digital vs film impressions

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Time for a pic I think... Some APX100 anyone....</p>

<div></div>

[steve m smith]

<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:<br>

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

</blockquote>

<p>It's Marco's opinion, not a faulty premise. Therefore it cannot be wrong, although you can disagree with it and have your own conflicting opinion.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"It's Marco's opinion, not a faulty premise. Therefore it cannot be wrong..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I stand corrected, upon carefully reviewing Marco's posts here he did not state a premise. So the "I'm entitled to my opinion" clause applies. Unless you're Jamie Whyte with his annoying "Nope, you are not entitled to your opinion" rebuttal. Damned logic.</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Stop shooting digital then.</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps it's just my imagination but I find with film that chroma decreases more quickly compared to digital as the foreground recedes into the background, giving film images slightly more atmospheric depth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Resolution also increases the tendency for planes to seem closer to view. Contrast decreases with distance through air, thus, because digital resolves low contrast details better than film, it resolves detail in the background better than film, attenuating the illusion of depth. It's relative differences that contribute to an illusion of depth, so even a large piece of film, i.e. one that resolves background details better and background colors more vividly, will show the effect. Note that these depth cues (the attenuation of chroma and resolution) are not always present in the scene itself, probably too subtle to tell the difference between digital and film in normal prints of the same scene, and not always desirable. OTOH, maybe lots of nearly invisible differences integrate to make a discernable difference, sometimes. I dunno. If so, it can't be duplicated in post-processing.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p><em>"Resolution also increases the tendency for planes to seem closer to view. Contrast decreases with distance through air, thus, because digital resolves low contrast details better than film, it resolves detail in the background better than film, attenuating the illusion of depth. It's relative differences that contribute to an illusion of depth, so even a large piece of film, i.e. one that resolves background details better and background colors more vividly, will show the effect. Note that these depth cues (the attenuation of chroma and resolution) are not always present in the scene itself, ..."</em></p>

<p>+10 - Super summary, Leo!</p>

<p><em>"...If so, it can't be duplicated in post-processing...."</em></p>

<p>Maybe not duplicated, but one can certainly have a go at approximating such cues in PP. Unfortunately, it's difficult and takes a LOT of time, and hence most folks, even if they are aware of these phenomena, don't even try, except on a very small number of images. If preservation of such depth cues is a big deal for a photographer, he/she can just shoot film. However, even in a hybrid workflow, digital steps like global sharpening usually are applied everywhere in the scene and tend to make the post processed film start to look like an image that started life as a digital capture.</p>

<p>One advantage of occasionally trying to approximate such depth cues is that it's very good training for your eyes and PP technique.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[steve m smith]

 

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Stop shooting digital then.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is what I did.</p>