Digital "Look" vs. Film Question

[gv]

A friend and I have been discussing his experience at his son's wedding where my friend

shot Fuji NPC and everybody else seemed to have digital cameras.

 

One thing he noticed was that all the digital images looked pretty much the same, with

skin tones that didn't look very natural, wheras the NPC produced much more pleasing

skin tones. Neither of us has "gone digital" other than using film scanners and we are

wondering what it takes in Photoshop to gain the look of various films, or at least make

the images look more distinctive.

 

I'm curious to know if there are online sources, books or even "packaged" PS actions that

transform digital images. My goal is to spend as little time in front of a computer as

possible...the idea of having to spend a lot of time tweaking digital images doesn't appeal

to me very much.

[andrew robertson]

Most digicams are set to crank the contrast and saturation way up, and most DSLRs used

in JPG mode with default settings provide much the same look. I personally think, as do

many others, that color and tonality in a properly handled digital image can be superior to

any film.

 

If you're looking for a plugin for making your digital look like film, there are hordes of 'em

out there. There are even specialized B&W ones to replicate films. An easier way might be

to play with stuff and figure out how you want it to look, and then save what you did into a

Photoshop Action so you can do it the same way again very easily.

 

But I find that many images benefit most from a bit of individual attention and prefer to

handle each one on a case by case basis. I don't find myself trying to emulate film with

digital very much - just as I don't often emulate B&W with color materials.

[gv]

Any links Andrew? I will try an online search in the meantime...

[leicaglow]

Maybe the solution is to get a digital camera that handles skin tones well to start with. From my Nikon pocket digital to my D50 and D200, they all have some setting for skin tones and I've found them to be very pleasing. A lot of people don't know their cameras have this setting, but that's where I'd start. I know Nikon is not the only manufacturer to have this portrait shooting mode.

[ilkka_nissila]

Why not shoot film in the first place, since you seem to prefer the results. I certainly do.

[scott_eaton]

(1) NPC is a cruddy film to begin with, especially for portraiture because of it's high contrast and ruddy skin tones.

 

(2)If you were talking about a *real* portrait films like NPS or NPH or Kodak Portra NC, we'd have a respected frame of reference.

 

(3) For the sake of debate, let's assume #2 is the scenario.

 

I have more experience printing and proofing professional weddings than anybody in this forum. I don't have more experience shooting them, but handed a professionally printed wedding proof from conventional film made in the last 20years I can usually identify the film and paper with 90% accuracy.

 

With in camera settings and shooting just JPEG's, I was able to shoot a wedding with my 10D with results practically indistinguishable from professional print film I'm used to working with. No digital over-tones, no pasty skin tones, no artifacts. Just use the daylight temperature settings with saturation tweaked up a bit, and they look fantastic.

 

Professional wedding photographers get insulted and more than irritated when idiot amatuers show up and rave about how much better amatuer print films are than professional portrait films cuz aunt betty brought VPS III to K-mart to be processed, and liked the Max 400 prints better. Same analogy here, cept it's worse. You have a bunch of amatuers walking around a wedding with point -n- shoot digicams, and G.V. builds a stupid straw horse about the nature of digital. Then we have the usual bunch of trolls who need a copy 'dSLR's for dummies' agreeing with him.

[gv]

Boy, this subject gets some people all worked up when that wasn't my intention at all.

 

Scott, I wasn't comparing the Fuji NPC or consumer digital cameras to what a pro wedding

photographer would use or the quality of the images, so I am not sure what "straw horse"

you are referring to. So kindly take a deep breath and back-off, if you please.

 

If I understand correctly my friend wasn't the primary photographer; he was essentially

taking family photos using a pro EOS and a Leica. The digital cameras were most likely all

consumer digital cameras. And he did mention something about being biased towards his

Leica, but don't blame that on me!

 

I am mainly interested in learning about the differences between digital and film and the

perceived and/or actual benefits of each medium. I don't have an axe to grind one way or

the other. For some strange reason I thought this might be a good question for getting

some constructive feedback from folks who have used both digital and film cameras.

 

I'm in a funny position because I was a pro for years and I semi-retired around the time

when the film-to-digital conversion was really getting rolling in the professional field.

When I travel now I make photographs mainly for fun and I use a variety of gear that dates

from the 70s through the late 1990s. I don't have the kind of deadlines I once did, so film

suits me just fine. The only digital cameras I have used are when I take pictures of tourists

using their cameras. (I cannot vouch for the quality of the images, but some of those tiny

cameras are pretty spiffy. Even my diminutive Olympus XA is dwarfed by some of those

teeny cameras.)

 

If I was doing now what I was doing a few years back I would most likely be fully digital,

with some film cameras around for personal projects and the joy of using a camera made

of metal and the only electronics being a meter. At the same time, I appreciate the value of

auto-focus cameras for certain situations, so I don't feel biased one way or the other when

it comes to camera equipment. (I do draw the line at cameras that use glass plates.)

 

Ilkka, it isn't that I prefer film over digital; I haven't had enough exposure to digital to have

a preference. At least, I haven't had the experience of shooting it myself; I assume that a

lot of the images I see these days were made using digital equipment. I was just curious

about what my friend had said and I figure that I could get some experienced opinions on

this forum.

 

I have always considered film to be my palette, much like a painter has a variety of paint

and other means to produce a picture. So I am genuinely interested in what people think

about digital, how it compares with film and whether the results are worth the added

complexity (and initial cost) of digital. I wouldn't mind being able to mimic certain film

types that I am familiar with as a digital starting point.

 

It would be easier to give digital a serious try if there was a "prosumer" camera that met

my requirements or a Nikon DSLR that didn't mess with my lens focal lengths AND cost an

arm and a leg.

 

Up to this point I have been using this particular board to get info on film scanners. If my

questions are too basic (or inflammatory) for this board, please point me somewhere

else... books (no "Dummies" please...), Web sites, etc.

[mike dixon]

<i>If my questions are too basic (or inflammatory) for this board,</i><P>

G.V., don't let Scott scare you. Most of his posts are just like the one in this thread--a bunch of self aggrandizement, carrying on about what everyone else supposedly believes, spouting insults about the straw men he has constructed. He used to get away with trying to run people off, but he's been suspended often enough by admins and been told to get bent by enough people who know just how limited his knowledge is that there's little left but the bark. Please don't restore any of his bite.<P>

There was nothing wrong with your post. This site could actually use more people who can respond calmly to baiting and baseless attacks.

[tholte]

G.V. "It would be easier to give digital a serious try if there was a "prosumer" camera that met my requirements or a Nikon DSLR that didn't mess with my lens focal lengths AND cost an arm and a leg." Nikon does not have a full frame DSLR yet so you are out of luck on that point. Canon has three full frame bodies but you will pay at least $3,000 for the least expensive one so you are out of luck there. Any of the DSLR's with at least 6 MP will get you 35mm film quality, everything being equal (good lens, good exposure etc.) Plug-in software is available to mimic different films. Most of the "film only" guys I know have switched to digital and don't look back. If you are happy and content with film, stick with it and have fun but don't let questions of quality keep you from giving the digital experience a whirl.

[steve_swinehart]

One of the characteristics of digital cameras is the 1:1 gamma slope. Some manufacturers are now programming film "looks" into the cameras. The solution in PS is very simple. Go to "adjustment layer" pick "curves." You'll see a straight line - make an adjustment giving a film toe and shoulder, and depending upon the camera setup, you might want to give the mid-tone area a slight upward adjustment. You'll see the image look film-like because of the curves adjustment to mimic a film characteristic curve.

[steve foster]

Hi GV,

 

When I'm shooting digital I do not like to rely on the in camera jpeg settings to give me the results that I want. This is why I always shoot raw. That way you have a very basic image with all the information from the sensor and you can make your own mind up how you would like your skin tones to look. Once you have found your perfect setting settings for skin tones save them in your RAW convertor software and away you go.

[patricklavoie]

Good Dslr use with the same experience and care about setting and light etc..it as good as

any film camera, if you compare same kind of material indeed. To many people shoot

crappy JPEG, have lens not optimyzed for digital, dont know how to process the picture in

photoshop and worst of all send ther print in just OK minilab....in the end whe heard all

kind of bad stuff on digital.

 

On the other hand, i work with a lot of pro photographer in the fashion industry that will

never go back to film for many reason, they all have Canon Mark II or Digital back like the

P25, and they are getting amazing result because they know how to shoot, they know the

technique and most important they know that they cant do everything themself, so they

use pro photoshop guy like me that for the past 14years use digital tool and all kind of

printer to maximized there work quality.

 

In the end i think its all depend of the love you put in the proces of taking the pict,

processing and printing. I will personaly never go back to film because for the first time in

my life i can control ALL part of the process professionaly.

 

And to answer your question about book, link, and action they are 1000000000 out there,

on Amazon search for the REAL WORLD serie on photoshop, for the Action go to

www.adobe.com and search there forum and adobe studio part to doiwnload many free

action, there are also a relay nice plugin call Exposure by AlienSkin, i test it even if i dont

use it because i can mimic the same result with my CS2 but you will be amzed by the ton

of control you will get with this plugin. And for the link...well use google : )

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

GV,

 

I shot film for many years, did my own processing and printing, but then dropped out of photgraphy for 2.5 decades to pursue my day job. Two years ago digital rescued me from my photographic isolation and I'd never turn back. It is so liberating-basically shoot anything, try anything without worrying about how much film you have left or need to buy. You have complete, ultimate control of each pixel in the "lightroom." As others have said, bad digital is mostly the result of bad digital technique. Get yourself a D70s with the 18-70 zoom (I'm assuming from your comments you're a Nikon shooter), shoot RAW, and let yourself go. You'll still be able to use your other Nikon glass, even if the FL changes. If you don't like it there's a good market to sell your camera.

[gv]

Thanks for the heads-up Mike. I am not accustomed to such vehemence in response to my

posts... I won't get scared-off, the post blind-sided me, that's all.

 

Many thanks for the various viewpoints. It would be easier if Nikon had an option to

purchase a camera with a full-size sensor; from what I have read, the Fuji cameras with

Nikon mounts don't measure-up. And I tend to favor lenses at the wide end of the focal

range, down to 24mm at least, with 18-20mm being even better at times. If I bought a

D70 with an 18-70mm zoom, wouldn't I in effect be getting a 25.5-105 lens?

 

The move to digital is the first time I can recall Nikon leaving owners of Nikkor lenses in

the dust: either buy all new lenses or live with the 1.5x focal length conversion. I have read

that there were bona fide technical reasons for going with the smaller sensor, but on the

other hand it smells like the potential financial windfall for Nikon was too much to resist.

Too bad my Nikkors won't work on those Canon bodies! If I have to make such a big

change I suppose this is a good time to consider switching to Canon... but selling all that

Nikon glass at a significant discount is rather disconcerting. If Nikon introduces a large-

sensor body, I would be highly inclined to buy it.

 

If people would indulge me a bit longer...what about the extra gear required to shoot

digital in the field? How do folks deal with it? I like to travel light whenever possible: one

carry-on bag and a shoulder bag.

 

It would be nice to be able to turn over my digital files to a PS expert. As it now stands my

scanned film requires very little tweaking in PS, just the basics. I'm not dealing with

blown-out highlights or desired shadow detail that isn't on the film. So the amount of time

required to deal with digital images are part of the equation too.

 

I understand that the contrast range of digital images is equal to or a bit less than slide

film; is that a correct assumption? I cut my photographic teeth on slide film so I don't have

a problem with working with a somewhat limited exposure range, but what is the digital

reality?

 

One of the attractions of digital for me is not having to carry at least two cameras and

having multiple films speeds available. Some years back I settled on Kodak 100 slide and

800 Fuji print film as my workhorse emulsions, so any camera system I choose would need

to be able to work well within that ASA range.

 

I have been eyeing the relatively new Sony DSC-R1 as a possible entry-level digital camera.

The zoom range would meet most of my needs and the lens quality seems to be high. The

hang-up is the slow RAW processing times after the second shot; I would prefer not to use

JPEGs since I am spoiled by the amount of data I can get from a 14-bit scan of a 35mm

frame. The Sony may be fine for a landscape photographer but it isn't clear to me how well

it would work for general travel/street photography.

 

I think that about covers the issues I have been struggling with... again, thanks for the

info. And I will begin checking out some of the resources already mentioned.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

As far as the lenes are concerned, you don't have to abandon your old lenses. I have a 17-55 f2.8DX which is my primary lens, a 10.5DX fish eye, but my other lenses: 85 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8VR, and 60 f2.8 micro-nikkor are not DX. The advantage of DX lenses are that they can be smaller and lighter. If you need wider than the 18mm there is a 12-24 DX but is much more expensive. I recommended the 18-70 as an economical way to put your toe in the digital waters, STS. In the field there is no extra gear that I require and CF cards take up less space than film and are relatively impervious to damage-can survive a trip thru the laundromat and there is the famous case of the digital camera washed up after the sunami with the images of the approaching wave, just before it killed the photographer. Try that with a roll of film. If traveling, you'll probably want an image bank to download your files so you can re-use your CF cards but you can leave it at the hotel. It doesn't need to go into the "field" unless you have limited CF space.

[neal_thatcher]

If you are looking for quick fixes w/out too much photoshop work, you might look into this: http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/photshopprods.htm

The "55" plug in and the "Digital Film Lab" are both getting really good reviews. Like already stated, won't fix everything but may provide you some quick fixes.

[daniel_taylor]

While Scott didn't put it nicely, "all the digital images" most likely refers (as you admit) to a bunch of consumer digicams with their saturation settings punched way up. These should be compared to what their owners would have been shooting but for digital: Kodak MAX 800, drugstore processed, in either 35mm or APS format. Those shots never looked good compared to properly shot and processed portrait films either.

 

IMHO the people who complain about the "digital look" from a DSLR couldn't pick DSLR from film prints in a blind study to save their lives IF the grain factor was somehow dealt with, i.e. viewing at a distance or comparing DSLR vs. MF 8x10's. Put another way, I can shoot portaits all day long using my 10D that, when printed on certain papers, come off exactly like an NPH portrait, with very little post processing work and no "film look" plugins. I would say they look more like a MF NPH portrait than a 35mm one due to grain. I liked NPH skin tones back in my film days, and I like my 10D's skin tones today.

 

What I never liked from any of Fuji's 35mm portrait films was the grain, which seemed much worse in the 160 films than from a 100 film like Reala, and yes, even a touch bad for a 400 film when it came to NPH. But then I had issues with 35mm grain well before moving to digital, back when I thought digital was a joke and would need over a decade to catch up to film. (Never underestimate Moore's law....)

 

The films I have a hard time emulating are Provia 100F and Velvia, and I don't think the look-alike plugins get the job done either. But then I can't scan NPH and make it look just like Provia or Velvia, so I don't consider this a "digital vs. film" issue. I'm sure a digital sensor could output the Provia or Velvia "look", but it perhaps would have to be done during RAW conversion? And neither slide film has "pleasing skin tones" IMHO, so I guess that's not relevant to a wedding.

[van_camper]

I think the digital look is obvious only when people over sharpen. I looked at Michael Reichmans photo at Vistek the other day of the interior of an industrial building (24x30" on Epson 7800). You would not be able to tell it was digital, looked like it was shot with portrait film. What I noticed was it was not oversharpened, in fact it looked surprisingly ungsharp, I have sharper images using my enlarger. I think one of the key issues is not to oversharpen, I have also cut back on overdoing it, less is more, and it can look unnatural compared to what people are used to seeing. You lose that smoothness you would get from straight RA4/ciba/etc prints when you overdo. Otherwise I do not see a difference unless your pixels are showing.

[ilkka_nissila]

Daniel, it's quite arrogant to make guesses about what people can see and what they cannot see. Film images look different no matter what you do to them. No, you can not always tell, but often you can, even if you process the grain out. Believe me, I spend considerable time and money on trying to like digital. Sometimes results are good, but sometimes they're just lifeless copies of the subject. Similarly, sometimes film images look off color and that's irritating, but sometimes they are so lively it's like magic. It's quite obvious that different films and different post-processing techniques yield different results and it's extremely difficult to copy any film based process using digital algorithms - and why would one want to do that when film is easy and convenient with generally superior cameras available for the money, and film is available in a great variety of types and post-processing options.

 

To say that film images look like digital images is just plain ignorant. And an exact imitation is impossible for a variety of reasons, not that it's desirable or interesting. Just because you can process your digital images to look in the way that they satisfy you doesn'tmean that others can do so also, for all the different materials available. In principle you need a different sensor and processing algorithms for each imitation. Useless really from an economical point of view.

 

One of the great advantages of film is that cameras, lenses and the recording medium are not tied to each other under the same company.

[daniel_taylor]

"Daniel, it's quite arrogant to make guesses about what people can see and what they cannot see."

 

Understand my "arrogance" comes from having to listen to people drone on and on about digital/film differences, only to have those same people utterly fail to guess the source while admiring my prints.

 

"Film images look different no matter what you do to them."

 

Heard that one before....

 

"Believe me, I spend considerable time and money on trying to like digital. Sometimes results are good, but sometimes they're just lifeless copies of the subject. Similarly, sometimes film images look off color and that's irritating, but sometimes they are so lively it's like magic."

 

It's not the medium. A good photographer with a good subject in good light can use either to make "magic."

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I do think some films have a unique palette/look, namely Fuji's slide films. Given the right scene and light, Velvia is magic, especially in MF. But I can shoot the same scene in digital and while it looks different, it still looks great because of the light. And while it may look different from Velvia, that doesn't mean it's dramatically different from every color film.

 

"To say that film images look like digital images is just plain ignorant."

 

I've been creating another DVD archive of my photo library, and just printed a couple old 35mm scans in folders I had never gotten around to finishing. Lo and behold one of the prints is of my cousin's daughter, taken on NPH, and guess what...it looks pretty much identical to the 10D portrait of her I printed last month. (Well...except for her age difference.)

 

Heck, after Noise Ninja, you couldn't tell the difference based on grain even.

 

"In principle you need a different sensor and processing algorithms for each imitation. Useless really from an economical point of view."

 

Hyperbole. You would not need separate sensor designs, unless you're trying to match the wide latitude of certain films, in which case you just need a new sensor design since digital has not achieved that kind of latitude yet.