Film vs. Digital, Side by Side

[02Pilot]

Rather an unscientific comparison, but on my humble little blog I've posted some samples from my X-E1 next to similar photos (taken at the same time from the same angle of the same subject) on Tri-X. I'll throw one set up here now; I can the rest up here if there's interest (let me know), or you can go here to see them now.

 

[Archiver]

Thanks for the comparison. It's not really easy to see that much difference, although the film images either have less dynamic range (brighter white point) or you exposed the Fuji images to retain the highlights. But it is interesting to see how close they are otherwise.

I'm wondering if this has more relevance for your own practices, rather than 'film vs digital', per se. After all, your film workflow here is Tri-X > Jupiter > Caffenol > unnamed scanner and scanning method, which introduces variables that others who don't use the same process might lack.

 

[02Pilot]

Oh sure, there are plenty of variables that could affect the results; it was not meant to be a rigorous point-by-point comparison. What inspired it really was that the X-E1 was the first digital I'd used that came close enough to the look of film for my tastes to consider using it semi-regularly. Just a subjective observation.

For the record, scanning was done with a Canon 8800f.

 

[pvdhaar]

Nice comparison; lots of details in both, but each has their stronger/weaker points. The digital shots seem to have cleaner straight lines and curves, while the film handles the irregular stuff like leaver/branches better..

All in all, I never cease to be amazed at how much detail a properly exposed and focused frame of film can show, and how well it holds up even given the progress in digital over the last decade.

 

[02Pilot]

Yes, I agree that they each have their own appeal. It's also interesting to me that while I was initially struck by the similarities, some others are more focused on the the differences. Everyone's perspective is different - it's surprising how often I need to be reminded of that.

 

[Ranchu]

Here's another.

http://120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm

 

[citizen99]

Here's another.
http://120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm

Very interesting post, thank you 🙂.

 

[02Pilot]

Interesting comparison, much more scientific (and probably more useful) than mine. Thanks.

 

[RattyMouse]

Oh sure, there are plenty of variables that could affect the results; it was not meant to be a rigorous point-by-point comparison. What inspired it really was that the X-E1 was the first digital I'd used that came close enough to the look of film for my tastes to consider using it semi-regularly. Just a subjective observation.

For the record, scanning was done with a Canon 8800f.

That's a very low grade scanner. Imagine the comparison results if something better were used to scan the film!

 

[goamules]

Nice. And amazing how favorable film is.

 

[Ronald M]

Try Tri X against a D800 or D750 or D3 and you will change your mind.

 

[jstout]

Try Tri X against a D800 or D750 or D3 and you will change your mind.

These pictures taken with the 35mm "miniature" film as it used to be called, look more natural and realistic to me. Just wondering if the most expensive digital cameras have the same natural look, and how do the most expensive digital cameras hold up against larger film? The overall look is what's important to me, not to downplay the importance of resolution and other qualities.

Nice comparison. Thanks for posting this, and I enjoyed your blog.

 

[02Pilot]

Try Tri X against a D800 or D750 or D3 and you will change your mind.

I don't really understand what you're getting at, or to what point you're responding. In any case, suggesting that anyone will automatically change their mind on what is clearly a highly subjective topic is a bit silly.

These pictures taken with the 35mm "miniature" film as it used to be called, look more natural and realistic to me. Just wondering if the most expensive digital cameras have the same natural look, and how do the most expensive digital cameras hold up against larger film? The overall look is what's important to me, not to downplay the importance of resolution and other qualities.

Nice comparison. Thanks for posting this, and I enjoyed your blog.

I agree that the overall appearance is what matters, though as noted earlier in the thread, this is very much a personal preference.

Thanks for the kind words. Glad you enjoy the blog.

 

[goamules]

It's like answering someone who just said they like Cheddar cheese better than Monterrey Jack, "try Provolone, then you'll change your mind."

Confusing, ain't it?!

 

[Capt. E]

You really don't indicate which is which. I assume the first is the digital image, but then again, "never assume".

I prefer the first (top). I seems to have smoother graduation with better highlights and shadows. Both the snow and the shadows on the water have greater detail. So, is that the film image?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Kudos to OP for using FED and J-12!

Film scan is not the real film photography to me. The print is.

 

[craygc]

Here's another.

http://120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm

Apart from this being a test on what is now '"old" technology, I see it as a potentially poor comparison biased to the attributes of a negative. Film (negatives) will certainly handle a considerable amount of over exposure in comparison to digital, however, digital today (raw) will handle significantly more under exposure than film. So I would see a better test being one that tries to fit the brightness range of a scene to the dynamic range of the capture medium in a manner that best suits the technology used. As such, in reference to the above test, a modern digital camera shooting with a -4 EV would most likely allow detail recovery across the full image in that test.