Film Vs Digital

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The test should have been done between the 5D2 and 35mm film, of course. And in the latter, I believe the berries would have shown up.

 

I find it interesting (and this is not at all aimed at zlatkob but at the comments discussion in the article) that in the occasional test where film performs "better" than digital, those more in favour of digital are not interested in the pixel-peeping which is so oftern legio in the digital domain.

 

I like berries though so find it sad that they disappeared in their digital incarnation.

 

Philip

 

Obviously 4x5 film performs better than 35mm digital. The article shows that it takes a medium format digital IQ180 (80mp) to get close to 4x5. 35mm digital is a step below medium format digital.

 

I don't know whether 35mm film would show the berries. I think it's safe to assume that something disappears in every format. It's just a question of what, and when it matters.

[Advertisement]

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

[plasticman]

And my point is, does it matter? When you shoot a portrait or a cat or anything, does that color averaging matter?

 

The subtlety and detail in the film image colors is what makes the medium appealing to me - take a look at the comparison images below the 'lost berries': http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/12/10-topping-moss-iq180-vs-4x5Portra400.jpg

 

So many small (and apparently to some people insignificant) details and textures and differentiations that contribute to the overall richness of an image. You choose to characterize these as "one pixel out of 90,000' but the entirety of the film image is suffused with these subtle differences and gradations that are simply averaged away by the digital sensor: plastic skin textures anyone?

[zlatkob]

The subtlety and detail in the film image colors is what makes the medium appealing to me - take a look at the comparison images below the 'lost berries': http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/12/10-topping-moss-iq180-vs-4x5Portra400.jpg

 

So many small (and apparently to some people insignificant) details and textures and differentiations that contribute to the overall richness of an image. You choose to characterize these as "one pixel out of 90,000' but the entirety of the film image is suffused with these subtle differences and gradations that are simply averaged away by the digital sensor: plastic skin textures anyone?

 

There's no question that film has a look that is appealing. It doesn't look the same as digital. Yes, there's a subtle difference in color between the 4x5 crop and the IQ180 crop. But the one pixel out of 90,000 is a fact, not a characterization. I'm referring to the article's description of the missing berries. The article explains the loss of the berries by saying "a single pixel size berry is unlikely to match up with a single red pixel". This means that in a 12x18 or 13x19 print, each berry — if shown — would be represented by one pixel out of 90,000 (assuming printing at 300ppi). We can see the berries are missing when the image is blown up to the size of a 9.3-foot print (200% crops), but good luck seeing they're missing in a 12x18" or 13x19" print.

 

Plastic skin textures are a problem of early digital and digital done badly. I don't think they're inherent in digital. Do the Leica S or Phase One IQ180 produce plastic skin textures?

[Archiver]

As an absolute, the film images certainly do have an edge on the digital images. As a matter of practicality, how many people have access to, or are willing to, have their film professionally drum scanned? How many will have access to a scanner of that quality?

 

I'm not putting down film at all, but pointing out that this test doesn't reflect the realities of shooting for many people. Film may contain the potential to have the edge under the right circumstances, but is this test indicative of what an enthusiast film shooter can achieve on a regular basis?

 

I have yet to buy a film scanner as I am tossing up between using my 5D Mark II and a macro lens, or getting a Plustek or Pakon. Dirk Steffen (menosm6) once said to me that, 'for the price of a Monochrom, you could buy a MP, a D700 and macro lens, and film!' That comment was not quite so tongue in cheek as it seemed.

[wildlightphoto]

Apples, oranges, bananas, almonds. Too many uncontrolled variables to draw any meaningful conclusions about any one of them.

[250swb]

As an absolute, the film images certainly do have an edge on the digital images. As a matter of practicality, how many people have access to, or are willing to, have their film professionally drum scanned? How many will have access to a scanner of that quality?

 

.

 

You can get very to near drum scan quality with reasonably priced equipment. There is a hype that everything needs drum scanning for maximum quality when often it is clear there is no inclination to learn how to scan anyway, hence its advocacy.

 

Drum scanning will only be necessary if very large prints are to be made, otherwise consumer scanners used well can fill the scanning gap easily up to a 16x20 print. Indeed although it is as expensive as a Nikon 9000 was, the new Plustek 120 nudges right up to drum scanning quality and can easily go to much larger prints sizes. So there is no 'absolute' with scanning, to get nearly all that is possible out of a negative is right there, and a bad drum scan is just as possible as a great consumer scan.

 

What should be guarded against is this idea that things like Pakon scanners are the best/only option because beyond that you need to go all the way to drum scanning anyway. It is a false impression driven by the novelty of these scanners now turning up at cheap prices and offering quick and cheerful scans but to a low quality. I'd say to that, why bother? If you use film just accept there is going to be a bit more work to do things properly and don't try to impart the same impatience for fast results on film as you expect from digital.

 

Steve

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apples, oranges, bananas, almonds. Too many uncontrolled variables to draw any meaningful conclusions about any one of them.

Doug, this is the film that gives the most faithful color (for ex. Kodak Portra) vs digital

without photo software correction (not needed)

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread.html

this another link for you :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/353382-my-friend-sparrow-2-film.html

and I add this link for fruit (London Borough market Aug 2014)

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/other/451344-i-like-film-open-thread-image6borormarkfruit-kp400-2-htbisred750.jpg

the crop :

[ATTACH]452800[/ATTACH]

Regards

Henry

[NJH]

I just accept they are different. I have posted a Noritsu lab scan from 35mm Fuji Acros on here before that at the native 30Mp shows incredible fine details, I have scanned the same shot more recently on my KM5400 and even at the higher 5400dpi than the Noritsu its still resolving some very fine detail (noisy grainy detail though). I scanned loads of images taken on Velvia 50 using a mixture of CV 25/4 and Elmar-M 50 yet not a single scan using the CV lens can get near the resolution seen from the Elmar-M 50, they all looked a little soft blowing away one of the worst myths for me about lens selection and film (my CV 21/4 is worse again btw). On the other hand though I burned through a roll of Portra and Acros taking pictures of the flowers in my garden for posterity and was hugely disappointed that none of the images had the clear fine detail, smooth deep colour and rendition that my M8 managed with the same CV 90 lens. It was a huge let down.

 

As a previous poster said apples v oranges v pears.

[Jon Warwick]

Plastic skin textures are a problem of early digital and digital done badly. I don't think they're inherent in digital.

 

I am inclined to agree with that, but to me it's very camera / lens dependent. I have a background in film (including medium format and large format). It took me a long time (and a lot of camera testing) to more fully embrace digital because of my perception of "plastic" skin textures. A lot of digital images also had a slightly washed out look too compared to film, in my view.

 

The Leica M240 (maybe because of lack of AA filter or maybe something about its sensor construction?) and Leica glass changed my view on digital, however ..... this is the FIRST digital camera that ticked the boxes for me. Back into my images (compared to other digital cameras I'd used) was skin texture, and a film-like deep richness in colours and tonality.

 

I am satisfied now that both film and CERTAIN digital cameras can produce beautiful results.

[Doc Henry]

Jon, it seems that there has skin color problems

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2537372-post1.html

Best

Henry

[StS]

Quite honestly, unless taking pictures for square-metre sized posters (which I don't), I get the quality I need with either 35mm Portra 400 or digital.

 

When feasible, I prefer film, because of the minimized post-processing.

 

Stefan

[A miller]

As a matter of practicality, how many people have access to, or are willing to, have their film professionally drum scanned? How many will have access to a scanner of that quality? .

 

If you really think an expensive and impractical drum scanner is needed to achieve wonderful scans for complete editing potential and life-size prints, i have great news for you: this aint true!

 

My nikon coolscan 9000 was expensive but not horrible and a great investment all things considered. A scan of a MF color negative at 4000 dpi will produce a tiff file that is between 600mb and 700mb. This is an incredible amount of information that is really all you need unless you are looking to print a highway billboard

 

The same 4000 dpi resolution will produce a tiff scan of 35mm color film of well over 130mb, and of 35mm B&W film of over 30mb (about the size of a digital raw file from an M).

 

i once thought that drum scanners were the end all and be all of scanning, and so last year i took a MF color slide negative to Lamount in NYC, which is a prestigious lab to the superstars. I paid an arm and a leg to have the film scanned using a drum scanner, edited and printed. I did it just to see what the output would be if i chose a lab and workflow without any budgetary considerations.

 

I couldnt have been more disappointed given how much i paid. I ended up rescanning the film myself with my nikon scanner and getting better results, which is because to scan at the 700mb size with the drum scanner would have cost me several hundred dollars - and this is just for one image! I edited the image myself and printed it on the same exact kodak endura pro paper using a lightjet from whitewall at a faction of the price.

 

The key to working with film in the digital age is a good scanner. Rather than spending 1000s (in many of our cases even 10,000s) of dollars on the latest lenses and digital bodies, a top notch scanner can light the pathway to a satisfying film workflow.

[AlanG]

So in some cases, film is berry superior to digital.

