Why is my film work better than my digital?

[drpath]

<p>Something's amiss here. I shot film for 40 years, everything from half frame to 6x9. When I finally caved and got a DSLR ( a Canon D60) it was immediately apparent that those annoying digital whipersnappers had been right all along. The images were clearly superior to anything I could do on any 35mm film above ISO 100. And this was within the first hour, shooting JPEGs I didn't know how to process, on a camera I barely knew how to operate, and viewing the images on the small, inexpensive monitor I then had.</p>

<p>When you say you get overexposure, I say yeah, that happens. A sunny 16 day and matrix metering can make digital cameras really cranky. Switch to center-weighting or spot. Or use your G8 and its exposure simulation as a manual meter. But something's wrong in the chain between focusing your camera and viewing the print, if a D80 and your lens kit can't produce a sharper image than 35mm film. I'd say you need to reduce the number of variables here: do focus testing, borrow or lease another body to test with your lenses, etc.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>If you like the results you get from film and your lab then stick with it. Personaly I think your are lucky to have found a lab that produces prints from your negatives that you are happy with. I gave up with my local labs and negative films for color prints. I would take a good lab and negative film over D80 files that have not been post processed any day of the week.<br>

You would expect to be able to adjust the in camera settings to produce files that you would be happy to print but you won't find a one setting fits all conditions, you may be able to work out combinations of settings that work well for different conditions and use them as needed. In the end many opt to shoot RAW and adjust the settings afterwards to suit the conditions the pictures were taken in.<br>

This pic was shot with a D80 not RAW by the was. All I have done is downsized to 700px wide and sharpened it.</p>

<div></div>

[john_lovelace]

<p>I'm indebted to Lisa Lowden for her comment (second in the string) about the film-like capabilities of the Canon 10D. Eight years ago I bought mine; it and a spate of Canon and Sigma lenses suffice for my investment in digital. I've had the sensor cleaned twice; otherwise no maintenance. When I want a REAL film look, I shoot my Leica M6 and a roll of, say, Fuji Provia or Velvia. Scan the slides into my computer, do some basic digital post-stuff, and I can't always tell one camera's images from the other. Lisa has paid the Canon 10D a high compliment. </p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is one from film. You can get nice photos from film or digital. One is not really better than the other. They are different and it is OK to prefer one to the other. It's OK to find one medium easier to work with than the other.</p><div></div>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Reading between the lines of your post I would surmise that part of the issue, and not problem, is the images you are taking and psychological . Images you state-Portraits-when you take good portraits are the most appreciated by people. It is extraordinarily difficult to take exotic photos or lands or places that are not already readily available from some source. In this area it is difficult to compete. But, taking a fine photograph of a friend that they appreciate is far less common. The issue is your comfort zone. If you do not feel comfortable or want to become comfortable processing every image on a computer then the film camera with a fine lab works wonders. Just as an aside to the above portraits which you like to take when using motor drive which most digital cameras have you rarely take the time to see. I found that when I went back to hand advancing each frame, of course I could have slowed up on digital, I concentrated more on the image in front of me. A Hasselblad is certainly a camera that slows up the taking of images and provides fantastic portraits.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose photography for me has become more of a social event, both shooting and sharing, and I have less interest in investing time in post-production. So I'd like to produce results that meet my expectations (set by prior film work) without processing time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>your expectations and lack of enthusiasm seem to be the problem here.</p>

<p>i shot straight jpegs with a d80 for years. i tweaked the in-camera settings to my liking, got a sharp constant-2.8 lens, and found that i needed to do very little post-production work. initially, i used the supplied software, the now-retired Picture Project. then i upgraded to Photoshop Elements. i still shoot jpeg and still use Elements, which also works as a photo archive. i still haven't bothered to learn the entire program, but the quick edit template gives me basic slider controls over commonly-used settings.for me it's mainly cropping, sharpening (if necessary), and maybe a little contrast or lightening/darkening adjustments. there's already a quick B&W converter built-in, which helps with low-light/no flash pics on that particular camera. this isn't that different from doing your own pics in a darkroom, minus the chemicals and film costs. i bought a copy of Lightroom and will get around to working in RAW one day, but with PSE, i can keep the adjustments minimal and quick. if i want to be more involved, i can. (i'm a photojournalist, so shooting RAW isn't always time-efficient.)</p>

