Comparing an SL image with the same shot from 15 years ago

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Correct, a 38 Biogon is essentially a 21 full-frame diagonal equivalent to 35mm. Divide by 2, multiply by 1.1. A 24x36 image cropped square gives a 2.3 equivalence, (short dimensions: 56/24 = 2.333) so about a 16.5 mm is the precise match.

 

Of course, using the SL at the same aperture, you don't get either the same DoF effects - or the authentic Hassy frame notches on the left.

 

If I want image quality, digital (cropped or uncropped) wins. If I want quality images, film in the SWC works just fine.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ramarren]

I don't see how it can be said that this thread was just about looking at the general impression of the two images. And since this post, it's become a whole petapixel article - with the express intention of comparing "analog and digital".

 

Anyway, I'm not bothered enough to argue about it. People seem to be pretty pleased to compare their SL against blocky, jpeg-destroyed images that don't even distantly resemble what a film scan looks like. Who am I to spoil their fun.

 

PS: just for clarity, I took my screengrab from a slightly zoomed 'original size' image from Flickr which was supposed to represent the state-of-the-art of film capture from 15 years ago, according to the Petapixel article.

 

 

I'm not bothered by it at all either. I never read Petapixel ... seems a waste of time. 

The casual comparison was fun, that's all. Anything more than that, fueling the idiotic "film vs digital meme", is a total waste of time.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ramarren]

Correct, a 38 Biogon is essentially a 21 full-frame diagonal equivalent to 35mm. Divide by 2, multiply by 1.1. A 24x36 image cropped square gives a 2.3 equivalence, (short dimensions: 56/24 = 2.333) so about a 16.5 mm is the precise match.

 

Of course, using the SL at the same aperture, you don't get either the same DoF effects - or the authentic Hassy frame notches on the left.

 

If I want image quality, digital (cropped or uncropped) wins. If I want quality images, film in the SWC works just fine.

 

 

That's why I said "you have to open up the lens on the SL 2-3 stops to match the DoF from the SWC". The Hassy notches for full frame with rebate appearance can be added with a border treatment any time you want, if you feel it's important. I don't; I usually remove that from any of my images. 

[AndreasAM]

 The Hassy notches for full frame with rebate appearance can be added with a border treatment any time you want, if you feel it's important. I don't; I usually remove that from any of my images. 

 

In some professions (years ago?!), the notches added to the "artistic" appeal of the squared photo's. Not in architecture, it was a no-no.

 

It is the nostalgic appeal of the Hassy SWC. These borders are incorporated in Silver Efex Pro no doubt....

Something Hasselblad will be exploiting, sorry exploring in their new upcoming camera at Photokina for the younger audience , as a "fun" setting 

Edited June 3, 2016 by AndreasAM

[Guest]

...The casual comparison was fun, that's all. Anything more than that, fueling the idiotic "film vs digital meme", is a total waste of time.

 

For anyone trying to decide whether to "go back to film," discussion of film vs digital is not idiotic. What makes it idiotic are internet-babble articles like the one plasticman has shown to be ridiculous. 

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[plasticman]

The casual comparison was fun, that's all. Anything more than that, fueling the idiotic "film vs digital meme", is a total waste of time.

 

I can agree with this, but even a 'casual comparison' should be based on something that at least vaguely resembles reality.

Otherwise what's the point? What's the point of these discussions? Of articles on photography sites? Threads like this? This forum?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

 

The side by side comparison of the 2 lenses is very interesting. Altho people often used the 110mm lens because of its large

aperture. Not for detail.

 

When photographing for detail & image quality the 100mm F3.5, an older but sharper design, would more usually have been chosen.

 

It would be interesting to see the same scene photographed with that 100mm F3.5 lens today. As a comparison.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited June 3, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht

[pico]

Just a note in passing: Somewhere (I can ferret it out if necessary) there is a specific suggestion from Hasselblad for using the SWC, when the photographer is printing to 40" square or larger he should stop down one or two stops deeper from the metrics given on the lens. (That's back when they had an active DOF scale on the lens.)

