Is It Digital or Is It Film?

[x-ray]

Looking at my Pnet settings tonight I ran across a gallery that I had set up a couple of years ago. I have three galleries on photopic and one is mainly film RF which you will quickly see and two are a combo of fillm and digital SLR. May of the images of musicians were shot with my 85 1.2 canon wide open and many at 1200 ISO. Can you spot the digital vs film and why do you think it is digital or film. Open the link and look at the first gallery and then click the index and look at Broadway/ Nashville. This could be fun to see if you know.

http://ddpyls.fotopic.net/c55975_1.html

 

[ywenz]

images are too small and too processed to be able to tell.

The wide angle one however was shot on film.

 

[dmr]

Here's a thread from about a year ago that started when a co-worker of mine swore that some photos I shot were digital.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7869

The conclusion was, IIRC (I didn't re-read all 8 pages of the thread) that it's very difficult to tell.

 

[anaanda]

on the computer screen its hard to tell, but when you see prints... especially with black and white you can see the difference between film and digital

 

[sf]

way to tell digital from film is to look at the grain pattern. Digital has a very distinctive grain pattern (noise) in certain tones and transitions.

In bright scenes, it's the DMAX and DMIN and the look of colors that gives it away.

Digital has to be manipulated to have the living look of film.

I'll say, however, that the RD-1 produces really nice B&W. On screen, at least.

 

[J. Borger]

NO .... it's impossible to tell!

I never understood the focus on "capturing on B&W film vs. digital" where a lot of people at this forum stick to film but choose a digital print as an end-product, calling it a hybrid workflow.
THat never made sense to me. Biggest differences are in print.

Or am i missing something ... are the diferences also there pinting both files on the same inkjet?

Or is it the wet print vs. digital print (inkjet or from lab) where the real differences come in?

 

[sunsworth]

Anything printed on a Fuji Frontier or similar is a print of a digital image.

Steve

 

[J. Borger]

Anything printed on a Fuji Frontier or similar is a print of a digital image.

Steve

Yes i know ..... so does the difference between a digital captured image vs. image captured on film show in those prints? Same with inkjet (With QRIP on an Epson 2200 on Hahnemuhle Photorag for instance) does the capturing device really make a difference here?
Or is it the traditional wet darkroom B&W print that makes the real difference???

I never considered going back to film an alternative unless starting wet printng myself ... that's why i ask.

Or the other way round .....does it make sense to move to film or stick with film if you prints are digital anyway?

 

[sf]

NO .... it's impossible to tell!

I never understood the focus on "capturing on B&W film vs. digital" where a lot of people at this forum stick to film but choose a digital print as an end-product, calling it a hybrid workflow.
THat never made sense to me. Biggest differences are in print.

Or am i missing something ... are the diferences also there pinting both files on the same inkjet?

Or is it the wet print vs. digital print (inkjet or from lab) where the real differences come in?

tell you what, the difference between a digital print from a full res scan of a 645 frame is ENORMOUS compared to a print from a digital camera of 12 or 16 MP. Of course, this all depends on the resolution and color/tonal gamut of the printer. I think that maybe a film-scan-PS-lightjet workflow would be very effective. At 11x14 or so, there is no comparison needed - the film origin product wins easily. But this requires very high end prosumer level gear. You're not going to beat a D2X with any 35mm camera and a flatbed scanner.

The issue of digital prints is real. But, the margins are shrinking. I can produce prints on my relatively middle of the road Canon Pixma IP5000, from 4800dpi scans of 35mm, that are very very nice. At 10 inches from my face, I honestly can't tell the difference between the inkjet print and a traditional print.

Now, with printers like the new Pixmas, the Epson R2400, and the HP 8750 - and of course the professional lines, people are getting better prints from inkjets (in terms of tonality, clarity, accuracy, etc., than they did with standard traditional printing methods.

Where this discussion breaks down is on the level of craft mastery. How good are you at traditional printing? how good are you at digital? Are you willing to spend a few hours creating a print in the wet darkroom that would make Ansel Adams happy? If so, you are going to beat any digital workflow out there. If you're not, and you have the tools to do it digitally (from a film scan), you're going to get mighty close to what would make the old master happy.

 

[sf]

Yes i know ..... so does the difference between a digital captured image vs. image captured on film show in those prints? Same with inkjet (With QRIP on an Epson 2200 on Hahnemuhle Photorag for instance) does the capturing device really make a difference here?
Or is it the traditional wet darkroom B&W print that makes the real difference???

I never considered going back to film an alternative unless starting wet printng myself ... that's why i ask.

Or the other way round .....does it make sense to move to film or stick with film if you prints are digital anyway?

weather the digital or film signature is visible is due to some factors :

1. the quality of the scan. Flatbeds hide grain. Some do funny things to tone curves to protect shadows and highlights - this creates some artifacts occasionally. Especially when you're trying to get that information back into alignment with reality.

2. The quality of the film/ development. Are you making hte most of the media? Or have you or the lab been clumsy? I've gotten some negs back from labs that looked awful - and remain awful throughout the printing process.

3. Are you scanning the neg with a high DMAX/high color depth scanner? That makes a big difference. Between my Epson 3170 and the Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, the difference is 1000%. So is the price. . . .literally. and a half.

4. Are you printing on a printer that can create similar resolution to a traditional print? Perfect blacks and perfect whites . . .as perfect as paper gets . . .?

If you take a digital file and compare it to a film scan or scan of print with equal resolution, you'll notice better, more accurate, deeper, wider color range coming from the film. So long as you shot the proper film in the proper lighting and at the proper ratings - and then developed it properly.

A very well done traditional print is going to beat anything digital unless you're spending $$$$$ on digital backs and supremely nice printers and photoshop to fix all the color weakness and highlight trouble in the files.

The real issue is cost. If you're a 35mm person, chances are you can find a digital solution that will provide you with good material and save you lots of film and processing costs. But then you ahve to consider the disposability issue of digital cameras - new one every year or two. Not because they are upgraded, but because they break. If you're looking at medium format, it's a no brainer - film, wet or scanned, is better than digital if you're working with grain res files.

I've seen 11x14 prints shot in 12MP - at a local wedding photographer's studio - and I knew they were digital immediately. I can just "See" it. They look plasticy, and on close inspection, the imaging artifacts are obvious. You just have to know what you're looking at. I have a giant traditional print from 6x7 (a wedding shot of my parents) that is just immeasurably better. But, now most consumers can't tell the difference. And most of that breed of pro are manipulating hte images to mask the digitalness of them.

If I were a pro, and I didn't care about my work personally, I'd shoot digital no problem. But because I shoot for myself, forget it.

 

[J. Borger]

Thanks for those insights George. Seems obvious there is a lot more to consider.
I print (B&W Only) on an Epson 2200 with Qrip on Hahnemuhle Photorag paper ... and the results are good .... satisfying as long as you do not try to mimic a traditional wet print and accept it's a different medium. It's far better from anything i ever got from a lab ...
But i still think the printing stage is the weakest link in my workflow, therefore my initial question.

 

[Andy K]

Isn't it about time whats left of this horse climbed back in the glue pot?

 

[Socke]

I second Andy here.

There realy is no definite answer, if you get what you want it is the right tool for you.

 

[x-ray]

I agree the B&W printing process is the big issue with digital. Color is no big deal but B&W doesn't look like a wet print. I print about 90% of my x-ray art with archival pigments, piezography or Epson, and use photorag or moab entrada. Both papers give a stunning print but it's different than a wet print. To me it looks more like a platinum / palladium than a silver. It's not bad but just different. Recently I've been experimenting with getting high res 4x5 B&W negs made from my digital files. With a little more testing I think I will have it but the downside is they are about $45 each. My goal is to shift about 50% of my work to silver based printing and keep 50% digital pigments. Each are nice and appeal to a different group of collectors.

My point in the digital or film question wasn't a sharpness or grain issue. My point was to illustrate the versatility of digital and ability to deal with adverse conditions that would be tough with film. In the Broadway / Nashville gallery all the images were with my old Canon 1Ds and all the images in the Musicians of the TN Valley were 1Ds with the exception of the fiddler which wasshot in the 80's with a Nikon F2 and 15 Nikkor on Velvia. The bar scenes were where digital excelled under terrible low light and mixed sources. The Musicians of the TN Valley were shot under very dim interior lighting in a very old school house where these guys meet on friday night. A couple of them were shot outside under late dusk light and under street light. Film could handle this but at what expense with heavy grain. I'm not saying grain is bad because this is one of the things I like over digital. I like a grain with character like found in silcer based film. For my taste digital is too clean for many of my images and film adds character.

