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

[fotografz]

Let's see, a film scan untouched after being turned into a digital shot. The G5 shot

manipulated in multiple ways in PS.

 

Then both compressed to 500 pixel width.

 

What was the point again?

 

BTW, the second film shot has the nicest rendition of light IMO.

[fotografz]

Oh, and the Canon shot exhibits the characteristic lack of depth that small sensor P&S suffer

from ... the very reason I sold my G5. But it's fantastic for those 2D shots.

[marbing]

Yes, I look at the first Tri-X shot which had nothing done to it and then I notice that the digital shot had to have at least 5 (and maybe 6) different tweaks and adjustments.

 

And this is supposed to prove??

[tekkie]

Jeez. I like the digital!

[ross_wilson1]

I think a fairer comparision would be to have the digital file written to a B&W negative and then a wet print made from that and the B&W original. I think it's fairly obvious who's going to win that one. As usual film is taken out of the environment it was made for so it can put put on the web and compared to something that's at home on the web as film is in an enlarger. For what it's worth however, the neg has held its own and then some, something I think you'll find a digital file written to neg will not.

[john_jovic]

John R. Fulton Jr. , apr 28, 2006; 07:26 a.m.

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. :->)

 

 

If so, it's only because of your attitude, not the models. Not many models on the Leica forums...

 

JJ

[john_shriver]

I played a bit with the color image directly from the camera. Once I fixed the color balance in Picture Window Pro, I can see that the color saturation is definitely boosted by the in-camera processing. I presume that the model doesn't have a strong mid-summer tan. The purple pillow is just popping bright. Not real.

 

This high-saturation look that has come out of the Fuji/Kodak film/paper competition just isn't my thing. (I think Fuji started it.) We now have the technical ability (compared to 20 years ago) to make color photographs which are so wonderfully subtle and accurate, but that's not the direction the mass market is going. The great mass of consumers can only deal with one very simple evaluation function for products, for photgraphy it appears to be "brightest colors".

 

As I've said before, I remember the sign hanging out front of a Walgreens in Somerville, MA: "Now, Brighter Colors", advertising their one-hour lab.

 

(Of course, maybe I'm just a retrograde, having just picked up my vacation photos taken through uncoated Leica lenses, on Portra 400NC, printed on Portra Endura.)

[geoffrey goldberg]

I'm noticing better light fall off in the second (fuller) frame shot with film. Better spatial

attributes.

Geoff

[k2]

Peter

i just hoped a seed of light would be planted in here ...... but you are right i am wasting

time ....

:)

k

[tmorgan]

Marc,

<br><br>

Here is 12:45 as processed by the out of the box Alien Skin TriX 400 filter. (I upsampled the

image before the filter, then down sampled to post; this isn't quite the same as working from

an initial higher resolution scan).

<br><br>

...Tom M<div></div>

[michael s.]

K planted a seed of light <i>in me</i>. Hence, his time wasn't wasted. -:)

[blakley]

I'm with Marc, the second film shot is my favorite. But I'm also with him in believing that this proves nothing interesting about quality.

 

Since there are too many independent variables to compare, it's quite difficult to make any of these little experiments mean much. I think the best one could do would be something like this:

 

1. Choose a model and a location.

 

2. Take your R9/DMR with 90/2 APO Summicron-R ASPH and put it on a tripod in said location.

 

3. Take a few head&shoulders portraits nicely focused at a variety of apertures with all the little digital setting-thingies configured the way you like them.

 

4. Take off the DMR and put the film back on the R9; load the rig with your favorite film.

 

5. Take a few more head&shoulders portraits nicely focused at the same variety of apertures. Make sure the light's the same as it was.

 

6. Go home.

 

7. Do your Photoshop post-capture workflow. Produce the biggest prints you can of each of your pictures on Photographic paper (make sure your printing service is profiled, your monitor is calibrated, etc...)

 

8. Take the kids' toys and goodwill bags out of your darkroom, dust off your enlarger, and make prints of the same size as the digital ones.

 

9. Matte and frame all the pictures, and hang them up in some random order in a nice white-walled room with decent light.

 

10. Buy a lot of wine and cheese, put up flyers, etc... in order to attract 100 people to an opening.

 

11. Ask people to rate the quality of all the pictures.

 

12. Analyze the results.

 

This would be expensive, and it would STILL have uncontrolled variables (crop factor not the least among them - you could correct for this by using a Canon 5D and R-to-EOS adapter instead of the DMR if you wanted to), but at least you'd be comparing REAL prints at a size which might show differences in quality, and at least you'd be using the same lens for the comparisons.

[michael s.]

Being a literal kind of guy, I started with the 2:00 photo straight-out-of-the-camera that said "photoshop me" ... and so I did.<div></div>

[Uhooru]

Remind me, what was the point of all this?

[michael s.]

But of course I forgot one step (just as I often do on my own photos).<div></div>

[michael s.]

Barry, don't tell me there's gotta be a point to all of this :)

[k2]

Micheal S <br>

"let there be light .... "<br>

enjoy <br>

:) <br>

k <br>

[jonathan_reynolds]

Sorry to say this, Marc, but I vastly prefer the full colour straight-out-of-the-camera shot.