Film or digital

[dostacos]

I know digital sometimes may be taboo to some members but lets not forget the RD1 and others on the plate. The gallery holds a combination of all sorts of photos taken with different cameras. Having said that, please answer the following without cheating.

Is the attached image digital or film?

film, digital OR photochopped!

 

[Bertram2]

Can I ask if you tweaked the image, Jorge? The name of the file "90APO7cleaned-after.jpeg" leads me to believe that you did something to the scan. 😀

R.J.

Jorge,

it were the dark parts of the blue shirt, the white portions on the arms , the skin tone of the face and the way the lines of the shoulders stand sharply aginst the background (tramsition) which made me assume it is from a digital camera.

Tho knowing the enormous saturation of Velvia I also guess, if this is what you normally get from a scanned Velvia, or if there was any kind of tweaking so similar to the image processing algorythms of a digital camera that made this pic look so digital ?

I mean no matter what the origin is, it does look VERY digital and i think this was the reason you used it as a demo ?

Best,
Bertram

 

[aizan]

yay, i guessed right.

what scanner?

 

[RJBender]

ALL scans need 'something' done to them afterward. It is just the nature of the workflow requirements in a digital working space.

It is relatively easy to produce a file from a film negative that looks as if it were produced by a digital camera. I do that myself if it is the 'look' I think best applies to the photo. I've fooled some people too. 🙂

I don't think the medium, film or digital at least, makes much difference. IMHO, people expend WAY too much time and effort talking about it rather than going out and actually shooting pictures.

Tom

Discussion is good for the learning process. How many people take notes when they shoot pictures? 10-20% of us? I think it's helpful to know what adjustments were made in the scan. No flames.... just curious. 😉

R.J.

 

[JohnL]

(snip)
Is the attached image digital or film?

Probably digital. The fact we can't really be sure, however, says a lot.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Useless discussion. Film vs digital, what's the difference? Both lend themselves to good, as well as bad, photography. What counts is the vision of the photographer, and the pictures which express this vision. The capturing medium is irrelevant.
Vincent

 

[JohnL]

(snip)
Hard copy prints from a digital file or film on the same paper would be the challenge to take up.

Yes, indeed. But for paper prints also, it can be hard, maybe impossible to tell.

 

[vincentbenoit]

"Since I am a believer in Garry Winograd's statement that "only the photograph matters" I am not posting much in the way of technical data. It doesn't matter."Tom

Amen.
Vincent

 

[JohnL]

Camera: Leica MP
Lens: 90mm 2.0 APO
Film: Velvia 100
Location: Home

There we are! Velvia has very saturated colour and fine grain. Also Provia and some others. OTOH, it is also possible to make digital less saturated, and even to add a little "grain", so we could have easily been fooled in the other direction!

 

[vincentbenoit]

Here's an opposite challenge: Can you make a picture on film that could not be duplicated by manipulation of a digital image?

Until proven wrong I will keep believing that film grain cannot be convincingly simulated digitally.
Vincent

 

[Sean Chan]

Like many others, my first guess was 'Digital' too.

Well, its showing up on my LCD display so it must be in some way 'digitalised'.

 

[Bertram2]

It is relatively easy to produce a file from a film negative that looks as if it were produced by a digital camera. I do that myself if it is the 'look' I think best applies to the photo. I've fooled some people too. 🙂
Tom

Would you mind to explain how you do it ? I never tried it and I am not THAT familiar with PS that would know which switches and knobs you must turn to get such a result ?
Thanks !
Bertra,m

 

[Bertram2]

Useless discussion. Film vs digital, what's the difference?
Vincent

The look of the results I'd say ?

Vincent, Isn't this the essential point ALWAYS in the discussion and also what the thread here is exactly about ??

I mean the aim was to make film look like digital, and that this could be successfully done does not prove both have the same look. To stay logic It proves only that you can make a slide scan look like digital.

And now the look: No matter what the source is, it's not what I like and what I would accept for my pics, you see ?.

Bertram

 

[Jason_K]

IMHO, people expend WAY too much time and effort talking about it rather than going out and actually shooting pictures.

Tom

I couldn't agree more. 😀

 

[MP Guy]

The only thing done to this image was clean up of the dust spots and sharpened a little too much. The reason I asked was because so many people automatically asume a picture is digital. To me this picture looks digital only because its so clean. And by that I mean, no spots no signs of newton rings etc ... I sharpened it to bring outthe edges. I think I will apply a little noise ninja next and see what happens. 🙂 regardless, I think it made an interesting toic.

 

[MP Guy]

Here are 2 of the same images. first one minimal sharpening. 2nd one nois ninja applyed to give it an even more digital look.

 

[Bertram2]

Here are 2 of the same images. first one minimal sharpening. 2nd one nois ninja applyed to give it an even more digital look.

What scanner do you use, Jorge ? And what res was the original scan made with ? Would be interesting for me.
Thanks,
Bertram

 

[smileyguy]

I'm finding this discussion quite interesting! As a noob to RF photography, a relative newbie to photography (film SLR) overall and an avid user of PS the topic of manipulation is one that is of great interest to me. I see many, many fabulous photos in the gallery, so much great work! But... how much of it was manipulated post pressing the shutter release?

In another thread about digicams being used as learning tools one of the things I have been recalling over the last couple of days has been the sheer volume of photos that are taken at a photoshoot, travel photography, portraiture, etc. in order to get one or two GREAT shots. And then even those ones are cropped, colour adjusted etc. to make the shot even better. Is this a crime? And where do we draw the line?

I totally understand that this is a RF forum so it seems to me to make sense that what I see here would be TAKEN with a RF camera. I will only post what I take with my meagre (but fun) little Konica Auto S3 but it will be PS'd, not overly but to my liking so that it makes a pleasing photograph.

I understand that there is a "look" that some people don't like from digital cameras but I don't think it's fair to paint all the photos with the same brush. It really comes down to the photographer. I mean, there are a TON of horrible photos taken with great film cameras! We all know that. Just because it's taken with a film camera doesn't make it inherently superior to digital.

(I'm not sure where I was going with that post but reading all the other posts in this thread brougt these thoughts to mind... thanks for reading.)

 

[MP Guy]

Betrtram, I use the Minolta Elite 5400 II. Unfortunately I dont remember the scan res. possibly 2800.

 

[Bertram2]

Betrtram, I use the Minolta Elite 5400 II. Unfortunately I dont remember the scan res. possibly 2800.

Thanks ! Amazing machine for that money!