markjwyatt
Well-known
I think Fujifilm has come the closest to changing that perception, but I admit I mainly use RAW with my XT-2.
My First Digital Photography Impressions
- Thread starter giganova
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 91
- Views 5K
I think Fujifilm has come the closest to changing that perception, but I admit I mainly use RAW with my XT-2.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I don't want to be source of rude awakening, but it is 2019.
It is same as posting about typing on keyboard first impression.
While most stopped hand writing decades ago 🙂.
It is same as posting about typing on keyboard first impression.
While most stopped hand writing decades ago 🙂.
retinax
Well-known
I prefer film because I want to make darkroom prints, I like the cameras and the process. But I don't buy into the idea that scanned film can't be matched by digital capture (except in rare situations). So if your goal is digital images anyway I think you should stick with it a bit and figure your exposure and post processing out, and set the camera up to your liking (all the stuff that you've found distracting can be turned off). Don't throw the towel after these first impressions, especially seeing that these were made in uninspiring light with too bright skies.
I'm not sure if you're doing JPEGs or processed your own RAW files, but if you do the latter you should be able to get close enough to what you've been getting from film scans. For black and white, adjusting curves, disabling noise reduction and reducing sharpening to very moderate levels should get you at least 90% there.
I'm not sure if you're doing JPEGs or processed your own RAW files, but if you do the latter you should be able to get close enough to what you've been getting from film scans. For black and white, adjusting curves, disabling noise reduction and reducing sharpening to very moderate levels should get you at least 90% there.
markjwyatt
Well-known
Get used to underexposing the foreground a bit (in RAW), capture the sky, then bring up the foreground.
giganova
Well-known
I have to admit that I have not seen any digital b&w photo that I liked, with the exception of Jacob Aue Sobol's photos -- and I have no clue how he does it (except for cranking up the contrast like there is no tomorrow). But I am not a fan of his "spray & pray" style, shooting a picture every ten seconds and sending his thumb drives with thousands of photos to his editor at the end of the day.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Do these look flat and lifeless?
shawn
Veteran
This is completely adjustable on the Fuji's. While looking through the viewfinder press the disp button on the back and it will change to a different display with less info on it. You can also go into the menus and pick and choose what is or isn't displayed in the EVF and on the LCD including having nothing at all but the image. Set the camera to EVF only if you don't want to look at the rear display. Or get a case that covers the LCD.
Shawn
shawn
Veteran
If you are using ACROS and want grain crank up the ISO. Acros works differently in that instead of trying to simply remove noise it replaces it with grain. This is for JPEGs produced in camera, not using lightroom and RAW files. It looks different then if grain is just overlaid on top later on.
For example this is ISO 10,000 with Acros OOC JPEG.
Use the ISO as a grain level control with Acros.
ISO 1600 SOOC JPEG
ISO 3200 SOOC JPEG
Shawn
giganova
Well-known
Not at all, these look wonderful -- except for the sky in the first image, which is too smooth for my taste (but that might be my personal preference).
Paulbe
Well-known
The M4 is your friend! Never obsolete! Always forgiving! Love it!
Paul
BTW---your digi pix are fine...
Paul
BTW---your digi pix are fine...
peterm1
Veteran
In a sense I think that many of the complaints about technology and digital shooting being made by some here suggest that they are conflating a number of different grumbles that taken together make them sound a bit like neo-luddites.
Now please understand that I am not being gratuitously rude in saying this. It is not meant as an insult - it is even OK to be a "luddite" - we all have choices to make about how we prefer to work in this art. But I have to say I think some of the complaints may be ill founded. I don't agree in general with an idea that film is inherently superior to digital. In a technical sense, quite the opposite is true in reality. Even the critics of digital seem to grudgingly acknowledge this when they say or imply that digital images are "too sharp," for example. I can even relate to this up to a point as I often deliberately wind back the sharpness in my imaging by applying blur or textures or other techniques in post, designed to get a more artistic result and a less clinical look in the final image. Whether I succeed or not is for others to decide. But my point is I do not blame the technology (which gives so many other benefits) and besides if you have an image which is "too sharp" for your desired outcome you can always make it less so. Just not the other way around. In other words I do not really see this as a problem of itself.
On the other hand, I can say I understand that some "prefer" the look of film - this is an entirely personal and subjective thing for that person.
I also understand that some people prefer working with film and all of that this involves as there is a certain "craft" element involved that many find magical - many people prefer a craft way of working involving a high degree of effort to get a result. I understand that impulse. The original luddites were opposed to mechanized mills taking away their livelihood and deskilling them. But even today some people make a good living out of the craft of weaving their own wool, knitting an artistic product that they have design themselves and selling it at comparatively high prices in boutiques. There is a kind of analogy which springs to mind here, with people who prefer working with the film process, it seems to me.
Now please understand that I am not being gratuitously rude in saying this. It is not meant as an insult - it is even OK to be a "luddite" - we all have choices to make about how we prefer to work in this art. But I have to say I think some of the complaints may be ill founded. I don't agree in general with an idea that film is inherently superior to digital. In a technical sense, quite the opposite is true in reality. Even the critics of digital seem to grudgingly acknowledge this when they say or imply that digital images are "too sharp," for example. I can even relate to this up to a point as I often deliberately wind back the sharpness in my imaging by applying blur or textures or other techniques in post, designed to get a more artistic result and a less clinical look in the final image. Whether I succeed or not is for others to decide. But my point is I do not blame the technology (which gives so many other benefits) and besides if you have an image which is "too sharp" for your desired outcome you can always make it less so. Just not the other way around. In other words I do not really see this as a problem of itself.
On the other hand, I can say I understand that some "prefer" the look of film - this is an entirely personal and subjective thing for that person.
I also understand that some people prefer working with film and all of that this involves as there is a certain "craft" element involved that many find magical - many people prefer a craft way of working involving a high degree of effort to get a result. I understand that impulse. The original luddites were opposed to mechanized mills taking away their livelihood and deskilling them. But even today some people make a good living out of the craft of weaving their own wool, knitting an artistic product that they have design themselves and selling it at comparatively high prices in boutiques. There is a kind of analogy which springs to mind here, with people who prefer working with the film process, it seems to me.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Thanks for showing your photographs here. Nice job. Beautiful around the area where the Lone Cyprus (in color) is located. I went to school in San Francisco for the military and drove down on Highway 1 a few times. I had a 1969 VW bug! California is beautiful.
My experiences:
Going to digital capture (2004 first camera was with a Canon 20D and I still have it.) was one of the best decisions I made when I was in business.
For process I went fron a darkroom to an iMac and Photoshop.
RAW capture.
At any rate, as a working photographer (now retired!), I could write a lengthly paper on digital.
I only use black and white film, not very often now and use my analog darkroom as it’s what I used starting in the late 1950’s.
My 2 cents!
My experiences:
Going to digital capture (2004 first camera was with a Canon 20D and I still have it.) was one of the best decisions I made when I was in business.
For process I went fron a darkroom to an iMac and Photoshop.
RAW capture.
At any rate, as a working photographer (now retired!), I could write a lengthly paper on digital.
I only use black and white film, not very often now and use my analog darkroom as it’s what I used starting in the late 1950’s.
My 2 cents!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Good thread but I find the description of an XT-3 as a 'digital monstrosity' interesting! 😕
markjwyatt
Well-known
Nice images. I talked a bit about that here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2876662&postcount=8
I have shot Acros in camera, but have not tried X RAW Studio yet.
giganova
Well-known
I went around the corner to the Capitol and took nearly-identical shots: digital vs film!
One with the Fuji X-T3 and one with a Minox 35 on HP-5. Very light touch in Photoshop for both, no cropping. I shot with the Fuji in color (Provia profile) and converted it to b&w in Photoshop, then another one with the in-camera monochrome profile (Acros profile). The differences are very subtle, so I post the one with the Acros profile here.
Judge for yourself:
Fuji X-T3:
Minox 35 on HP-5:
One with the Fuji X-T3 and one with a Minox 35 on HP-5. Very light touch in Photoshop for both, no cropping. I shot with the Fuji in color (Provia profile) and converted it to b&w in Photoshop, then another one with the in-camera monochrome profile (Acros profile). The differences are very subtle, so I post the one with the Acros profile here.
Judge for yourself:
Fuji X-T3:
Minox 35 on HP-5:
benlees
Well-known
Do a wet print and then a decent digital print. I bet the difference will be less than you think. Then get back to us. Comparing a scanned b&w film picture to digital on the internet is pointless.
giganova
Well-known
Its not pointless because I can only post digital files here. 😀
peterm1
Veteran
I went around the corner to the Capitol and took nearly-identical shots: digital vs film!
One with the Fuji X-T3 and one with a Minox 35 on HP-5. Very light touch in Photoshop for both, no cropping. I shot with the Fuji in color (Provia profile) and converted it to b&w in Photoshop, then another one with the in-camera monochrome profile (Acros profile). The differences are very subtle, so I post the one with the Acros profile here.
Judge for yourself:
Fuji X-T3:
Minox 35 on HP-5:
Sorry film fans but I much prefer the digital rendition in this instance at least.
giganova
Well-known
Peter, I agree that the digital image looks very good. The main differences are 1) overall sharpness and 2) how grain breaks up monotonous areas. Other than that, they are surprisingly similar.
finguanzo
Well-known
So which one is film and which is digital? 😛
Similar threads
