Film or Digital? (don't peek at data)

[david_manning1]

Answer soon.<div></div>

[john schroeder]

Because it's on my screen it's digital. It's been resized and compressed to exist in this medium.

[john schroeder]

I don't see and grain or dye clouds.<div></div>

[erik_loza]

That's a nice image, but I'm not clear on what exactly are you trying to show. How a DSLR

handles your lens? How your scanner performs? How your DSLR does its thing?

 

It's either a straight digital image from a DSLR or film which you scanned. So, it is a digital

image, regardless. On images viewed at this size and resolution, I could create an image

on my DSLR that would be indiscernable from film and vice-versa, I could process a slide

in such a way that it looks like it came from my DSLR. In either case, the viewing resolution

here is too small to discern any difference. Where are trying to go with this?

[luis triguez]

nice girl<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Nice shot. Why does it matter whether it is film or digital?

[david_manning1]

I have been trying to decide in my own mind whether to do some documentary photography with my F6 (Tri-X or TMax 400) or my D2x (final images will be in black and white either way).

 

Much of the morning I've been both scanning b&w negs and fooling with RAW files. For convenience, the RAW files win hands-down, but I crave the b&w film process and look, and miss it since most of my work is photographed digitally.

 

That shot of my daughter I posted was photographed with the D2x (firmware 2.0) in color NEF mode, ISO 1600 (Hi 1). It was processed solely in Aperture 1.5 straight to the jpg you see. I used the high ISO to try to duplicate (or replicate, as it were) the bit of grain I see from scanned TMax 400 negs. I also tried to replicate what I thought would be b&w film's tonality the way I'd print in a wet darkroom.

 

My intention wasn't a film vs. digital argument (I use both currently) as much as a process and end-result replication effort.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[johnnycake_.1]

Disregarding the obligatory digital processing, i.e. it's on my monitor, I think it is an

excellent example for constructive argument.

 

On the one hand, there are no blown highlights in the image but there doesn't seem to be

any extreme highlights in either the girl or the image environment. On the other hand,

there is little detail in shadows but there isn't much shadow in either the girl or the image

environment.

 

So, in my opinion, it's a "wash."

 

Digital b&w and b&w film can generate very similar results when the image source has a

small range of b&w tones.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>I have been trying to decide in my own mind whether to do some documentary photography with my F6 (Tri-X or TMax 400) or my D2x (final images will be in black and white either way). </i><p>

Documentary photography is moving to color so that future viewers have at least an idea of the colors of the things photographed.<p>

B&W documentary was so largely due to economics. Those days are past.

[david_manning1]

I DO have to comment, though, that twelve months ago we'd be arguing the film vs. digital crap again. Now it appears we've gotten over that and are now arguing color vs. black and white. I wonder how many picture editors fought this battle?

 

We're back to photography as a topic, not technology! Bravo!

 

----David.

[oceanphysics]

<i>And in my opinion both statements are utter 'twaddle'.</i>

<P>

This from a guy who apparently can't count to three.

[nilanjan_sen]

David, it is a lovely shot. But I was sure it was digital. I can't explain why - could be the smoothness, or absence of grain clumps, or whatever.

[walterh]

David - the light is soft - the image is small - the tools are first class. If any difference between media would show up you would have done something seriously wrong.

 

I get your point from your later comment and agree - we should care about the result and not the tools behind as long as these are adequate.

 

You could still start a film versus digital debate any time here in PN (no please don't) if you posted a different example. So your optimistic conclusion is perhaps based on the wrong example. Try a post of treetops at 100% crop taken with an D50 and ask about CA of the lens and if this would be a problem with film ^^.

[david_manning1]

Here's another one...

[david_manning1]

The answer: this last one was shot with an F6 on TMax 400 at dreadful high noon (and

scanned obviously).

 

I'll tell you...it was more of a pain in the keister doing it that way, but in sloppy,

unforgiving light it gave a better image than digital would have.

 

I guess my take on this experiment is:

 

A well-lit, properly exposed image will look good from whatever medium (duh)...but if one

gets lazy, digital is very unforgiving and will not be as pleasing to the eye.

 

I think what this little experiment taught me is that for documentary photography in black

& white, film will be more forgiving "in the field" but that if well-photographed, either

medium is capable of producing the look that a snobby pixel-peeper would be happy with.

 

Comments? Anyone feel the same or differently?

[klix]

IMO, the workflow you use for your project -- for which you want the end result to be in B&W -- largely depends on whether you are more familiar/comfortable with a **wet** darkroom or a digital darkroom. If you are equally comfortable with either workflow, then it's a coin flip.

[oceanphysics]

<i>Anyone feel the same or differently?</i>

<p>

I do.

[derek_stanton2]

Both examples are too small to discern their origins.

[joel_hammers]

"Documentary photography is moving to color so that future viewers have at least an idea of the colors of the things photographed.

 

B&W documentary was so largely due to economics. Those days are past."

 

That is the silliest thing I've ever read on photo.net.

[thomas_sullivan]

if you want the look of film grain, scan a blank piece of film (like the unexposed leader), and blend the grain image and the digital image together in photoshop. Once you get the process down, it really looks nice. A little duotone and split toning adds the final touch.<br><br><center><img src="http://tssullivan.net/images/teengirls.jpg"><br><br>untitled, Philadelphia, PA, 2005, tssullivan</center><br><br>

[gaius1]

David it is well-known that DSLR sensors behave more like slide film than negative film, which is why you are seeing that DSLRs are "unforgiving".

[rjacksonphoto]

Thomas,

 

Interesting idea. I'll have to try it.

 

Thanks.

[jdw]

I have been a profesional for 50 years and discovered,believe it or not,all the client required was a good photograph. Whether digital or not ask yourself, is it a good photograph. Nobody cared how the image was achieved or by what method.. John Warren