 

I am perhaps irrationally fond of the SWC. I have used one occasionally since 1973.

 

To close on-topic I suggest that the old scan in the post might be better if done today with our new algorithms.

 

This was made with a SWC, my former workplace, about twenty years ago, printed ~40" square. Nobody was unhappy but me.

 

I love that lens and have extrapolated to employ the same optical formula for 4x5".

Edited June 3, 2016 by pico

[ramarren]

For anyone trying to decide whether to "go back to film," discussion of film vs digital is not idiotic. What makes it idiotic are internet-babble articles like the one plasticman has shown to be ridiculous. 

 

 

 

Why would anyone be investing energy into "trying to decide whether to 'go back to film'"? What's the big deal? If you want to use film, get a film camera and use film. If you want to use a digital camera, get a digital camera and use it. 

 

Gosh, I had no idea that this could be such an emotional hurdle. I just pick up whatever camera I want to use and use it. 

[ramarren]

I can agree with this, but even a 'casual comparison' should be based on something that at least vaguely resembles reality.

Otherwise what's the point? What's the point of these discussions? Of articles on photography sites? Threads like this? This forum?

 

For most people who do photography, all this stuff is for the fun of it. For those who work in photography for a living, most do not have time to waste on these forums or discussions unless they're part of the business marketing plan. For those like me, who've been in and out of photography as a business for fifty years, currently make a living another way, but continue to do photography for personal satisfaction and, perhaps, for the notion of participating in an art form, it's about 80% for fun and about 20% because sometimes you get to help others struggling with a photographic problem that you've solved. 

 

Far as I'm concerned those two sample photos do resemble the reality of what I see posted on-line pretty closely. 

Edited June 3, 2016 by ramarren

[Peter Walker]

I don't see how it can be said that this thread was just about looking at the general impression of the two images. And since this post, it's become a whole petapixel article - with the express intention of comparing "analog and digital".

 

Anyway, I'm not bothered enough to argue about it. People seem to be pretty pleased to compare their SL against blocky, jpeg-destroyed images that don't even distantly resemble what a film scan looks like. Who am I to spoil their fun.

 

PS: just for clarity, I took my screengrab from a slightly zoomed 'original size' image from Flickr which was supposed to represent the state-of-the-art of film capture from 15 years ago, according to the Petapixel article.

With the multitude of things in this world that are worth getting upset over, I find it hard to believe that my simple observation of two images that I took 15 years apart on two different systems could generate such emotion and passion among some people. I wasn't even aware that there still was a "digital vs analog" debate until I saw some of the reactions to the post on petapixel. That's like getting upset because some people drive a car instead of riding a horse... (I wonder if there had been an internet back in the early 1900s there'd be flame wars between car drivers and horse owners - probably).

 

I'll be more careful expressing a view in the future. Consider me effectively silenced...

 

 

Regards

Peter

http://www.peterwalker.com

[plasticman]

I must say I'm completely dumbfounded by all these defensive answers. This completely bogus and in my opinion frankly dishonest 'comparison' is posted on a popular online magazine, and when the images are questioned everyone is simply "whoah are you still stuck in the ridiculous film-vs-digital-meme?" 

 

The whole thread and PetaPixel post was about "analog vs digital" - it was even titled that way.

 

How about this - I do a comparison of a Fuji XPro2 image vs a Leica SL image, but first I totally destroy the quality of the SL image: I jpeg compress it so much that all the detail, all the color fidelity and micro-contrast is completely removed. Then I publish the comparison on PetaPixel to show how much further Fuji has come than Leica in sensor technology. Sounds good?

 

And when someone here questions it, I can throw up my hands and say: "hey you're so hung up about these comparisons? Real photographers don't have time to worry about Fuji vs Leica stuff. Jeez get over it, it was just supposed to be a bit of fun."

[jaapv]

 
Peter fully set out the conditions of his side-by-side  in his original post. I fail to see how it can be read, in any way, as declaring superiority, it is clearly a casual observation.
Twisted knickers can be big fun in some cases,especially after untwisting, but not in internet discussions.


