The look of film and digital

<p>

<p>I keep hearing about the look of film, and whereas it is true that some films have a lot in other cases it can be very hard to tell from the color which is film and which is digital.</p>

<p>A number of years ago a friend and I went out shooting, one of use with a film camera the other with a digital. I don’t remember what film was used but it was a color negative film scanned on a Nikon CoolScan V ED.<br>

<br />Below are the two images one taken with film the other with digital, I think it is pretty hard to tell from the colors which is which. <img src="http://sewcon.com/samples/image2.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br>

<img src="http://sewcon.com/samples/image1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

 

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

 

<p>bottom is film.</p>

<p>Pretty hard to tell on a web pic. That's why I would shoot images for the web in digital, but generally, I think film has a lot more character on prints.</p>

<p>Well after you scan, do post and reduce to an 8 bit web sized jpeg, you just "tossed" most of what the film had.</p>

<p>Print a high quality neg at 11x14 on an optical enlarger and then you will see a difference.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't like the whole "look of film" and "look of digital" thing, because film can take on more than one look and so can digital. And then I've got some Ektar scans here that look like digital, and some digital that I used Silver Efex on and it looks like film.</p>

<p>After staring at these two photos for a while, I've decided that the bottom photo is just as uninteresting as the top photo. Sorry. Couldn't help myself. </p>

With practice one can tell not only which is film and which is digital but also which digital camera was used. I would say that the bottom photo was taken with a Sony DSC-F828 digital camera.

<p><em>the bottom photo is just as uninteresting as the top photo.</em></p>

<p>I have to disagree. The top image has some clearly defined clumps of grass as foreground interest adding depth and perspective the bottom image clearly doesn't have. Also the top image "breaks the rules" by having the horizon right in the center instead of following the old and tired rule of thirds. Surely the top image makes a bold statement while the bottom just says "boring".</p>

<p>Just a guess here.</p>

<p>It looks to me that the bottom image was taken with a Sony camera. I would say a DSC-828.</p>

<p>From the look of the ballplayers I would say a medium shutter speed, say 1/800 sec.</p>

<p>The sky looks clean, so say a low ISO of 64.</p>

<p>From the shadows I would say this was taken before noon, say around 10:43.</p>

<p>Am I close?</p>

<p>Different films have different looks. I can generally tell the difference between a B&W print and a projected slide. </p>

<p>I am also pretty good at telling the difference between an inkjet print and an image displayed on a monitor.</p>

<p>Far too often people use terms like "The look of film" not to enlighten but to divide people into groups. It is us versus them. It is film vs digital.</p>

<p>They just cannot believe someone can use and appreciate both.</p>

<p>They both just look like point and shoot snapshots to me. I shoot 35mm and crop sensor digital. I can see the difference in my own shots. The film has some grain to it and it gives it a distinctively different out of focus background.. Elitechrome or Ektachrome 100 gives me very natural looking color and excellent skin tones. My D200 provides very clean looking images without noise at ISO 100 and it will enlarge to 20x30. I enjoy using both formats. I believe for pure fun I enjoy shooting film a little more at least outdoors anyway.. But if I had to choose just one format I would choose...............and that is the way of it.</p>

<p>The bottom one is digital. It has less dynamic range than the top (the clouds are over exposed). Additionally the top photo has some vignetting which implies it as taken with a full frame camera, likely film.</p>

<p>That said I will not back up my guess with money. Film and digital each have there strengths and weaknesses and I hope film will stay available for the foreseeable future. </p>

Of course color film and prints "turn" a bit with age whereas a red #FF3300 pixel is always a red #FF3300 pixel. Based on that, I would guess that the color photo was made sometime in early May of 2004.

