Colour in Digital vs Film -- D90 vs S with Fuji Reala

JonR

JonR

Well-known
Local time
12:11 AM
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
465
View My Gallery
This is NOT meant to be one of those "film vs digital" type of discussions (I hope) but more one on how to in the digital world get a similar feeling as what you can get in film.

Below you can see two photos taken at the same time in the same light - the one to the left is using what you can call Nikon "state of the art" technology (Nikon D90 + 24-70f/2,8, jpeg, standard settings, no editing) and the one to the right is using what was available when it all started (Nikon S + 5 cm Nikkor S f/1,4 + Reala 100).





Both are good photos I think but I actually think the Nikon S photo with Reala 100 gives a better and more accurate colours (especially if you look at the hair it is slightly too "grey" in the digital version and there is slightly too much "blue" in the digital photo....).

Now, I have been using the standard settings on the D90 and I know there are numerous ways to adjust the settings so my question is really the following: Do you guys adjust the standard settings in your digital cameras to better emulate the results you can get from film and if so what do you adjust ??

I would appreciate your comments on this.... The D90 is a fantastic camera and have so many more opportunities than any old Nikon RF but is some situations with good light I have found that the colours and feeling of a Reala film picture is actually better and I would like to learn how to emulate that in the digital world (without spending lot´s of time in PS which would of course be an option)..

Jon
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0105.jpg
    DSC_0105.jpg
    59.6 KB · Views: 0
  • DSC_0120_ed.jpg
    DSC_0120_ed.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 0
JonR said:
Do you guys adjust the standard settings in your digital cameras to better emulate the results you can get from film and if so what do you adjust ??
Click to expand...

Almost never. In your case, I would underexpose the Nikon by a bit, then bring up the blacks in some image editing software. You're right, the Reala does look nicer there, but the thing that's great about digital files is how much you can do with them after the fact.

In general, I find settings that give me a reliable, neutral digital image, then post process a bit until they're just what I want.
 
What puzzles me the most there is that while very similar re. color rendition (the skin tone is quite identical to my naked eyes), none of the two pictures seems to be accurately focused on the model's eyes.

Plus - Fuji Reala 100 wasn't available "when it all started" in the early fifties. 😉

With the D90 you have a very good DSLR but you must shoot RAW and post-process with a good software (Capture NX or any other that you'll like), not try to tweak out-of-the camera Jpegs. Anytime.
 
Highway 61 - well that´s what everyone tells me - shoot RAW and spend time adjusting on the PC and it will be perfect....But I do not want to do that! I want to be out there, take photos, and if needed also play with all the settings etc but not spend hours in font of the PC after the event. With the processing power of a modern camera and the software logic that shouldn´t be neeed! But maybe it still is...

Jon
 
JonR said:
Highway 61 - well that´s what everyone tells me - shoot RAW and spend time adjusting on the PC and it will be perfect....But I do not want to do that! I want to be out there, take photos, and if needed also play with all the settings etc but not spend hours in font of the PC after the event.
Click to expand...

High quality compact digital cameras are rather designed to shoot Jpeg (Canon G9 G10 Coolpix P6000 etc, even if they support RAW).

DSLR and the like (MF digital cameras and Leica M8) are designed to shoot RAW.

This is how it works.

When you shoot Jpeg with a DLSR, you use it at about 20% of what it's capable of.

And while a RAW file is extremely versatile, the Jpeg isn't.

Weren't you spending time in the darkroom when you were using film ? 😉

Mastered post-processing doesn't require that you spend "hours" in front of the PC. A well regulated workflow will take you about 2-3 minutes for each photo.

The other advantage of shooting RAW is that it helps you not to shoot tons of identical shots. You for sure don't want your hard drive to be overfilled with image files that you wouldn't even remember the (where and how and when)-abouts in a few weeks. 😉
 
Shoot your d90 in raw and use nx2 to post process, as posted above, takes a couple of minutes. I love the look of film but I'm actually finding that the workflow to get a result that I like is actually quicker with digital, for me. Taking a film neg, scanning and then post processing to achieve what I like is very time consuming. This way of course negates the reason for using film as I am turning it into digital anyway! If I was still printing then fine, the story would be different. I think that digital is better for color and film for b&w. Gap is closing on that too though. I find that scanning and getting natural looking color is a real hit and miss affair, rather like home printing! very frustrating. This is why I like raw and especially nx2, it's quick and it's easy. Just wish Nikon would bring out that full frame digital RF with M mount!!!!
 
If you want accurate colour you can profile your camera with a colour chart in all types of lighting conditions. Honestly though, I find a custom WB and good exposure means out of camera jpgs are pretty close to spot on. Another secret, jpgs can handle a lot more bashing around in PS than some RAW-or-death shooters would have you beleive. Yes raw is better, but I actually use JPG more often, esp when high volume no tweaking is the order of the day.

Same with film, get your exposure and CC filters right and the lab tech wont need to mess around too much.

ANother thing, to scan it right you need a good scanner profile for the film anyway, so six, half dozen, what looks right to you?
 
Here is an experiment: shoot with film, then shoot with RAW (I used a Ricoh GX200 for this) then bring them up on Picassa 3.0 (you know the freebie) and click "I'm feeling lucky" on each. The Raw file, for me at least, always comes out better. better exposure, better contrast, better color. Too bad I am a PhotoShop snob.
 
With digital I try to capture as much information as possible in the image, even if this means overexposure, and then get the picture I saw at the raw editor. There is a difference between taking a picture that just looks right at the screen to print it right away, and to expose to maximize the information at the scene to adjust later. I mean different mediums require different aproaches at the image capture stage. YMHO

Having said that, there are a lot of procedures to get accurate colour out of a digital file, the thing is if that colours looks right to yourself or add up to the picture. I found film colours more pleasing, as well as black & white film. I guess more than 50 years of research and development for the film industry matters!
 
I'm with Kiu...

After spending all day on the computer processing my professional work, the LAST thing I want to do is MORE PS on my personal photography!

After two surgeries this past year to correct nerve damage in my left arm and all the pain and weight lifting therapy, about all I want to do with this computer is get on this forum. See what sacrifices I make for friends?😀
 
Shooting raw my digital workflow is usually much quicker than film - unless I want to go into PS and start doing masked layers etc. Film i use differently and do less to, but developing, scanning etc all takes time.

Mike
 
I do prefer nef-files and post-processing in Nikon Capture NX(2). But with a small change in standard settings I´m quite contend with jpeg-results. I changed to Adobe RGB, lower saturation and sharpening and try to do custom white balance with a grey card whenever possible. The files can be adjusted easily in PSE.

For jpeg out of camera I suggest to play with saturation and sharpening. Maybe a bit more of both will give better results.

Thomas
 
JonR said:
Highway 61 - well that´s what everyone tells me - shoot RAW and spend time adjusting on the PC and it will be perfect....But I do not want to do that! I want to be out there, take photos, and if needed also play with all the settings etc but not spend hours in font of the PC after the event. With the processing power of a modern camera and the software logic that shouldn´t be neeed! But maybe it still is...

Jon
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I love working with film. However, this comment of "I want to be out there taking pictures" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

How exactly did you get the film image on your computer? With a scanner I presume. Of course, there's the issue of cleaning up a shot....even with ICE. There's the scanning time in general. There's the issue of actually getting the film processed.

Let's be honest.....even for those of us who prefer film.....I do.....I can have 36 shots color balanced and ready for print from Capture One or Capture NX before you even get your film back.

It has nothing to do with time. Scanning for print is far more labour intensive then working with a digital file.

Work with what you love.....but let's keep the justifications fair and real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom