Transition to digital ?

[sfaust]

PS: Stephen, I'd love to hear from you any advice, tips, etc. you might have on how to make digital images look more like film. This is one of continuing struggles with digital...

One of the things you will struggle with are P&S cameras for all the obvious reasons, but also some that people may or may not be aware of. The sensor in the camera is basically your film. P&S sensors can not match the quality of the larger high end sensors. They are smaller, not as sensitive, have more noise issues, etc, all which translate into lower quality. But most P&S cameras are also aimed at the consumer crowd, and much like the super saturated films were, the cameras are tweaked to produce saturated contrasty and sharp images. When you move up to the professional level sensors, the images a cleaner, less noise, and less 'tweaked'. The fact that you can also shoot raw helps a great deal.

To give an image a film like look, first its best if you shoot in RAW. You also need to understand Photoshop levels and curves fairly well. This helps you massage the various layers to fix the contrast and saturation of the image. Adding in some film grain will also remove the tell tale sterile quality of a digital image. And playing with the sharpness to reduce it, but still maintain a sharp image is another step. Usually its done by sharpening and blurring individual channels to achieve a more realistic look. Its beyond this thread to go into all the steps, but the above is basically one of many ways to achieve that look.

If people see very clean, sterile, high contrast, and tack sharp images, they assume its digital. But, if you remove the sterility, match the contrast and saturation of a given film stock, add in some real grain, and reduce the sharpness just enough, it looses that immediate identification with digital and will pass most peoples radar.

But what most people with digital cameras do is quite the opposite. They increase the saturation, over sharpen the images, and add more contrast. And there is no way that will ever look like film.

If you really want to purse the film look with digital, I can dig up some old pointers to good tutorials on the net that if followed in Photoshop will result in an image that will easily pass as film. Just send me a PM.

 

[Socke]

Bertram, it's not that bad with a dSLR, I still shoot my three year old D60 and up to now there was no Canon SWAT team forcing me to upgrade to a 10d a 20d and a 5d 🙂

But one argument against digital is a very valid one, if you don't like it, it will not work for you, and nobody can argue you into using something you don't like and have fun with it.
That is the reason I spent more on my Contax G system then on the Canon D60 and I don't save much on film 🙂

 

[Bertram2]

A lot of what you are describing Bertram is the failings of the middle and lower end digital cameras. In that sense, I have to agree with most of your comments. But, let me address it from the higher end cameras like the EOS 1D Mark II ($4K new), the EOS 1Ds ($3K used), and the EOS 1DsMarkII ($8K new). These are the cameras that really make images comparable to 35mm film IMO.

Stephen,

I meant cameras like a D70. D350, 20D, or Minolta D7 indeed and I haven't seen enuff results of the above mentioned top cameras to dare any judgements.
Those prosumers are the cameras friend of me own and use, and let me tell you there are some among them who are real champs in film photography, these guys know what they do and they are experienced in postprocessing too. Nonetheless the results suffer from the deficits i mentioned.

What I could see so far tho is that the top cameras you are talking about are undoubtedly better at all points I listed as deficits.

But even if they were good enuff to make the results acceptable for me a price of $ 4000 to $8000 is so far out of everything what I would be willing to spend on a camera body that in principle it does not make sense for me to discuss it.
I always refused to spent such money on gear, not for a Leica M or R and I won't do it for a digital SLR either. MY pics are so mediocre, I am only an amateur and from an amateur's standpoint I cant see what sense it could make to invest such big money.

Desaturation: No problem in principle for me, I meant desaturated pics from a digital camera only. Scanned negs look very different from that, I myself quite often do that and like it tho even with film it's different from silver B&W., a third was so to say.

Concerning the lack of a material source :
You say it means nothing and state it's only a different medium. Maybe a misunderstanding: My prob is that there is NO real "medium" any more, you see?.
One can have different opinions about it.
To make my POV clearer let me compare these pics with kids with no biological parents ?
Thinking about this point since quite a while I realize that there is an essential
thing in photography changing.
Holding an old neg in my hand I feel a direct linkage to the past, to MY past, it is something like a proof that I really existed in those days and that I had been there. Blowing some light through it it proves it with a print
Holding a DVD in my hand I feel nothing.
You will say that's MY prob only and I will answer you maybe, maybe not, that is not THAT important.
Important for me is more to explain my POV, why there are good reasons for not beeing fond of digital cameras and that these reasons earn respect, as much respect as the reasons for using digital cameras earn.

I general the discussion always gets Kindergarten-like because nobody really respects the reasons of the other side.
I would not attack anybody ever because he shoots digital. I do not feel at all I should convince anybody to stay with film. I am not one of those agressive fundamentalistic birdbrains who keep themselves as an elite who is chosen to protect the eternal truth of photography. Some of that breed you can watch at APUG. Scanning negs is enuff sin to get ignored by them for ever.

