HU: B&W -- film vs. digital

[__--]

And perhaps I should also attach the second picture that I printed at 39x52 inches (100x133 cm), in case people are put off by the blown highlights in the first one, and attribute that to digital — rather, it was a very high contrast situation at night with car headlights. This second picture was shot at ISO 62 and so fine that I added a bit of grain to give it some more "bite."

--Mitch

 

[tetrisattack]

Amazing what you can do with computers.

I made this print without electricity. Except for heating some water by 5 degrees celsius, which I could have done over a fire.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This could easily become a "chicken or egg" discussion.

Mmmm...apple-cider marinated chicken, rubbed with sage and rosemary, slowly roasted and basted to a golden glow.

And eggs with chorizo and nice home-made corn tortillas for breakfast. With a little bit of chipotle sauce; and don't dry out the eggs, please... ::whetting::

I like "chicken or egg" discussions :angel:

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Amazing what you can do with computers.

Kenny boy did wonders in California and sent Enron stock into broker orgasmorama (will the software *** that out?) 😉

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Mmmm...apple-cider marinated chicken, rubbed with sage and rosemary, slowly roasted and basted to a golden glow.

And eggs with chorizo and nice home-made corn tortillas for breakfast. With a little bit of chipotle sauce; and don't dry out the eggs, please... ::whetting::

I like "chicken or egg" discussions :angel:

Does this mean that I should put a link to my half foodie/half recipe blog in my signature as well? 😀

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Here's MY take on the whole thing.

I happen to agree with T_om. All that really matters is the photo. I don't really care how it's taken or who takes it. In fact, I tend to prefer amateurs whose names I don't know to famous photographers most of the time when it comes to the things that I'd hang for my own enjoyment at home.

Before digital SLRs were actually 'cheap' enough for most people to own I tried compact digital cameras. I've also tried modern compacts and I've seen prints from modern digital cameras. I still, to this day, prefer the look of a nicely printed film image over a printed digital image. However, this does not prevent me from enjoying a digitally made print. Nor does it prevent me from acknowledging that digital has come a long way from its humble beginnings.

I think the reason I respect film more over digital is the amount of time it takes, when doing things yourself, to get things right. I'm not talking about putting it through a machine, I'm talking about the getting your hands dirty approach to black and white processing. It takes at least 15 minutes of diligence on your part to develop each roll when you have multiple films you shoot. Then you must go through every frame to choose the best. Then you must go through the entire process of enlarging, printing, and drying. Black and white photography done the old way can be an all-day affair...and that is why you see photos with more passion come from a film camera. You really have to love the process to do it all. You have to appreciate each step. A great man on APUG said something that I now say whenever someone asks me why I'm still shooting film: "I love the smell of fixer in the morning." It's true. I truly love the process of developing film. I know that once I get space for printing I will truly love that also.

Then again, if someone truly loves the process, this can be true for either digital or film photography.

It all comes down to whether or not you have passion for your craft. Without passion and love for what you do your work becomes flat and lifeless. So, regardless of equipment, passion is what is required for any good photograph. Passion and a good eye. The equipment is just what we use to let that passion through in a form that someone else can enjoy.

 

[Finder]

Well I can't agree with Stephanie. Acetic acid is really the thing that gets you going in the morning.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

For me it's fixer and coffee. Mmm...caffinated goodness.

The coffee, not the fixer.

 

[IGMeanwell]

I personally have fallen in love with the MIS Inks plus the C88 printer... for both my digital and film prints

They look equally good and because of my experience with both... I believe I have gotten very close to make my film vs. digital very hard to tell a part

I am posting three images tell me which ones are digital or film (you can't cheat I got rid of the exif data)

 

[Dfin]

G`day,IGMeanwell, I`ll take up the challenge and say that the flower is a digital image, but I`m really only guessing.

 

[IGMeanwell]

I'll let others play along before I give the final answers ...

but I like the fact you are guessing

 

[goo0h]

I am posting three images tell me which ones are digital or film (you can't cheat I got rid of the exif data)

Well, everybody knows that the Guinness is the real deal! 😉

 

[Pherdinand]

i think the flower is digital. Or the scanning was screwed up 😀

 

[IGMeanwell]

Here is a hint ... there is only one that is film

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

To tell you the truth, it's hard to tell from your three samples, IGMeanwell.

It looks like you've processed all three of them the same way for the final image. Only the brightest highlights are clipped, but I can only attribute that to your digital workflow in posting the three pictures. They are also downsampled to a point where one can't tell for sure if there is grain or noise or pixelation. This can only be discerned from a medium (~ 8"x10") to big print.

What looks like "grain" on the Guiness bottle picture could very well be clipped shadows or improper colorspace mapping (yes, from scan down to final image); when there's a colorspace mismatch, you get some effects just like digital noise.

So, trying to make film on the same playing field as digital, or viceversa, with these three samples, is not fair, because there are so many variables.

If I were to go simply with the main differences in all three of them, I'd say the cat picture has smooth shadows, and there is only one area of deceivingly blown highlights (but I attribute that to your post-processing). That would be film. I don't know what level of processing you've done to any of these three, though.

 

[IGMeanwell]

I wasn't trying to deceive anyone .. but merely trying to show that in my particular experience I have been able to capture that film feel without real effort. A matter of being "fair" is missing the point ... I am not trying to oust film or say digital is superior. Its a matter of showing that when all is said and done, if I post images many will have a hard time telling the difference.

Working in a darkroom or on the computer you do the same amount of dodging burning ... you try not to get too much gain or over cook the images.

as far as colorspace on the guiness photos ... you are way overthinking about the image; its a matter of high ISOs and poor light ... I have ISO 1600 images that are virtually grainless and some that are like that guiness photo that have heavy grain.

The cat photo had blownhighlight due to the scanning... I didn't have any post processing done on that photo... just straight scanned and resized

I can tell you that actually when printed all three of those images are very close to each other in terms of grain ... the bottle is obviously has bigger and more obvious grain

Cat: Film
Flower: Digital
Guiness: Digital

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm the only one who said "cat", then?

I can see what you're saying, and that's also what I meant with so many variables; scanning is a huge deal, I've seen many photos whose tonality have been shot down by either the scanner or lack of "scanning workflow" knowledge.

Thanks for showing what was behind curtain #1, Monty. 😉

 

[RdEoSg]

Well, everybody knows that the Guinness is the real deal! 😉

except when it comes out of a friggin bottle.. Vile it is.....

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

except when it comes out of a friggin bottle.. Vile it is.....

Very true. Burned, reheated coffee tastes better than that. On tap, much better.