<p>if you're going to shoot jpeg, the other thing, besides adjusting saturation and sharpening in-camera, that you have to do, is master your WB settings. most of the time, if you nail the WB, jpegs and processed RAWs will be fairly close, unless you want to further work on pics in an editing program--which, to be fair, offers things not possible with film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Surprisingly, I think of myself as relatively tech savvy, just not (yet) willing to tackle post-processing. No doubt someone will likely suggest that it is not that hard or time consuming, but I'd need a new computer, learn new software to some degree, etc., and that's not a minor investment in my view, in large part I suppose because that's not the part I like doing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, now the ^ above statement is just whiny. sorry, but it is. if you need a new computer to work with a DSLR, you probably needed one anyway. what are you using, a Commodore 64? lol. and you're acting like software is like some ancient language. as i said already, even a basic editing program will get the job done. sure it can be an investment, but when you equate the 'digital darkroom tools' with the cost of film/processing, it's not that expensive. PSE is around $100. a new PC with 4gb of RAM is under $500. plus there are free editing programs you can download online if you want to save a buck.</p>

<p>also, even the basic windows photo viewer program which comes with your computer will allow you to do slide shows. have you even looked into this?</p>

<p>i think the bottom line here is that if you are not willing to make an effort, then you only have yourself to blame for the disparity between your expectations and your results.</p>

 

[Brad_]

Here's a "digital" portrait of a stranger I stopped on the street last week in SF. With less than 30 seconds of RAW

post-processing in LR. Why on earth would I want to let someone else, ie a lab (which today mostly means Costco, Walmart, etc), try and do this for me using film? <P>

 

It's rare when I spend more than a minute or two in post on any photo... The point I'm trying to make is that's it not that tough to learn to do it yourself and get great results.<P>

 

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images54/Bree.jpg">

[zack_zoll]

<p>Kingsley, you don't need to upgrade your computer and software all that often if you do it right. If your workstation is not connected to the internet, and has only the necessary programs on it, it will run much faster and more smoothly than the tech specs would indicate.</p>

<p>Also, I have found only minor differences between version of Photoshop. Sure if you skip several generations the gap is huge, but I find the only large difference between CS3 and CS5 to most users that are not printing at home is that CS3 will not read raw files from a camera newer than (I think) a D300. That means that if you bought a new DSLR and a copy of Photoshop CS5/Lightroom today, you presumably wouldn't need to upgrade to another version of Photoshop or Lightroom until you bought a new camera. Even then, it's possible that there is an update. Of course there may be some cool new features you want, but that's totally different; the software will continue to plod along and do what it does until the day you feed it a camera that it can't read.</p>

<p>Oh, and I strongly suggest just pretending that in-camera raw processing doesn't exist. The whole point of shooting raw is to let something more powerful than the camera do the conversion, and on a screen that you can actually see - why would you want to ruin that by doing your editing on a little tiny screen?</p>

[jim r]

<p>Kingsley -<br /> I had similar thoughts as you 2 years ago, loved Fuji Superia Reala processed by A&I with film mailers which I still use from time to time.<br /> When I first bought a Canon 40d I struggled with processing, trying this program & that program, and prints on my home inkjet or sent to various processors were less than ideal.<br /> I finally learned to shoot in RAW, sharpen on input, made exposure and other adjustments, and sharpened on export and my results are now very satisfactory.<br /> I use LR 3, send prints out and also print at home on an EPSON 2880, however I believe the best thing I did was learn how to process via Martin Evening's book - The Adobe PhotoShop LightRoom 3 book. <br /> I suspect any program will serve you well if you learn how to process.<br /> Happy Trails....</p>

