mile. A Yashica GSN or Canonet QL17 are essentially point and shoots - not to mention a Rollei 35. For a more modern example, a slew of Oly point and shoots, some Pentaxes, the list goes on (I wont even get into the snobby elitist p&s like the contaxes and leicas lol). The only thing a SLR gave you was a lot more control and flexibility. A good piece of glass in front of a piece of film will yield a quality image. A photo computer won't necessarily do the same, sometimes (I firmly believe this) by design and full intent of the manufacturer. </p>

<p>As far as the "film vs digital" example... was that an attempt at humour that we all missed? Its a little bit like getting an ugly blonde and pretty brunette to illustrate which hair colour is inherently more attractive. </p>

I'm not sure I really want to get too much into this one, but I will just say a couple of things:

 

If the picture on the left in Stuart's example is from film...then that is way, WAY more grainy than anything I've ever gotten. I've shot on film up to 400 ISO, with both color and black and white, and I've never had pictures that grainy. I develop all my own black and white prints in my darkroom at home, and I can magnify the pictures on the enlarger and make HUGE prints and I still don't get something that grainy....well, not unless I like try to blow up a blade of grass to a full 8x10 print! Well, you get what I mean. Film is really sharp and can capture an incredible amount of detail. You don't start getting a lot of grain until you try to blow up a picture to insane amounts or unless you use a really high ISO film. So those pictures are definitely not a good comparison.

 

The other comment I had is about records. I'm 33 and so I'm too young to have actually grown up with records. I've listened to them, and I had a few, but I never really had a big collection of them. I had a few when I was a really little kid. I think the last record I had was when I was around maybe 4th grade. But recently, I've gotten interested in records again after I saw they were selling NEW ones in a Virgin music store. Well, they had new albums but also re-released albums. I bought the album "Joshua Tree" by U2. I also have it on cd. I've listened to the one on cd for years, and I listened to the one on the record. I was listening to "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" on the record, and I was shocked. It sounded much, MUCH clearer than I thought it would, and there was also something different about it...I could hear more sounds on the record. There were subtle guitar sounds that I had never heard on the cd. And it did somehow sound "richer."

 

I'm not saying that either the record or the cd sounded better. I grew up with cd's (well, and tape cassettes) and so I don't really have enough experience to compare them. But I will say that somehow the record seemed to have more sounds. It had subtle sounds from the instruments, especially guitars, which somehow seemed to get stripped out when you listen to the cd version.

<p>Chris - I do get what you mean, but I have to put a foot note on your post - you can get that kind of grain... well - that size, the sheer ugliness of it is something else though. Too bad - the little girl is beautiful. I wonder how much of that is in scanning - I know all my scans look awful, but I scan from prints and mainly to share, quite frankly one of the main reasons I don't really do it anymore - I can't be bothered to become a scanner technician since the images I care about are on pieces of paper and those are the results I care to attempt improving continuously. <br>

Fact is, if you see it here, its a digital image. On this forum especially, its an image that was arrived upon in the most bass ackward way possible, in a fashion never intended for the medium to produce. Some people got really good at it - kudos to them, I can't be bothered. If I scan something I do it with the implied understanding that its merely a representation of an actual picture, and not a object in and of itself. If I wanted to perfect digital images, I would get a photo computer and go to town. Alas, that's not where I get my kicks, so I spend that time in the darkroom.<br>

But, if you underexpose a roll of TriX, then soup it in Rodinal, or better yet in Dektol, then print at Gr5 or so... you will see grain that you could use as sandpaper.</p>

 

<p>I consider myself to be an advanced amateur who still finds learning to be rather a pleasure. I learn almost every time I read the forums here or check up on google based on terms mentioned here. I shoot a lot more film than digital even through the latter would be so much cheaper. I have just about mastered basic scanning with vuescan on my very basic 4490 scanner. One day I hope to graduate to the V600 or maybe a refurbished V700 since 120 is my new passion. However, I feel that since I came to photography late, I look at the whole film and digital debate in a more philosophical light. I shoot digital when the instantaneous is needed. So one could say, they are on demand shots. I shoot film for pleasure. I love waiting for weeks and months to build up that 10 roll collection so that some saving could be made on return postage. When I do see the result, even my meagre scanning technique would not dampen the enthusiasm to shoot more. One thing that I have learnt is that good quality ISO100 or lower film is hard to beat by digital in terms of simple tonality based on my own scanning technique.</p>

<p>Here is Stuart's digital shot blended with a digital image emulating the grain of TMax 400:<br>

<a href="http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1128464.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1305868451&Signature=cbDTFzAsllkavF0ZHg4HLImPTIM%3d">Blend with TMax 400 emulation</a><br>

Improves it, no?</p>

<p>This is funny - I clicked on the link in Charlie's post and got this:</p>

<p><Error><Code>AccessDenied</Code><Message>Request has expired</Message><RequestId>AF8B1D6E5AE8F6AE</RequestId><Expires>2011-05-20T05:14:11Z</Expires><HostId>GSoW3DArgjoMYpwZMzOqYkeues6QVt5YiXX94eKZNaKXYOi+mLljmxuXHWkvFzT7</HostId><ServerTime>2011-05-20T07:20:02Z</ServerTime></Error></p>

<p>Almost pissed myself laughing - no matter how bad I mess up in the darkroom, I never get THAT :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My apologies. Here is Stuart's digital shot blended with a digital image emulating the grain of TMax 400:</p>

<p><img src="http://g4.img-dpreview.com/E3A6CB92E66A46188BBA8AEF09976178.jpg" alt="" width="344" height="480" /></p>

 

<p>Here is the full frame of that shot. It was APX100 in Agfa Rodinal devoper. It is not particularly a fine grain combo. It prints very nicely on B&W paper slight grain in 8x10 but not objectional. Something like the new Tmax400 in D76 would be much finer as would a color film like superia 400. The digital shot looks much better with the grain as it loses the waxy look. Here is the full frame of the shot.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is one from Acros in Rodinal.</p><div></div>

<p>Here another acros shot.</p><div></div>

<p>They're lovely shots Stuart, and a combo I am very familiar with (APX and Rodinal, one of my favourites for MF, acros even in 35mm looks smooth and rich in Rodinal) - I have no doubt the actual photographs are beautiful, but scanned and turned into zeros and ones, it turns into a weird dot-matrix of jagged little pebbles. That's not grain, that's not "film look". We are looking at pictures of photographs, digital representations of whatever is scanned. I really don't understand the fascination with what pictures of pictures look on a screen...<br>

And no, the T-max look a like attempt doesn't look like film, doesn't look like T-max, it just looks like a digital effect applied to a digital image.</p>

<p>I agree with you Peter biggest problem today is that most people won't wet print. I find scanning useful for web uploads and choosing what negative I want to print. If I am really honest though the time it takes me to scan a roll of film with my V500 I could have made a contact print and a couple of quick work prints. I think the clunkyness of the grain come from the V500 more than anything else.</p>

<p>I shoot on film then scan the negatives on my CS9000. I clean it up a bit in Photoshop then print on a Epson printer. I guess we call this a hybrid process.<br>

I have recorded a vinyl album to my computer, then transferred this to a CD. When I play the vinyl and compare the sound to the CD on the same amplifier it sounds identical (Yep! Try it!). Is this also a hybrid process?</p>

<p> </p>