Film vs. Digital

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...sorry, Andy, not acceptable - we need every forum member to step forward, state their preferences and why.

 

And to denigrate those who prefer the 'other side'

[Jaybob]

I use film for any and all personal projects, and Nikon D3 when time is of the essence and money is being made. Just my opinion, the D3 is SO close to being perfect, other than the fact lensed up it weighs far TOO much.

 

As I get older I find myself being much less of an early adopter, but when M9 is updated to M9.2, (please, PLEASE, don't make it a video camera, just make it so you can shoot just north of 3200, maybe 4000 without being all blotchy) I will seriously consider it.

[maurometallo]

I`ve got a real simple solution to this "Film vs Digital" thread.....for those who wish to use film........use film!.....and for those who wish to use digital.......use digital...it`s not rocket science.Now let`s all get on with taking pictures.

 

Andy

 

Right! Absolutely, utterly right!... And that should conclude the whole story.

However, as a film shoter in an ever increasing digital world, I tried to give myself an answer (once more...) in here:

Equipment

[Joachim123]

Thanks for the interesting viewpoint. My thoughts exactly. Film simple and with Leica lens unmatched.

[plasticman]

I just remembered that someone in the thread wanted to see an example of the way film renders OOF areas differently than a digital sensor, and I mentioned a Japanese article from the early days of the M9 that illustrated the phenomenon to a certain extent.

 

Now I'm back from travelling I had the opportunity to do a search and found the magazine scan again. I know that this isn't scientific in any way, and I remember much criticism of the methodology in the rather informal test when it was originally posted, but nevertheless the difference in look matches my own experience. Some of the effects may be assigned to the difference in exposure between the shots, but for me there is a painterly quality to film-rendering that is somehow sterile (for want of a better, more neutral word) when rendered by a digital sensor.

 

Sample Image Comparisons from Leica M9 and M7

 

Overall, the radical difference in the look of images from my film and digital shooting is why I've migrated back towards film. I don't think that difference is so pronounced for shooters comparing slide film and digital capture, but when looking at the results from films like Portra, the look is something else entirely.

[jaapv]

I'm not quite sure about this example, Mani. there is such a vast difference in color saturation and contrast that it is hard to draw any conclusion. I think the scan is not quite what it should have been. Film can do much better than that.

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not quite sure about this example, Mani. there is such a vast difference in color saturation and contrast that it is hard to draw any conclusion. I think the scan is not quite what it should have been. Film can do much better than that.

 

Well the example was to show the differences in rendering rather than the actual quality (though I prefer the film image even in this case). I remember it was a matter of debate earlier in the thread whether film and digital render the character of a lens differently, and I recalled this example, even though it is not the best.

 

As I've said, the differences will minimize in other sorts of shooting, but they can also be accentuated far more than even the magazine scan shows. Frankly I find it amazing that the discussion often devolves into a debate about which medium is the best form of preserving images, when the way that film looks can be so amazingly diverse.

 

It reminds me of a (mostly good-natured) argument I had with a colleague of mine who always insists on eating at McDonald's. I was (characteristically) ranting about agribusiness and monoculture and systemic insecticides and flavor-free food, and my supposed trump card was the astounding fact (which I'd recently read) that the Incas grew more than 3000 types of potato. To this he answered dismissively that 'all potatoes pretty much taste the same'.

 

I couldn't help myself and almost angrily said that he was telling me more about his taste buds than about the amazing diversity of flavors which different, and properly grown potatoes will have. With this I thought I'd won the debate.

 

But he just said something like: 'well if your 3000 potatoes tasted so great people would buy those instead of the ones they do'. And walked off.

 

Not until later, when my reason was no longer clouded by temper, that I realized the real point I should have made was most people never get the chance to try anything but the potatoes that multinational agribusiness has decided they will eat.

 

Last week I drove home after some brief travels. Anyone who's done the incredibly tedious drive up the motorway through southern Sweden from Denmark to Stockholm will know that all you see for 500 or so miles are just two things: unbroken dank forest, and McDonald's signs. One day that'll be the future of photography.

[redbaron]

That wide variety of potatoes also ensured disease resistance because each variety would pass on its better genes to the others. Mono cultures can be wiped out by a single pest. That's what caused the Irish potato famine.

