digital vs film impressions

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> I don't really see any difference <strong>once you know what you are doing. </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<p>What's really interesting is that Lauren Greenfield switched from film to digital for both prints and camera, and nobody noticed. People still buy her huge prints for many thousands of dollars and nobody knows when it changed except Greenfield. That's the real test, not what some forum poster "feels." </p>

[andrew_aungthwin1]

<p>"I don't really see any difference <strong>once you know what you are doing.</strong>"</p>

<p>Well, I don't think I agree with this entirely.</p>

<p>In the two images below you can see that there are significant differences.</p>

<p>The most important - for the client - is the name of his restaurant.</p>

<p>In the end I didn't show the client the film shot and just gave him the digital version because he wants to promote his restaurant. Whether or not the dragon thing looks "more real" or more 3d-like, he doesn't care.</p>

<p>Shooting for yourself is entirely different to shooting for people who are actually going to pay you.</p><div></div>

[andrew_aungthwin1]

<p>And..</p><div></div>

[mike dixon]

Here's the D300 image after a few quick adjustments to curves, color balance, and saturation. It's not an exact match to the Portra image, but it should demonstrate that the "significant" differences between film and digital are easy to eliminate.<div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Mike showed that you can make the d300 version look very similar to the Portra scan, so, for completeness, here's the opposite: My quick and dirty (ie, < 3 minutes) attempt to show that one can take the Portra scan and make it look similar to the d300 image. Not perfect, but not too far off. I didn't feel like wasting too much time on this little demo, but if I spent a bit more time, I could have gotten rid of most the remaining obvious differences, the poor masking on the edge between sky and mountains, etc.</p>

<p>Note, much of what I did to the Portra scan could undoubtedly have been done by simply setting the scan parameters differently. </p>

<p>Like many of the previous posters in this thread, IMHO, many of the obvious and major differences anecdotally attributed to inherent and un-resolvable differences are, in many cases, simply due to differences in scan and other settings, and different levels of expertise in film vs pure digital workflows.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[andrew_aungthwin1]

Hey, some great stuff guys. I'm impressed.

 

Just one thing to add though. There's a lot more detail that can be extracted from in the shadows of the original RAW file. This is something that you can't do (easily) with film.

[tom_mann1]

<p>Thanks, AA. </p>

<p>WRT extracting shadow detail from film, one can often extract considerably more shadow detail from film than one might expect by performing two scans, one optimized for the highlights, one for the shadows, and blending them. Also, one can do the same when rephotographing old slides. I do this all the time with intentionally underexposed Kodachromes and it works wonderfully.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>I think some of it is the optics and method</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMHO it's all about the lenses. The '3D look' is not fluff. It's very real. As Dennis has kindly shown us.</p>

<p>It seems that some film shooters don't know what digital can do. And some digital shooters don't know what film can do. :-)</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@Marco L - I don't think it has been explicitly pointed out earlier in this thread, but the direction of the light plays a critical factor when comparing the feeling of depth in images. For example in your second link (ie, your 2nd d90 shot, which you felt was flat), looking at the shadows, it appears that this photo was taken around mid-day, with the sun directly overhead. This will kill much of the sense of depth that one would get with a much lower sun angle. Thus, I certainly wouldn't attribute the "lack of depth" in this image to it being digital.</p>

<p>Given the lighting problem, at the risk of introducing some artifacts and artificiality (ie, a different "digital problem") one can help the lack of depth issue a bit in post processing, although it's certainly better to do so with lighting.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Here, trying to recover some sense of depth in the previous image by increasing contrast and other tweaks.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, as I discovered when I scanned in my old (mostly Kodachrome) slides, film has much more shadow detail than is visible on the slide to the human eye, and post processing brings that out very well in most cases.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>And, if you want to go one more step, you can always make use of the visual effect that cooler colors tend to recede compared to warmer colors. </p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Andre Noble - Photography as we know it peaked around the mid to late 1990's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or maybe your visual acuity did. ;)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Joseph may not always be subtle. but he has a way of making a point :)</p>

[museebfoto]

<p>marco landini … I am agree with you, the film images are more natural and realistic if we compare them after print and not to compare on the monitor. It may depend on the different characteristics between film ( with toe and shoulder ) and digital sensor ( without ). But the professional post processing of the digital image can eliminate the difference.</p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>@Museeb Jasim<br>

I don't believe so. It can come close on the screen, but the print still lacks subtle depth.</p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>In fact I would go further on my last comment. When I look through artists websites, as I just have been doing, I can tell immediately whether their images have been shot on digital or medium format film. Even before any thought process theres just an instant recognition.<br>

Now you can argue that they've maybe just been clever with their processing and I have no proof or data to back up my claim and that would be true but on the other hand I do just know and anyone who has an experienced eye will know exactly what I mean.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"When I look through artists websites, as I just have been doing, I can tell immediately whether their images have been shot on digital or medium format film. Even before any thought process theres just an instant recognition."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1/7</p>

[Brad_]

>>> When I look through artists websites, as I just have been doing, I can tell immediately whether their

images have been shot on digital or medium format film. Even before any thought process theres just an

instant recognition.

 

When I look through artists websites, I can tell immediately whether their images connect, have emotional

pull, release narrative, etc, etc; and in the end are powerful and compelling.

 

And it his absolutely nothing to do with being shot digital or film.

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>Yes Brad I completely agree with all that but you're digressing from the point. I wasn't making any particular judgement in that post about whatever makes for a strong or weak photograph. I was just remarking that one can immediately tell the difference between a digital photograph and a medium format film photograph despite the various theories people throw around about the powers of post processing.<br>

Having said that I also would add that you cannot completely separate form from content when you're looking at images. Both digital and film photographs have their own particular feel and character. The final success of an image can depend on whether the subject represented is consistent with the way the photograph was made. Photographs need to be looked at as a whole and so I would disagree with you and say whether something was shot on digital or film does matter.</p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> I was just remarking that one can immediately tell the difference between a digital photograph and a medium

format film photograph despite the various theories people throw around about the powers of post processing.

 

Not so fast. I've lost count the number of times people looking at my prints thought they they were film based. Even

a judge at an exhibition reception who was explaining to a large group of people gathered around one of my hung

prints speaking about my image being a great example of why film is so special and that digital will never rise to that level. Was pretty amusing to say the least. I just let him keep on saying silly things..

 

In the end it's all bs. Content alway trumps capture medium. I could care less less about capture medium. Photos

work. Or they don't.

 

If people want to obsess about film, mechanical cameras, and the joy of tweed, that's fine. Not me

though...

[scott_ferris]

<p>andrew,</p>

<p>With the absolute greatest respect, if you believe that you are either looking at poor work or you are delusional.</p>

<p>Here is a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Sebastião+Salgado&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivnsob&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=WUcKTozGNcX00gHfoPx0&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1706&bih=964">link</a>, it is a page of images by Sebastião Salgado, he shot some of them with film and some with a Canon 1Ds MkIII. Nobody, you, me, picture editors, imaging professionals, gallery owners, curators, etc, even when the prints are hung next to each other, can tell the difference, that was one of the things he insisted on when he first tried digital.</p>

<p>The film/digital is better than digital/film argument has been dead for a long time. Use what you want because you want to use it. People that have good reasons to use one or the other are perfectly capable, if they choose to, of making either look so close to the other that people can not tell the capture medium.</p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>@Brad<br /> Re: the joy of tweed etc, I'd recommend Marshall McLuhan. Although his phrase 'The medium is the message' was meant in a broad sense you might find him interesting reading.<br /> @Scott<br /> I was referring to the different qualities of film and digital rather than a hierarchy between them. In ignoring their differences or striving to make one look exactly like the other you could be excluding yourself from some of the subtle language of photography and that would be a shame.<br /> As to Salgado, his images are IMO so horribly over stylised that he's a very poor example when considering the nuances between mediums.<br /> Lastly the fact that we're having this conversation at all on a popular thread titled 'digital vs film impressions' would point to the fact that the topic has not been 'dead for a long time'. Its such a shame though that the word 'vs' was used as it sets up a kind of artificial argument rather than a more productive discussion.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> In ignoring their differences or striving to make one look exactly like the other you could be excluding yourself from some of the subtle language of photography and that would be a shame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, it often means that someone is more concerned with their print (or other displayed image) than materials science. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Its such a shame though that the word 'vs' was used as it sets up a kind of artificial argument rather than a more productive discussion."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Normally I'd agree that the overused "versus" conceit tends to prejudice discussions. In this case it didn't matter much since the thread was based on a faulty premise:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I find my film pictures are more realistic and 3d like, and digital pictures are more flat and 2dimensional."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Such a premise can never be proven nor refuted - beyond pointing out the obvious, that photographs are not physically three dimensional regardless of the medium and process used. So this discussion could conceivably continue indefinitely without ever persuading any participant or reader to modify their original beliefs regarding perceptions and aesthetics even slightly.</p>

<p>I enjoy b&w film, darkroom enlargements or other comparable methods, using the familiar, comfortable materials and techniques I grew up with. I enjoy the process itself for the same reason I enjoy baking my own bread even tho' it's not efficient in terms of time or cost and I can buy excellent fresh baked breads of all kinds at nearby stores. I'd never try to justify that preference on the basis of anything other than enjoyment of the process, or by claiming my home baked bread was tastier, more three dimensional or more imbued with artistic integrity.</p>

<p>I'm inclined to wonder whether the entire point of "versus" arguments based on such faulty premises are the equivalent to home baked bread and home darkroom prints. The point of these debates <em>is the debate itself</em>. Some folks enjoy that process without any expectation of demonstrating efficacy of their beliefs or of persuading their fellow debaters.</p>