[stevierose]

<p>Given your needs I would suggest that you shoot RAW files and purchase DXO Optics Pro 6.5 software. Then just batch process your files using the automatic pre-sets in the software and send the resulting files to the lab to be printed. This software does offer the ability to do lots of custom adjustments and tweaks to images, but, I would say that just using it's automatic processing pre-sets it produces very nice files at least 80% of the time with no tweaking required on your part. It comes with modules for your camera and many lens combinations. You will need to learn what size, resolution, and color space your lab needs to produce the prints you want, but otherwise this is about as automated a process as possible and will produce much better photos than your in camera JPEGS. I think you can download the software and use it for free for a month to see if you like it.</p>

<p>The other thing you will need to learn is how to achieve proper exposure for your digital files. Exposure for digital files is much more like shooting slide film than negative film, you have to be careful that you don't blow out the highlights. To do that all you have to do is learn how to read the histogram that your camera can show you for each shot, and expose the shot so that the histogram almost touches the right side without being chopped off. That is called "exposing to the right" which you can google or look up in any basic digital photography how-to book. If you can learn to expose your photos in RAW without blowing out the highlights and then batch process them in DXO Optics Pro I bet you will be happy with the results most of the time. I don't have any ties to DXO, my suggestion is based upon my experiences with many programs and the question that was asked. </p>

<p>To those who may criticize this suggestion I will say that I am adept at post-processing files in PS with many techniques and approaches, but I am trying to answer Kingley's question, and using DXO Optics Pro is as closed to an automated approach as there is while still achieving very good output most of the time. Not as good, perhaps, as learning to be a photoshop master, but pretty good--probably good enough to satisfy Kingsley's needs. </p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>Kingsley: your camera using film has not changed, it is the other medium, digital that is different. That noted digital is simply a different method of recording an image. You may not like the idea that your image is not on a piece of plastic which you could manipulate if it was film. You've done the hard work, setting up and exposing the film or in this case, the small recording chip records the image.<br>

Some have given alternatives such as allowing a lab to maniupulate your images rendered on digital and also, perhaps having a lab print your images if you wish to do so. The same thing applies to film; you manipulate the image you want to photograph, and fire the shutter and "leave the rest up to us..."<br>

However I view your frustration in a way similar to mine. I have always used films and to be more specific colour slide film. Slides to me are the best method. I have tried all manner of digital single len reflex cameras and none of them give me the same satisifaction of end result as a simple/cheap point and shoot. So my most recent camera purchase, a Nikon D40 because it was simple I thought in operation was placed at the local dealer for sale. Find the overwhhelming number of options available in today's digital imaging devices to be far more than I can often comprehend. I have my Nikon F100 and it does what I want. And as photography is for me and not for the joy/dislike of seeing said images splattered on the internet slide film makes perfect sense.<br>

Maybe Kingsley you should abandon your drive for digital and stay with film. As long as the final result is suitable to you and to others who admire your results, why change to something foreign in its behaviour?</p>

<p> </p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>The ultimate judge for a good photograph has been and will always be our visual perception. For a youth grown up digital, film will look inferior; although judgment will be mainly based on ease of post-processing. For people shooting both film and digital, these are two different means of achieving the same goal and that might be the end of the story.<br /> However, in my amateurish opinion (and shooting both film and digital and medium format as well for many years), there are two other factors that weigh a lot in deciding between film and digital. One is the psychological value of a photograph rendering "what is out there" or "what just happened" quite purely because of the lack of a post-processing cosmetic touch. I look at some stunning shots from dSLR's and wonder whether that heavenly place does really exist on this planet.<br /> The other factor is the equipment. The magic of a completely manual, all-metal camera and lens system like, say, a classic Rollei 2.8F in your hands and its enforced alertness imposing upon the photographer due to lack of automation is a feeling difficult to describe to outsiders--especially when combined with the large prints they are capable to produce.<br /> That's my twenty-year, one-cent piece of thought.<br /> Paul</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Paul, there was a study done a few years ago that you might appreciate. I forget who did it, but basically it was a blind test comparing various music formats to the ears of young people. They found that far and away young people preferred the sound of .mp3s to CDs or vinyl, as it had more 'punch' and 'sizzle', which is actually caused by a shortening of the midrange as a result of digital compression.</p>

