My Film Images Are Better Looking Than Digital!

[kenneth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Keep it simple buy an M6 then you don't have to be concerned about all those gadgets you mention which will be out of date by the time you take them out of the store. By the way, if you do, buy some Kodachrome before it vanishes and experience true colour in an iconic film. The only film National Geographic would accept

[andybarton]

I bet National Geographic don't accept Kodachrome now. And, as to whether Kodachrome represents "true colour", that is a matter of opinion. I don't think so, personally.

 

And, some of those "gadgets" are necessary for the vast majority of people who wish to use their photographs these days.

 

It would be fascinating to know, for example, how many people in the UK will be sitting in front of a screen, looking at projected Kodachromes this evening.

[giordano]

I bet National Geographic don't accept Kodachrome now. And, as to whether Kodachrome represents "true colour", that is a matter of opinion. I don't think so, personally.

 

There's no such thing as "true colour" in photography (outside the Lippman process), just various approximations that different people consider more or less accurate and/or pleasing.

 

And, some of those "gadgets" are necessary for the vast majority of people who wish to use their photographs these days.

 

It would be fascinating to know, for example, how many people in the UK will be sitting in front of a screen, looking at projected Kodachromes this evening.

 

Probably more than are watching images projected by their digital Pradovit!

[Peter Natscher]

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

 

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

 

I agree. My two image postings were only to show the initial differences with these two mediums literally right out of the camera, and not to go on and on with how much post processing one could do with each to arrive at a satisfactory endpoint. Yes, one could spend eternity with PP on an image and still find room for changes. Either image can be PP'ed in any direction to the satisfaction of the photographer. These two images were shot within minutes of each other early in the morning, and so there is room for some warm cast to show if I wanted to keep it in the images. Or, I might rid the scenes of this color cast and make it appear more as a mid-day scene. So, PP does change the mood and time of day in them. For this reason, I didn't want to make the issue of post processing in this topic. That could be another topic posted. This is now getting way off track.

[kenneth]

I bet National Geographic don't accept Kodachrome now. And, as to whether Kodachrome represents "true colour", that is a matter of opinion. I don't think so, personally.

 

And, some of those "gadgets" are necessary for the vast majority of people who wish to use their photographs these days.

 

It would be fascinating to know, for example, how many people in the UK will be sitting in front of a screen, looking at projected Kodachromes this evening.

It's not about quantity it's about quality

[Peter Natscher]

I do want to take this time to thank all who made the effort to remark both positively or critically towards my statements of discovery in this forum for my photography hobby. I joined this forum to learn more about photography, and possibly offer help in return, and all of you are certainly very helpful to me.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's not about quantity it's about quality

 

I never said it was only about quantity. I was asking a question, that's all.

[wildlightphoto]

My two image postings were only to show the initial differences with these two mediums literally right out of the camera, and not to go on and on with how much post processing one could do with each to arrive at a satisfactory endpoint.

 

A digital image straight out of the M8.x is not going to demonstrate the camera's potential. To see its potential you'd need to start with a .DNG file and process it with as much care as you'd give a good color negative film. Straight out of the camera for each system gives up most of the control over color, detail and exposure.

[Jamie Roberts]

I agree. My two image postings were only to show the initial differences with these two mediums literally right out of the camera, and not to go on and on with how much post processing one could do with each to arrive at a satisfactory endpoint. Yes, one could spend eternity with PP on an image and still find room for changes. Either image can be PP'ed in any direction to the satisfaction of the photographer.{snipped} This is now getting way off track.

 

Except that you're sidestepping the point (I think); you said one was better than the other and I'm calling you on it: they're both bad, colour wise, and need more work.

 

And in truth it took about 30 seconds to clean up your neutrals--hardly an eternity I only had to bet that the clouds (and shadows) weren't yellow. The same is true for the digital--it wouldn't have taken long to get the WB right before it became a JPEG

 

Whatever you think, film is also not "straight out of the camera" when it comes back from 1) a lab and 2) is scanned. Straight out of the camera, as Doug implies, film gives you an undeveloped potential image.

 

So when you get a scan back you have a digital workflow there whether you like it or not, so it's best to acknowledge it...

 

Having said that, if you're happy with the scans you're getting, then that's great!

 

My only point was that both of those captures need further processing--and if you're doing that digitally then you are doing the processing... so what's the advantage of film again?

[kenneth]

I never said it was only about quantity. I was asking a question, that's all.

Well I guess you could do a poll if it interests you. I don't use my Pradovit very often but when I do there is really no better way to enjoy colour photography. Somehow they come to life and the detail in the 90mm Colourplan lens is astonishing. It is only sad that most of my Kodachrome images are Nikon generated. Summicron-M and Colourplan, now there's a combination. I've got just 1 roll left

[andybarton]

Check the Buy and Sell section

[kenneth]

Check the Buy and Sell section

Thanks Andy, I am assuming you were directing me to the Kodachrome 64 offer. Well I have made a decision, as Kodachrome is to be phased out, I will totally concentrate on B&W. There is more than enough to learn about that medium in my lifetime

[Peter Natscher]

A digital image straight out of the M8.x is not going to demonstrate the camera's potential. To see its potential you'd need to start with a .DNG file and process it with as much care as you'd give a good color negative film. Straight out of the camera for each system gives up most of the control over color, detail and exposure.

 

Film wasn't created originally so that you would need to post process it to enjoy it's attributes. Thirty years ago, the slides and prints you got from the developer were good enough to enjoy w/o further darkroom time. Back then, Kodak and others created it's films to show acceptable prints and slides without further tinkering. And now films are superior to what was around then. As far as digital goes, newer cameras are processing great out- of-the-camera JPGs that don't require any further PP -- my new E-P1 being one of them.

[Jamie Roberts]

Film wasn't created originally so that you would need to post process it to enjoy it's attributes. Thirty years ago, the slides and prints you got from the developer were good enough to enjoy w/o further darkroom time. Back then, Kodak and others created it's films to show acceptable prints and slides without further tinkering. And now films are superior to what was around then. As far as digital goes, newer cameras are processing great out- of-the-camera JPGs that don't require any further PP -- my new E-P1 being one of them.

 

And yet you complain about the EP1's lousy uncorrected colour and prefer yellow film scans.

 

I'm sorry--but what you're saying and what you're showing are completely at odds.

 

And frankly, FWIW film was created originally PRECISELY to require post-processing, and Kodak and Agfa and Ilford and everyone else knew it, even Polaroid--and profited greatly--from it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. The vast majority of snapshots were done by a lab--sometimes only by a film producer--and to a casual user, that's "straight out of the camera."

 

But most of the great photographers (and more importantly, those that cared about printing or presenting work) understood that post was at least as important as taking the shot. Processes like "unsharp masking" weren't originally digital, you know

 

So once again, I'm left wondering what you're trying to say? You like the digital scans you from film get better than the output from your digital. Fine: but don't pretend you've worked either the digital anywhere near to what the film has already gone through (or that the film result is all that demonstrably more finished).

[stunsworth]

Thirty years ago, the slides and prints you got from the developer were good enough to enjoy w/o further darkroom time. Back then, Kodak and others created it's films to show acceptable prints and slides without further tinkering.

 

I think the keyword in that is 'acceptable'. Really great prints have often had darkroom work involved. They were seldom straight prints from the negative. Dodging, burning were common place in darkroom days - and when done well you wouldn't notice - nothing has changed in this regard in the digital era.

[Riccis]

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

 

You mean this one? Twin Lens Life ~ Fine Art Film Photography: Digital vs. Film (The Real Deal) - Nikon D300 vs. Fuji GS645s

 

If you look close you may even catch my name referenced towards the end of the article...

 

Cheers,

[Peter Natscher]

And yet you complain about the EP1's lousy uncorrected colour and prefer yellow film scans.

 

Jamie,

Perhaps your confusing my two posted prints with Jacksparrow's reinterpretation of my prints in which he changed them to a yellower appearance. I don't feel that my film image (the 2nd image) is too yellow, and I don't prefer yellow film scans The two images are of the same early morning scene and the gray fog is still fairly neutraI in color considering the low sun angle. I do know that my Oly E-P1 digital P&S (first image) adds by default a warmer coloring to all images when set to its default color, and this is now common knowledge for this new camera. I do like the E-P1's overall IQ, ease of use, small physical size and design, and optical quality. Both of my film and digital images do require further PP for my satisfaction and I intent to do it. I am just amazed how the film image looks so much better to me 'before' much post processing.

[Peter Natscher]

And frankly, FWIW film was created originally PRECISELY to require post-processing, and Kodak and Agfa and Ilford and everyone else knew it, even Polaroid--and profited greatly--from it.

 

In the past 50 years, I think that Kodak et al made film good enough so that the mass market could get great results from it automatically. Their survival depended on film that worked good enough for most people using it. It's the amateur mass market that kept these companies profitable and not the professionals. Yes, professionals will always look for ways to improve a print by post processing images, but the rest of the family just wants great prints from automatic cameras and not have to do anything else.

[stunsworth]

Peter, I think the key words in your response are 'good enough', 'great' is something else, and if you've ever seen a really great print you'll realise how far removed that is from the average experience.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Peter Natscher]

Peter, I think the key words in your response are 'good enough', 'great' is something else, and if you've ever seen a really great print you'll realise how far removed that is from the average experience.

 

Steve,

 

Well said!

 

BTW: I visited your website and I like your images. Aren't they processed a bit on the warm side?