Jump to content

Film vs Digital - Color Rendition


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I don't shoot film because it is just as good as digital.<br>

I don't shoot film because it is better than digital.<br>

I shoot film because it is different. Comparing film and digital like this is just forcing film to revert to the mean.</p>

<p>"Louis, for each of the three digital pictures, you have to start with the digital pictures and modify them (colors, saturation, etc) to try to provide the look of each film below."</p>

<p>I shoot film and have no interest in modifying digital images.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>If you mean me as the seriously problematic individual why not just say so? I am an adult and see no point in debating with people I agree with, but tell me where what I have said has been wrong.</p>

<p>Where is the benefit in comparing guesses against others guesses unless it is just a bit of film user fun, but if it is then why call it film vs digital? I am not down on film, I use it in 135, 120 and 220 sizes, but I don't hold it up as a holy chalice that's abilities can never be questioned. I am pragmatic enough to know when film holds an advantage over my digital camera for my use and the vast majority of the time when it doesn't. I am not against film users, far from it, I am one, I am against misguided crusades and badly presented unfair comparisons that are put forward as facts. Why come to the film forum? Because misleading information needs to be countered, oh, and I am one!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This COULD be a worthwhile exercise if administered properly. I have some suggestions.</p>

<p>(1) The digital photos should come from someone who understands digital exposure and post processing well, not someone who launches anti-digital Internet crusades on a regular basis.</p>

<p>(2) The digital and film photos must be taken in the same light of the same subjects and, in the case of natural outdoor lighting, and almost the same time. A few seconds difference might be acceptable, but even in a few seconds light can change.</p>

<p>(3) Processing of the digital photos should be documented and made public. Likewise, processing used on the scanned images should be published and made public.</p>

<p>(4) All digital processing must be done on properly calibrated monitors.</p>

<p>(5) Post only JPEG conversions of the original files, no composites. Leave all EXIF data visible in the originals.</p>

<p>(6) All parties must acknowledge that JPEG (sRGB) versions of digital images (scanned or native) have undergone a conversion process and do not represent the full color gamut and dynamic range that digital sensors can capture.</p>

<p>(7) Scrap the 40D and use a professional full-frame DSLR with top-quality glass. After all, you're using professional film, not drug store grade print film. Why used an outdated hobbyist camera for comparison?</p>

<p>Does anyone have any objections?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>All right Scott. Some of your points are good. I was too harsh and I should rephrase.</p>

<p>Mauro, it's an interesting contest idea, but why the "Film vs Digital" stuff? It's just going to encourage arguments on what might otherwise be an interesting thread, and this isn't really about film vs. digital anyway.</p>

<p>Scott, of course you're right that this isn't a perfect exercise. E.g., we'd agree that there's a lot of play in here. Scanned negative film color isn't really reproducible from person to person or siutation to situation. Even if we've all shot hundreds of rolls of, say, Ektar 100 and know what it ought to look like, what it ought to look like to me is not the same as what it ought to look like to you or to Mauro. And JPGs that are contrasty aren't a good starting point for this sort of thing. But Mauro wants to do an experiment and he's being quite generous with his time and the prizes. And if he's being more provocative than I would think he has to be, so was your post. It was more insulting than it had to be to make a point about your opinion of this exercise.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply. You might feel that my first comment was too strong, in the context of this one thread it might seem so, in the context of the various threads that Mauro and I have posted, and the hounding I have received for pointing out obvious errors, inconsistencies and ignorance in them, I didn't feel it was.</p>

<p>Sorry if I have offended anybody, but crusades, however well meaning and earnestly believed in, normally, with the benefit of hindsight and history, prove to have been pointless and wrong.</p>

<p>For those that think that trying to guess what an emulsion you didn't develop, scan or process looks like, and how close you can then get a cheap outdated consumer digital camera jpeg file to look like those files is a good idea, or worthwhile use of time, knock yourselves out. But this is not, as titled, a film vs digital thread, and any conclusions drawn are not relevant to that contentious issue.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are not starting from the raw file you really don't know what processing has been done to get the jpeg, so I think acess to the raw files would be a must.</p>

<p>And seeing the film scans would also be a must IMO, when I scan I get different results depending on if I use VueScan or the Minolta software, so not being able to see the film scans would make this a very hard task indeed.</p>

<p>Note that Velvia has a pretty deep notch in its responce around 490 nm, deeper then the human eye. Also the blue sensitivity goes out further then the eye, so anything that is reflecting a lot of blue at the short end is going to look different in a Velvia slide then to the eye. The peak sensitivty for red in Velvia is around 650 nm, for the eye is is closer to 600nm So how well you can match Velvia depends a lot on the subject. And whether you would want to match it depends on your taste.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andy, to your points:</p>

<p>1. Your are right - but it really doesn't get to me.<br /> 2. I find Velvia, Ektar and Portra to be very consistent in daylight with the Coolscan 9000. Also this is consistent with the colors produced by Imacon and Tango. They are by no means perfect in absolute terms but relatively accurate. To address your point, when you post your guess (and I hope you do) I can set a neutral point on both your guess and my scan and then compare the relationship of colors - This will be accurate.<br /> 3. I find the jpgs very good for this exercise but I can ftp the raw files to you if you would like them.</p>

<p>Thank you for the feedback.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Will the digital conversions be similar enough for pixel level internet nerd comparisons? Probably not, without a decent bit of effort. Good enough for everybody else including lots of image pros and buyers? Yes."</p>

<p>Scott, his is not a pixel level comparison - just er reduced files. I would love to see how you can recreate the look of the films good enough for image pro. This is to the hear of this game.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Peter, I believe I just answered most of your comments above.</p>

<p>Regarding your observation of the sensors; the relationship between the different wavelengths captured by a single sensor is static and cannot be changed. You cannot just set the Velvia look in PP because many variables as the incidence angle of each wavelength is not recorded.</p>

<p>Give it a try.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>That's the classic tactic shown by you and Les and Dave all the time, you set up a contentious ill thought out scenario, when people (not just me) question the scenario, it's objectives and why it has limited value you don't try to address the points, you just keep on, any doubters or contrary points or posts are dismissed.</p>

<p>If you were after a bit of film forum fun that is fine, I might have given it a go, but you are not, you titled this thread "film vs digital", after giving numerous teasers in another contentious totally biased and misleading thread, because that is how you see things. Most shooters don't see film vs digital as a competition, they have preferences, for whatever reason, and use one or the other, or both, to that end. I know I do. For my work my 135 format digital camera vastly outperforms my film use up to and including 6x7, I still drag the 6x9 out every now and again but more for the fun of it than the outright detail or colour or "feel".</p>

<p>If you are trying to prove that film can give you a "look" not repeatable with digital you are onto a loser, you can't. For most people getting close enough is easy enough. For many film users getting accurate colours was a nightmare for years.</p>

<p>If you really want to prove things, anything, then you have to suggest a methodology and then listen to input about how your methods are valid or not, if there is a consensus on that then repeatable and open tests are the only way to gain credibility.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Scott, his is not a pixel level comparison - just er reduced files."</em></p>

<p>At the moment yes, but I know how you and Les continue these threads, if somebody gets close then you will look deeper, if they get closer again after actually showing them what they are trying to copy then you will look ever closer, you are very happy to compare pixel level posts, well you have been before.</p>

<p>Just as an example, we know Dave can't be considered impartial and how in the hell could he enter a competition that he is judging? Even if you say he won't judge his own work that means he is not judged as the others were! Amazing........</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dan, to your comments:<br>

"</p>

 

<p>This COULD be a worthwhile exercise if administered properly. I have some suggestions.<br>

(1) The digital photos should come from someone who understands digital exposure and post processing well, not someone who launches anti-digital Internet crusades on a regular basis."</p>

<p>No post processing is done and all settings to neutral.</p>

<p>"(2) The digital and film photos must be taken in the same light of the same subjects and, in the case of natural outdoor lighting, and almost the same time. A few seconds difference might be acceptable, but even in a few seconds light can change."</p>

<p>Yes. Check on that!</p>

<p>"(3) Processing of the digital photos should be documented and made public. Likewise, processing used on the scanned images should be published and made public."<br>

Yes. Check on that!</p>

<p>"(4) All digital processing must be done on properly calibrated monitors."</p>

<p>No processing other than the stated.</p>

<p>"(5) Post only JPEG conversions of the original files, no composites. Leave all EXIF data visible in the originals."</p>

<p>I can add that no problem.</p>

<p>"(6) All parties must acknowledge that JPEG (sRGB) versions of digital images (scanned or native) have undergone a conversion process and do not represent the full color gamut and dynamic range that digital sensors can capture."</p>

<p>Color clipping vs ARGB will be immaterial and especially on a monitor. Subtle differences in yellow and greens could be perceived on a printer but very marginal. RAW files can be made available as well.</p>

<p>"(7) Scrap the 40D and use a professional full-frame DSLR with top-quality glass. After all, you're using professional film, not drug store grade print film. Why used an outdated hobbyist camera for comparison?"</p>

<p>The 40D produces no observable difference in color to the 5DII and the 60mm 2.8 is probably the sharpest lens made. Too late to rerun the exercise but I can post a 5DII vs 40D to satisfy your question.</p>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Mauro, it's an interesting contest idea, but why the "Film vs Digital" stuff? It's just going to encourage arguments on what might otherwise be an interesting thread, and this isn't really about film vs. digital anyway."</p>

<p>Agree. Can someone email the admin to change it to "Film and Digital - Color Rendition"?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"If you are not starting from the raw file you really don't know what processing has been done to get the jpeg, so I think acess to the raw files would be a must."<br>

- Upload RAW in DPP<br>

- All settings to neutral<br>

- Auto WB (not materially different than daylight - I checked)<br>

- Export to PS as 16 bit TIFF<br>

- Cropped and converted to Jpeg - 8 bit for post.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...