<p>I think of that study and snicker to myself every time some hipster tells me they prefer vinyl and have a Technics turntable, or that they prefer film as they operate their Holga with brandless film. Which they will then scan and print on their Lexmark at home.</p>

[anders_andersson2]

<p>All this talk about post-processing... It should not be needed to get decent pictures. To get stunning pictures - yes, but for decent pictures it is overkill in my opinion. My guess is that the original poster has settings in the camera that are not good.<br>

Kingsley, it may be really helpful if you post at least one picture with the EXIF data (data that is embedded in most pictures with the camera settings).</p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>Zack Zoll, thanks for the info. That reminds me of the Nakamichi cassette players that, in 80's and 90's, could reproduce sounds over 20 kHz--an impossible task for other players. When I taught sound perception (I am a physicist), I used to half-tease, half-advise the class to take a hearing test before they spend a fortune on a Nakamichi.<br>

That's what I meant in my first post when I mentioned "visual perception." People tend to forget that we see with two imperfect lenses and process with a highly personalized, idiosyncratic "software," moulded after zillions of visual moments.<br>

We should perhaps feel blessed that each one of us can enjoy photographs--film or digital--with such a "private eye."<br>

Paul</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Even if people prefered the mp3 file over the vinyl in blind tests it does mean that they would prefer the mp3 file in their own system. The hipster may prefer the result from a holga and brandless film over digital files with effects applied personaly I would not waste the film but they are not wrong or stupid for prefering the film and the holga it's their choice and their hobby.</p>

<p>Based on my own results finished prints or files for screen use I could conclude that there is no point for me to coninue with B&W film I mean why bother when the results are the same or so close that it does not really matter. However at the end of the day I still prefer B&W film and tradtional cameras and not using a computer for B&W work. Why because TriX is TriX, APX is APX for me that is real and the alternative is a computer simulation. I like processing film and printing in a darkroom. It does not matter if in the end result nobody can't tell the difference between the digital work and the film work it does not matter to me if someone prefers my digital prints thats up to them.<br>

Some people spend the summer cycling, they cycle just because they enjoy it. It may have added health benifits but many do it just for the simple pleasure. It much more work than driving a car.</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>Stuart, the idea of a blind test is that they don't 'see' what they hear. Now I don't know what kind of system these were played on, but I do know that your average hipster (and for that matter, your average adult) cannot afford an audio system of high enough quality to expose the difference in recording quality beyond the inherent differences between the formats. I mean, I have a $700 preamp and a pair of couple thousand dollar Magnaplanners and even I can't tell on some recordings.<br /><br /><br>

Similarly, if I was still scanning my negatives at home, with the equipment I could afford, instead of having a lab do it I probably wouldn't prefer film. I doubt I would see a massive increase in tonal range over digital, and I would definitely think film is noisier and muddier than digital.</p>

<p>While I understand your argument about the tactile nature of film, all I was saying is that many people (sometimes even me!) rationalize differences in things that they can't even perceive to try to explain how it's better, rather than just saying that they like it more, which is usually the only good reason.</p>

[stp]

<p>Kingsley, a number of people have identified the key: you need to learn and then spend time on processing your digital photos. Digital photography has as much to do with the computer as it does with the camera, IMO and in a rough sense.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>When you go from film to digital, YOU become the lab, so it's now up to you to do what those pro labs were doing with your film, which was to process the negatives, then optimize the printing process to give you the best results possible. You have to take you RAW digital images and optimize them in the RAW processor. If they are a little overexposed, you have to retrieve the highlights, if they are too dark you have to make that adjustment and on and on and on. You now see why many, or most, advanced digital shooters do not use JPEG capture.</p>

<p>You are trying to skip steps in the digital process. Have the pro lab process your film and make straight prints with no adjustments. I think you'll find your prints from the negatives anywhere from a little to quite a bit less good than you are used to seeing because a lot goes on in that lab you are now skipping in the digital process.</p>

[isaac_hopkins]

<p>Kingsley, <br>

A number of people have chimed in to say you need to outsource or learn, yet few have commented on how to get started learning. I've put together the list of things I tell family and friends when they complain about their digital photos. This is a quick guide intended to provide the basics and improve the quality of the digital photos. Everything here can be greatly expanded upon with better tools and more effort, but I've found that for most people that just isn't necessary. I try to get everything done 'in-camera' if I can, but that isn't always possible. </p>

<p>The shortcut to digital processing, (shouldn't take much more time than sorting slides.) There are a lot of people who will disagree with what I'm about to say. But this is aimed at an introduction to digital processing. Something to get the basics done. It leaves plenty on the table if your interests and time commitments lend themselves that way.</p>

<p>Shoot JPEG. I know there is more data in raw and can help later on, but for older computers JPEG is certainly 'good enough' If you feel you want to do more with low light situations or need to coax that last little bit, then choose to invest the time into RAW processing.</p>

<p>JPEG means in camera processing, there are a handful of picture controls that you should set on camera. I shoot lots of Velvia slide film, and like to crank up the color saturation on my D80, if you want a more neutral look you may want to leave color alone. (make sure to use sRGB for now, you can always do more later when you want to get fuller colors and want to learn about color management). I find that I leave my D80 on -2/3 exposure compensation nearly permanently. Other than that treat it like slide film, (DO NOT BLOWOUT the HIGHLIGHTS) and experiment. Today I shoot my N80 and D80 interchangeably, 300mm lens becomes a 450 on the D80. With the D80 for the really long and really wide lenses and the N80 for most all the stuff between 35mm and 300mm, and the D80 I get 10mm - 35mm and 300mm+</p>

<p>Learn to use your histogram while out shooting, the D80 has an excellent three color histogram. Pay attention to how the plot of the histogram corresponds to the images you see on screen. Generally if the peak of the lines on the histogram are shifted to far to one side or the other (the line is 'clipped') then you are overexposed or underexposed. (I use the histogram every time I change light conditions, I don't ever use the live review.)</p>

<p>If you can profile your computer screen, you should. But, you need a hardware colorimeter, often you can borrow one from someone. You really only need to do this once, or maybe once a year. If you cannot do this and find that prints don't match what is on screen this is the first place to look.</p>

<p>Download Picasa, it is free, made by google, and will run on nearly any computer. i.e. you don't need to upgrade yet. You can adjust white balance (filters), cropping, red eye reduction, and gradients. without any significant investment in time. (2 - 3 hours). These are the basics of digital editing. There are better software packages that do more, but this will get you a long way toward what you were getting with film.</p>

<p>I rarely spend more than a minute or two working on photos in the post processing stage. Mostly I am deleting junk and spending a minute or two fixing the white balance, light / dark, saturation, and cropping. I would estimate for 75 photos, I spend 30 minutes culling and cleaning up. I probably would aim for 1 great and 10 - 15 good photos and delete the rest. My 'good' and 'great' rate is twice as high on film, and ten times better on medium format. Even though I know the bias, having to pay a couple bucks per frame really makes me only snap the best photos. whereas I perceive the cost per fram to be free with digital. (I've been paying for that since I got my first digital camera)</p>

<p>Develop a workflow just as you would with film, the steps will be different, but you can improve it much more quickly on digital. i.e. shoot, download process, make adjustments to camera can be a 2 to 5 minute process. </p>

