gaetano catelli Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 i totally agree with Eric. it's not that digital is perfect at rendering skin tones, but, having used Fuji NPS, NPH, and NPZ, and Kodak Portra 400 NC and 800, i find nothing about them necessarily preferable in the way they render skin tones to the picture taken below: <center><p><img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/fotosphere/925-1aa.jpg"><br><a href="http://www.fotosphere-ny.com">Koichiro and Tomo </a><br><i>Canon 20D, ISO 1600, (mixed) available light</i></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestryinagain Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Somewhere on this forum (I think), someone once mentioned that digital has its own look, just like any film, with its own characteristics. You might as well consider the digital image as yet another/different type of "film" in your bag of tricks, not necessarily as a replacement for film. Since I read that some months ago, I havent quite looked at digital the same way as I used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Two main factors at work here: Skin tones and work flow. If you like the skintones you get with a DSLR, super. You're all set. If you already have a computer that is powerful enough to run photoshop (i.e., a couple of gigs of RAM and a fast processor) then you're ready. If you answer no to either of those questions, then stick with film for the time being. Digital ain't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 digitally, what about Nikon skin tones verses Canon skin tones? thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 ...and then there's the argument about C-41 black & white vs. conventional B&W...;-) Different strokes for different folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Good question Eric. Actually I prefer Nikon to Canon in that area. But that was when the Nikon Sensors were CCDs. I don't know about now. The big digital backs are all CCDs and definitely have less of the waxy look to them. Not as good as film IMO, but less plastic feel that the CMOS sensors seem to produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 it's my understanding that there is noise software built into the Canon and that one of the consequences is the waxy skin tones. it seems to be more noticable as the increase with the iso too. i have two Nikon dsrl's now, one D70, a ccd and the other a D2x, a cmos. they both look the same in regards to skin tones funny enough. i feared they wouldn't, but when i open browse, there is no disinction amongst the colours like i expected. i haven't shot much with the d2x so i have no valid examples to post. well, i'll go look... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_gillette Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 There are some things that have to be approached differently when choosing film/digital. There are some things that are film dependent when using film but camera dependent when going digital. When using film, if you have a reasonably competent camera (you can get, at least for now, entry level film slrs for about $100-$150 and these aren't bad cameras!!, you can get little good almost pocketable "point and shoots") and can control a lot of the functionality by film choice, anywhere from 100 to 3200 film speeds, latitude, color renditions, print, slide, B&W, etc. (Now to fully exploit that, it takes knowledge of the films, planning to get them, lab competency, etc.) With a digital camera, you get what it does. With digital, if you need low light/high isos, you need a dslr (with only a very few exceptions - now that will change over time as equipment evolves - much as film's been evolving for many, many years). Computing power? Red herring, the cutting edge has moved, the computer needs haven't moved nearly as fast. Most family computers will easily deal with family photographic needs. (We can thank music piracy and gaming for that.) Family pictures don't need dual 20" color matched/calibrated monitors, a computer with dual processors, 2 gig of ram, RAID hd arrays, etc. Convenience? If you used the local stores for your film needs, then you can easily use it for your digital needs. And maybe more satisfactorily - it eliminates much of the pimpled processor problem. With digital, you control the original files and they don't have to be subjected to the risks of poor processing controls, scratches, etc. If you had to plan and select from a wide variety of professional films and "import" them from New York and send everything to a carefully screened "pro" lab, then most people will find it hard to call that convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 That's good to hear Eric. I always liked the Nikon digital look ... but then Canon had to go and make a full frame sensor. The RD-1 also has a bit more film like characteristic to it, but isn't it also based on the same CCD in the Nikon D70 or 100 or something? I have 2 MF digital backs, both are Kodak sensors, but the Imacom one feels a bit more film like in feel ... may be the same noise control at work on the other older Kodak 645C back. Even when I open the 2 files directly in PSCS2 using DNG for the Imacon file, they look and feel different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 it's based on the D100, which is too bad because of the noise issues. I guess sony and Nikon wouldn't let them use the d70 architecture or something. Too bad, I would have liked one if it behaved like a d70. Nikon would hate me for using these lame examples, but they are all I have from the D2x. 400 iso, 66mm, 1/60, f2.8, drunk. the second is a crop of the same framing of the first. <br><br> <center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3503021-lg.jpg"></center><br><br> <center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3503022-lg.jpg"></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_garcia5 Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Gaetano, I'm sorry, not to offend anyone but that photo doesn?t prove to me how digital is any better than film. It's soft and the colors are off, looks more like a P&S digi cam to me. But if you sold that print then good for you. The other examples are much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 One of the biggest pros to digital photography is the instant feedback you get on your composition, exposure, and anything else you might stress over.