 

But don't whinge about McD's. They'll sue!

[AlanG]

The problem with almost all photography is that it is getting reduced down to primarily being seen on a computer monitor as relatively small low res images... or used commercially via offset printing. So If your images are super detailed such that they will only have the most impact when large prints are viewed in person, you are out of luck getting this across to people via the web.

 

At one time it was common for photographers to have a darkroom. It also was not unusual for many to work with various "alternative" processes to achieve their own look. When I was in school back in the 70s it was common to experiment with cyanotype, Kodalith paper, dye transfer, liquid emulsions, photo silk screen, and many other methods. Maybe they still do this in art schools and some specialty forums, but I don't see too many samples on any of the regular photo forums. The fact that film is commonly scanned for use on screen or via inkjet printing minimizes the difference between film and digital photography.

 

I gave away my darkroom about a year ago... not because I thought it was "better" to work digitally, but because I had already done more than enough darkroom work and experimental processes for one lifetime and it was time to go another route where I could create images that I could not do on film or with a darkroom. (Despite what Uelsmann could do in a darkroom.) And of course my commercial work must be shot digitally.

[menos I M6]

I just remembered that someone in the thread wanted to see an example of the way film renders OOF areas differently than a digital sensor, and I mentioned a Japanese article from the early days of the M9 that illustrated the phenomenon to a certain extent.

 

Now I'm back from travelling I had the opportunity to do a search and found the magazine scan again. I know that this isn't scientific in any way, and I remember much criticism of the methodology in the rather informal test when it was originally posted, but nevertheless the difference in look matches my own experience. Some of the effects may be assigned to the difference in exposure between the shots, but for me there is a painterly quality to film-rendering that is somehow sterile (for want of a better, more neutral word) when rendered by a digital sensor.

 

Sample Image Comparisons from Leica M9 and M7

 

Overall, the radical difference in the look of images from my film and digital shooting is why I've migrated back towards film. I don't think that difference is so pronounced for shooters comparing slide film and digital capture, but when looking at the results from films like Portra, the look is something else entirely.

 

Mani, at no chance are these two shots captured with the same aperture.

The different highlight rendering could be believable if somebody explains me some magic highlight difference between a digital sensor and film …

 

The vast difference in dof (see the tree directly behind the model) and back ground rendering (especially the last row of trees and breaking through light) looks interestingly very convincing like the exact difference, some lenses show, shot wide open vs. stopped down a bit.

 

I do very much prefer the very neutral, less crazy look of the digital image here (with stopped down lens?), but I do also like the modern look of the 50 Lux ASPH.

 

To stop any argument in that direction:

I do love film - I shoot it myself, whenever I can (not so much anymore - 2-3 rolls a week).

I do shoot it not so much because of a different look I get (I have found out, that modern pp gives for me very satisfying similar looks - highlights especially).

 

I am all for 3000 potatoes btw. Mc Donald's gives me stomach cramps.

 

edit: I just read: "A native Japanese speaker was kind enough to translate the caption to the right of the photos: “Both images are taken with the same focal length…" in the Japanese translation, which would explain the entirely different oof rendering and dof reasonably. Being two different lenses, likely shot at different apertures, makes this test not suitable for the argument. It just shows, that Leica M7 and M9 are both capable of being used, to take a capture of a woman in front of trees - no more, no less.

[plasticman]

This is why I don't post comparison shots myself. For all I know you may be right about the magazine scans, but in my own experience I see a total difference in the way that highlights, oof, and bokeh are rendered when I shoot the same scene with the same lens and conditions on film (specifically Portra - because that is what I most use) and digital.

 

I think I remember it was actually Jaap* who once illustrated this very point for me by saying that film emulsion is like a murky soup that light sinks into. A digital sensor captures a sharp slice of that light instead.

 

Whatever. There is always someone who comes along and questions the methodology or settings or even veracity of any comparison. So I suggest if anyone is interested that they try for themselves rather than taking my word for it.

 

In any case, I find film too valuable and wonderful to waste on dry test shots.

