Just for Fun

Just for Fun

  • First

    Votes: 15 33.3%
  • Second

    Votes: 14 31.1%
  • Both

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Neither

    Votes: 3 6.7%
  • Who gives a hoot - I'm grumpy

    Votes: 11 24.4%

  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .

Gid

Well-known
Local time
8:05 AM
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
1,794
Location
Suffolk, UK
Not scientific at all, but I'm interested in people's opinion. Which is film, which is digital and which do you prefer
 

Attachments

  • test1.jpg
    test1.jpg
    116.3 KB · Views: 0
  • test2.jpg
    test2.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 0
They are both digital since we are viewing them online. That's what's always been the wierd thing to me: If digital has a certain "look", why wouldn't all photos viewed online have that look, since they are all digital?????

/Ira
 
Topdog1 said:
They are both digital since we are viewing them online. That's what's always been the wierd thing to me: If digital has a certain "look", why wouldn't all photos viewed online have that look, since they are all digital?????

/Ira

Yep, this kind of thread comes around now an again.

It's like the old Memorex recording tape commercials with Ella Fitzgerald hitting the high note and breaking a glass: "Is it live, or is it Memorex"?

Neither, its a recording on videotape being transmitted as radio waves (at least during the broadcast era) and being reproduced by the tinny speaker in my portable TV! 😀
 
OK, notwithstanding the previous comments re: they're both digital. I'll take a stab at it. Pic #1 is digi, #2 film. #2 seems to show some grain, and the highlights appear less blocked out on my monitor versus #1.

Ron
 
again, both have been scanned, and are therefore digital, but I think that #1 was taken with film, #2 with digital capture. The appearance of the OOF areas in the darker part of #2 remind me of digital images taken with my cameras. Similar to grain, but too regular in arrangement.
 
Maybe I'm on a limb but I say both are film, the first one is a C41 film (either B&W natively or desaturated after scanning) and the second one is a "real" B&W silver film.

Maybe not.
 
Grumpy speaking here.. 😡

I really don't care which is or is not film. Both have no colour, so you first need to learn how to scan! 😡

Now, where's my morning dose of caffeine? Grumble, grumble..

Schllllrrrrppp....

Ah.. now there, that's better! 😀

First one looks smoother (digital?), second one looks grainier (film)... 😉
 
Last edited:
pvdhaar said:
Grumpy speaking here.. 😡

I really don't care which is or is not film. Both have no colour, so you first need to learn how to scan! 😡

Now, where's my morning dose of caffeine? Grumble, grumble..

Schllllrrrrppp....

Ah.. now there, that's better! 😀

First one looks smoother (digital?), second one looks grainier (film)... 😉

I think the smoother image is film...and the noisier one is digital...but then maybe not. I really don't care. Nothing is as it appears these days. That's why I love film. I can hold it, so I know it's real.
 
The Answer

The Answer

The first is digital, shot with an M8 (Raw) and 90 Elmarit M at 2.8 at ISO 1250. The second is also digital, shot with an Olympus E400 (jpeg) and ZD 50mm Macro at ISO1600.

This proves absolutely nothing of course. Personally, I prefer the Olympus shot in spite of the noise, which is interesting when you consider that I could buy 5 of those for one M8 and size wise there isn't much difference (both 10MP). Please note that I am not Leica bashing - I own both of these cameras and each has its speciality.
 
Back
Top Bottom