<p> The biggest cons to digital seem to be in "blowing out the highlights" much easier than negative film. Another con is the startup cost (easily $5K and higher when you factor in computer, software, camera, memory cards adn the like). <p> A big pro to digital is that for the computer savvy it blows away scanning slides and negatives. Also the best DSLRs exceed the resolution of film (12MP and above). Also, especially with Canon DSLRs you can change ISO from shot to shot, impossible with film. <p> GoDiG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I don't think this thread is about which is better, or proving which is a better medium. At the moment both film and digital have strengths and weaknesses that need to be avoided and exploited. It's a matter of the right tool for the right job at the right moment. I'm totally sold on digital. But do you think I will take it to photograph a small band in a dinky night club light by a single light bulb? No, I don't like the noise and choose Delta 3200 and scanning. On one hand digital isn't there yet, and on another, film is being left behind. I'm particularly impressed with this trait of digital though...<br><br> <center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3503138-lg.jpg"></center><br><br> <center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3503141-lg.jpg"></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaetano catelli Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 <i>Gaetano, I'm sorry, not to offend anyone but that photo doesn?t prove to me how digital is any better than film</i><p> i didn't say the picture shows digital is better than film. i said i've seen no evidence that <i>film</i> is better at rendering flesh tones than <i>digital</i>.<p> i don't want to offend others either. so, i won't name names. i'll just leave it at saying that the examples i've seen on photo.net generally of flesh tones shot with film leave me underwhelmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 The computer screen is the great leveler! Whether shot film or digital you're still seeing it digitized on a computer screen. A print is something else. Prints are those things we put in albums and hang on the wall and sell to our clients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaetano catelli Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 this was shot by a Canon 20D under less challenging lighting conditions -- shade beneath open sky. i'm not seein' the "waxiness", or how film of any speed (much less ISO 1600, as here) is otherwise superior. <p> <img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/IMG_2039-1a750.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Here's a Nikon digital shot for comparison.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Skin tones look OK to great on a monitor. It's the prints that suffer and where you can see a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 They shouldn't, they should look better on a print than on a monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 This will never end. All we can do is offer up our opinions and let others sort it out. After working in digital with the best stuff out there, and working with some of the best photoshop guys in the country, I still think digital looks plastic. To me, every digital photo posted here looks like DuPont made the person's skin. But I don't limit the plastic comment to just skin. Now, after investing in some of the best glass in the world and adapting it to the most state of the art digital cameras, I'm even more convinced it's just the way it is, so learn to live with it because upgrading cameras isn't going to change that characteristic. Besides, if you can't see the difference, then it's all a moot point. Personally, I see a difference, and will continue to shoot film along with digital, if for nothing more than my own personal satisfaction with the images ... and I don't give a tinkers damn if I'm the only person on Earth that sees the difference (which I'm not). The shame would be if someone didn't explore both mediums and be able to experience the charms of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaetano catelli Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 i think the group in the shot taken with flash and Portra 400NC, above, have a bluish caste that makes them look sort of like zombies in a George Romero movie. nothing about that particulart shot -- that's how flash always looks (except in tightly controlled studio shoots). but, whatever floats your boat. i'd like to continue this discussion, but right now i'm going offline to develop some TriX 320 (in HC-110 -- Ansel Adams's favored combo) that i shot with my Speed Graphic 4x5 yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Exactly. <a href=" ">Digital looks like this.</a> (turn the slider down to one second or you'll be there forever...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Yes, the monitor is a medium which makes digital captures look a lot better. But if you want a print, that is another matter. CCD/CMOS/LBCAST doesn't matter: the look is in how the bits are processed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcin harla Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 <i>Skin tones look OK to great on a monitor. It's the prints that suffer and where you can see a difference.</i> <p>That's exactly my feeling. Posting examples here is pointless. 100k compressed image can't and won't say much. From my experience skin looks much, much better on monitor than on print. My expereince is only with Canon (20D and DRebel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Talking highlights + digital----I don't believe this image would had "survived" a digital camera. Not without a considerable more flash<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now