The point, different tools for different jobs. There is no one best for all subjects.

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

 

[erudolph]

Hi Don.... I agree with you that digital prints can be very appealing. For about the last 18 months, I've been printing with the UT-7 inkset on HPR. Recently, I got a K3 printer and have been printing on the new Innova Fiba-Print Glossy F paper. The new setup can produce great blacks and the results are much, much closer to wet darkroom prints. However, as I said on the DigB&WThePrint forum, I sometimes find myself missing the subtle beauty of the HPR UT-7 prints.

Ed

 

[J. Borger]

Don,

Your images are stunning ... no matter the gear.
And like i said .. i'ts impossible for me to tell the difference.
Is the piezograhy word the hassle compared to conventional Epson ink with Qrip on HPR?

 

[x-ray]

I just recently sold my Piezography machine, after buying a 7800 and 2400 Epson. I like the QTR with them enough to sell my pieqography machines. The Piezography system that i used was an Epson 7000 with the pieqography software. Now they use QTR which I think will be superior to the old software and much cheaper. The problem with the Piezography pigments was head clogs and banding. I also had a 1270 converted and had the same issues. The new K7 pigments may have solved some of the clogging and banding problems but I have no experience with them. the quailty of the final print was great but no better than K3 printing and with the Piezography that I used you were locked into a specific color. I like the ability to use cool or warm combinations with the K3. I also had a 2200 converted to bulk pigments from Sundance. I personally like them much better than the Piezography and the software was superior. The wownside was less stability in the warm pigments which require using a Hahnemuhle UV spray on the final print. It's wasn't a big hassel and you could'nt see any evidence of a spray on the print but it added cost and time to the process. I produced a couple thousand fine art prints with both processes and must say that the Epson is equal if not better in many ways. It's enough of an improvement to get me to sell 2 2200's a 7000 and a 7600. I now own a 2400 and a 7800 an do the same work with half the equipment.

It's good to hear about the Inova paper. I recently read about it and have been wanting to try it. I don't know if I want a gloss but a luster or semi mat will be the best for my work. i want to have a surface much like I get with air dried gloss Ilford Warmtone.

As good as the pigment printing is and as much as it has worked for my business I still love the darkroom and wet prints. I have recently introduces a series of fine art prints of my x-ray work which are all silver gelatin archival prints in editions of 12. I'm only producing them in 11x14 at the moment at a higher price than my pigment prints. The good part id they are more for the collector rather than someone decorating a house and the price is about 50% higher. the other good thing about these prints is the look and the enjopyment of getting my hands in the developer again.

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

www.x-rayarts.com

 

[Cooki]

I second Andy here.

There realy is no definite answer, if you get what you want it is the right tool for you.

Yah what they said. People who spend so much effort justifying their digital images vs the alchemy of photography, just don't get it; they are not the same thing, you are comparing Chickens to eggplants :bang:
Digital imaging is based on the ability to excite electrons. Film Photography is based on the ability to corrupt silver. We each get to decide whether we prefer one over the other.
Personally, I excite for pay,and corrupt for pleasure :angel:
Carpe Lux
Cooki

 

[J. Borger]

I just recently sold my Piezography machine, after buying a 7800 and 2400 Epson. I like the QTR with them enough to sell my pieqography machines. ....................

Don,

Many thanks for the thorough reply on the printing issue ....... i really appreciate it!


Kind Regards

Han

 

[John Camp]

I'm with the dead horse faction.

The problem with these discussions are words and phrases like "better" and "not as good." In my view, silver and digital are simply different. Is platinum better than silver? Doesn't look the same, that's for sure. How about palladium? Most wet-process people would recognize the futility of such arguments, but many don't seem to see the same futility is the wet vs. digital discussion. If you go to digital sites -- the Luminous Landscape -- the idea that silver might be "better" in any way -- in color presentation, in b&w, in paper selection -- is simply dismissed out of hand. The argument's over. The opposite tends to be true here.

What remains true is that silver prints look somewhat different than digital.

So. Which is better, water color or pastel?

JC