I would say that -should one be interested - comparing film against digital cannot be productive using a hybrid workflow. Scanning postprocessing and inkjet printing introduce undesired digital parameters.

If one really wants to compare, reproduce the smallest detail on a fully chemical print from film and the same detail on a fully digitally generated print.

 

As for Petapixel, there are a couple of quite reasonable, non-combative film-and-digital articles in there FWIIW.

[scott kirkpatrick]

With the multitude of things in this world that are worth getting upset over,....

That's like getting upset because some people drive a car instead of riding a horse... (I wonder if there had been an internet back in the early 1900s there'd be flame wars between car drivers and horse owners - probably).

 

 

Back then, all politics was really local.  The folks with pitchforks ran to the town fathers and passed laws to have each horseless carriage preceded by a footman with a warning sign.  Not sure what the BBCode equivalent would be for today, but it would have to be applied to precede the analogue efforts, not the newer digital stuff.

 

scott

[dem331]

 

I must say I'm completely dumbfounded by all these defensive answers. This completely bogus and in my opinion frankly dishonest 'comparison' is posted on a popular online magazine, and when the images are questioned everyone is simply "whoah are you still stuck in the ridiculous film-vs-digital-meme?"

 

The whole thread and PetaPixel post was about "analog vs digital" - it was even titled that way.

 

How about this - I do a comparison of a Fuji XPro2 image vs a Leica SL image, but first I totally destroy the quality of the SL image: I jpeg compress it so much that all the detail, all the color fidelity and micro-contrast is completely removed. Then I publish the comparison on PetaPixel to show how much further Fuji has come than Leica in sensor technology. Sounds good?

 

And when someone here questions it, I can throw up my hands and say: "hey you're so hung up about these comparisons? Real photographers don't have time to worry about Fuji vs Leica stuff. Jeez get over it, it was just supposed to be a bit of fun."

I think there are ways of disagreeing or expressing views without appearing to sound offensive.....

 

In any case, I found the comparison interesting. I think that in any case, I found the comparison interesting. I think that there is no doubt that digital has the potential to have infinitely more resolution than film, and it is already significantly ahead in that respect. The comparison of a motor car and a horse is probably not too far off.

 

However a horse will always have things that a motor car will lack.

 

Looking at the comparison posted, it seems to me personally as if the analog image has less magnification, worse lighting conditions (more haze) but in any case less resolution and a wider dynamic range. In some ways I prefer it.

[Peter Walker]

 

The whole thread and PetaPixel post was about "analog vs digital" - it was even titled that way.

 

 

 

I did not add the "analog vs digital" header.  Petapixel asked me if they could use my post on their site.  I said yes.  That's it.  In any case, as I said above, I did not even know that "analog vs digital" was still a thing anymore.  I thought we'd moved on.

 

If you go back to my original post at the beginning of this thread and actually read it without emotion, you will see that I closely described the circumstances of the comparison. 

 

The 2001 shot is a TIF file scanned with, for that time, a state-of the-art film scanner.  Could it be scanned better today?  Most likely.  But that's not what my story was about.  My story was about the quality of the shots that I took then and the quality of the shots I take now.  I'm sure that someone else could do them both better.

 

Are there jpeg artefacts in the 2001 shot?  Yes, because I had to take a 135Mb TIF file and squeeze it down to a 3Mb Jpeg file so I could post it.

 

Could I go back to the original tranny (it's in my dehumidifying cabinet) and try to get the best possible scan done with today's technology?  Yes, I could.  But, that's not the point of the story.

 

I like both shots.  I think that the Square format works really well for the 2001 shot.  I like the colour and punch of the 2016 shot. 

 

But, more than any of that technical stuff, I like the fact that, by coincidence, I happen to have taken the same shot, from the same location, in similar conditions, 15 years apart.

 

And, of course, I can't help feeling sad about the missing towers from the first image...  (that's a much better topic to get emotional about).

 

Regards

Peter

[firststream]

Correct, a 38 Biogon is essentially a 21 full-frame diagonal equivalent to 35mm. Divide by 2, multiply by 1.1. A 24x36 image cropped square gives a 2.3 equivalence, (short dimensions: 56/24 = 2.333) so about a 16.5 mm is the precise match.

