Two notes about film vs digital.

[Ko.Fe.]

Here is couple of notes for film vs digital which just came to my mind after reading of two statements, ideas for several times. And my own confession at the end. 🙂

#1. About "digital looks same as digital".
Since I started to use film again, I was wondering. Are those who doesn't see it, how come?
It just appears to me, if I check pictures on my Panasonic "thoughbook" laptop or iPad - yes, it is hard to see the difference.
To process film and digital pictures and look at them I have computer at home. With powerful graphics/video card. It makes huge difference to enjoy digitized film.
On my iPhone all pictures are looking perfect 😀

#2. "To be able to learn about photography it must be film, single lens, fully mechanical camera." Like Leica thing.

I think, it is true only for "finetune" photography. Some really artistic aspects.
IMO, the best way to learn about photography fundamentals as addition to reading or youtubing is to get some simple, quick to operate digital camera.
Then switch it to M and take few thousands of different shots.
Results:
Because of M mode, you would have to deal with three major components - ISO, shutter speed and aperture. It helps to learn about exposure more quickly and more price effective comparing to film.
You could also practice flash photography much more easily with digital camera.

Confession:
I was totally clueless with film cameras. Just "auto" mode. For decades. For some reasons all of those books never rings the bell for me.
Only after getting into digital M mode cameras I was able to learn about exposure. Simply, because I could see my own picture right away.
Finally, all of those photography books were easy to follow, by taking instant digital pictures.
And... After taking of 70K+ pictures digitally I realized they aren't looking like film ones 🙂

 

[noisycheese]

Since I started to use film again, I was wondering. Are those who doesn't see it, how come?

I have found that it is true: Many - probably the vast majority of non-photographers as well as the majority of photographers - can't tell the difference between film and digital images.


Why? Most people do not spend a significant amount of time actually studying images. They quickly look at them and move on. This causes them to lack the perception to discern the subtle nuances of a film vs. a digital image. In other words, they have an untrained, undiscerning eye.

Not everyone is committed to photography to the degree that it takes to acquire a trained, discerning eye. I love classical violin music - but I do not have a discerning ear. I have serious doubts if I could tell the difference between a virtuoso like Joshua Bell playing a 1873 Remenyi Mihaly violin ($100,000 USD) and his personal violin, the 1713 Gibson Stradivarius (valued at nearly $4 million USD).

After taking of 70K+ pictures digitally I realized they aren't looking like film ones

Though many digital shooters will deny it, there is alot of truth in this statement. Many film shooters are emtionally invested in film photography; many digital photographers are emotionally invested in digital photography - therefore we have the ongoing debate of film vs. digital.

"To be able to learn about photography it must be film, single lens, fully mechanical camera." Like Leica thing.

"Must?" IMHO, not really.

But the film, single lens, mechanical Leica M approach is a demanding discipline; it yields many rewards for those who perservere to the point of acheiving mastery of that path, or at least proficiency. It is not the only way to learn in depth about photography - however, it is the best way. 😀

I realize that YMMV, so please disband the lynch mob... 😛

 

[btgc]

I have serious doubts if I could tell the difference between a virtuoso like Joshua Bell playing a 1873 Remenyi Mihaly violin ($100,000 USD) and his personal violin, the 1713 Gibson Stradivarius (valued at nearly $4 million USD).

I've heard some musicians believe modern violin can have better sound. Here comes how to recognize whom to trust, right? Trust players devoted to classic violins or to modern makes? So this is purely emotional decision as long as one can not hear difference personally.

Wood made violins are affected by storage conditions and patterns of use just like cameras are. Wood degrades over time, like rubber and some other materials in photo gear. They all need maintenance and care over time. Older doesn't mean better automatically. It always depends.

As for a layman telling difference - last year a local TV show offered same cheap wine to several persons, filled into different bottles. Feedback dramatically changed depending on look of bottle 🙂 We humans mostly are emotional beings.

 

[Photo_Smith]

i think more people can tell the difference than you'd credit; whether they'd be able to articulate those differences or be aware one is film is pretty much moot and dependent on the presentation.

I would say if you took 100 people and showed them a camera phone image printed on 16x20 paper then a large format 8x10 printed to the same size most would tell the difference.

Just like I can tell the difference between CD and Vinyl, cheap wine and and expensive, a 1959 Fender Stratocaster and a Squire Telecaster I think most people could also tell the difference not that they'd be able to say which is which just that their senses would notice the difference.

 

[Soeren]

I think only photographers and some people who really cares see and think about the difference.
Most dont because they really are not in to that line of thought. Either they like an image or they don't and only a few cares about how you achieved the look of your pics. Whether they could see and articulate different look between film or digital if asked? I think so but Im not sure I can all the time so....
Best regards

 

[Paul Jenkin]

There's so much software / technology out there that "simulates" the look of various film (cross-processing, polaroid, Silver Efex Pro, etc that unless the same scene is shot on both digital and film, many non-photographers (and even some photographers) wouldn't have a clue what they wer looking at.

Even when I've shot using film, I occasionally also use something like Silver Efex Pro or a Lightroom preset as a starting point to create a look that's to my taste.

Frankly, as a film and digital user, I'm really not hung up on this digital versus film thing other than to say that I prefer the process of shooting film more than digital. Can't really explain it. Probably something to do with the fact that I've shot film since the early 1970s. Other than that, happy to use both.

 

[Doug]

I wonder to what extent it's the defects in a particular medium that reveal it to our senses... grain in small-format film, chopped highlights and noise in small-sensor digital, dust and scratches on vinyl...

 

[noisycheese]

i think more people can tell the difference than you'd credit; whether they'd be able to articulate those differences or be aware one is film is pretty much moot and dependent on the presentation.

I would say if you took 100 people and showed them a camera phone image printed on 16x20 paper then a large format 8x10 printed to the same size most would tell the difference.

Just like I can tell the difference between CD and Vinyl, cheap wine and and expensive, a 1959 Fender Stratocaster and a Squire Telecaster I think most people could also tell the difference not that they'd be able to say which is which just that their senses would notice the difference.

I would think that the differences in the compairson you posit would be obvious to pretty much anyone who was not physically blind. But when you compare an 11x14 film based 35mm print to an 11x14 16x24mm sensor (or 24x36mm)digital based print, I remain doubtful that most people could recognize and describe the differences.

Most people would probably favor the digital print because it would likely be sharper than the film print - but sharpness is just one attribute of a photographic print and of image quality.

Digital images have a distinctly different visual fingerprint from film images. Based on what I have seen, those differences and the subtleties of film prints are lost on most people.

YMMV.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Kind of begs the question if most people would prefer the digital print because it would looks sharper and smoother would therefore be able to tell the difference?

If they couldn't they would have no preference or state they look exactly the same.

From what I've seen the majority of people can tell the difference, people aren't blind– the only time they get confused is when people using digital try to add 'filmlike' filters which I guess again owe their entire existence to those differences.

So although people may not be able to tell which is film, they certainly can see differences as in most cases (as in my posited example) they are not exactly subtle.

Digital images have a distinctly different visual fingerprint from film images.

Then basically we agree, and I think those differences can be spotted by a surprisingly large group of people in my experience–pretty much every student I have taught can see it.

 

[Ronald M]

I can only think of a few reasons to use film

Fun factor

Cost, film is much cheaper if only a few images are made. The bigger the format, the more true this is.

You like to work in your darkroom

Real photo paper prints are superior to inkjet. I have yet to see a wow color inkjet. The color depth is missing.

Alternative processes , cano type, van dyke

Even film that has been digitized looks like digital. Appropriate curves need to be applied.