<p>Attached is my own comparison of film versus digital. One was taken with a Pentax 645 NII and Velvia film, the other with a Canon 5D. The same settings were used on both cameras: ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and pretty close to the same lens focal length. There's more to say about this comparison, but I'll let that go for now.</p><div></div>

<p>Duplicate; tried to upload a .gif file and had to back up.</p>

<p>All the images of the 1969 moon landing were taken with a film camera so I would assume film is better. I dont think NASA would use something if it wasn't the best.</p>

<p>Both of the posted examples are digital images. Whether using film as an intermediate phase improves things is questionable.</p>

<p>Did NASA have a choice in 1969? Does the Hubbell telescope use film?</p>

<p>Edward, if you want to split hairs, one was initially captured using film, and the other was initially captured using a digital sensor. At that point, the images looked quite different. The film version was then converted to digital in a manner that preserved its initial appearance. The converted film image and the initial digital image were then compared.</p>

<p>Stephen - you've posted this before, but I don't recall if you've ever stated the following:</p>

<p>* What was the color temperature of the digital capture? And was it shot RAW or JPEG?</p>

<p>* Did you ever try to match the digital shot to the Velvia shot, as an exercise? (Not to imply the Velvia shot is the standard. Which is better depends entirely on the desired rendering.)</p>

<p>The reason I ask is because, at first glance, there would appear to be a large color temperature and tint difference between those two shots, but those are things easily controlled in RAW. Such differences are highly magnified at dusk vs. a typical daytime photo.</p>

<p>More to the point of the thread...any two image comparison is not a comparison of "film" and "digital", but rather of a particular film and a particular suite of digital settings and processing options. (And if we're talking B&W film, a particular set of developing and printing options.) The real difference is that digital offers a tremendous amount of freedom and flexibility in achieving different looks, while color film offers a rather rigid, precanned look. That's fine if the film has the look you want as it may take some work to achieve the same look in digital.</p>

<p>The idea that all of film and all of digital have a look seems to come from a color film shooter mentality because color films impose their style on a scene. I consider B&W film to be more like digital, or rather digital to be more like B&W, in the sense that I can control the final look through developing and printing options. If you ask me to compare the look of B&W and digital, I would need more information because I can create dramatically different looks within each one.</p>

<p>But the NaSA moon shots were taken in a hollywood type studio.</p>

<p>

<p>With regards to BW photos, I would love sometime to try matching a digital shot to a number of BW films. I have BW negatives but no way to go back in and get the same shot with digital and I am not really keen on trying to find BW film and find somewhere to develop it.</p>

<p>I do know from by days of shooting BW that a frustration was getting the black level good and dark without having the highlights go gray. I was often shooting pretty low contrast subjects getting a good contrast print was not always easy. Now being able to scan a negative is great, I can pretty much set the black and white points wherever I want them. It is kind of fun to take a old negative that was tricky to print optically and scan it and print it from an adjusted digital file.</p>

</p>

<p>Man, I tell ya, I just don't see what all this comparing stuff does for anyone who actually cares about great photography. Case in point, some of these pros use both, but prefer film, they have solid reasons why that work for them and they just get busy making great photos:<br>

http://robertbenson.com/blog/2009/12/29/the-holdouts-shooters-who-still-use-film/<br>

I highly doubt they do much comparing at this point because there is no point if you are a good photographer.</p>

<p>Daniel, the digital was shot using AWB in RAW. I did try to get the digital shot to match the Velvia, but it wasn't possible (not even close). You're absolutely right, though, about this not being a comparison of digital versus film, but rather an particular film, particular digital settings, and I'll add particular shooting circumstances. I hinted at this in my response, but you're the only one to pick up on it. The key is that these exposures were both about 2 minutes long. The AWB compensated (I think) for the time of day and length of exposure in a way that was not possible for film. In fact, some degree of reciprocity failure probably shifted the film even further away from the digital version. So my example is not a comparison of digital versus film, but rather a comparison of digital shot in RAW on AWB versus Velvia, both after sunset and at 2-minute exposures. More to the point, each has its own look, and frankly, I like both of them despite their distinctive differences. When people talk about a "film" look, I really wish I understood what they mean. I like film, but about the only advantage for me is that I can make a larger print from a scanned medium format transparency than I can from a 21mp digital image without interpolation. Each also has its own workflow advantages and disadvantages. I think the issue should be put to rest and, as Daniel Bayer says, lets get on with trying to make great photos.</p>