No, I am far from all that. But I don't want to get attacked either because of saying I don't like it myself. To say that is NOT an attack yet but it is very often taken as an attack. At this point many DC users are too sensitive it seems.
After a while you give up to say anything about digital cameras, because you know it ends with unfriendly words necessarily .

Should not be. A matter of respect, that's all. The simple will NOT to offend anybody makes discussions possible first. Discussions are for explaining standpoints, NOT to find out who is "right" and who is "wrong".
All participants on both sides know they are right anyway, don't they ? 😀 😀 😀


Regards,
Bertram

 

[sfaust]

I meant cameras like a D70. D350, 20D, or Minolta D7 indeed and I haven't seen enuff results of the above mentioned top cameras to dare any...

I still believe it is most likely the case of a lack of proper post processing with the D70 and D20, as I have direct experience with both of those and don't see the issues you mention when processing from a raw image. I haven't seem much output for the Minolta or D350 to give you any opinion at all on those, but they are also difference sensors from the D70 and D20. The D70 and D20 have highly regarded sensors with a good reputation.

What I could see so far tho is that the top cameras you are talking about are undoubtedly better at all points I listed as deficits.

Thats really the only point I was trying to make in my last reply. Basically, not to judge the digital format on the failings of some models of digital cameras, and most importantly, those at low end of the spectrum. I still to this day see arguments that there is too much shutter lag, slow processing, auto focus issues, very slow startup times, etc. There have all be addresses in current cameras. In fact, my 1D MarkII can shoot 8 frames a second for 40 frames capturing raw + large JPEG images at the same time. Even for film, thats smokin fast! In fact you can't do that with a film camera, since you would finish a 36 exposure roll before you ever got to the 40th exposure 🙂

And yes, price is a huge issue, especially for personal photography. While 3-5 years ago, it was even out of the reach from all but the top photographers in the world, the cost is such that any professional photographer can afford the high end gear. When you factor in that most working professionals send more than the cost of a high end digital camera in film and processing, the savings will pay for a new digital body in less than a year. Add in another chunk of change for a high end computers, etc, and usually their investment will repay itself within a year.

For an amateur, its very different as you point out. $4K is a lot for a camera body, and unless you are spending $4K in film and processing, film makes much more sense. But, if you spend ~$150 a month or more in film and processing, a high end digital camera starts to make sense. It would take three years to break even, but anything after that three years would be free. So it really comes down to how much you shoot, and how long you will keep the camera to find the break even point between film and digital.

I was a die hard film fan, but the advantages finally outweighed the disadvantages for me over the last few years which caused my migration. For a professional, the advantages are very clear, as they are in the low end market as well. But for advanced amateurs, the waters are still muddy and there are barriers that need to be broken before it makes sense for that segment of the market. Higher quality in the prosumer cameras. Full frame sensors in sub $1000 cameras. Better tools for workflow that reduce the workload on the photographer. I think we will see that in the next 3-5 years. And maybe even a 11mp range finder that takes M-mount lenses as well. Yea!

And a side benefit of shooting digital is that you will shoot more. Every single person that I know that bought a digital camera increased the number of exposures they shot each month. Because there is no cost associated with film/processing each time the press the shutter, the did it more often. Mostly to try new ideas, experiment, just to see what would something would look like if photographic at an odd angle, or results of a filter, etc. And I think they learned faster and much more because of it. They old saying the quickest way to learn is to burn film. I agree completely. But with film there is a cost associated with it that limits the photographer. With digital, that barrier is gone and they can freely experiment to their hearts content, and with instant feedback. No waiting for the film to come back from the lab, then trying to remember what you were trying to do.

Even if one doesn't want to 'go digital', having even a cheap camera just to test ideas, play with new techniques and learn with benefit their work with film. The instant feedback associated with digital is a huge advantage in learning. I am surprised basic photography isn't taught with digital camera, and save the film and darkroom for the advanced classes. Learning all about aperture and shutter relations could be done so much faster with digital, so that when they moved on to film, they could concentrate on their art, and not as much on the basics.

I know some photographers that are still shooting film, but using a low end digital camera as their polaroids. They shoot it with the digital to see the results while setting up their shot, then switch to MF or LF for the final images. The digital allows them to work out all the issues that they used to rely on polaroid tests for. And worse case, if their MF or LF images get lost of fail to process properly, they have a 35mm DSLR image to deliver rather than nothing at all. It acts as a backup image, as well as a Polaroid test.

Concerning the lack of a material source :
You say it means nothing and state it's only a different medium. Maybe a misunderstanding: My prob is that there is NO real "medium" any more, you see?.
I'm still not sure I understand you, or just don't feel its an issue for me. I personally don't care if my image is held in my had as a negative or on a DVD. At that point in its life, its just in an intermediate stage and not important how its stored. What is important to me is the final print. Thats what I want to hold in my hand, to use for presentation, and thats whats tangible to me. Either way, if you like the feel of a negative in your hand as a tangible result, than thats what works for you and no one can argue that.


I couldn't agree with you more about discussions turning to arguments, and you said it very well! There are many on both sides of the discussion that take it all to personally. I hope the last paragraph in my last post made it clear that I feel as you do. I am not trying to sway anyones opinion, but just adding what I feel are very valid points regarding the differences between film and digital as I see if from using film for 20 years, using both for 5 years, and not pretty much 99% digital for the last 2 years.

I think Socke said it well. "if you don't like it, it will not work for you,...". In my opinion, that's the only argument one needs to make to validate their decision to use digital or not. I don't like the look, I don't like the cost, I don't like the workflow, or the opposite, I just like film! You just can't argue with that!

 

[pstevenin]

When I have decided to re-do some photos 5 year ago, I've bought a P&S digital canon ixus. As I was quite disappointed with quality issues, I went for an Olympus E-10 (35-135 f2.0-2.2) and I am still using it. Little by little I added some extensions and now it ranges from 28 to 620mm plus macro extension.
It is usable at 64 ISO but even there quite noisy. I do like this stuff because it is absolutely silent and using a beam splitter, there is no mirror and the viewfinder is usable-> 1/15 handheld is okay.

Then a year ago, I offered a brand new M6-TTL to my wife + a used 35 'cron for our honeymoon trip to argentina & chile.

What a difference!!!, now we complemented it with some other lenses, I've found a rolleiflex in a very mint condition, and I added a Olympus mju II I always carry with me.

I am going back to film, mainly for high iso usability in low light condition and b&W rendition.

The oly without flash is okay only in a well lit situation. So I still use it for family photos and specific ones (macro, tele), and I have stolen the M of my wife . Fortunately, she's waiting for our two boys birth (planned end of this year) and have little interest to photo these times so I eagerly waiting an MD full frame body to have mine!

 

[yarinkel]

Interesting poll but what about those who, like me, started with digital and are now doing the transition to film?

 

[sf]

wow - some heavy posters

wow - some heavy posters

some of you are really writers, huh.

I would be, but it is pretty simple in my case. Most of my shots are digital, but that is because I own two 4x5 view cameras a D70, and a little 35mm RF that is currently not working. It would be hard to take more 4x5s than digital shots, for obvious reasons.

Now, the real question IS :

How many of your keepers are digital captures?

For me, about 5%. Or less. None of what I print is ever digital.

 

[aizan]

i don't get many keepers with film...

 

[sfaust]

Writers, or just verbose? 🙂 I am certainly not a writer, but I am verbose. I tend to rather enter one long post, then a bunch of smaller ones 🙂

If I look at the gallery wall in my studio, I have about 25 images from 8x10 to 20x30. They are mostly digital, and printed to high end printers from a good service lab. There are a couple images that were done on 35mm and medium format film. Those will probably always be on my wall because they are timeless images for me, and I never tire of looking at them. I've got a few similar ones on digital prints as well that will always be there. The rest of the images get rotated with some of my latest work. When one strikes me as a long time keeper, it just never gets swapped out since I never tire of it.

But since I shoot mostly digital today, it makes sense that most of my keepers on the wall are going to be digital. If I shot all film, that would obviously be reversed. More interesting would be the ratio of keepers between film and digital for those that shoot both equally.

pstevenin,

You ran into the dreaded small sensor issue with that noise problem. The images from most low end cameras fall apart around ISO400. The high end cameras do very well at ISO800, and some to ISO1600. For an example of an image shot at ISO1600 on digital, check out this image. There was no special editing done to it other than what I do on all my images, film, digital, regardless of ISO. It was shot at ISO 1600 with a Canon 1D MarkII, handheld at 1/90th with a 85mm f1.2 lens and shot wide open at 1.2.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/5454/051101-Erica-_J1J0940.jpg

One of the stumbling blocks that kept me from going to digital with a good high ISO. I love to shoot candids at night, and without a high ISO and fast lenses, I just couldn't make the switch. Once I tested out the 1D Mark II I knew I could get excellent night shots. With the 85mm f1.2, the 50mm f1.8, and the 1D Mark II, I'm very comfortable again shooting digital at night. And I like the end result much better since the clinical look of digital works for me in this instance with less grain or noise that I would get with film.

