Have you compared your RF images with digital?

dave lackey

dave lackey

Veteran
Local time
4:24 AM
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
9,486
Location
Atlanta, Ga
View My Gallery
As I enjoy my newly-acquired F3...my wife and I were amazed at the differences obtained with my F3 and my D2H. Simply can't describe it in words but when we set 'em up side-by-side...there is a difference. In B&W, the F3 (with Ilford 100 and Tmax 400) produces superior images.

Now, that I am interested in RF's, I would like to see some side-by-side comparisons of your images with digital images. The main reason for my interest is to seal my desire to purchase a S3 for specific applications.

I will try to post my own over the weekend.
 
Last edited:
IMO it's comparing apples and oranges.

Besides, my RF photos are digital!
 
Lenses matter. Film and processing and scanning and darkroom methods make for a lot of variables.

I prefer processing on a computer to hand processing, and to me time is an important consideration. So I compromise and have my negatives scanned at the time of processing.
 
VinceC said:
Lenses matter. Film and processing and scanning and darkroom methods make for a lot of variables.

I prefer processing on a computer to hand processing, and to me time is an important consideration. So I compromise and have my negatives scanned at the time of processing.
Click to expand...

Vince,

That is what I do...time is important and I agree that the lenses make a difference. In the real world, a lens for the rangefinder will be different than a lens for my SLR but the resulting images are definitely different. IMHO, the results of my B&W are far better than those I have from my digital and I can not duplicate it with photoshop...I have tried for hours but it is not the same.
 
Neat...that is why I like these forums...thanks for that photo.

My first impression was that it was digital with film grain added because it seemed too obvious after my experimenting with photoshop on my own images. The composite work is interesting.

What I am finding out is how much I hate to spend time at the computer in photoshop when I can shoot it with my F3, drop off the film and pick up the prints already scanned. I get the images I want and no computer work.

I enjoy shooting much more than post-processing.
 
dave lackey said:
I enjoy shooting much more than post-processing.
Click to expand...

That is the most important point. The quality cannot be compared on an equal basis - too many variables. Even on an aesthetic basis - too subjective.

But what you enjoy doing - that is what matters.

Horses for courses. Pick the tool that makes the most sense for the way you want to shoot.
 
>> film adds one important aspect over digital, and that is a slower more deliberate pace of shooting<<


When I did black-and-white darkroom work, I used to hate the idea of someone else printing my photos. I compared it to someone else writing a story off of my notes. I like PhotoShop with color film scans because I can very quickly adjust contast, fine-tune exposure, do a bit of burning and dodging if necessary. In just a few seconds to a minute or two, I can greatly improve a flat mass-produced machine scan.

The last time I was on an assignment with a staff photographer was a couple of years ago, a Gannett photographer who spent a lot of time in Iraq. His technique was to shoot bursts of 10 to 20 photos, creating hundreds of images in a short time, then quickly sifting out the best shots. He was amused by my SP. We did a weeklong assignment in Germany and Romania, and I shot perhaps four or five rolls of film, with perhaps 20 to 30 images that were "keepers".


These days,
 
My typical lens on my RFs is from a 35mm to a 50mm.

My typical DSLR lens is a 500mm which is a 800mm FOV.

Even when I have the same FOV on both systems, I've got B&W in the RF and shoot for colour w/ the DSLR.

It's not just apples vs oranges, it's apple pie vs orange juice.
 
dave lackey said:
Hey, thanks for pointing out about slowing down the pace! I have had my F3/T for a month now yet have only run 4 rolls of film through it and I was shocked at how much time and effort I put into each shot. Then I was pleasantly surprised at the keeper ratio and the results.

How I am enjoying the F3/T! Now, I want to get into the RF's...time that I now have that I would have otherwise spent in photoshop!
Click to expand...

Well, I'm about to sell my F3, but I'm keeping my RF.

willie
 
dave lackey said:
Now, that I am interested in RF's, I would like to see some side-by-side comparisons of your images with digital images. The main reason for my interest is to seal my desire to purchase a S3 for specific applications.

Best regards,

DaveL
Click to expand...

Of these, 3 are digital, 2 are film (then uploaded from lab scans). 2 are from an SLR. Differences? You tell me. (Nothing tricky: its trivially easy to click on the image and find out.)

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


...Mike
 
mfunnell said:
Of these, 3 are digital, 2 are film (then uploaded from lab scans). 2 are from an SLR. Differences? You tell me. (Nothing tricky: its trivially easy to click on the image and find out.)

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


...Mike
Click to expand...



Yep, got 'em all right. Primarily the giveaways are either too clear/sharp or overly done with film grain.

I did not start this thread as a film/digital because I shoot way more digital with my D2H. Yet I have found specific applications where film and the camera body are much better.

What I AM after is a direct comparison, same photo with both the RF and digital BEFORE photoshop. I am not interested in photoshop capabilities. My whole point is the ease of which I can capture the image/style I want without photoshop.

Matching the tool for the job.

Thanks for the post!
 
dave lackey said:
What I AM after is a direct comparison, same photo with both the RF and digital BEFORE photoshop. I am not interested in photoshop capabilities. My whole point is the ease of which I can capture the image/style I want without photoshop.

Matching the tool for the job.

Thanks for the post!
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure how that might be done. Of those shots only #2 hade any serious Photoshop work done. The two film/RF shots were straight from scans. One (from Delta 400) was simply resized and slightly sharpened (just to re-build the accutance broken up by the resizing). The other (from cheap consumer colour film) was converted to BW then the same thing done. The 2 dSLR shots were converted from RAW then converted to BW before re-sizing etc. I don't know how that's done without using some kind of sofware (I think #5 was converted from RAW using DPP, but would it have made any real difference if it had gone all the way to web-sized JPEG in that software rather than Photoshop??). I won't use lame BW JPEGs from digital cameras (I know they look lousy and need no further proof).

So what comparison do you need? Aside from the "same shot" which I've never done. Even if done, how's that put on the web without some kind of digital post-processing 😕

...Mike
 
Digital, with its narrower exposure latitude, is a lot like shooting slide film. Top-notch results require more practice and skill with lighting and exposure going into the shot because, compared to film, you have less control after the shutter is snapped. For that reason, a well-handled digital photograph will require less post-processing compared to film.

For a couple of years I used my S2 to shoot personal Kodachromes alongside my black-and-white work assignments. It was a good disciplining process that taught me a lot about the final image. With slide film, you either nailed the exposure or you didn't, either nailed the color balance or you didn't, either found and used the best light, or you didn't.

My digital is a pretty old 3meg point and shoot, but I'm mindful of its capabilities and still pay attention to the light going into the lens because I know I don't have much control over the final image.
 
Apples and oranges?

Besides, depending on where you buy them, they use lots of pesticides, and they lack flavour and the nutrients they ought to have. So even comparisons between apples to apples and oranges to oranges isn't even fair and highly subjective.

I prefer pears, and pomegranate juice.

But when you have all variables equalized, properly used and processed film is far more pleasing than properly used and profiled digital-captured images where tones are concerned.

For the sloppy type, where film is just too much to handle, digital is the way to go. For the computer-challenged, film is the way to go.

I like to visit both Filmland and Digitalworld, not be trapped within the FSU (Film Sucks Utterly) or DUSSR (Digital Users Surely Suck Revoltingly) dictatorships. Who knows? Maybe one day they'll form an allegiance against the HDR heretics? 😉

Anyway...aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. You can't say that one is better than another, if it's all about personal preference. Granny apples vs. Fuji apples vs. Golden apples...
 
Ha ha ha...as Maxwell Smart used to say...the old juice trick! Actually, I agree with all of the above. I shoot digital and am very much happy with my work.

Yet, again, I will point out that film captured scanned to digital is and I really do mean "is" different.

Go here:

www.billynewmanphotography.com

I keep showing this man's results to illustrate that at least one pro is extremely successful because he sticks with simple film with film bodies and lenses. He scans and processes the way he wants. And he is the first to tell you that he cannot get the same results with digital.

He's the arteest...not me, so I believe him.

Anyways, time to shoot...tired of this computer stuff.🙄

Have a great weekend all! 😀
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Apples and oranges?

Besides, depending on where you buy them, they use lots of pesticides, and they lack flavour and the nutrients they ought to have. So even comparisons between apples to apples and oranges to oranges isn't even fair and highly subjective.

I prefer pears, and pomegranate juice.

But when you have all variables equalized, properly used and processed film is far more pleasing than properly used and profiled digital-captured images where tones are concerned.

For the sloppy type, where film is just too much to handle, digital is the way to go. For the computer-challenged, film is the way to go.

I like to visit both Filmland and Digitalworld, not be trapped within the FSU (Film Sucks Utterly) or DUSSR (Digital Users Surely Suck Revoltingly) dictatorships. Who knows? Maybe one day they'll form an allegiance against the HDR heretics? 😉

Anyway...aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. You can't say that one is better than another, if it's all about personal preference. Granny apples vs. Fuji apples vs. Golden apples...
Click to expand...


Oops, for me, all of my last several years of digital capture made me sloppy because I developed bad habits. Now that I am shooting manual, the pace has slowed to the point I actually have to think and I find that refreshing. 🙂

I have also found that, to my own preferences and my wife's, yes, the film capture is different and indeed better to us. I still use digital capture for most of my work and keeping up with the grandkids, but have found :angel: in my return to MF film capture.

YMMV...and that is okay...😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom