Digital Prints VS Film

[coolmingli]

Last week I took some pictures with my Canon 10D and EOS3, the lens

I used was 24-70 L. I had both of them (film and Digital) developed

at local Costco photo lab, print size are 4x6 and 8x10. The digital

image has been touched up in PS. Costco uses Fuji machine to

develped digital prints.

Today I got the prints back, My first impression was both of them

(film prints and digital prints) look equally good in size 4x6, but

after a close look, I found the film prints looks better, the skin

tone and shadow area are much smoother than the digital prints, this

become more noticeable in the 8x10 prints, the 8x10 film print still

looks as good as these 4x6 prints, but the 8x10 digital prints looks

kind of like a oil paint, especially on the edge of the persons face

and arm. They just look digital!

 

Does anybody have the same experience? Particularly for the users of

the 1Ds and 1D MK II. Your comments are welcomed.

 

My conclusion is if you want to view your pictures on your computer

monitor or on the web then digital is the way to go, but if you want

to have the actual pictures in your hand, film is still the king.

[daniel_taylor]

Honestly? I would have to say that either your settings were off or Costco really screwed up the prints.

 

I was going through some old family photos today on 35mm NPC, and I decided to compare a couple to recent photos from my 10D. No surprise: the 10D buried them. Far smoother skin tones and shadows, more detail in lips/eyes/skin/hair, sharper, and perfect or near-perfect color balance regardless of lighting. These differences are quite clear at 8x10.

[johnb]

<i>"The digital image has been touched up in PS"</i><br>

<br>

This is probably the reason.

[gerry_szarek]

A local pro photographer has gone back to shooting film and scanning on a drum scanner. He found first that the skin tones were off no matter what he did, the shadow details were non existant, and last the dynamic range wasn't there. FYI he was shooting Porta by Kodak vs a 1Ds. For those of us however without the funds, digital does a pretty good job.

[steve_rutledge]

I have to admit I personally prefer the look of an 8x10 from 35mm NPS versus a Frontier's

8x10 from my 1Dmk2. The 1dmk2 gives me no grain and a sharp image, but film gives

me a smoother tonal range and TO ME looks more natural. Fortunately the quality of

lightjet prints (like the fuji Frontiers) will only improve over the next few years as those

systems are upgraded.

 

-Steve

[mark u]

There has just been a survey of commercial digital printing in AP magazine, covering high street, mail order and internet based operations in the UK. Most failed to manage to print TIFFs at all, and the average quality was very poor - and rather poorer than the survey of print film processing they conducted recently. Prices were hardly compelling either - so in the UK at least, if you want quality printing it seems you are better off using film, or doing it yourself at home. Mind you, a lab I have been using for film recently switched to digital scanning and printing on a Noritsu machine - and I have to say that the quality of their output has declined to the point where I'm looking for somewhere else.

[michael focus97.com lee]

With my 10D, I've got great portrait prints back from Adorama with nice tonal gradation. In fact, there were lots of smiles on the client's faces when I presented the engagement and wedding shots, that I had printed by Adorama - especially with the 11x14.

 

Personally, I would try another printer. Or, prepare some variations for Costco, as a test, and see what you get vs. what you thought you'd get. There are a great deal of studio and wedding photographers who are happy with their digital portraits, and so are their clients.

 

Perhaps you used JPEG, and are seeing 'banding', probably in part because of the more limited dynamic range of the 10D...?

[joseph_krasniewicz]

I would like to make an analogy to another hobby. Audio. When digital CD's came out they were all the rage. The quote was "perfect sound forever". After some time a small minority of people felt something was missing from digital music. Where digital audio offers vast improvements in certain areas (noise, dynamic range, convenience); analog or LP's still have their advantages (dimensionality, presence, tone). The improvements of digital can be "seen" in the off the charts measurements/specifications, where as the analog benefits cannot be measured. Thus the analog/digital argument continues to this day (how many years have CD's been out?). The fact is turntables are still being made at all price levels and CD players keep improving in an attempt to sound analog like. The internet of course is now also another huge advantage to digital for both audio and photography alike. Being able to display or email photo's online is fantastic-and I think this site is great. But also keep in mind these sites are generating revenue thanks to digital photography. And Canon or your retailer would much rather sell you a $900 digital 300D than a $250 Rebel.

I can guarantee you, even if 99.9% of the camera sales are digital, in 25 years you will be able to walk into a gallery and view the pictures of a budding young photographer taken with his 6x6 film Rollei or a 35mm Leica. Maybe even in B&W! Because everybody hears, and sees differently.

[christopher_bibbs]

Did you use the kiosk at Costco? That piece of crap auto adjusts your images and there is nothing the operator can do about it. Assuming you've done your PS work on a machine with a calibrated monitor and you used the ICC profile from Dry Creek to proof the image, just put the images on a CD and have the operator load it into the machine directly rather than via the kiosk. My results have been much better with that procedure.

[digitmstr]

Looks like a printing problem, NOT a "digital" problem/limitation.

 

With Adobe RGB and *proper printing technique* you can make your digital prints equal or better the BEST hand-made 35mm Cibachrome.

[gaius1]

I'm not convinced that is true. A truly sharp print is generally reckon'd to need 8 lp/mm, which means at least 400 DPI. A Frontier outputs at 300 DPI at every lab I've ever used. Almost as good as yes, better than, not yet.

[jordan_prussky]

I am still confused as to why you would spend thousands of dollars on gear, and then not go to a pro lab..............interesting

[andrus_suitsu]

My experiences have been the same. I have owned a 10D for about 18 months now and am generally happy with it. But the pics just don't look right. So I bought a 33V about a month ago and also a Leica slide projector this very morning. Boy, those last slides I took in a nearby bog look really so much better than the digital files I had before. I don't know the reason. I will probably use the 10D in studio and in social events or whenever fast feedback is desirable. But I will use slide for stuff like nature.

[christopher_bibbs]

>I am still confused as to why you would spend thousands of dollars on gear, and then not go to a pro lab..............interesting<

 

Well, if you use a calibrated system and don't let Costco or other labs butcher your files, you can get great results at a fraction of the cost.

[christopher.]

www.mpix.com

[brian_tao]

Nope... 8x10, 8x12 and 12x18 prints from an Agfa d.lab and a Lightjet from local pro labs with 10D and 1D Mk2 files look fantastic if processed properly. Raw capture, 16-bit manipulation, colour calibrated workflow, avoiding JPEG compression artifacts, judicious use of noise reduction and sharpening, etc... Maybe you could upload the exact file that was sent to Costco and we can have a look.

[charlie_vigue]

I use the 10D, and at first I was deeply disappointed. But with a bit of research I've discovered that what is needed is simply a bit of TLC and practice. And an understanding of color calibration. :-)

 

Keep at it - the quality is in there.

[mike_morgan1]

Kodak 160NC blows the doors off digital.

[danny_rose]

While I find prints from a good digital camera such as the 10D very good as far as resolution goes, eg my last shots on kodak pro b/w film were not as sharp as the same shots on a 10D, I too find they dont look as natural as film. Both in colour and B/W. When flicking through mags I can usally spot the digital shots, they just have a different look about them. Which stands to reason as it is a different format. I believe many people don't notice the difference as they dont know what to look for. It seems companies are constantly pushing their latest digital cameras, marketed as having more auto focus censors, more pixels on the same small censor etc on consumers.

But it does not avoid the fact that it has a 'digital' look.

 

I do find digital very convienient and very 'slick' looking but no it does not look as natural and of course does not have the dynamic range of Professional film. I also wonder if people are comparing consumer film to digital.

 

I prefer the look of professional film over digital myself.

[charlie_vigue]

Well, digital lacks the grain we have been used to, and in some shots with very very fine detail that can sort of get lost on a 6 mp camera. Not often, but I've had a few landscapes where the pine trees started to look wrong in the far far distance. But for me digital is already at the place where it's no longer inferior, and it might actually be better for prints. But it is different for sure.

[jimmy_m.]

Someone used audio as an analogous example. I will use paint. To me, film and digital ARE JUST DIFFERENT. They are both used to "capture" images in-camera but they are different processes. It seems like one could use the analogy of paint. Oil and acrylic are different processes and require different techniques and ultimately achieve different results. One is not "better than the other". One may be "better than the other" with regards to a certain application. I am with everyone here who has said that film looks more dimensional, smoother, tonal etc.. and digital looks sharper, colors are more accurate. But to me, in getting that perfectly sharp, perfectly color accurate image, it loses something. Character maybe? I shoot with both a Canon D60 and a Leica M6 and Canon Eos-1V. My usage time for digital vs. film is about 50/50. I like them both. But, i'll have to agree that film still has a more "naturally pleasant" look to it. And certainly when it goes over into black and white. In my opinion, film cannot be matched when shooting for black and white images. Again, just different. Oil vs. acrylic. Thoughts?

[Spearhead]

It's not like paint and it's not like audio. These are just goofbsall analogies. Paint is part of what the viewer sees, it's part of the final output. That's why museums typically give the final medium, not the originating medium. There is no equivalent analogy in photography, except maybe Polaroid technology.

 

In audio, digital/analog is much more like the recording studio. Almost everything is now recorded with digital processing. It doesn't matter if it comes out on vinyl or CD, if it's recent, it was most likely recorded onto a hard drive, or occasionally a DAT.

 

This has nothing to do with the question, but these analogies just make no sense.

[jimmy_m.]

Jeff, i think they make sense. If you will recognize what we're trying to say. That digital has a different "look" or "feel" than film. Just like oil has a different look than acrylic. Analog has a different sound than digital. What's wrong with that? I was just saying that its silly to argue which one is better. They're just different. Do you think that digital looks different than film?

[danny_wong2]

It is the operator.

 

Costco uses FUJI Frontier system which is also used by my local camera store/1hr lab owner/buddy.

 

His prices are double what Costco charges and he makes up for it in his skill, expereience (25+yrs) and personal touch. He has developed a reputation for excellent work.

 

Next time if any of us are in a Costco photolab (an impossiblity IMHO) ask how much the Frontier operator makes per hour and what his training was. Then go figure their attitute toward their work.

 

Danny's $0.02

[Spearhead]

<i>That digital has a different "look" or "feel" than film. </i><p>

 

Sorry, it doesn't make sense.<p>

 

An inkjet print from a digital original has more in common with an inkjet print from a film original than either does with a chemical print. Similarly, a chemical print from a digital orignal has more in common with a digital print from a film original than either does with any inkjet print.<p>

 

In painting, acrylic and oil are part of the <i>output</i> medium. That is why they make such a noticeable difference in the look of something. There is no analogy, since there is no multi-level process to create a painting.