01af Posted July 30, 2010 Share #141 Posted July 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... analog vs. digital in two different negativs/files (FF vs. 8.2 Crop) ... That's what Dirk apparently wants you to believe, but—definitely not! That's two different crops from the very same frame. It's strange how people are discussing the merits (or the lack thereof) of digital and film but at the same time are unable tell whether two pictures are two different shots or two versions of one single shot ... like blind men discussing their favourite colours. Maybe that's what Dirk intends to prove ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 Hi 01af, Take a look here Film vs. Digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted July 30, 2010 Share #142 Posted July 30, 2010 Get a Mac. I have a Mac at home and have had one since 1991 If I had to use a PC at home, I'd have sold it years ago and would do without a home computer completely. Life is too short to have to edit Registry entries in one's spare time... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 30, 2010 Share #143 Posted July 30, 2010 That's what Dirk apparently wants you to believe, but—definitely not! That's two different crops from the very same frame.... The first is named L1036001.jpg and the second is scan005-24.jpg I see a difference in the rendering of the three lights on the side of the car. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 30, 2010 Share #144 Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) I thought it was pretty obvious from the reflectors and then from the file names. Are we now saying sucker punch exifs have been written and the files adjusted to blow highlights? Cool huh. I prefer the film version, but then thats the age old trap, because no one is ever going to flip through two sets of identical images to decide whether they like the film or digital best even if they can tell the difference. They are just going to look at images in publication or print and decide whether to give it a miss. Edited July 30, 2010 by rob_x2004 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 30, 2010 Share #145 Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) The first is named L1036001.jpg and the second is scan005-24.jpg. So what? Names of files can be changed. In fact, the particular choice of names proves that Dirk is deliberately trying to take us for a ride ... I see a difference in the rendering of the three lights on the side of the car. Sure. There are even more differences in the renderings of the two pictures. Still, they definitely come from just one single frame. And by the way, I prefer the alleged 'digital' version. It has smoother tonality (except in the three lamps), and I also like the tighter crop. But that has nothing to do with film vs digital, as either both are scanned film, or both are a digital capture. There's no way these were two different shots, much less from two different cameras. Edited July 30, 2010 by 01af Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 30, 2010 Share #146 Posted July 30, 2010 Interestingly there's a scratch on both frames below the wheel:D. There you go:D. Class act. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted July 30, 2010 Share #147 Posted July 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) 01af is spot on - both crops are derived from the very same exposure from the M8.2. I have deliberately renamed one file and have cropped them slightly different, to give a slightly different look. I have not altered any of the two files to make one or the other look more like film or digital. I don't want to "expose" anybody of not seeing that no film photograph is involved, but wanted to point some noses on a few points, I have only learned recently about "digital files" vs. traditional film imaging. The reason for posting my two crop comparison: The "digital" looking image with the clearly blown highlights and halo shape around it is the least altered file of the too. You can see, that the highlights are clearly blown to an extend, where there is no image information included. Additionally, we see an effect, which many "old film shooters" do not find pleasant in digital imaging (nor do I). I was absolutely amazed though, by what the ongoing technical improvement of post processing software is capable off, pulling out of digital files, taken with a (by todays standards) old digital sensor. By nothing more than adjusting curves, brightness, contrast and exposure in Adobe Lightroom, did I give the blown highlights a pleasurable rendering, formerly inherited only by the beauty of film - a gradually, soft bleeding highlight! This imaging character has been the sole reason in last year, to truly get hooked by black and white film! I really could shoot with film in darkness into bright light sources and had a natural and beautiful look of lights in my pictures! Not longer anymore is this a character solely reserved to film! Todays best software, I have used so far, to be able, to get results with digital photography, some of us have thought (do think) would only be possible with film can not only resemble film character and types, but also improves by the release. What really keeps my hopes high for using "old digital cameras" still a few years longer is the advances of software - I am a good example by myself, still using a R-D1 regularly and using a M8.2 as my main camera, despite having some much younger digital cameras collecting dust! The effect we have seen, that the beauty of film has been, to stock original negatives, which could be rescanned and improved with every newer generation of better dedicated scanners is not very different from what I see in digital imaging software. Practical and widespread digital imaging is a very young process with just 10 years in the making. I am very enthusiastic about developments to come - developments, making not our "old cameras" obsolete, but making them better imaging tools by each and every generation of better processing software - the part in photography, many of us (myself included until recently) seeing more as a "must do" or unwanted work until now. The last generation of these software solutions coupled with "that old" rangefinder camera really shook me up on this - and might do one or the other as well ;-) Happy discussion! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 30, 2010 Share #148 Posted July 30, 2010 I'd suspect the typical film snap shooter can't easily retrieve an old negative in order to make a print if someone requests a copy I don't know if I'm typical but there are some negatives that I'd love to be able to retrieve but have eluded me for many years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 30, 2010 Share #149 Posted July 30, 2010 I can find any of my Leica b&w negatives or slides quicker than I can find a digital shot. But, I have never found a sensible way of archiving 35mm colour negatives for some reason. It's prpbably because most processors cut them into strips of 4, and storage sheets are more commonly sold with strips of six. Therefore, colour negatives tend to remain in their plastic strips and not put into lever arch folders as their b&w or slide cousins do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 30, 2010 Share #150 Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) I was absolutely amazed though, by what the ongoing technical improvement of post processing software is capable of, pulling out of digital files [...] By nothing more than adjusting curves, brightness, contrast, and exposure in Adobe Lightroom, did I give the blown highlights a pleasurable rendering, formerly inherited only by the beauty of film—a gradually, soft bleeding