Film vs. Digital SurveyMonkey results

[john_h.1]

<p>What effect, if any, does posting images of film and digital shot imagery on a computer/device have on a viewer attempting to ascertain if an image was shot on film or digital? </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>we forget that some photographers are technically capable of getting more out of film than others.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did we also forget that some photographers are technically capable of getting more out of digital than others? </p>

 

[steve m smith]

<p>I think I would only have got No. 2 correct.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>Thanks, Sarah:</p>

<p>That was interesting -- nice spin on a well-examined topic.</p>

<p>I keep thinking of this debate -- generally -- as an echo of a debate we would probably have heard in American Civil War times. </p>

<ul>

<li>One one side was the daguerreotype aficionado who valued both his skill heating mercury and his secure knowledge there would only ever be one image produced.</li>

<li>On the other side were the upstarts using wet collodion plates and albumen paper, degrading art by making multiple copies of an image.</li>

</ul>

<p>Maybe it's just context. Wooden shoes are still useful in the garden. </p>

 

[stp]

<blockquote>

<p>film slows me down and allows me to think about what I'm doing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speed and the amount of thinking one does before a shot does not need to differ between film and digital. It's all under the photographer's control. I really haven't changed my shooting attributes over the years whether using film or digital. I do, however, try more compositions with digital, giving each the amount of time to think through as I do/did with film.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>film slows me down and allows me to think about what I'm doing</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Speed and the amount of thinking one does before a shot does not need to differ between film and digital. It's all under the photographer's control.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Film slows me down and allows me to think about what I could be doing. Like shooting that fast changing scene while changing rolls or using a more suitable ISO after, say, 5 shots. <br /><br /><br />Its not in my control.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I do my own printing and did my own printing in my darkroom where I sweated and inhaled noxious fumes before I went to digital in 2002.  I have quite a few 13x19s hanging in my house that span a period of over twenty years.  Some were taken with a Bronica ETRSi and scanned some were taken with a 6MP Canon D60.  My daughter is still using it. Some are full frame with a 5D, others with an xti among other 1.6 crop bodies.  No one who has seen them can tell the source accurately.  The D60 prints won show awards whereas my later prints did not. When I printed in the darkroom it took me hours to do what I do in seconds in digital.  My question is what is the significance of knowing? Most of my weddings were film.  None of my wedding customers ever asked whether their pictures were digital or film.  They were mostly film.  I frankly cannot tell the difference but who cares.  My daughter just returned from Holland with a bunch of shots of Rembrandts and Vermeers.  Does anyone know or care what media they used? I just was awed when I once stood before those paintings.  </p>

[carbon_dragon]

Let's turn it on its head. What would you look for in a picture to indicate it was digital or film (especially as it was pointed

out, they're really all digital after scanning)?

 

 

Well, we went through the period where film was higher in resolution and information density, then the period where they

were a wash, and now I suspect the Nikon D800, Canon 5D III, the Sony A7R etc are all full frame and probably WAY

WAY WAY beyond the capabilities of the best 35mm film ever. But in pictures suitable for web you'd probably never see

that. Sometimes digital seems to have a clarity that film sometimes lack, but that is pretty subjective. Also film exposed at

high ISO might be grainy in a way that was different looking than the noise we get in a very high ISO digital, but that

would really take an expert right?

 

 

I'm not sure it's possible to tell in this context. Were you to compare a Kodak HIE infrared picture to a infrared picture from

my M8 digital (very infrared sensitive) with similar filters you could probably detect the lack of an anti-halation filter in the

film but really this would be a special case. If you show 100% results, it would tell us something about the resolution (if we

also have the original picture) and something about the characteristics of the medium and might help but even then I have

my doubts.

[john_h.1]

<p>I might be able to spot a mostly accurate rendition of Agfa Ultra 50. I haven't seen its unique effects successfully emulated. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I did the survey but I can't remember what I chose. Still never mind I hope you got the results that you needed.</p>

[stp]

<blockquote>

<p>Speed and the amount of thinking one does before a shot does not need to differ between film and digital. It's all under the photographer's control.<br>

...........................................<br>

Film slows me down and allows me to think about what I could be doing. Like shooting that fast changing scene while changing rolls or using a more suitable ISO after, say, 5 shots. <br /><br />Its not in my control.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a good example (for me) why it's dangerous to make universal statements. ;>)</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"This is a good example (for me) why it's dangerous to make universal statements. ;>)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't take it as such. For the most part, a change in methodology isn't necessary. So, its true. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I might be able to spot a mostly accurate rendition of Agfa Ultra 50. I haven't seen its unique effects successfully emulated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I stopped shooting color film when Ultra 50 disappeared. I've never been able to find a way to mimic it with digital, I've given up trying. It was such a bizarre film. I switched to primarily digital when it was discontinued. My color work has changed, if it came back, I would immediately start shooting it again.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>If you show 100% results, it would tell us something about the resolution (if we also have the original picture) and something about the characteristics of the medium and might help but even then I have my doubts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the funny thing here is that film enthusiasts attribute both higher resolution and "a softer look" to film. That "softer look" was maybe characteristic of older lenses of the 70's and earlier, and if you shoot digitally with one of those lenses, you still get that same "softer look."</p>

<p>If you blow up any image large enough, you can see the grain/noise structure, and then it is plain as day which is film and which is digital, particularly with color images. However, that's a bit like resorting to DNA analysis to tell which wine is Californian and which is French. At that point is it relevant in any meaningful way?</p>

<p>Of course there are some films which clearly stand out with their own look. Tri-X comes to mind, particularly if it is pushed and clumsily processed with poor regard to temperatures. Even a moderate enlargement (e.g. 8x10) will reveal Tri-X's "golf-ball sized" grain. Heck, even 5x7. But then I contend you still have to blow up the image to confirm, and even then it can be difficult. For instance, here is a 100% crop detail of the Apothecary image (ISO 800). To me it looks like Tri-X that hasn't been abused:</p><div></div>

[sarah_fox]

<p>What gives this photo away as digital is not the way the clipping is Canon's very subtle horizontal banding issue, that I wish they would fix. You can ALMOST see it in the above crop, and there are a couple of tell-tale bands elsewhere in the image that are visible only when pixel-peeping.</p>

<p>I take issue with those who claim the digital nature of this photo is evident in the way the highlights are clipped. In fact they are not clipped much at all. They are rolled off extremely generously. The image was deliberately underexposed, ISO 800 (about as high as I can go with the 40D before banding becomes significant), 1/15 sec, f/16 (for the depth of field I needed). I had to push the image considerably. There is little or no toe/rolloff in the shadows, which nobody mentioned. There is an extremely broad shoulder. In the original image, the view through the window is only moderately blown out.</p>

<p>I think there is also some unstated notion that sharp and detailed means digital, perhaps because of the tendency of digital photographers to oversharpen their photographs. This practice is entirely optional, and I don't engage in it. I feel I have oversharpened when I create contrast reversals at high contrast edges. As you can see from the crop, I sharpened just to that critical point and went no further. I feel this is approximately the sharpness I would get from film.</p>

<p>I think there is also some unstated and perhaps unrealized notion that wide angle suggests digital, and in this shot I have an extreme foreground image. However, there is no legitimate basis to this notion. I can mount up my Sigma 12-24 to my Elan 7n and shoot some incredibly wide film images. Even so, there is a loose correlation afoot, that wider, more modern lenses are fitted to more modern cameras, which tend to be digital. That said, this shot perhaps looks wider than it is. It was shot at 18mm on a crop camera -- 29mm equivalent in 35mm format.</p>

<p>In any event this photo was correctly identified as digital only 70% of the time, which to a statistician is essentially random.</p>

[al_fairclough1]

<p>I would love to see that image taken on Tri-X @ 400, developed in HC-110 Dilution 'B' and printed on Oriental Seagull.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I'm the late guy to the party who's hoping that there's some leftover champagne. I skipped through all of them, giving no answer, (except #4) as I was unable to tell. #4 was either obviously digital or a poorly scanned negative. I bet on digital and I was correct. ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Note: This is the only photo that most people got right, but I think it's only by happenstance. Initially most people were getting it wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what you mean. I am not a statistician by any means but I suspect that your interpretation is NQR (not quite right).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's that "look" that I wanted to address.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know what you mean, but it's harder to tell in stills than it is in motion (for more than one reason; and in motion, film usually looks more beautiful by far). The reason why I assert that film gives the best colour has to do with technical issues, not just tonality or grain structure or things like that. However, in my experience, sometimes it's easy to spot a film image from a digital one. Sometimes it's 'nicer' but sometimes it's just 'different'.</p>

<p>Most of the time, the differences will be trivial. But when the digital shot can't handle the lighting situation, it's obvious that in those cases, digital sensors are deficient.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>a photo I shoot should primarily be a photo I shoot, not a film-photo or digital photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to agree that this is the preferable attitude to take, no matter one's preference.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That really does matter quite a bit to the survey.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that I agree, but that certainly is a discussion of its own, and I'll keep my mind open here. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What effect, if any, does posting images of film and digital shot imagery on a computer/device have on a viewer attempting to ascertain if an image was shot on film or digital?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The characteristics of film are largely preserved in a scan.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In any event this photo was correctly identified as digital only 70% of the time, which to a statistician is essentially random.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure? Again, I do not have a solid understanding of statistics. I suggest that there is an effect size here (it's within the 66th percentile - is that how you'd say it?) and I also understand that statistical 'proof' is 95% (0.95) or greater. It seems to be somewhere in between. If you take into account the total number of responses, you'd get a statistically significant result - if my understanding of statistics is correct.</p>

<p>Are you suggesting that if photo #4 were by itself, the 70% figure would be not random? I can't see how that would work in this situation.</p>

<p>So, we were talking about photography... where was I...</p>