The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

film vs digital

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
So I have seen this debate continue over the last several years, so here I go.
One is film and one is digital.
no fair looking at the metadata:ROTFL:





No special pains were taken in processing either file other than basic conversion and scanning.
-bob
 

D&A

Well-known member
Bob, who's starring....I mean looking at the metadata :ROTFL:

All I can say is when I view both these images on a monitor, I much prefer the 1st image. More natural (at least it appears that way), with a smoother rendition in terms of overall look, including aspects of sharpening. Lovely image by the way!

Dave (D&A)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
On my iPad screen, they're impossible to tell apart.
Reserve judgement until I get back to my desktop system.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
But without know the format of the film (and that is a big but), I would say the top is film.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Aren't they all technically digital once you scan the film?
or when they are sent over the internet?
Actually I can make the argument that film is digital too at the silver halide crystal level.
-bob
 

darr

Well-known member
I think the top one is film based. Film to my eyes gives just a very small tad of diffusion from the plastic base.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
ok, enough I guess.
The top image was taken with a D800,
The bottom, a Hasselblad on Delta 400
Both were filtered with an orange filter since the lipstick was green and to even-out the skin tones. The D800 by a boost to red and yellow at B&W conversion with C1, the film with a #16 filter.
The D800 was exposed to the right, the Hassy had a full stop more exposure above filter compensation based on spot-metering the off-blacks.
Down-sizing on the D800 file was done by c1, the film was scanned then processed in Photoshop to down rez and adjust the blacks. I should perhaps have clipped the whites a bit to get better catch-lights in the eyes, but I just forgot.
100% crops from each are below.
View attachment 68830

View attachment 68831
-bob
 

BANKER1

Member
The point made that both have become digital after scanning has some merit. And Bob's point that we are looking at them digitally via the computer is even more so.

The only way to actually compare film to digital is to develop the film and print the picture. Then take the digital image and print with an inkjet printer. In order to make a comparison, both images should be placed under the exact same light and judged then.

In Hawaii last month, i viewed Peter Lik photos, and they looked so good that they seemed backlit. Later I looked at the same images on the computer, and they didn't even look like the same picture. His studio evidently lights each image with such precision that they are presented perfectly (and not realistic when it comes down to it) so when hung in the home they must look disappointing.

In the Cowboy Museum in Oklahoma City, OK, many years ago, I saw my first Ansel Adams prints, done by him, that actually blew me away. Wow, I have never seen BW prints to come close to those since. I can say without hesitation that I do not believe digital will ever come close to those images.

But I do appreciate Bob doing this exercise, because it was interesting to see all who dared to compare got it wrong. I didn't have the nerve to express an opinion so my hat is off to those who did.

Greg
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
On my iPad screen, they're impossible to tell apart.
Reserve judgement until I get back to my desktop system.
At my desk now.

Viewing the two samples you've presented on my calibrated desktop display, I'd say that anyone sneering at differences in quality between film and digital capture at this level has their head stuck up where the moon don't shine. To tell them apart is a microscopic journey into irrelevancy.

G

Photographers should spend more time worrying about quality images and less time nattering on about image quality.
 

AreBee

Member
I guessed correctly, though I readily admit that it was a guess.

I noticed that in the bottom image the hip of the model is more grainy, especially in the shadow region of the navel. At that point I guessed that the bottom image was film, but then considered that Bob may have added grain to the digital image in order to throw people. :toocool: When I read that Bob had not processed the images I committed to my original opinion.

For what it's worth, I prefer the first, digitally captured, image. The skin of the model is significantly smoother than it is in the bottom image.
 

D&A

Well-known member
I guessed correctly, though I readily admit that it was a guess.

I noticed that in the bottom image the hip of the model is more grainy, especially in the shadow region of the navel. At that point I guessed that the bottom image was film, but then considered that Bob may have added grain to the digital image in order to throw people. :toocool: When I read that Bob had not processed the images I committed to my original opinion.