 

Keep in mind that the human visual system does not critically measure color... but is rather accepting of all kinds of color interpretations. Film must be scanned unless wet printed. Digital capture is generally adjusted from raw. Images are either printed in various ways or shown on monitors that may vary widely among the individual viewers. All film emulsions vary from batch to batch and have reciprocity failure characteristics that affect color. So variation in results from both film and digital are a given. Viewing conditions vary as do the preferences of each individual. The world seems pretty happy with the color from film and from digital.

 

You can easily stitch two or more digital captures to achieve greater resolution in many situations.

 

Foveon sensors exist as do cameras that shift pixels.

 

I shot 4x5 for 30 years. Since Readiload and Quickload no longer exist, going on a job with a couple hundred frames of 4x5 in a variety of daylight, tungsten and speeds of chrome and color neg film is a hassle. Wait, not many types of 4x5 exist anymore.

[jaapv]

If you really think an expensive and impractical drum scanner is needed to achieve wonderful scans for complete editing potential and life-size prints, i have great news for you: this aint true!

 

My nikon coolscan 9000 was expensive but not horrible and a great investment all things considered. A scan of a MF color negative at 4000 dpi will produce a tiff file that is between 600mb and 700mb. This is an incredible amount of information that is really all you need unless you are looking to print a highway billboard

 

The same 4000 dpi resolution will produce a tiff scan of 35mm color film of well over 130mb, and of 35mm B&W film of over 30mb (about the size of a digital raw file from an M).

 

i once thought that drum scanners were the end all and be all of scanning, and so last year i took a MF color slide negative to Lamount in NYC, which is a prestigious lab to the superstars. I paid an arm and a leg to have the film scanned using a drum scanner, edited and printed. I did it just to see what the output would be if i chose a lab and workflow without any budgetary considerations.

 

I couldnt have been more disappointed given how much i paid. I ended up rescanning the film myself with my nikon scanner and getting better results, which is because to scan at the 700mb size with the drum scanner would have cost me several hundred dollars - and this is just for one image! I edited the image myself and printed it on the same exact kodak endura pro paper using a lightjet from whitewall at a faction of the price.

 

The key to working with film in the digital age is a good scanner. Rather than spending 1000s (in many of our cases even 10,000s) of dollars on the latest lenses and digital bodies, a top notch scanner can light the pathway to a satisfying film workflow.

A good scan is really good, but you cannot compare scanned TIFF sizes to sensor-generated TIFFs. The amount of irrelevant data is far higher in a film scan.

[A miller]

A film scan tiff may contain irrelevant info, but they (i.e., a scan of 35mm film) also can be three or four times the size of a Leica digital raw file.

My point was merely that these large files can be edited out the wazoo in the same (or at least substanntially similar) manner as a digital raw file. And you already have a head start in terms of the color rendition of the film setting the stage.

[jaapv]

Yes- but you are into a hybrid workflow, combining the drawbacks of film with the drawbacks of digital. Personally I have strong preference for film prints that follow a fully chemical workflow and for digital prints from a sensor camera.

[zlatkob]

So in some cases, film is berry superior to digital.

 

Agreed ... film is berry superior to digital.

[A miller]

Yes- but you are into a hybrid workflow, combining the drawbacks of film with the drawbacks of digital. Personally I have strong preference for film prints that follow a fully chemical workflow and for digital prints from a sensor camera.

 

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. My scanner doesn't eat my negatives, and any digital edit of a scan can serve as a road-map for an manual analog print. To me, it is in a way the best of both worlds.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

The test should have been done between the 5D2 and 35mm film, of course. And in the latter, I believe the berries would have shown up.

 

Believe what you wish, only a controlled test will resolve the question if not the berries.

 

 

Doug, this is the film that gives the most faithful color (for ex. Kodak Portra) vs digital

without photo software correction (not needed)

 

That has not been my experience using the DMR. I've also been willing to print the DMR files at much larger sizes than drum-scaned film photos for comparable print quality.

 

I fail to understand why this topic keeps coming up. Insecurity? Use what you like and don't worry about what the next guy is using.

[Michael Hiles]

...any digital edit of a scan can serve as a road-map for an manual analog print. To me, it is in a way the best of both worlds.

 

This is a under valued point, in my view. My prints for the wall start with a scan and then I work with PSE and Sliver Efex Pro to see what I want the final print to look like. Then in my darkroom I work towards the the interpretation I have decided on. This approach is faster and more productive than my old darkroom testing procedures, it allows for more creativity, and the clear advantage is a beautiful silver print.