Johannes Knightworth Posted June 1, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) It has dawned on me since using my M8 that the final prints look different from similar shots from film. I am absolutely opposed to testing things but I wanted to find out what was missing in which image, I saw that something was.... so I took multiple shot of a similar scene at a similar time with similar setup. M8 with 35cron and 50cron M4 with 35 cron and 50 cron Downloaded the M8 files, developed the M4 ones, scanned them. Printed both sets on calibrated printer, calibrated screen etc. .... They look different, can't exactly say what but they look different, the M4 ones have less detail (I think) but more substance. So much for B&W I decided to do the same with colour film (astia) and again the M4 prints, film look different, not as sharp but detailed enough but with more substance. I'm sorry I cannot explain exactly what it is I am much to a-technical for that, but what is the difference between film and digital, where is the difference, it's hard to say if one looks better than the other, although I am inclined to say I prefer the Film ones, but this is subjective i would think. Anybody have any ideas on this, other than the advice that I shouldn't do these sort of tests anymore ... ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Hi Johannes Knightworth, Take a look here Prints M8 vs Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted June 1, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 1, 2007 I think one think you have to watch for is the color space when printing is it big enough and taking advanatge of what the printer can produce. there are more qualified here on printing but the printer , inks and such do have a limit here . Probably the better way to test this is using a commercial lab with a Lamda because it is still R processing . There is some tricks to this and will let others speak on it but excellent results can come from digital but knowledge of it and the right printers are the key , not sure what you used but this is a science all by itself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macusque Posted June 1, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 1, 2007 Johannes, as much as I love to shoot digital, I understand your feeling. Film has more "depth" to my eyes, don't know if it has to do with the density or whatever, but I'm always amazed when looking at my old grainy, dusty and less "sharp" slides... not to mention b&w negatives. Btw I guess the printer has little to do with it, as I understand you printed both digital and analog, previously scanned, didn't you ? I will hardly come back to film, but I'd like to understand what's behind a film image that makes it soo nice to look at... I'd LOVE to be able to replicate that look with digital. Ciao Marco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted June 1, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 1, 2007 Try Alien Skin Exposure plug-in. Great tool to try and get back that film feel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 1, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 1, 2007 I couldn't agree more about Alien Skin--that plug in is worth every penny to me. Folks, most digital, even processed in-camera, simply comes out with different image "density" than film. This has more to do with curving in the midtones than just nailing the toe and shoulder; and even good RAW programs don't often double curve the way you would scanning film. You need to play around with your mid-tone response with digital to get the right "feel" for the weight of the image. It's not easy, but it is possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 1, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 1, 2007 Exposure is far too expensive. However, it's probably _the_ plug-in that I wouldn't want to be without. I think I bought my copy about 2 days after downloading the demo. The last piece of software I did that with was Vuescan about 8 or 9 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skunkworks Posted June 1, 2007 Share #7 Posted June 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) i'd be more interested in the difference between full-analog prints compared to full-digital. since you are scanning the film you are adding the scanner's imprint to the final output, in essence taking a picture of a photo. you can't make an "apples to apples" comparison anyway, so why not compare apples to oranges? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squiff Posted June 2, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 2, 2007 I am not as technically savy as many of ya'll, and havent spent much time on the aforementioned programmes. IMHO, however, i have printed from M8 digital files and find them excellent. Though its hard for me to look past a good illfachrome print from slide. I suppose that is the 'bling bling' of printing, not used as much as it should be nowadays, ( for obvious reasons, toxicity, time etc). There are 'newer' chrome printing process', from digital files, though i havent found one in New Zealand, where i live. So i will reserve judgment until i see that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted June 2, 2007 Share #9 Posted June 2, 2007 Shoot digital for 2 or 3 years, do the same comparison and see if you find the same results. Because you may find "more substance" in film because you are used to it aesthetically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 2, 2007 Share #10 Posted June 2, 2007 Johannes: You haven't posted any pictures for comparsion but, more importantly, you haven't given enough information: take b&w for example: you haven't told us what film you used, what developer and how you printed; nor have you told us how you made the digital prints: did you shoot