Telling film from digital ...

[jorisbens]

I think the main cause of the very large DOF is the small sensorsize on digicams, because the sensor is much smaller then film, they use lenses between 7mm and 20mm. And such lenses have a very large DOF. This problem is smaller, but still noticable, with DSLR's because with 1.5x longer focal length, you need an only 33mm for an 50mm equivalent.

I hope I explained it in an understandable manner, but my English isn't very good 😉

Joris Bens

 

[jaapv]

I just lifted these two from my gallery. Even in print it is practically impossible to tell which one is Digilux2 and which one is M6,TriElmar and Agfa RSXII.

 

[Andy K]

Scan the entire negative strip, including borders and sprocket holes, with those frames included and show him that. End of argument.

 

[Kin Lau]

Kin - can you explain to me why this is so? This observation has been bugging me for some time now. In my own limited experience, that flat "everything in focus" look is less apparent on the monitor, but is very obvious when printed on good quality photo paper. But is the reason due to the small sensor or is it the shorter focal length of the lens that created that efffect. (Of course I understand that a shorter focal length is needed because of the small sensor, but the direct optical effect comes from the shorter focal length lens. That is how I reason it out anyway.) Am I right, or is there a better explanation?

If this reasoning is correct, then that effect should be gone if a full size sensor and normal focal length lenses were used. If it is still there, then it would not be an optical effect, but might be a digital artifact.

Tin

That's it. My little digicam has a zoom that's about 7-28mm, a 35mm equiv of 35-135 approx, so you get pretty well a 7mm dof with a 35mm FOV. A 28mm OTOH, on my DReb is a 45mm equiv, so while DOF is still great than the film equiv, the effect is much less.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I attended a board meeting at city hall the other night and afterwards went in the elevator with 5 women, all city employees ranging from the city attorney to a secretary to a fellow board member. As we got off the elevator we faced the 11x14 portraits of the new mayor and 2 counclpersons along with the portraits of the 2 who'd been in office from the last term. The 3 new photos were done by my friend Mike Rifai who has switched to about 99% digital in the past year.

The ladies all remarked about how they didn't like the new photos. Comments ranged from "they don't look real" to "they look like they have on make-up" to "there's just something strange about them. I don't like them!" I pointed out that they were digital, not film, and had been extensively Photoshopped to perfection. No little wrinkles around the eyes, not a hair out of place, no character. Anyway, I don't think any of them will be going to Mike for photographs!

 

[Tin]

That's it. My little digicam has a zoom that's about 7-28mm, a 35mm equiv of 35-135 approx, so you get pretty well a 7mm dof with a 35mm FOV. A 28mm OTOH, on my DReb is a 45mm equiv, so while DOF is still great than the film equiv, the effect is much less.

Then this effect should also be observed in film cameras with shorter focal length lenses, such as the little Minox or even the Olympus half-frame models. Does anybody have any experience with these to make a comparison?

 

[Nikon Bob]

There may be a bright side to the very large DOF with the small digital sensors. They would allow you to shoot at much wider aperatures with slower settings like iso 50/100 and still get it all in acceptable focus. This could be a plus inside or in early or late day scenics. The photo is at F4 with the lowest iso setting of the Oly C5050. I think it shows the smoothness that I could possibly not get from a film neg scanned and the very large DOF at F4.

Bob

 

[Bertram2]

2D midtone photography, the digital collage look

2D midtone photography, the digital collage look

If this reasoning is correct, then that effect should be gone if a full size sensor and normal focal length lenses were used. If it is still there, then it would not be an optical effect, but might be a digital artifact.

Tin

The digital look will change maybe with a full size sensor but I expect it to look different from film also in future.
I ofte heard the worf "flat" when the digital look was described but i think the word does not describe the look completey.
Of course the huge DOF of the short lenses contributes, but so does IMHO the fact that it is only a crop of the lens' original pic circle. Somehow this "unnatural look is reinforced by the fact that most of the pic information consists if interpolated data.
The word that comes to my mind often is "collage", people or items in the foreground look like cut out from another photo and pasted into this one.
Maybe this is what others mean by saying flat ? To this is the absolute absence from ANY kind of depth , a 100% 2D impression.

Leaving aside the "Make up effect" of the interpolated colour data which can make look houses like built of colorful plastic sheets, the often blown out highlights and smeary shadows in digital B&W this 2D mpression is for my the most annoying if not to say deadly deficit of digital imaging.
I saw this effect at not only at P&S or bridge cameras but also on D70, EOS350,EOS20D. Haven't seen enuff full size sensor photos to say if they look better.
It's one of the wonders of analog photography what enormous 3D impressions some lenses can achive (Xenar, Xenotar and Planar for example) and to loose it would mean for me to loose an essential part of my tool.

What is fascinating most however is how lighthearted some old analog shooters
who really KNOW the art of taking fine pics accept all this as an unavoidable side effect so to say. Is it for an amateur so very bothering to scan negs with a good filmscanner for $700 and to go digital this way?

Best,
Bertram

 

[GeneW]

There may be a bright side to the very large DOF with the small digital sensors. They would allow you to shoot at much wider aperatures with slower settings like iso 50/100 and still get it all in acceptable focus. This could be a plus inside or in early or late day scenics. The photo is at F4 with the lowest iso setting of the Oly C5050. I think it shows the smoothness that I could possibly not get from a film neg scanned and the very large DOF at F4.

