kenneth Posted August 29, 2009 Share #21 Posted August 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. I prefer the first one but I like my colours more natural but as I said earlier you cannot judge an image from a commercial lab there are too many variables you need to be able to conduct the tests yourself. Also you have no way of knowing what your computer software is doing to your images. Another variable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 29, 2009 Posted August 29, 2009 Hi kenneth, Take a look here My Film Images Are Better Looking Than Digital!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Doc Henry Posted August 29, 2009 Share #22 Posted August 29, 2009 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. Andy, The question is : what is the picture which gets closer most to what is seen ? it is the most important : are you agreed with me ? the "high fidelity" i said above What is the photo which gives this landscape for one hour and a half of blue sky and that becomes then snow-covered after that moment ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RITskellar Posted August 29, 2009 Share #23 Posted August 29, 2009 Andy,The question is : what is the picture which gets closer most to what is seen ? it is the most important : are you agreed with me ? If you mean, which image is the most accurate reproduction of what the actual live scene was, well, then technically I do not know, as I was not there to see it. Andy,the "high fidelity" i said above What is the photo which gives this landscape for one hour and a half of blue sky and that becomes then snow-covered after that moment ? I don't understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted August 29, 2009 Share #24 Posted August 29, 2009 Andy, The time was snow-covered this day there. It was an acalmie just for one hour and a half I went out to take photos of the snow who fell a few hours before.. After these photos it snowed once again therefore the time is not very sunny this day ... For "high fidelity" in the sound as in the picture, it means that it is necessary to get a sound most near possible of the original (sound of piano for example) for the picture it is the same thing : it is what we see who must be most reproduced near possible of the reality Cheers Henry PS: for photos, the first one is with M8 and the second M7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted August 29, 2009 Share #25 Posted August 29, 2009 Here's an interesting film & digital comparison that might fuel this thread. Hope you enjoy it as much as i did. Twin Lens Life - The Brothers Wright - Fine Art Film Wedding Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Natscher Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share #26 Posted August 29, 2009 Jacksparrow, Your test image of my seascape images looks a bit yellow cast to me. Being there on location and remembering this region's colors gives me the direction when I'm back at my computer processing these images. My goal is to replicate the images to as close as possible to what I saw with my eyes while being there on location taking the images. For example, in these two images, the fog and clouds over the Pacific and hugging the cliffs are a cool gray/white in appearance and should not to processed to a yellow cast. The sandy beach is a rich butter yellow. My purpose in showing my two images is to show what differences can exist between digital and film. Your post processing my images is another topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 29, 2009 Share #27 Posted August 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Surely a comparison between an Olympus digital file and a Leica film file is about as meaningless as one can get. Compare two Olympus digital/film files (taken with the same lens) by all means (on a different forum), or a Leica digital/film file, taken with the same lens. Mixing both media and both lenses makes for a ridiculous comparison. One may prefer one image over another, but that's a different argument altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Natscher Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted August 29, 2009 Attached are two images from my Olympus E-P1 and M7 showing further color differences of a flower scene. The DoF is different in these two images, so pay attention more to the central flowers. I like the realistic colors of the M7 color neg. image (bottom image). The fidelity of the colors are more realistic and not so blown out, and the greens look better. These images are not post processed. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/94786-my-film-images-are-better-looking-than-digital/?do=findComment&comment=1009807'>More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 29, 2009 Share #29 Posted August 29, 2009 What are you trying to prove with these meaningless comparisons between Olympus digital and Leica film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Natscher Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share #30 Posted August 29, 2009 Surely a comparison between an Olympus digital file and a Leica film file is about as meaningless as one can get. Compare two Olympus digital/film files (taken with the same lens) by all means (on a different forum), or a Leica digital/film file, taken with the same lens. Mixing both media and both lenses makes for a ridiculous comparison. One may prefer one image over another, but that's a different argument altogether. Andy, I agree. My personal discoveries with image color differences are the results of using my digital and film cameras shooting the same scene. It might effect my decision as to which system I choose to use in my photography hobby. There are many variables that effect the final image to be printed: Raw converters, film scanners, image processing software, films, digital camera gamuts and settings, lenses, viewing monitor and its settings, printers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Natscher Posted August 30, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted August 30, 2009 What are you trying to prove with these meaningless comparisons between Olympus digital and Leica film? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm showing why I now like my M7's color negative images more than my digital camera images after paying sole attention to digital for the past few years. This bodes well for film shooters. In shooting digital for the past 8 years, I've forgotten how good film still is. We have a lot to be thankful for considering all the attention given to digital capture in the last few years. I'm glad film is still very much alive and will be around throughout my lifetime! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
holmes Posted August 30, 2009 Share #32 Posted August 30, 2009 Well I don't know, lacking the technical expertise of so many of you. We had in my city Salsa Saturday. That means only one thing. Chili. Bright reds, greens and some yellows. Then of course the people. A very long line waiting for samples. All I had with me was my R6.2 just back from DAG and my R 90 F 2. The sky was cloudless and hot but there were places vendors had set up providing shade. No filter except for the UVa. I was moving from bright overhead sun to deep shade. At one point I was wishing for my ND 0.6 filter.Not to belabor my time at the fiesta, I shot a roll of Velvia 100F. It's packaged to be mailed out Monday to the lab. The R6.2 was a pleasure and the R 90 f 2 a dream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted August 30, 2009 Share #33 Posted August 30, 2009 Without coming back into the detail of your cameras, colors are not the same : for example the green color of plants in the foreground and in background, also the pink, the mauve... everything is sharp or net in the first photo foreground as second plans versus deep effect of field in the second photo.... I prefer the second picture Thank you for showing them to us ! Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted August 30, 2009 Share #34 Posted August 30, 2009 Jacksparrow, Your test image of my seascape images looks a bit yellow cast to me. Being there on location and remembering this region's colors gives me the direction when I'm back at my computer processing these images. My goal is to replicate the images to as close as possible to what I saw with my eyes while being there on location taking the images. For example, in these two images, the fog and clouds over the Pacific and hugging the cliffs are a cool gray/white in appearance and should not to processed to a yellow cast. The sandy beach is a rich butter yellow. My purpose in showing my two images is to show what differences can exist between digital and film. Your post processing my images is another topic. Actually, your original film version is way too yellow (the blacks are yellow and so are the clouds). And when I say they're yellow, I mean they measure yellow, not neutral. If you want to improve either shot, you should see how a neutral black point and gray point would clean this shot right up! And it's a lovely shot of a nice-looking place too original: 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! white point and black point only corrected: FWIW, which is really not much, in this regard the Oly digital shot is just as close (far off from) "neutral" (unless we're talking about a lot of pollution) but the white balance is obviously off. With film, you need to choose it (and gel it) carefully; with digital, you have to get the WB correct. Neither is better, but I know which is easier to switch quickly when the light changes But both could have gotten you the shot--no question. So if this is going to make or break a decision about what equipment to use or what process to use, I'd learn more about post processing personally. Or get a better lab. So I'm with Andy: what exactly is this supposed to prove? That you can get different color from a different process? I see nothing in any of the film shots posted that are very compelling from a colour perspective, I must say Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! white point and black point only corrected: FWIW, which is really not much, in this regard the Oly digital shot is just as close (far off from) "neutral" (unless we're talking about a lot of pollution) but the white balance is obviously off. With film, you need to choose it (and gel it) carefully; with digital, you have to get the WB correct. Neither is better, but I know which is easier to switch quickly when the light changes But both could have gotten you the shot--no question. So if this is going to make or break a decision about what equipment to use or what process to use, I'd learn more about post processing personally. Or get a better lab. So I'm with Andy: what exactly is this supposed to prove? That you can get different color from a different process? I see nothing in any of the film shots posted that are very compelling from a colour perspective, I must say ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/94786-my-film-images-are-better-looking-than-digital/?do=findComment&comment=1009952'>More sharing options...
