OM/zuiko images vs. my new DSLR... OM/zuiko so different!

[adam_carroll]

I didn't expect to miss OM when I left the supposedly antiquated system and 35mm format behind.

 

I used an OM-2 for years and loved it (and still have it) - but bought into a DSLR for the same reasons

many have moved to DSLR. I picked up a Nikon D200 because I really liked its feel, weatherproofing,

controls, and reputation for making great images.

 

But wait a second. I've shot 100s of images now with the D200, and then compared them with the shots

I'd made with my OM-2n. I may be imagining it, but the the film images from the OM-2/zuiko seem so

much warmer, deeper, richer.

 

I expected maybe some mild differences, but to my eye the change is very noticeable. All the more

surprising since digital is supposedly completely replacing 35mm.

 

I guess I am just so surprised at the difference. Can anyone comment on this? Am I imagining things?

Should I set up a more controlled comparison? Should I sell my D200 and get a few more lenses for my old

OM-2n?

[richard_oleson]

One difference is that film has a greater dynamic range than digital sensors. This gives you a broader range between where your blacks lose detail and your whites wash out. To take advantage of this you need good processing and printing, which doesn't always happen by any means... but when it does happen it makes a big difference in the quality of the image, even when the digital gives good resolution and doesn't suffer badly from the dreaded "Purple Fringing" (which digital shooters love to refer to as "Chromatic Aberration" so they can pretend it's the lens's fault).

 

I wouldn't sell the D200, because like it or not, digital IS going to replace film and the D200 is a good DSLR; but keep using the OM as long as you can, and enjoy the results while you can still get them.

[godfrey]

Film does not have "a greater dynamic range than today's digital sensors". It has been

shown in one test after another that this is not true. I can't believe people would continue

to say that.

 

There are many points of difference between your OM System camera and a D200 kit. The

rendering of your film images is a very sophisticated, highly refined process with years of

development behind it. Do you do your own film processing? printing? slide processing?

Probably not ... relatively few people do ...

 

The D200 puts all of that rendering work directly into your hands. No one is going to do it

for you. What comes out of the camera is not a finished image, not any more than the film

that comes out of your OM2 is not a finished image. It's up to you to finish it, and that will

take you learning the skills to do it.

 

Enjoy your OM-2n ... it and its Zuiko lenses are very fine quality gear. But don't sell your

D200: learn how to render the photos it takes, and you'll find that it is every bit the equal

of the OM-2n.

 

Of course, an Olympus DSLR would also take very fine pictures, once you learned how to

make it do what you wanted, too.

 

Godfrey

[richard_oleson]

sorry, I stand corrected.

 

all of my digital pictures just LOOK like they have less dynamic range than my film pictures (as long as I develop and print them myself)

 

:)=

[ronhartman]

How are you comparing the film with digital images, by making prints from both? Images directly out of a digital SLR's can be a little flat, especially in raw. I always enhance pictures before printing, usually by adding contrast, saturation and sharpness.

[GerrySiegel]

A scientific test may be in order and I am sure someone has or will do it. Say you took the same shot with the same lens equivalent of the same subject in the same light.Ok.

 

Then have them printed professionally by a trusted lab,one from negative or slide,one from a CD under two different names (to keep OM vs E system bias out of the way,natch). Then ask a group of people to choose the one they favor-in real life situation. And make the choice part of a questionnaire perhaps...sample:

 

On a five point scale. Warmth...Richness...Color quality...other. In the arts this never came up much with oils,watercolors,guache, but is something that comes up in things like Leica lens discussions,so it is "real" but elusive I say. A neurological phenomenon. Some say the quality is indefinable. My feeling,no put down intended, is that if it is indefinable,it does not exist. I know, I know. We get to really know our tools,our pets,our coffee choices and it is hard to explain personal preference. (Why do I indeed choose German Shepherd look over Golden, or Min.Schnauzers.) A lover tries to define by qualities that are ambiguous. And it doesn't mean they don't exist. I actually find that a digital image on a backlit screen shows greater range than any print. As for the OM size, I do believe that can be emulated if Oly chose to. But why return to the 57 Chevy, when one can drive a Lexus,so to speak. Still a viable choice on a forum that covers two whole different systems.

 

I don't think you are alone at all.From from it. But I am sold on the utility of digitizing,and so I go digital. And I believe incidentally that Panasonic L-1 has tried to capture the tactile feel of the older system.So the older systems had some good,natural feeling qualities. How to marry the two,beats me...

 

Not sure if there is a bottom line. But just hand me the machine,and say where the shutter release is. If it has one:-)

[shadowfox]

Godfrey wrote:

 

"Film does not have "a greater dynamic range than today's digital sensors". It has been shown in one test after another that this is not true. I can't believe people would continue to say that."

 

Could you point me to these "tests"? all I know from real-life experience is that it's far easier to get a blown highlight from my digital cameras (E-300 and C5050) than it is from my OM-1/2/4.

 

Adam:

 

I share your amazement. Besides a joy to use, my OM-cameras produces images with more depth than my "clean" E-300 images, sometimes it's the film grain, sometimes more subtle than that.

 

Mind you, I'm *not* saying that my E-300 or your D200 isn't capable of creating stunning images, it's just a different "stunning" quality :)

 

Keep using both, and enjoy it!

[steve_swinehart]

"But wait a second. I've shot 100s of images now with the D200, and then compared them with the shots I'd made with my OM-2n. I may be imagining it, but the the film images from the OM-2/zuiko seem so much warmer, deeper, richer."

 

You didn't say what kind of film you're comparing to the D200. If you were using Velvia the colors would be distorted, more compressed, with a lot more contrast. If you're using something like Provia they'd be cooler, some Ektachromes would be downright blue, etc.

 

Lastly, the design of the older Zuiko lenses compared to the new Nikon lenses will give a difference in color rendering.

 

You have stated a fairly big generalization - based upon little information on the entire film system. If you're telling me you can't match the look without work in a photo editing program - you're absolutely correct. The other possibility is to setup a specific user program to give you an interpretive "film look."

[steve_swinehart]

Blown highlights:

 

Is this compared to negative film or transparency film? A good digital camera will have less dynamic range than negative film, but greater dynamic range than transparency film.

 

You have to learn that digital images work better if under exposed as you can easily dig detail out of the dark areas, but, just like transparency film, once you blow out the highlights all the information is gone.

[felix müller]

I share your experiences with digital cameras. Two main reason why digital pictures don't look as good as those that were shot on film is the Bayer sensor and the low-pass filter in front of it, which works similiar like a softener. The real resolotion of a Canon EOS 5D for example is seven megapixel.

[godfrey]

re: dynamic range <br>

Go browse through the issues of Photo Techniques over the past few years. There are

other sources too. I'm not a librarian. ;-)

<br><br>

My own testing shows that a typical current DSLR can net up to 9-11 stops of dynamic

range after gamma correction. Slide film is typically in the 4-6 stop range, color negative

film in the 7-9 stop range, B&W films in the 7-10 stop range. A very very few B&W films

with "exotic" developer formulations can hit 11-12 stops.

<br><br>

Of course, if you're talking about JPEG image files out of the camera, those show dynamic

range in the 5-7 stop range. That's the result of losses in gamma correction, contrast and

color assignment, and sharpening, as well as the reduction of quantization space from 12

bits per photosite to 8 bits per channel.

<br><br>

Basically, if you want to exploit the full potential of a digital camera, you *must* capture in

RAW format and have control over the gamma correction curve and color space. The in-

camera JPEG conversions are all limited due to relatively coarse control capabilities.

<br><br>

A digital capture requires processing, much like a piece of film. It takes some knowledge

and practice to obtain the results you would like from it.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[richard_oleson]

Geezzzz, all I wanted to do was take pictures..... somehow in film i seemed to be able to do that without having control over my gramma's correction curve or her color space......

 

:)=

[godfrey]

You paid someone to do that work for you, that's all.

 

Since I did my own work, I know how much effort (and money) it took to do it right...

 

Godfrey

[adam_carroll]

Thank you everyone for this input. This was my first post on photo.net, but I've read stuff

here for years and, as usual, been educated and entertained.

 

Godfrey, you are at another level it seems. I'll probably never process and print my own

color film. No time, frankly. I've used negative film and a good lab in my town to make

prints. I pick up my OM-2n, use it, get the film processed, look at contact sheets, and go

back to make prints. Not ideal but I like the results - a lot.

 

I guess I'll begin by doing a more controlled comparison to start learning more about the

specific differences between the two systems, and then start experimenting with more

extensive post-processing of the digital images.

 

Bottom line seems to be that I need to do more work to coax what I want out of the DSLR -

that film look. Oh well... I'll hold onto it, but remind me again why I should? I'm kidding

(kind of)...

[richard_oleson]

I'll be the first to admit that I have no great skill and still far less interest in image manipulation in Photoshop. I never paid anyone to do this with my film, as far as I can recall: I just stick it in the enlarger and print it out......

 

Out with my DSLR today, I did notice that in every single shot that I took in the sun, there were significant parts of the image overexposed and blocked up(with the very helpful flashing highlights in the histogram to point them out). The only thing that helped was to set the AE compensation to -1 stop, after which every outdoor photo still had blocked up areas, but they were smaller and probably acceptable.... although the images now generally look ... well, one stop underexposed.

 

If this is what it looks like to have a broader exposure latitude than the Tri-X that I've been shooting for the past 30 years, then perhaps my understanding of the term "dynamic range" is misguided.

 

I suppose there is a way to take these blocked up images into Photoshop and coax the detail out of them. But I would have to pay someone else to do it.

[godfrey]

Capture in RAW. Expose for the highlights so that they are not oversaturated. Import into

Lightroom. Add fill light to bring the underexposed shadow areas into range. Do whatever

other minor tweaking you might want. Print.

 

I don't know why this is so difficult or unpleasant. To each their own. Shoot film.

 

Godfrey

[richard_oleson]

I guess I don't understand why all that is necessary when the dynamic range is so great.

[glyn r]

I used to process my own films and do my own printing. I struggled with digital until I found Lightroom its a great package just take time to learn how to use it. It took me 5 yars to be happy with my film processing why should I expect to master digital in 5 weeks. I think digital has been sold on the easy to do basis, this is also true of film snaps.

[roger_smith4]

"I guess I don't understand why all that is necessary when the dynamic range is so great."

 

With digital you hit a cliff and highlights blow out to pure white. Negative film is more of a soft slope where you get a range of tones from your highlights all the way to point light sources. Negative film may give dirtier, noisy shadows at the same ISO as digital so the overall range might be comparable. I personally care more about preserving highlights- reducing noise is doable in lightroom or with a progjram like Noise Ninja.

[godfrey]

It's not "all this". It's a very simple thing to do with today's tools. It's a different medium. With

a different response curve, and different ways to approach the notion of "development".

 

All it takes to get what you want is the ability and willingness to learn something new. It took

you some time to learn how to develop Tri-X and make a decent print.

 

Godfrey

[richard_oleson]

"With digital you hit a cliff and highlights blow out to pure white. Negative film is more of a soft slope where you get a range of tones from your highlights all the way to point light sources."

 

Sorry! I guess I've had a misunderstanding. I had thought that this was what was meant by "dynamic range".

[patrick j dempsey]

You know what Ive noticed is that when I go to the grochery store, half the time I have to use the damned self checkout. Only a few years ago I paid some teenager who needed his first job and a regular paycheck to do a mindnumbing but important job. Now im stuck doing it myself. When I was in college I worked in a grochery store for a little while... the one job I refused to do was work the register and bag grocheries. And now Im forced to do it WITHOUT PAY. To make matters worse is I dont get a discount.... shouldnt I get a discount if I bag my own grocheries? But the absolute worse part about this "moderinization" is that its slower. Im not a seasoned expert at ringing up grocheries and stacking them in the bags. It takes me forever to get the bar codes to scan and the menu systems on the machines can really be confusing sometimes.... and then theres my squished bread and ripping bag that I should have double-bagged... and then theres beer and produce... yes, its "self-check" but for beer and produce I have to wait for the poor teenager who is now responisble for all 6 "self" checkouts with people who need their ID's checked, their Roma Tomatoes priced, and their correct change... and god forbid one of those bastards wrote a check!

 

My whole point being... where exactly is the "Revolution" in going from a fairly perfected system where people brought their film to the Photo-mat and came back in a hour to good prints? Im no professional and I dont expect professional results in an hour for $5... but once you find a good lab with people you can trust you can often get great prints and scans... no hassle. To get those same results now you have to dump your card... sort through HUNDREDS of images with a high probability of crap because... "hey its free!" then spend all evening cropping, adjusting level, contrast, saturation... then you can throw all that work away by printing it at home on your crappy printer that isnt really calibrated to your monitor and probably cant be... OR do more work and burn the images to CD and bring them to the photo store to have them printed on photo quality printers with permanent archival lightfast inks.

 

Many high-volume professionals still farm out the editing and printing of their digital files just as they did their film. And that leaves the ambitious amateur in the same catagory as the over-obsessed artist photographer who has to be in control of every detail of his work. The amateurs are now basically left to fend for themselves and invest in a better printer now that they arent using the lab anymore, and a better monitor because that old one never would calibrate correctly, and hundreds of dollars in digital editing software because that program that came with their old scanner just didnt QUITE do it. I can see where companies selling computers, scanners, printers, photo paper, ink, monitors, digital editing software and digital cameras would really see the Digital Revolution as a great thing, but for the average amateur who wants to take decent pics without the investment, I just dont buy it. For under $100 you can buy a decent film SLR and with some luck, a decent lens on it. You can say all you want about the price of film and processing but ink and photopaper probably equals that, if not surpasses it... Personally, I think everyone got snookered.

[godfrey]

Patrick,

 

Since you're turning this discussion into another idiotic "digital vs film" rant, I'll unsubscribe

from the notifications. These rants are a waste of time and energy.

 

G

[patrick j dempsey]

Funny I thought thats what this post WAS? Obviously digital has its place. Its great for the high-volume professional who wants and needs thousands of exposures and has the money to invest in such an expensive system. Its also great for the teeny bopper or mom who just wants some pictures of friends and family to post online or put into a digital picture frame and just wants a cheap digital camera that doesnt make them think. But I really honestly beleive that budding amateurs have been left in the cold. Maybe in 10 years the bugs will be worked out of digital and it will be worth investing in, but right now it just seems like alot of extra money and time to get results that could be easily gotten with just about any film SLR from the last 30 years.

[j.k._york]

Patrick,

 

Tell it like it is my friend. WYSIWYG is the carrot/stick senario. I've bought printer profiles

with custom LUTs and hardware calibrators, software calibrators, custom office lights,

anxiety medication, etc only to one day come to the realization that my two beautiful

bloodshot eyeballs talk my brain into seeing variations even when there were none, and

vise versa.

 

I don't follow some of the logic about dynamic range in film/chrome vs. digital. Put it in

terms an old b/w photographer can understand, the zone system with 0 being pure black

and 10 being paper white.

 

I'm not a luddite, but the old ways need not die either. can't there be room for both. or

should we take all paints and brushes away and issue artists wacom graphic tablets?

 

In the end, its what makes you happy right?