For what it's worth, I prefer the first, digitally captured, image. The skin of the model is significantly smoother than it is in the bottom image.
With regards to what you expressed, thats why in my inital response "above", I simply stated which of the two images I preferred, which was the 1st one, without considering whether it was initially captured digitally or on film.

As expressed by others, the process by which we scan film already digitizes it, so it's hard to access at that point the absolute differences and merrits of both with regards to the purity of each type of media capture utilized.

The idea suggested that each capture should directly be outputted to print and compared is a good one. I'd even take it a step further and add a 3rd print....which would be the film image scanned and then printed, to see what if anything is gained or lost from the film image printed by conventional means in the wet darkroom. I'd love to see all three of these prints!

Interesting comparison Bob...thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

robertwright

New member
I had an opinion pretty much straight away, and it was the smoothness that gave it away- digital takes away all the flaws sometimes, it is like a screening process, and skin is just never that even and smooth. Also hair looks completely different in film vs. digital, in digital it is softer and more regular.
I think the problem with digital is the perfection problem, there is no baseline, we all start perfecting the image once it is captured, and soon, all the life is drained away. Film tends to preserve and foreground the flaws, and in this aspect, it keeps the "art" alive. Just my opinion.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Looking at the crops, I do see the differences now, but from the original print, as is, with no peeping, I was wrong...no butts about it:)

What it also shows, is that 35mm dslr(D800) can hold up quite well to MF.
 

D&A

Well-known member
What it also shows, is that 35mm dslr(D800) can hold up quite well to MF.
Yes, it can and often quite well....but there are times when viewing similar images taken with a D800 and 40MP camera, primarily in larger prints, that differences between the two is evident. It depends of course on so many factors.

Dave (D&A)
 

Mike M

New member
In the Cowboy Museum in Oklahoma City, OK, many years ago, I saw my first Ansel Adams prints, done by him, that actually blew me away. Wow, I have never seen BW prints to come close to those since. I can say without hesitation that I do not believe digital will ever come close to those images.
I agree 1000%


But I do appreciate Bob doing this exercise, because it was interesting to see all who dared to compare got it wrong. I didn't have the nerve to express an opinion so my hat is off to those who did.
I try not to play these kinds of "gotcha" games anymore. Digital and film are classes, not particulars. Attempts to form judgments about broad groups based solely on comparisons of extremely similar individuals will always be prone to error. It might be a fun exercise and a way to trick people, but it's not really a fair exercise at all when it comes to seriously judging the differences between film and digital.

For those that are interested, some of the best thought I've ever encountered on this subject was written by Nelson Goodman in his chapter on art forgeries in "Languages of Art."
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I happen to have an Ansel Adams print purchased from him directly in the 1960s.
I use it for reference.
Mostly I would say that I can come almost as close as I want to those as far as print quality is concerned. The biggest issue is getting a DMax close enough to Silver Bromide so that under identical lighting conditions the reflectance range can be matched. Of course, there is the issue of selenium toning which imparts a rather rich color to the blacks which can be mimicked in PS but it depends a bit on the ink-set used.
I would have said it was "pretty close" with Harman FB AL, but that surface is distracting. Exhibition Fiber is perhaps the closest I have seen.
Of course I am viewing both prints in a lighting booth so it is a fair comparison.
I would say also that when we shoot digital, and expose to the right, that in those cases where the camera's DR is bigger than the subject, we tend to be placing blacks on the straight-line part of the curve. Zone System processing very carefully exposes for the blacks (or near blacks) and then adjusts the curve to get the beginnings of gentle roll-off in the highlights.
When processing digital to get the best film-mimic look, I would say that exposure is very important, and that exposing a bit less that ETTR would imply is necessary, perhaps 1/3-2/3 stop but no less.
Digital gets into trouble mostly because it is very hard to do the equivalent to N-1 processing without losing something. N+1 is easy.
-bob
 
Top