My Film Images Are Better Looking Than Digital!

[Peter Natscher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Leica Forum!

 

I've been having a great time getting out on location shooting landscapes with my new M7 using various color neg. films. I have scanned a few chosen images of them with my Nikon 5000 Coolscan scanner set at 4000 dpi/16 bit; imported them into PS for a little post processing creating 300dpi jpgs for 11x14 prints to frame up and hang on my wall. My past experience has been with shooting landscapes using my 12MB digital P&S and DSLR cameras. Comparing the two kinds of images (scanned film vs. straight from digital cameras) in Lightroom side by side, my scanned film images win hands down with regards to color fidelity, naturalness of appearance, dynamic range. My wife agrees that the color neg. image looks more natural and realistic versus the same scene shot with a digital camera. The digital images taken with 12MB cameras do appear as sharp as the 35mm color neg. scanned image but overall lack the realistic appearance. There's something about film that digital just doesn't have. Is it that a image from a digital camera looks too clean - clinical? What do you think?

 

Peter

[kenneth]

You don't say!

[scaryink]

I could not agree with you more. I also own the M8.

[kenneth]

I could not agree with you more. I also own the M8.

Surely the original poster is saying that his film images are better looking than his digital. Hence my comment but why would you want to sing the praises of digital unless I am missing the point

[aesop]

Hi Leica Forum!

 

I've been having a great time getting out on location shooting landscapes with my new M7 using various color neg. films. I have scanned a few chosen images of them with my Nikon 5000 Coolscan scanner set at 4000 dpi/16 bit; imported them into PS for a little post processing creating 300dpi jpgs for 11x14 prints to frame up and hang on my wall. My past experience has been with shooting landscapes using my 12MB digital P&S and DSLR cameras. Comparing the two kinds of images (scanned film vs. straight from digital cameras) in Lightroom side by side, my scanned film images win hands down with regards to color fidelity, naturalness of appearance, dynamic range. My wife agrees that the color neg. image looks more natural and realistic versus the same scene shot with a digital camera. The digital images taken with 12MB cameras do appear as sharp as the 35mm color neg. scanned image but overall lack the realistic appearance. There's something about film that digital just doesn't have. Is it that a image from a digital camera looks too clean - clinical? What do you think?

 

Peter

 

 

 

...the film/digital dichotomy is highly subjective and has been the source of heated passionate discussion in this forum and elsewhere. Sounds like you favour film. I favour film. Fine. Except that the next man/woman may prefer digital for more or less the same reason(s) you prefer film. So, what is it you want to hear?

 

 

.

[Peter Natscher]

I also want to add that the images of landscapes from my digital camera (raw files) are harder to post process and bring back to a more natural (realistic) appearance than in post processing scanned 35mm color negative film images. The film images already look more color balanced to begin with. Each of my digital cameras create images with a different color cast in the image and this annoys me greatly. Some images are warmer and others cooler. That takes a lot of time in curves adjusting color channels to get rid of these color casts. I find the green colors are better represented and more easily adjusted in my scanned film images compared to the muted and drab greens in digital files from my digital cameras.

[kenneth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also want to add that the images of landscapes from my digital camera (raw files) are harder to post process and bring back to a more natural (realistic) appearance than in post processing scanned 35mm color negative film images. The film images already look more color balanced to begin with. Each of my digital cameras create images with a different color cast in the image and this annoys me greatly. Some images are warmer and others cooler. That takes a lot of time in curves adjusting color channels to get rid of these color casts. I find the green colors are better represented and more easily adjusted in my scanned film images compared to the muted and drab greens in digital files from my digital cameras.

 

I would be interested to know your findings if you used say Ilford Pan-F 50asa B&W film and developed and printed them yourself onto FB paper. Then I think you would find a marked difference between them and digital print

[MPJMP]

So, what is it you want to hear?

 

He wants to hear from like-minded people who feel the same way he does.

 

I'm with 'ya, Peter. Film looks great!

[poynterama]

Who is it with the signature something like "Digital looks like shaved legs on a man"?

 

My legs are hairy

[andybarton]

Surely the original poster is saying that his film images are better looking than his digital. Hence my comment but why would you want to sing the praises of digital unless I am missing the point

 

The OP is saying that he thinks his film images look better than his digital ones. (We don't know what digital equipment he is using, though). Scaryink is agreeing with him, and also mentioning that he has an M8, but is not singing its praises. I see no conflict here, Kenneth. Please do not see one where none exists.

[dpattinson]

The digital images taken with 12MB cameras do appear as sharp as the 35mm color neg. scanned image but overall lack the realistic appearance. There's something about film that digital just doesn't have. Is it that a image from a digital camera looks too clean - clinical? What do you think?

Peter

 

I'd have to say my experience is that the images I get out of my M8 are better to my eye than what I used to get from my M7 and colour film. There are some reasons often raised in these forums that might influence the 'realistic' appearance of many digital camera images.

 

1. AA filter - M8 doesn't have one, but in most cameras this filter compromises fine detail in order to remove moire (at least that's my understanding).

2. In-camera noise reduction and sharpening - I switch off noise reduction in C1 when I convert M8 images, even the 2500iso ones. I find I end up with much better looking images as a result. Some cameras apparently do NR and sharpening in camera with a pretty heavy hand - again clobbering fine detail in order to 'improve' the image overall.

3. Absence of grain - grain gives the impression of better fine detail in some way, at least that's how it appears to me. So the absence of grain may make high-res digital images look less 'real', especially if they rely on apparent fine detail (as many landscapes do).

4. Colour management - In a way, film does a very important part of colour management for you. Consequent scanning and processing also have an important role, but film has effectively done a part of what happens in raw processing by imposing its own colour response characteristics onto the image. Obviously film manufacturers have spent a crap-load of money trying to get this to be as 'real' as possible, so you are benefiting from a lot of work that I guess is equivalent to having a very highly tuned raw conversion profile for your camera.

 

The fact that on the M7 you are likely using better lenses (IMHO) than on the digitals you have used previously probably helps a great deal too. I know I find the results from the 50lux asph very compelling and 'realistic' both on film and digital. I also prefer black and white film shots from my M7 in many cases, but I think that has to do with it being FF, with grain, and a more graduated response in the highlights.

[Doc Henry]

Hi Leica Forum!

 

I've been having a great time getting out on location shooting landscapes with my new M7 using various color neg. films. I have scanned a few chosen images of them with my Nikon 5000 Coolscan scanner set at 4000 dpi/16 bit; imported them into PS for a little post processing creating 300dpi jpgs for 11x14 prints to frame up and hang on my wall. My past experience has been with shooting landscapes using my 12MB digital P&S and DSLR cameras. Comparing the two kinds of images (scanned film vs. straight from digital cameras) in Lightroom side by side, my scanned film images win hands down with regards to color fidelity, naturalness of appearance, dynamic range. My wife agrees that the color neg. image looks more natural and realistic versus the same scene shot with a digital camera. The digital images taken with 12MB cameras do appear as sharp as the 35mm color neg. scanned image but overall lack the realistic appearance. There's something about film that digital just doesn't have. Is it that a image from a digital camera looks too clean - clinical? What do you think?

 

Peter

Peter,

my first question is:

What camera dslr have you ?

N...or C....or.....?

and optics ? they are also important

.....I agree with you when you see a difference between 2 pictures coming from film and digital

It is what I said here when I compare the sound and the picture:

"High fidelity in image as High Fidelity in sound"

 

Yesterday, my Leica dealer point out that there is more and more people who make films once again.

For "Kodachrome 64 competition" on LUF I have just received photos from Dales : it is extraordinary and it's so nice ... film is not dead according to me

[Peter Natscher]

I'm using a Nikon D700 with Nikon prime lenses and a Olympus E-P1 point& shoot. I was using a D-Lux 4 which gave me nice 8x12's, but the newer E-P1 wins in a close comparison of image quality and IQ. The E-P1 is also much more enjoyable to hand hold and work the LCD screen controls. The D700, D-Lux 4, and E-P1 all have different color gamuts and in-camera processing algo's so they interpret the same scene differently, as many films do, too. In the end, it's all what you enjoy looking at in print. Screening up side-by-side images of these cameras of the same scene in LR really shows the differences of in-camera processing from various digital cameras. Then, when a scanned film image is thrown into the mix, I see the biggest difference in color. Yes, I can spend a lot of time that I don't have tweaking digital scenes to look more naturally balanced (i.e., getting rid of the warm or cool color casts to start), but film is already there to start with. There's also a processed look of digital images right out of camera (this effect looks to me like a painterly effect on the tonal graduations). Then there's the larger dynamic range of color neg. film which I find advantageous over digital's.

[Peter Natscher]

Attached are two images of the same scene at the same time.

 

Image 1: Digital image from Olympus 12Mb E-P1 14-42mm 4/3rds camera on tripod using widest lens setting (equivalent to 28mm full frame), default camera color settings, import OLY raw file to PS for TIF 8-bit conversion and quick levels adjustment.

 

Image 2: 35mm Kodak Ultra Color 100 color neg. film shot with M7 on tripod and cable release with 35mm Lux and scanned at 4000 dpi 16-bit with Nikon Super CoolScan 5000, and import into PS to make quick levels adjustment.

 

What's your choice concerning color between these two images? I like the film image better.

 

Note: both full-sized TIF files viewed in Light Room exhibit equivalent sharpness at 300% viewing. That's amazing performance for the little pocket-sized digital E-P1 -- to nearly match 35mm film resolution. Granted, Ultra Color is not the finest grain film Kodak has to offer. Even though there's grain showing in the Kodak UC image, I just like the color better in the film image. I could not achieve a close color match with the E-P1 P&S image in PS to the film image.

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!

[RITskellar]

Attached are two images of the same scene at the same time.

 

Image 1: Digital image from Olympus 12Mb E-P1 14-42mm 4/3rds camera on tripod using widest lens setting (equivalent to 28mm full frame), default camera color settings, import OLY raw file to PS for TIF 8-bit conversion and quick levels adjustment.

 

Image 2: 35mm Kodak Ultra Color 100 color neg. film shot with M7 on tripod and cable release with 35mm Lux and scanned at 4000 dpi 16-bit with Nikon Super CoolScan 5000, and import into PS to make quick levels adjustment.

 

What's your choice concerning color between these two images? I like the film image better.

 

Note: both full-sized TIF files viewed in Light Room exhibit equivalent sharpness at 300% viewing. That's amazing performance for the little pocket-sized digital E-P1 -- to nearly match 35mm film resolution. Granted, Ultra Color is not the finest grain film Kodak has to offer. Even though there's grain showing in the Kodak UC image, I just like the color better in the film image. I could not achieve a close color match with the E-P1 P&S image in PS to the film image.

 

Gathering opinions as subjective as which image someone "likes" better may have less meaning than to actually have a common reference point that you are drawing comparisons from. What does better mean? Personally, I am totally ambivalent about both images, except that I could say that the color in the top image appears more natural (albeit a bit flat) than the color in the bottom image (which seems overly manipulated either by the film or processing). But beyond that, I have no point of reference in which to provide feedback.

 

All that being said, I generally agree with you. In my experience (which isn't too much with digital), I prefer the smoother, less clinical look of film.

[jacksparrow]

I think the digital image is a liiiitle bit overexposed and lacks contrast, the color cast is kind of different too... nothing that can't be fixed in photoshop to make it look much better, even like your film. I made a couple of test and came out with this:

[jacksparrow]

forgot the image!

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!

[jacksparrow]

and here...

that said... which image is "better" is in general very subjective, even articial effects like vignetting or stronger saturation could make them look "better", but to which extent they are is just a matter of taste.

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!

[Doc Henry]

my turn...

the proof of what I said before by pictures :

I let you guess pictures with M8 + 28 mm and M7 + 35 mm

vineyard of Veuve Clicquot Champagne in winter ....uncorrected

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[RITskellar]

my turn...

the proof of what I said before by pictures :

I let you guess pictures with M8 + 28 mm and M7 + 35 mm

vineyard of Veuve Clicquot Champagne in winter ....uncorrected

 

I think there are way too many variables at play to be able to consistently tell the origin between the two examples you list. The top one does not have the contrast of the bottom one, which is easily corrected. And the lens may be playing a much bigger part in the contrast and dynamic range of an uncorrected image than whether its film or sensor, so it's of greater importance to know what the actual lenses are.

 

But, you know, the thing that really matters... is that the composition of the bottom image is dramatically better than the top one, which has nothing to do with the camera, and all to do with the photographer.