Film and Digital comparison

[dougbrun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought readers might interested in seeing the two images included here. One was shot with my MP using Kodak Tri-X, exposed at a speed of 200. The neg was scanned on a Nikon ED9000. The other, taken at the same project, was shot with my M8. The raw conversion was made in Aperture and the black and white conversation was made using Nik Software Silver Efec Pro. I used the film profile in Efec Pro for Tri-X. Of course these are low res images, but even in full resolution, you cannot tell which is which unless you look at the file size. Anyone care to guess?

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!

[MPerson]

#1 smells like Tri-X to me

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest jm68]

1 digital

2 film

[petercs]

1=film

[ho_co]

#2 is film

 

Opinion based on f.o.v. You seem to have a wider field of view on #2, something that would be harder to do on an M8.

 

But both are comparable in terms of quality.

[dougbrun]

The answer is, indeed, Number 1 film. I should mention too, based on ho_co's comment regarding fov. The film shot, number 1, was made with a 35mm Lux and the digital was with the 28mm Elmarit ASPH.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only thing you've proved here that monitor images cannot render like prints. Show me prints, one fully digital and one fully chemical, and I'll tell you with 100% certainty....

[edinsiam]

Interesting thread, thank you for posting. I would also have said that 1 was digital and 2 film! Anyway, could you tell us how they differ in prints?

[dougbrun]

Yes, prints will tell the story, I suspect. I realize this. I have yet to print them and will report back. In this day and age, I would guess that 90 percent of my photography goes unprinted, probably now that I think about, closer to 95 percent. And I am only speaking of images that are used in some fashion or another, posted somewhere, released to a client, used in a web based or digital-based presentation, not just archived. The big take away for me with this comparison is the Nik software Silver Efex. Not to sound too much like a commercial, but it is really a wonder color to black and white conversion program, particularly with the film profile database. There is a nice review of it in the current LFI. Enough said.

Thanks.

[miami91]

Yes, prints will tell the story, I suspect. I realize this. I have yet to print them and will report back. In this day and age, I would guess that 90 percent of my photography goes unprinted, probably now that I think about, closer to 95 percent. And I am only speaking of images that are used in some fashion or another, posted somewhere, released to a client, used in a web based or digital-based presentation, not just archived. The big take away for me with this comparison is the Nik software Silver Efex. Not to sound too much like a commercial, but it is really a wonder color to black and white conversion program, particularly with the film profile database. There is a nice review of it in the current LFI. Enough said.

Thanks.

 

Doug,

 

Couldn't agree more. We've had a couple of threads the past few months with raves about all the Nik tools. For those of us that use Aperture as a key part (or sole part) of our workflow, the Nik tools are especially impressive, as there are so fewer plugins for Aperture than Photoshop. I also use Silver Efex, along with Color Efex, Sharpener Pro, and Dfine. Plan to purchase Viveza too at some point.

 

Jeff.

[edinsiam]

Keep us posted as soon as you got them printed then Doug!

[jplomley]

Doug, how are you scanning on the Nikon 9000? As a positive and then inverting in PS? Just curious about your workflow.

[el.nino]

I would also have said that 1 was digital and 2 film!

 

that's what i thought first too, but then i read that the triX was pulled a stop (ISO200) and that leads to lower contrast. so obviously #1 was the film-shot.

[dougbrun]

Jeffry - To the Nikon 9000 and workflow. I batch scan a roll of film, three passes at 12 exposures each at 666dpi and a single pass. Then I go to PS and collect the scans and print them all as a contact sheet. I sleeve the negs and store them with the contact sheet. (I know this is more than you asked, but this is the whole process.) I used to have the Nikon 8000 and always used the Nikon scanning software. But at the time I was making a lot of prints and everything was being scanned off Velvia. I got very good results. But I could never get black and white to scan properly. The 8000 finally broke and I replaced with, after two repairs, the 9000 and also purchased the SilverFast product. It did what I hoped it would do, what I'd read it could do, and that is render true black and white scans with little fuss. So, back to workflow. I scan negatives in the scanner (I do not scan as positives and reverse in PS.). I usually scan at a setting of 16x (for prints), at least at 8x (for web). I scan at 4000dpi. After the scan I open the image in PS, reset the dpi to 300 and the mode to 16 bit. This will result in an image, at full resultion and size, of about 41mgs. I will clean up the image as necessary using healing brush and unmask sharpen and save as tif. It is simple, but time consuming if one is doing a project or assignment. I hope that is of interest.