 

Of course, using the SL at the same aperture, you don't get either the same DoF effects - or the authentic Hassy frame notches on the left.

 

If I want image quality, digital (cropped or uncropped) wins. If I want quality images, film in the SWC works just fine.

Your image has a deep composition, which really shows the benefit of the medium format 38mm focal length, whereas the posted images elsewhere in this post either show a flat plane or infinity plane composition. Here is where the medium format image shines. Cropping a 35mm image to mate to a square, medium format image doesn't take into account the distortions inherent in the wider, 35mm equivalent focal length, and I doubt the DoF can be made a match, as well. Could you imagine a close-in portrait taken with a 21mm lens, when compared to the same in an SWC? 

 

Further, what works as an equivalence in a composition that is shot straight-on, may not hold for a quarter-angle composition, as you have here. I just don't think opening the aperture on a 35mm lens will do the trick. DoF standards work on an 8x10" image, when viewed from 12 inches away. Focus fall-off between the two formats just aren't the same, which isn't evident on a shallow plane image.

 

There are a lot of variables being discussed in this thread: digital vs. analog; medium format vs. 35mm; cropping vs. straight. If I could add to the confusion, and speak hypothetically, just imagine a digital XPan image, up against the film shot from the existing camera!

[Steve Spencer]

For me what I found compelling about the two shots was that the 2001 shot was in 2001 and the tall twin buildings on the south end of the island were still standing just a few months before they were brought down. The 2016 shots shows how the skyline has changed and in a way recovered, but of course the new building, which stands out as new has replaced the twin towers. For me the greater vibrancy of the new shot works with the comparison and the slightly duller colours of 2001 shot works with the sense of foreboding that for me hangs over that shot. So, as a pair I like them side by side very much.

 

Of course none of that has anything to do with analog vs. digital. Nor do I think that is what Peter intended, but I think it is cool nonetheless. I don't know if they tell me anything about the how film shots hold up 15 years later. Crunching a 135mb file down to 3mb means the 3mb can't tell you much about the quality of the 135mb TIFF.  For the new shot, I am used to seeing 45mb files crunched down to 3mb and although I know that there are serious limitation to evaluated the web sized photo, I can say the SL looks like it does a nice job.

 

That technical stuff, IMO, though isn't nearly as important as the artistic impact that setting these images side by side creates for me. I do think plastic man raises a valid concern, but my main reaction is well done Peter for seeing the potential of setting these images side by side,.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Peter,

 

Thank you for presenting these nice photos for people to compare. I think that they are very instructive.

 

Hello Everybody,

 

I find it interesting that this is being looked at as a film versus digital comparison. What I see is something different:

I see this as a comparison of an image taken with a high speed, medium format, portrait lens which was NOT known for sharpness even 15 years ago. On top of this: Medium format camera bodies & lenses were not calibrated to the same specifications that the same bodies & lenses are calibrated to today.

 

This is being compared to a current general purpose 35mm format lens which has been highly calibrated, which is being used with an equally highly calibrated contemporary body.

 

This differences in "playing fields" means that this is not a comparison of film versus digital because the parameters used for comparison between the 2 images is so different.

 

Equalize the calibration & then equalize the types of lenses involved.

 

The 100mm F3.5 Hasselblad lens of that period is the lens that comes most closely to meeting the requirements for equality of calibration & image quality since the 80mm F2.8 & the 150mm F4 were not of the optical quality equal to the 100mm F3.5 at that time. 

 

To have an equal comparison today it should be a test with an equivalently calibrated Hasselblad body, film or digital, & an equivalently calibrated 100m F3.5 lens compared to the Leica duo used. With both lenses set at F8 & with both cameras on a solid tripod. Then compare those images.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited June 4, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[adan]

The Hassy notches for full frame with rebate appearance can be added with a border treatment any time you want...

 

Not for me. Professional ethics, international news photo contest rules, etc. etc. Borders (if any) have to be inherent to the process, not Photoshop pasties......