<p>Finally, if you have to spend money, get an external disk to store a copy of your photos, you can often find these for around $50 at the major retailers. I have two that I swap in and out so that I always have one at home and current and one at my office in case my house burns down.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>The whole point of shooting raw is to let something more powerful than the camera do the conversion, and on a screen that you can actually see - why would you want to ruin that by doing your editing on a little tiny screen?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"But I want to spend less time at the computer." So is the answer to spend more time converting from raw images, and to do even more fiddling with adjustments in post processing? Counterintuitive. I vote, with Isaac, shoot JPEGs and just learn a couple quick fixes, enough to satisfy. LIke 10 minutes on each image, or even get it just right in the camera off the bat as we tried to do with positive film. Camera processing. Getting smarter all the time. I can appreciate the seeming hurdle of learning new tools. When there is so much coming down the road besides photography. </p>

[Brad_]

Processing RAW images is so incredibly easy today. I see zero advantage in shooting jpeg with respect

to any difference in post processing time. The numerous advantages of shooting in RAW, though, are

huge.

 

There's no reason (possibly unless you're a pj in the field, or you have a point-n-shoot that doesn't support RAW or has delay issues) to shoot in jpeg unless you're going to take your

memory card out of your camera (with zero post processing) straight to Walgreens for photos. But then,

as with film, you're at the mercy of the "lab," and your expectations are probably not very high.

 

As I said earlier, most of my photos (shot in RAW) need just a minute or two in post. Often less.

[dan_south]

>> In the end, I do not have the time to learn the skills to do good processing. <<

 

 

There's your answer. No need to look any further. You're like a chef who bought some new pots but who doesn't know how to cook

anything.

 

 

How many years did it take you to understand film photography to the point where you could do it well? And that's with the help of a

professional lab. With digital, YOU are the lab technician.

 

 

Digita photography is like any other endeavor. You'll get out of it what you put into it.

[dan_south]

One gentleman mentioned DxO software. Some people get good results from this program, but I don't think batch

processing is the best route for you before you have some idea how to process a single image.

 

 

I would suggest that you download a free trial copy of Lightroom, shoot some images in RAW (NEF) format, import

them and pick some that look promising, go over to the Develop Module and fool around a bit. See what happens

when you adjust contrast and exposure and white balance, etc. Lightroom's processing is completely non-destructive

so you don't have to worry about hurting your original files. (But make a copy just in case.). If you like the

adjustments that you made to one photo, you can copy all or some of them to another file. Or another hundred files.

It's all fairly straightforward, and you'll learn some interesting things as you delve into your photos. Afterward, you can

choose whatever program works best for you. You'll have 30 days to evaluate Lightroom without spending a penny.

 

 

Note to Zack. MP3's sound horrible, especially drums and percussion. High frequency sounds and transients get

scorched by compression. You'll hear the difference clearly if you do an A/B listening test.

[zack_zoll]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YdHN"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=190082">Greg Chappell</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 26, 2011; 02:01 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You are trying to skip steps in the digital process. Have the pro lab process your film and make straight prints with no adjustments. I think you'll find your prints from the negatives anywhere from a little to quite a bit less good than you are used to seeing because a lot goes on in that lab you are now skipping in the digital process.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good luck. Most prolabs stopped using a 'real' enlarger years ago. Unless your lab has old equipment, or you live in a large enough city to support a truly custom lab, every single piece of film gets scanned at a set exposure and then digitally processed. The printing part is still the same, but the enlarger heads have all been replaced with scanners.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YdM8"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 26, 2011; 05:40 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Note to Zack. MP3's sound horrible, especially drums and percussion. High frequency sounds and transients get scorched by compression. You'll hear the difference clearly if you do an A/B listening test.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, I agree. The point was that since most young people grew up with that, they're more likely to interpret that effect as a 'production style' that their ears prefer. To bring the conversation back around, many people that grew up with digital cameras - which many of us perceive to be too sterile - find that film images are too 'dirty' and 'flawed' because of the grain.</p>

<p>Personal preference is always a consideration, but most people like what they know; whether it's music, art, or the opposite sex.</p>