hamey Posted August 30, 2009 Share #35 Posted August 30, 2009 Peter to me, you don't have to prove anything, I know film is BETTER. However what you need to understand is Leica has put itself on the line with Digital. It needs to sell these things, A lot of poeple on this forum have spent big bucks on Leica Digital An M8-2 cost nearly 3 times of an M7 or MP and they MUST CONVINCE themselves that it is WORTH IT. So just enjoy your work with Film and consider yourself lucky that you still have your SANITY. Cheers. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted August 30, 2009 Share #36 Posted August 30, 2009 An M8-2 cost nearly 3 times of an M7 or MP and they MUST CONVINCE themselves that it is WORTH IT. . Ken, I started with Leica digital buying an M8.2 and added a like new M7 just recently. I am very happy with both cameras. The a.m. quoted is by no means correct. To my experience both cost actually the same if you consider a hybrid workflow. For the M7 I added a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to be on the same level as the M8.2. The M7 might last forever but the bad thing is that I already now today that the coolscan film strip adapter will die sooner or later due to wear and tear. The operating cost of the M7 are with no doubt higher but this actually helps to make better images with the analog Leica as you think twice. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted August 30, 2009 Share #37 Posted August 30, 2009 Steve, I also have a M7, scanning my slide images is an option but as I am totataly convinced that my scans are not as good as my original slides I don't bother that much, If my Minolta 5400-2 fails so what, I can still take pictures. For my Digital imaging, I use my little 600$ Canon G9 for it serves my needs. Nowdays with my work load and age I usually shoot about one slide roll a month unless I'am going on a holiday, It's adds up to about 400 Dollars a year which is 4000$ Aus over 10 years, that would not buy me an M8, OKAY I fully understand if you're a commercial or proffessional photographer Digital is the way to go but to us amatuers we have that option to judge what is best for us, and I know what it is. Film= you pay as you go. Digital pay up front, so use it or lose it. The original poster made a comment, and I agree with him. Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted August 30, 2009 Share #38 Posted August 30, 2009 There are a lot of variables involved in the original comparison so I'll just have to take his word that the recording medium is responsible for the difference he sees in the two photos. For what I do the photos I've made with the DMR out-shine the photos I've made with the Leicaflex SL. I once used the SL with Kodachrome 25 along with the R8 & DMR at an event using the same 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt on each camera, and as it turned out I was glad it was my last K25: the DMR images (@ ISO 400) have richer color, more detail, less noise than the K25 has grain, and more dynamic range. Two weeks ago I took several prints to a meeting with a gallery owner. The photos were made with two brands of cameras, both film and digital. The gallery owner remarked at the detail and color quality of the photos made with the DMR and asked what equipment I was using (he hadn't heard of the DMR). At the end of the meeting he selected several prints for the gallery, all made with the DMR. This isn't digital-vs-film. This is my my experience with my typical subjects and these particular films and equipment. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmatter Posted August 30, 2009 Share #39 Posted August 30, 2009 Bottom line, of course is... if you think they are; then they are. But : (with respect), really... what is the point of this?? And, since you asked what I think. I think maybe you're trying to convince yourself ??? Cheers. CDM NYC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted August 30, 2009 Share #40 Posted August 30, 2009 Attached are two images from my Olympus E-P1 and M7 showing further color differences of a flower scene. The DoF is different in these two images, so pay attention more to the central flowers. I like the realistic colors of the M7 color neg. image (bottom image). The fidelity of the colors are more realistic and not so blown out, and the greens look better. These images are not post processed.Yes the second one is hideous and the first one is a little too colourful for my taste but to be fair I only shoot B&W film. I still, however cannot see where you are going with this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.