 

[pstevenin]

pstevenin,

You ran into the dreaded small sensor issue with that noise problem. The images from most low end cameras fall apart around ISO400. The high end cameras do very well at ISO800, and some to ISO1600. For an example of an image shot at ISO1600 on digital, check out this image. There was no special editing done to it other than what I do on all my images, film, digital, regardless of ISO. It was shot at ISO 1600 with a Canon 1D MarkII, handheld at 1/90th with a 85mm f1.2 lens and shot wide open at 1.2.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/5454/051101-Erica-_J1J0940.jpg

One of the stumbling blocks that kept me from going to digital with a good high ISO. I love to shoot candids at night, and without a high ISO and fast lenses, I just couldn't make the switch. Once I tested out the 1D Mark II I knew I could get excellent night shots. With the 85mm f1.2, the 50mm f1.8, and the 1D Mark II, I'm very comfortable again shooting digital at night. And I like the end result much better since the clinical look of digital works for me in this instance with less grain or noise that I would get with film.

Wow, fantastic shot!

I know that noise at high ISO issue is solved more or less now, it was just to share the experience. I am definetely digital oriented, and as I do not own a full gear from either Nikon or Canon, I think the market is still moving too fast to invest 5 or 6 k€ to own it (at least for an amateur like me).
Regarding M Digital, as I own the lenses, it will be more than welcome (plus the environment, and slow handheld speeds, hard to achieve with a mirror)! Anyway, I am still looking for a usable DSLR that will be much better than the E-10 (which is still a good camera adding some noise ninja on it). I wish for x'mas a nikon D200 full frame (at least for the form factor) with a 50 1.4, a 15-35 f2.8 or even 2 a 70-300 f4 plus a X2...a good way to do manual focussing (I mean a real viewfinder) and an MD!!!

 

[jaapv]

Why don't you buy a used 10D. They are very capable DSLR's and dirt cheap now!

 

[JohnL]

I had a few digicams before I got my first DSLR, a 10D, just over 18 months ago, and I now have about 28K clicks on it. That would be almost 800 rolls of film, which would have cost me about $1600, minimum, for film alone, without processing. I already have a computer etc, so for me that was not really an additional investment, although I now spend quite a bit more on print cartridges!

In the 40 years before that (during which I sometimes had little time for photography), I probably took about 500 rolls of film. I think I have learned quite a bit more in the last year-and-a-half than I did in the preceding 40! Photography is something that you need to practise.

I still use film occasionally and intend to continue doing so -- in fact I "went back" to it after a few years of 100% digital -- but it doesn't amount to more than about 10% of the total. I use it mainly for when I want to get full mileage out of wideangle lenses (I don't have a FF DSLR, yet), when I want to experiment with things like multiple exposures, and for dynamic range, using color negative film.

This is just the way things have been going for me. Doesn't mean it's what anyone else should do, of course.

 

[Kevin]

I need the hard copy of film. It will save me troubles down the road.

 

[Richard Black]

JohnL,
I have had the opposite experience. Since the birth of my grandson 3 years ago, I have shot over 300 rolls of film and very little digital. Why? My mother shortly after he was borned. I had to go through her possessions and picked out the family albums which she kept for over 70 years. My family's history is in them photographically. She did not keep the negatives and some of the prints need to be reprinted. Yes, I know about digital restoration, but I decided to keep the negatives of my grandson so if he wants to reprint any in 50 years, he will have the option. I still am looking for a K-M 5d. I have a lot of K-M a/f lenses and it uses them.

 

[sf]

film - digital - film - digital - FILM! But the D70 stills gets used for unimportant things like selling on auction sites and taking pictures of myself making faces.

 

[dostacos]

well I mainly shoot film, have used a zoom digiPOS for some off road shots where instant gradification was the word of the day [lots of net posting]

now I am looking to become a church photographer.....But honey I NEED this digital SLR so I can down load the pictures right away. the church can't wait for the developing then scaning HONEST!

 

[Uncle Bill]

I will have be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. I am analog and proud of it.

Bill

 

[Socke]

well I mainly shoot film, have used a zoom digiPOS for some off road shots where instant gradification was the word of the day [lots of net posting]

now I am looking to become a church photographer.....But honey I NEED this digital SLR so I can down load the pictures right away. the church can't wait for the developing then scaning HONEST!

Repent! The end is near!

Sorry, couldn't resisit 😉

 

[Steve B]

Its situational. There are just some things that the instant gratification of digital works for. But sometimes when the subject is good, the light is good, and I'm lucky enough to have the R2 with me its still a pleasure to shoot film. Sometimes the instant gratification of digital isn't quite as pleasing as super saturated chromes on the light box and I still can't find a digital camera with a while balance setting labeled "velvia".

 

[jacema]

I have decided that the day I can't get anymore film, I'm gonna pack down my cameras, because then it's all over - no more photography for my part.

Jacques.