Nh3
Well-known
I went out yesterday with my M4-P - Nokton 40/1.4 SC two rolls of Trix and took this picture during a religious parade in downtown Toronto. (Processed in Rodinal 1+50). Just an ordinary shot, a little soft and cropped to square format...
But then again the same scene with a DSLR (RAW converted to b&w) and exposure is the same for both shots.
To me as a digital shooter it was instantly obvious that what is an ordinary shot in digital is suddenly 'something else' altogether with film.
And off course the digital image was processed to b&w and was tweaked to look as close to the film version as possible, where in fact this is how the digital really looked (with processing and little sharpening).
I will continue shooting digital because I cannot afford film but it is my humble opinion that digital can never truly replace film as the medium which turns the ordinary into something extraordinary.
The first picture was there in the negative when the light was exposed on it and the second one had to be transformed, tweaked and still lacked the feel and mood of the first one... To me that pretty much sums up the film vs. digital argument.
But then again the same scene with a DSLR (RAW converted to b&w) and exposure is the same for both shots.
To me as a digital shooter it was instantly obvious that what is an ordinary shot in digital is suddenly 'something else' altogether with film.
And off course the digital image was processed to b&w and was tweaked to look as close to the film version as possible, where in fact this is how the digital really looked (with processing and little sharpening).
I will continue shooting digital because I cannot afford film but it is my humble opinion that digital can never truly replace film as the medium which turns the ordinary into something extraordinary.
The first picture was there in the negative when the light was exposed on it and the second one had to be transformed, tweaked and still lacked the feel and mood of the first one... To me that pretty much sums up the film vs. digital argument.
NickTrop
Veteran
Yes... When you hear non-film-geeks say they "love the old black and whites..." that's what they're talking about. I agree totally. So many film black and white captures would have been just ordinary snaps on digital. Black and white film makes them so much more evocative. Your pictures illustrate this nicely.
Eric T
Well-known
Ray Nalley
Well-known
O.K. Had to give this a shot. 
Shadowplay
Established
Jim, that isn't bad - but it's off. It could be entirely because of the composition too, but I think not. The tonal transitions are different on film too... I almost always know if I'm looking at digital or film capture.
gb hill
Veteran
You have a M4-P & you can't afford film? Scratching my head on that one. The first frame doesn't look right. Might be my monitor, but it looks over evposed or something with the development. Could be that Rodinal & Trix not a good combination. Really can't put my finger on it.
Ray Nalley
Well-known
The name is Ray. It's off because my monitor is calibrated for cmyk in print. Everything looks lighter on a monitor calibrated for RGB. Should have done it on the other MAC. That was done with Exposure 2, by the way.
amateriat
We're all light!
I certainly grok your meaning ( there might be some monitor tweaking required here, though...), but ultimately it is up to the individual eye. I can see it. Some others can't. If they can't, I won't scorn them, but I will continue to work the way I do, because it matters to me. That's life, as Frankie sang to me in my childhood...
- Barrett
- Barrett
Nh3
Well-known
I'll be selling a couple of Nikon lenses that I hardly use and put that money into film.
The film image is low contrast but it could also be the gamma setting on your monitor.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I can still buy 110 Kodak color film at my local photo lab so at least 120 and 135 formats will be with us for a while. But mass market digital is still pretty much only 10 years old if you consider the Sony Mavica as the consumer milestone marker so who knows where technology will take us ten years from now.
Ray Nalley
Well-known
I like the second image more, nh3. The contrast is just better.
Nh3
Well-known
Ray, it my post-processing skills that you're admiring in the second picture.
the 'real' digital shot is the third one.The film, while maybe overexposed a little, has better separation of midtones. The digital has the classic flat midtones that keep me from going to digital. It's also the crop factor. There's more background in the film, less in the digital, and with the flat midtones, it makes the digital look like a bunch of heads all together whereas the film is individual.
A little adjustment on the shadows and lowering highlights on the digital would go a long wayfile://localhost/C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Paul/Desktop/Untitled-1-copy.jpg.jpg
A little adjustment on the shadows and lowering highlights on the digital would go a long wayfile://localhost/C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Paul/Desktop/Untitled-1-copy.jpg.jpg
Nh3
Well-known
I mentioned in my first post that the film image was there when it was exposed where as the digital needs to be tweaked to that ideal state. however, if there was no film image of this scene how would i have known that the same kids could look so different in a different medium.
To me that was a revelation.
To me that was a revelation.
semrich
Well-known
With the two images side by side, to my eye, the film shot appears to have more depth in its tones.
mknawabi
photographeur
Sorry, NH3, your film shot sucks in comparison to the digital one.
mknawabi
photographeur
I really like how Nh3 comes up with these useless arguments and never provides sufficient 'proof' in order to back up his claims. Or if he does, that proof is weak and has moot point.
1) Street photographers have to have a MOTIVE in order to go out and shoot people? No. you're wrong. next,
2) Film is better than digital? "HORSES FOR COURSES" buddy. Can you really say macs are better than PCs? NO. Because one is tailored for one application, while the other is tailored for another. Different users have different tastes.
3) Gosh, I could keep going and going but I think you guys get my point already.
I really don't want to come off as 'hostile' but Nh3's useless claims are starting to bug me.
1) Street photographers have to have a MOTIVE in order to go out and shoot people? No. you're wrong. next,
2) Film is better than digital? "HORSES FOR COURSES" buddy. Can you really say macs are better than PCs? NO. Because one is tailored for one application, while the other is tailored for another. Different users have different tastes.
3) Gosh, I could keep going and going but I think you guys get my point already.
I really don't want to come off as 'hostile' but Nh3's useless claims are starting to bug me.
Last edited:
