Summicron/Tri-X vs Digital P & S (not a troll)

[marc_lieberman1]

The Leica CL is small all manual camera that typically sports a

nifty 40mm Summicron.

 

Like the CL with Summicron, the Canon G-series digital cameras have

an f/2 maximum aperture, and allows for full manual control of

aperture and shutter speed. They have the same quality chip as

every other digisnap camera, with overly saturated colors and high

noise levels at 400 ISO equivalent. If you care about more than

simply making a record shot, you will need at least some basic

PhotoShop skills.

 

Here is are two photos taken at about the same time, same

incandenscent light source, same subject. Each photo demonstrates

the strengths of the equipment and the medium.<div></div>

[marc_lieberman1]

This next one is from a Canon G5 @f/2, ISO equivalent of 400. Color corrected using the RGB channels in Levels, converted to black and white in Channel Mixer, 33% of the color was then added back, noise was reduced slightly with Noise Ninja plug-in. Probably has simple Levels and Curves adjustment layers as well.<div></div>

[travis1]

g5 looks better, without doubt.

[marc_lieberman1]

Here the photo contains the same manipulations as the version posted above, but with out any color added back. Even if it were not cropped differently than the Summicron/Tri-X version, it would have a very different feel because to the lack of grain.

 

There are one or more companies out there making plug-ins that allow digital photos to mimic certain film stocks. I don't have any such programs. If anyone out does, it would be interesting if you could run see how closely you could make the photo below look like the Tri-X version.<div></div>

[marc_lieberman1]

Travis, I think that the digital photo is better composed and that the pose seems less "forced" and more relaxed. However, after being inundated throughout the day with with highly processed images in print and on television, I like the more raw feel of the film,

[robert meier]

You're just much closer with the film shot. Do you have a frame back a little further?

[marc_lieberman1]

Robert- Here's another from the film series with a perspective more closely matching the digital shot.<div></div>

[fjords]

Mark; here is Silver Oxide plug- in, slight adj in curves, with grain

added<p><center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/52/

136255326_deab11a186_o.jpg"></center>

[EricM]

what'd you scan the tri-x with?

[fjords]

ImageFactory Tri-X convert, slight curves adj, grain applied<div></div>

[fjords]

Eric, the mucked-up color one, It would be nice to have the original!

[marc_lieberman1]

Tri-X was scanned with Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 using Nikon software @ 16 bits.

[fjords]

Eric, I miss read your question. sorry>

[marc_lieberman1]

John-

 

At these small sizes, it's hard for me to see any difference between the digital TriX and the real deal. Do prints made with the film grain plug-ins look like they were made with film or do they just look like digital noise. BTW, here's one of the originals right out of the camera.<div></div>

[tom_burke3]

Marc, it doesn't suprise me that these images are about equivalent. I would suggest the

following as possible reasons:-

 

a) a web-page image is not really a high-quality image, regardless of its origin;

b) the G5 isn't really what I would call a P&S - the Canon 'G' cameras have a lot of

advanced features, good resolution, and a good lens;

c) I've always found that scanning silver halide film always produces files containing very

grainy images, much grainer than the negative original. (I once read an explanation by

Roger Hicks as to why this should be so, and it seemed to make sense at the time, but I'm

blowed if I could repeat it now. Better ask Roger....) I switched to chromagenic films for

that reason.

 

I wonder how a pair of 11" x 14" prints would compare...

[k2]

it depends how you want deal with film grain. one methond is to simply scan exposed flat

( grey and black ) film just for grain reference and then match the grain size in correlation to

your digital image within. you dont want to have digi grain to be too small or too large in

compare with the same size grain in film print. the BW grain match is straight foward

process, the hardball game is with colour, grain patterns and densities are different from

channel to channel.

k

[fjords]

Imagefactory, tri-x, YG filter, grain.<div></div>

[daniel_taylor]

The bummer is that while this is probably the most valid, useful, and interesting "digital vs. film" thread in a year, it's limited by the realities of web presentation.

 

It's pretty hard to tell which, among the many variations, looks best. One could look identical to the film shot on screen and then look nothing like it in print. But John's second post seems the closest so far.

 

FWIW, the "straight from camera" digital looks pretty bad, but I think most of that could be fixed with a proper WB setting on scene.

[mitchell_kirschner]

From my own shooting experience and similar comparisons, I personally prefer the look and tonality of scanned silver B&W film, especially when it comes time to make a print (carbon pigment inkjet print in my case).

 

Still, I've made some lovely B&W prints from digital capture, and I've also taken many, many bad photos in both mediums. :)

[k2]

i dont agree, shooting RAW in auto WB mode gives the best palette to start with your CC work . WB burns a specific color lattice space into the image. you can achieve the same result by post-processing "neutral" RAW data , thus by shooting in auto WB mode you have max possibilies to work with. instead of starting Color Correction with already colour warped image via used custom WB, which means you might have not enough data -color depth- in one of the colour channels for futher CC modifications.

k

[paulmoore]

john doane's 3:23 post with curves to try get to first trix post<div></div>

[paulmoore]

I will figure this posting thing out someday. here it is ..I hope.<div></div>

[christian hilmersen www.]

I have not done this test, but I have compared Olympus E-1 with 14-54 to Leica M6 with hexanon. I think the biggest advantage film has to digital is graceful degrading - i.e the picture quality gets gradually worse the more you enlarge it: less and less new information is revealed. With delta 100, my coolscan IV has less maximum resolution that what I can achieve in the darkroom, and the resolution is way beyond what I can achieve with the e-1 (filmresolution seem to be 3x digitial . With delta 400 the game is more equal: the e-1 is cleaner but the film still has more resolution. The resolution with Fuji Provia seems to be apprx 2x digital. To achieve top resolution with digital is pretty straight forward, with scanned film it is harder, and in the darkroom it is still harder....

[clayh]

This is an interesting comparison. But I concur with others in that it is very hard to draw

conclusions from pictures on the web. I find that when I go all the way to the print stage -

e.g. make the same 7x10 print from a negative and a digital capture file, the differences

become quite noticeable, particularly if the film version is a wet darkroom silver print. Both

types of prints can be quite nice in their own way, but they still look like very different beasts

when you put them side by side. My 2 cents.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

When shooting with the Leica the model looks at you. She's comfortable. When you shoot

with the digital she looks away. Obviously she is finds the digital camera to be a

technological nightmare that she has no interest in connecting with. She's intimidated. She

won't look you straight in the eye. Wait. Oh. Well, yes, it could be a coincidence. Nevermind.

Anyway, nice comparison. Thanks for the post. :->)