 

* Whoah! I found it - now this isn't meant to embarrass Jaap or point-out any inconsistency - so forgive me for quoting this here - it's simply that I found the 'soup' metaphor so illuminating that I've adopted it as an explanation many times myself when discussing film and digital with acquaintances. Here's the post anyway - it is EXACTLY what I mean about the way that images are rendered:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/88812-zen-art-boke-m8.html#post929571

[menos I M6]

Mani, it's not about being right or wrong in a discussion about film vs digital technicalities - I am honestly interested - one could say curious - if there indeed is such a described difference in rendering, which can not be seen/ replicated in digital imaging.

 

One could say, I am on the search for arguments, to change my own film vs digital shooting balance and use more film for a specific reason for now only simple reasons as "different tempo", "slowing down", "Zen", maybe a bit "highlight protection" are the only reasons, I still shoot film.

The strongest simply technical reason, still using film with a RF camera is: pushed ISO6400 Tri X simply looks better than pushed ISO6400 digital Leica files.

 

So you or anybody else - have a difference illustrated/ explained to the curious - bring it on the tablefor all to learn.

[plasticman]

Mani, at no chance are these two shots captured with the same aperture....

 

edit: I just read: "A native Japanese speaker was kind enough to translate the caption to the right of the photos: “Both images are taken with the same focal length…" in the Japanese translation, which would explain the entirely different oof rendering and dof reasonably. Being two different lenses, likely shot at different apertures, makes this test not suitable for the argument. It just shows, that Leica M7 and M9 are both capable of being used, to take a capture of a woman in front of trees - no more, no less.

 

Sorry don't mean to flog a dead horse but curiosity got the better of me and I went back to look at the scan. Now, I read no Japanese whatsoever, so I'm more than willing to be corrected here, but it appears to me that the lens and aperture are the same, but that the length of exposure was markedly different. Anyway, to me the words that seem to be the name of the lens seem to be the same, as is the aperture at which the images have been shot (f1,4).

 

Judgements as to quality and preference are entirely personal, of course - but I'm intrigued that you thought the digital shot looked 'neutral and less crazy'. My view would be the reverse, as the film shot looks smoother and much more harmonious to my eye. Just goes to show that diversity is great.

 

btw - I missed your last post - we were probably posting at the same time. I agree it's not a 'right or wrong' thing, but nevertheless I know it to be factually incorrect that the lens is the sole determinant in how a scene looks when captured because of casual tests I have done myself. And also because my film shots look consistently very different from my digital shots. That isn't true in ALL shots, of course. But for my sort of shooting the results are entirely and consistently different.

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!

[menos I M6]

Mani, I stand corrected and am most amazed!

 

Now to the technical explanations!

 

How on earth is it possible, the film shot seems to have so much shallower dof and such a different highlight rendering? That one made me even more curious!

[jaapv]

A sensor has a more defined DOF gradient; the film emulsion has a thickness, making the image points into cones, especially toward the corners and providing diffraction and dispersion. Think of a torch shining into a murky bowl of soup. A sensor is a plane without these artefacts. No wonder it looks differently.

[JanCderidder]

I enjoy using digital equipement however even with meticulous and very lengthy PP'ing it's impossible to create an image shot with Tri-x developed in Rodinal, perhaps even multi-toned. It will resemble but never look the same somehow.

 

For color I don't care about any differences, color I use for snaps and easy stuff. I enjoy B&W with film, with digital not so much.

 

I also like wet-room development more than peeking at a screen.

[flappywhale]

Re: film vs. digital, I have a Leica M9 and an MP. I prefer film, but the main value for me of digital is that it can help me learn more about composition. It is very similar to using polaroid on a 4x5 view camera - you see the results instantly, and you can compare the image you made with what you saw and felt before you made the image. Then you have the option of remaking the image to strengthen the composition. Edward Weston's one comment on composition was that it was the strongest way of seeing. With the instant feedback of digital it helps me learn better how to see photographically.

[andybarton]

IMHO, you don't need a camera at all to see composition. You can either see it, or you can't.

 

You might be able to see more than one composition, in any scene or event, but, again, you don't need a camera for that.

[azzo]

 

Then you have the option of remaking the image to strengthen the composition.

With the instant feedback of digital it helps me learn better how to see photographically.

 

 

Not if the 'moment' is long gone!

IMHO, the worst thing one could do is to rely on the next 'frame'. ..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[DaveO]

What is DMR?

 

DaveO