Bob

Yup, pluses and minuses to everything. I sometimes use a small digicam BECAUSE of its great dof. And I'll switch to 35mm or MF to REDUCE the dof. It all depends on the shot and what I'm try to achieve.

Gene

 

[dmr]

Scan the entire negative strip, including borders and sprocket holes, with those frames included and show him that. End of argument.

Actually I brought the negative in, but he's not in yet, or else he's doing a very good job of hiding. 🙂

 

[dmr]

I tend to think of the Olympus point-and-shoot (Stylus zoom), which is a 35mm film camera and which I do use regularly, as having that "everything in focus" trait. It's autofocus, it tends to stop down quite a bit, plus I almost always have a roll of Fuji 400 in there and I tend to shoot with it zoomed somewhere in the range of 35-50 most of the time. All of that adds up to a very liberal depth of field.

Attached photo is typical, everything from a few feet to infinity is quite sharp. In fact, you have to *really try* to get anything out of focus with that one. 🙂

 

[Tin]

I tend to think of the Olympus point-and-shoot (Stylus zoom), which is a 35mm film camera and which I do use regularly, as having that "everything in focus" trait. It's autofocus, it tends to stop down quite a bit, plus I almost always have a roll of Fuji 400 in there and I tend to shoot with it zoomed somewhere in the range of 35-50 most of the time. All of that adds up to a very liberal depth of field.

Attached photo is typical, everything from a few feet to infinity is quite sharp. In fact, you have to *really try* to get anything out of focus with that one. 🙂

But I don't think the attached picture is a good illustration. That picture has depth. The bushes in the foreground do not look like that they had been pasted onto the background scene.

 

[Sawdust]

Film vs digital -- hmmmm. The very best technical rundown I've seen is by an outstanding photog - ClarkVision.com. Worth a visit. Great photography and up front discussion.

Dusty

 

[Nikon Bob]

Dusty

I don't think this is a film vs digital debate but more or less how to tell the difference between a digital only photo and one from a neg or slide. It can be next to impossible by all the foregoing posts.

dmr436

you are right about your Oly P&S giving that big DOF look. Most P&S cameras have very limited shutter speeds and with 400 film they tend to stop right down to keep the shutter speed within range. This is even more so on a bright sunny day. With 50/100 film that might not happen. If I have used the DOF calculator that is on the web correctly, my Oly C5050 has more DOF at F4 than my film camera at F16 using equivient focal lengths and focussing distances. The DOF with these types of digital cameras is really insane compared to 35mm. Anyway, it is still really hard to tell the difference between the two outputs and harder yet to convince someone else. Can be very frustrating.

Bob

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

I have a couple of very good, in fact lifelong friends (a brother and sister) who have each been somewhat seriously involved in photography as amateurs, albeit mostly back in the '80s. Both are definite film snobs, and decry digital photos as being far inferior to film. We have engaged in several conversations, some relatively warm about this.
I shoot both film and digital. I shoot ALOT of both. And like most on this forum, I fit the tool to the task. Both film and digital are great, as far as I am concerned. Depends what you want to do with it.
Anyway, I had finally had it with these two digi-haters, and their snobbish air of 'film is for the serious shooter'. I gave them a portfolio of mine to examine consisting of both film and digital shots. Both B&W and color, some were inkjet prints, some were lab prints. I asked them to identify which were digi, and which were film.
After careful examination, they both agreed that the photos were ALL FILM 😛
They came away with a new perspective (and appreciation) of digital photography.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Good one, there are snobs on both sides but most people meet in the middle.

Bob

 

[RObert Budding]

I'd buy a digital SLR if I could use Zeiss AF lenses on it. The only current option that I'm aware of is to buy an adapter to fit manual focus C/Y mount lenses on an EOS body. I'd like AF to capture my fast-moving children during soccer games. Otherwise, the new Zeiss lenses on the RD-1 would be nice! Or a new line of AF C/Y mount lenses for an APS-sized sensor on a DSLR would work.

Hey, I can dream.

Robert

 

[Kin Lau]

I'd buy a digital SLR if I could use Zeiss AF lenses on it. The only current option that I'm aware of is to buy an adapter to fit manual focus C/Y mount lenses on an EOS body. I'd like AF to capture my fast-moving children during soccer games. Otherwise, the new Zeiss lenses on the RD-1 would be nice! Or a new line of AF C/Y mount lenses for an APS-sized sensor on a DSLR would work.

Hey, I can dream.

Robert

Aren't AF Zeiss lenses available for the Hasselblad and Contax 645 systems, and don't both systems have digital backs available?

 

[Richard Black]

I wish to propose a question. If the photo is taken with a film camera but the print is produced from a scanned negative, is it digital or a traditional photo. I took the picture below with a Mamiya Sekor C330f, 55mm Sekor wideangle, Tri X, but the local photo shop accepted the CD I scanned it on and made a fantastic 8X8 print. I couldn't image it better if done in a dark room. Thus my question! 😀

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

The answer is that it is both.

I just had a thought, in publishing there has been a relationship between film and digital since the 80's, as film was scanned then plates were made from digital files. My first acquaintance with analog film to digital files was with the Scitex system that was installed at Time-Life Books. The sytem had it's own set of clean rooms, one for the scanner and it's operators the others for computers and storage.

Now the same level scanning accuracy can happen on a desktop. Hopefully in a clean room.