<p>Scott Wilson - <em>With regards to BW photos, I would love sometime to try matching a digital shot to a number of BW films. I have BW negatives but no way to go back in and get the same shot with digital and I am not really keen on trying to find BW film and find somewhere to develop it.</em></p>

<p>Finding B&W film is the easy part, you can just shop online at bhphoto.com or freestylephoto.biz. As to developing...it depends on where you live. I'm fortunate to have a local fine arts center with low cost daily darkroom rental. Quite frankly I'm a very strong fan of digital and the freedom it provides, but I do also enjoy hitting the darkroom occasionally.</p>

<p>Stephen Penland - <em>Daniel, the digital was shot using AWB in RAW. I did try to get the digital shot to match the Velvia, but it wasn't possible (not even close). You're absolutely right, though, about this not being a comparison of digital versus film, but rather an particular film, particular digital settings, and I'll add particular shooting circumstances. I hinted at this in my response, but you're the only one to pick up on it. The key is that these exposures were both about 2 minutes long. The AWB compensated (I think) for the time of day and length of exposure in a way that was not possible for film. In fact, some degree of reciprocity failure probably shifted the film even further away from the digital version.</em></p>

<p>That's probably why you found it impossible to match. Reciprocity failure shifts things on film in a way that throws typical attempts to achieve the same look digitally. I've seen images that complex before, where you can maybe get one section or color to match, but that screws up another section or color.</p>

<p><em>More to the point, each has its own look, and frankly, I like both of them despite their distinctive differences.</em></p>

<p>Agreed.</p>

<p><em>When people talk about a "film" look, I really wish I understood what they mean. I like film, but about the only advantage for me is that I can make a larger print from a scanned medium format transparency than I can from a 21mp digital image without interpolation. Each also has its own workflow advantages and disadvantages. I think the issue should be put to rest and, as Daniel Bayer says, lets get on with trying to make great photos.</em></p>

<p>The issue keeps coming up because there are so many people who lack sufficient experience with both to understand the pros and cons. Their confusion and concern is aggravated when they hear claims from those who like one or the other better, and they start to question if they should own different equipment. As we all know, photography is a field where most people are constantly seeking some perceived advantage through equipment despite the fact that an over emphasis on equipment is a disadvantage.</p>

<p>I don't think the issue will be put to rest any time soon, any more than comparisons of lenses, sensors, films, formats, etc. will be put to rest any time soon.</p>

<p>I do agree 110% that a photographer's focus should be on the art of creating great images. I tend to discuss technical and equipment issues online, but I love my photo club because there's almost none of that. It's 99% a discussion of art and images, and I chose them for that reason. I would direct any new photographer to a club like mine, and to local college or fine art center courses where the focus is on great images, not equipment.</p>

<p>Stephan,</p>

<p>I was directing my remark to the OP, but you apparently want to stand up and draw fire. I find your seascape attractive, but the comparison demonstrates a lack of skill in processing digital images, especially matching color. Whether the panel taken with Velvia reflects "reality" is another issue. I find that Velvia tends to go blue in low light. I also find that scans of Velvia only approximate the colors of the original slide, even using Silverfast AI and an IT8-generated profile.</p>

<p>Your comment about "splitting hairs" is misplaced. Your example is a digital image of a slide compared to a digital image of the original scene. Which is better at this task - the scanner or the camera? As anyone who scans film can attest, there are many variables, both in and out of your control. I also find that conversion of the RAW camera image to something viewable is subject to variations of a similar sort. Since the only object of your example was to demonstrate the rendering of color, it would behoove you to perform a minimal attempt at matching.</p>