in RAW or JPG format, did you do any post-processing and, if so, what did you do? For example, shoooting JPGs and printing with no postprocessing is like having b&w film developed and prints made at the local drugstore. From what you've told us, this is just another "I like film better thread." Shooting in RAW and doing a lot of post-processing can certainly produce prints that have "more substance" as you put it, whatever that means. You can look at my digital pictures here: Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland People comment regularly that many of the B&W ones "look like film". —Mitch/Johannesburg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 2, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 2, 2007 {snipped}There are 'newer' chrome printing process', from digital files, though i havent found one in New Zealand, where i live. So i will reserve judgment until i see that. I don't know about New Zealand, but The Edge in Australia is one of best labs I've ever dealt with, and they use Durst wet processed (Lambda) printers. The Edge Photo Imaging They rock. They understand film and digital, which helps a lot. If you let them correct from your Adobe RGB source, you'll have pretty fabulous output (takes a long time to get to Canada, though!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted June 2, 2007 Share #12 Posted June 2, 2007 With regard to BW (all I know), I believe there are three issues that make a digital image different from a film image: luminance response curve (characteristic curve in film parlance); chromatic response curve (film, in general, has an irregular curve and is relatively insensitive to red, while the sensors are quite flat chromatically); and the textural composition of the image (grain or noise). Using Kodak data on on luminance and chromatic curves for Tri-X, I have fairly closely matched these in Adobe Camera Raw. (The WB in the raw file must be neutral however, and if it is not, the chromatic curve requires some adjustment for that frame.) I have also used the A.S. Exposure to add a PS layer of "Tri-X grain," slightly modified from the default settings, which I think are too biased for the shadows (i.e. I've added more grain into the highlights and reduced the intensity across the board). This program, unlike PS, adds truly random, irregular grain, like film. I recently had two very experienced photographers look at 10 13 x 19 workprints, one of which was from scanned Tri-x, the other 9 from the M8. After half an hour, neither could identify the Tri-X print and both had finally settled on (two different) M8 images as the Tri-X image. Incidentally, I always shoot the M8 at 640 unless I need more speed and then I shoot at 1250 and reduce noise with Neat Image. The noise reduction is necessary because the noise distribution at the higher speed is biased towards the shadows and not attractive to me. I am not doing all this not to imitate Tri-X per se but because I prefer the print. I often do not use a grain layer when the relative (ISO 640) smoothness is appropriate to the image. I cannot, however, imagine ever using a straight, low ISO file from the M8--it looks very artifical to me, like technical photography, and this just doesn't work for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted June 2, 2007 Share #13 Posted June 2, 2007 Incidentally, I always shoot the M8 at 640 unless I need more speed and then I shoot at 1250 and reduce noise with Neat Image. The noise reduction is necessary because the noise distribution at the higher speed is biased towards the shadows and not attractive to me. I'm finding that leaving the ISO set at 640 and just setting the camera to underexpose by a stop (or even 2) gives better results then ISO 1250. I'm going to make a controlled test with strobes to confirm that, but my impressions so far is that 1250 is really unacceptable but 640 underexposed looks quite good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted June 2, 2007 Share #14 Posted June 2, 2007 Hank- I didn't mention it, but I leave the exposure comp at -2/3 all the time. But I'm going to look at your suggestion. Do you understand why this might be the case? And is the issue noise at 1250? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted June 2, 2007 Share #15 Posted June 2, 2007 Hank- I didn't mention it, but I leave the exposure comp at -2/3 all the time. But I'm going to look at your suggestion. Do you understand why this might be the case? And is the issue noise at 1250? My normal so far is -1/3 exposure. If you hold the highlights with the M8 you have tremendous latitude in the shadows. I'm not an engineer so I don't know why underexposure at lower ISO's seems to beat the IQ of high ISO's. I think it has to do with turning up the gain on the sensor by increasing ISO versus exploiting the flexibility of the M8 files at lower ISO's preserving most of the noise level and look of the lower ISO's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted June 2, 2007 Share #16 Posted June 2, 2007 Hank- I didn't mention it, but I leave the exposure comp at -2/3 all the time. But I'm going to look at your suggestion. Do you understand why this might be the case? And is the issue noise at 1250? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squiff Posted June 2, 2007 Share #17 Posted June 2, 2007 I don't know about New Zealand, but The Edge in Australia is one of best labs I've ever dealt with, and they use Durst wet processed (Lambda) printers. The Edge Photo Imaging They rock. They understand film and digital, which helps a lot. If you let them correct from your Adobe RGB source, you'll have pretty fabulous output (takes a long time to get to Canada, though!) thanks for the tip jamie, I will check them out....... s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.