highlight! ... what I keep saying for years now. Those who claim digital had harsh highlights, narrow dynamic range, and overall an un-natural rendition simply cannot handle digital properly. And that has nothing to do with the latest progress in post-processing software; actually all this was also possible for years (the latest software is just making it a bit easier to accomplish). In my experience, the differences between film and digital will be obvious when the technical quality and/or craftmanship are lacking on one side or the other but tend to disappear when technical quality and craftmanship are approaching perfection on both sides. Then, only a subtle difference in characteristic may remain, with no side being better or worse than the other—just slightly different, if at all. The real difference is in the workflow. And in this regard, digital clearly is favourable by far—quicker, cheaper, easier, more productive. That's why 99 out of 100 (blunt estimation) working pros are using digital these days—including those who are concerned about sheer image quality more than cost or time-to-market. And oh, by the way: Sorry Dirk—I'm afraid I spoilt your experiment. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut ... Edited July 30, 2010 by 01af Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 30, 2010 Share #151 Posted July 30, 2010 most processors cut them into strips of 4, and storage sheets are more commonly sold with strips of six. Is the problem that in this case some 33% of the storage sheet are wasted? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 30, 2010 Share #152 Posted July 30, 2010 The problem (one of them) is that when your film is cut into strips of 4, you get 9 strips. That does not fit into one sheet. For the tidy minded eg. someone who files their images, that is a 'no go' practice. Andy, try asking your processor to either cut in strips of 6, or leave the film uncut. Take your neg bag with you to the store and cut the film into strips of 6 at the store! Ugh! I know, but I did that for awhile, then I bought my own processor and have never looked back. No more scratched and dirty films, always cut to right length, better colour (no stale chemicals on Friday afternoon) and the odd ale while the processor did it's stuff. Way to go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 30, 2010 Share #153 Posted July 30, 2010 John I will be moving to process my own C41 in the Jobo soon. I have just paid £7 per film, process only, for two rolls of 120. Process only, apparently, doesn't even include negative sleeves at all. God only knows what the state of the negatives will be when I get them home. Another processing shop crossed off the list... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 30, 2010 Share #154 Posted July 30, 2010 Alan, nothing inevitable about the demise of film at all. A selective group will always exist based on evidence available, which, like your prediction, is not guaranteed either. Regarding the desires of your young photographers, well what can I say? They will learn, maybe. They, like so many before them, will become dissatisfied with the regular 'dishing up' of the latest digi craze. Then, just maybe, they will discover the alternative that film has to offer and if they are smarter by then, they will adopt both. But who really knows? Yes, this is a short lived digi-craze and then they'll go back to daguerrotype photography. I appreciate what it takes to shoot, process, and print film and I have some nostalgia for what it was like in the old days. But numbers don't lie and it has nothing to do with what you or I like... Or finding and scanning old negatives. Film use will be a tinier and tinier percentage of the market as time goes by. We can't argue that away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 30, 2010 Share #155 Posted July 30, 2010 I think that the point is that as long as there's a demand for it, film will still be made and processed. It might be made in China, rather than Rochester or Moberley, but where there's a market demand, someone will fill it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 30, 2010 Share #156 Posted July 30, 2010 That's not a problem. I find them monthly. At least, nobody has as yet proven that they're not SD cards. It's the decoding which is worrysome. What is MDCCLXIII in octal? Answer here 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 30, 2010 Share #157 Posted July 30, 2010 I have a Mac at home and have had one since 1991 If I had to use a PC at home, I'd have sold it years ago and would do without a home computer completely. Life is too short to have to edit Registry entries in one's spare time... Go to the Terminal window, and type "defaults read | more" without quotes. That's the U*x equivalent to the registry. (press space bar to display more. Type q to quit the display) If you go far enough you will see a heck of a lot of private data, history, and good stuff like that that. Revealing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wblynch Posted July 30, 2010 Share #158 Posted July 30, 2010 Film use will be a tinier and tinier percentage of the market as time goes by. We can't argue that away. It may be that the drop in photographic film use has already hit bottom and is enjoying a slight increase. I read and hear daily from people that are using film for their first time. Some of them will stay. Many people may use film for 10% or 30% and digital for the rest, but that is still some demand for film. While there are no film users predicting the demise of digital photography, I don't understand why digital proponents wish so badly for film to disappear altogether. Can they not let this small percentage survive? They must have total annihilation, I guess. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 30, 2010 Share #159 Posted July 30, 2010 While there are no film users predicting the demise of digital photography, I don't understand why digital proponents wish so badly for film to disappear altogether. Can they not let this small percentage survive? They must have total annihilation, I guess. Do you have evidence to support this theory? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 30, 2010 Share #160 Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) While there are no film users predicting the demise of digital photography, I don't understand why digital proponents wish so badly for film to disappear altogether. Can they not let this small percentage survive? They must have total annihilation, I guess. I am not a proponent of anything. I'd be happy if the rest of the world used 8x10 glass plates. The advantages of digital photography are obvious to many photographers and whatever advantages some feel that film has, it won't "come back" and turn the tide in any numerically significant way. You don't have to have an allegiance to one thing or another to see the reality of the situation. I recently parted with my 4x5 Linhof Technikardan system because I couldn't really justify using it any more. This is the first time in 35 years I haven't owned a view camera. I gave away my darkroom more than a year ago. I had a very good feel for using film, but it would be a real luxury and too time consuming for me to shoot it these days and scan the images. Separately, I don't see how anyone who loves shooting digital photos does not allow film to survive. Film's future solely depends on people using it. And that is the problem. As I travel, I barely see film for sale anymore. Looking ahead, you aren't going to convince many in the iPhone generation to deal with it. (Some artsy types, but that's it.) Edited July 30, 2010 by AlanG Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.