[tobey bilek]

I find film scainng has a lot of cleanup to do. Things that do not show on prints made with Leica enlarger/lenses show up pretty bad on a computer screen. It does ot matter who processes the film, prolab, consumer lab, or myself with all distilled water fresh chemistry, water and air filters.

 

Maybe I should try ICE or something, but that does not work with monochrome.

[tobey bilek]

To continue, I got a call to run an errand after I wrote the above. I emptied my R6.2 that had a roll from Sept 08 in it. Been doing a lot of RF and monochrome though.

 

Anyway the the Fuji prints were garbage as usual, but they did a nice job developing the film except for cutting 4 frame strips .

 

I brought the film home and scanned 4 frames in my KM 5400. They were simply amazing and have a debth of color and almost a 3 dimension quality to them. 100 2.8 APO lens was used.

 

I was not in a hurry because I had files from my D200 + 60 2.8 which were esentially duplicated on film. Nikon does not measure up period. Even if I put my visoflex lenses on it. They improve the image somewhat at a cost of funactionality so they are back in retirement again.

The D700 has the same flatish look to the image a the D200.

 

I have gone back over some old scans from Leicas and they all look like they have the 3 dimension compared to Leica negs.

 

I probably should buy a Leica M8 and compare to see if it is film vs digi or Nikon vs Leica or some of both. The few times I have been in a position to compare Nikon digi to M8, the M8 was clearly superior so my opinion right now it is some of both.

[innerimager]

You folks will have to take my word for it, but I was absolutely positive #1 was film. I definitely see a texture in scanned b&w negative film I do not see in pure digital capture. I can't argue with jaapv's overall view, that the prints are where the final difference lives, but I just see a difference in the scanned files on my monitor as well. This is why I shoot a lot of film and scan.....Peter

[Rolo]

I always find this to be an extremely biased discussion. As above, there's room for both and I shoot M film, M8, DSLR and MF digital & film.

 

What's never mentioned is that most users happily compare a £2,500 film system with a £10,000 investment in a digital kit, necessary to get the back-up body and extra wide angle lenses to make up for reliability and crop factors.

 

Spend the same amount of cash on the best film stocks, quality processing and a top end scanner and the differences disappear, or indeed reverse the equation.

 

There's a different feel between the end results. Just decide which one is wanted.

 

Rolo

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!

Edited March 28, 2009 by Rolo

[afineman]

while #1 just simply feels like film i must add that as a working professional i rarely shoot film anymore. as for the expense of a digital system to shooting film. i just got back from a week of shooting on a personal assignment - in detroit on the economy - i shot nearly 5,000 frames during the week of shooting. since i shot color and not b&w if one does the math, that would be 139 rolls of film and assuming $4.35 per roll for fuji film or $6.50 per roll for kodak it would be $604.65 or $903.50 for the film alone. then adding processing at $5.50 per roll $764.50 that would be a very expensive trip/project. not to mention the time it takes to do the scans. so that's $1,269.15 to shoot fuji or $1,668 to soot kodak professional 400asa film.

 

ps. if anyone cares to see some of the photos i shot that week there is a gallery on my website. Detroit, Mi 03/2009 photographs by AARON LEE FINEMAN

 

pps. for what it's worth, i still love shooting film, i only wish that my work would allow me to do so more often.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Rolo]

i shot color and not b&w if one does the math, .

 

IMO, it's the wrong math. It always is and it's misleading.

 

I shoot weddings on film, or dslr. If it's film, I shoot 10 rolls. If it's digital, it's 1000+ frames. I shoot a roll of film on an afternoon walk, or 400 frames of video still.

 

I can only presume that you would have covered the assignment in less than 5,000 film images. Besides, we're both pro's and cost is a significant factor.

 

Someone who shoots less than 5 films a month, ie the majority, is doing the same calculation as above and thinks digital pays for itself. The question has to be, IMO, if you're thinking of going to digital - how much do you spend on film etc., because that's all one can ever save.

 

Rolo