What is wrong with the "digital Look"?

Allen Gilman said:
If you know what you're doing, you can "process" a RAW to an infinite number of looks. What gets lost in all this debate about the film vs digital "look" is that there is no homogeneous digital look. I've processed and seen Canon files that do look too smooth for my tastes and, yet, on the other hand, I've had Canon files that don't have that look at all (as well as many that people can't tell if it's digital or film). It all comes down to your chops. The only thing that gets revealed when someone says they hate the "Canon plasticky" look is that person's lack of skill and understanding with what you can do with a digital file. The only way you get there is by throwing yourself in the water and doing the necessary tinkering to see where you can go.
Click to expand...


Thank-you Allen, this is the point I was trying to make....also there is no homogeneous film look either... if there was there would be no need for dif film , devs etc. As you say it comes down to the skill of the person processing their digi files....

as I said

One thing I will say is that with film, if you don't have the knowledge or facilities...you send your film off to be processed...BUT with digital you grab that raw file and have a hack...maybe these are the results that look "digital"... maybe what is being pick up as "digital" is just poor control...
Click to expand...
 
sorry bronekkozka - looks like I just repeated what you were saying actually...happens when you post just after you've woken from a nap :p
 
One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks! going to start comming and comming! asking more stupid questions, like which lens is the best for M8 :D :D :D ofcourse that is what Leica wanted, and also it might be good for forum, but for me its not :D
 
I enjoy the process of using an old camera to shoot photos on film, and somehow I like the way photos look on film better. That said, I do like the convenience of digital for certain things.

Forgive me if this link has already been posted somewhere around here, I can't remember where I found it:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

It's an article about Magnum photographer Alex Majoli, who won the 2004 Magazine Photographer of the Year with photos he shot with digital point & shoot cameras. I guess I'm going a bit off topic, but I was amazed with the images he was getting with those consumer cameras.

btw, before digital he was a Leica shooter :)
 
"One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks! going to start comming and comming! asking more stupid questions, like which lens is the best for M8 "

From where I'm sitting, seems more like you luuuuv em :D Ahhh, ambivalent affairs...can't live w/ em, can't live w/out em
 
adep said:
I enjoy the process of using an old camera to shoot photos on film, and somehow I like the way photos look on film better. That said, I do like the convenience of digital for certain things.
Click to expand...

That is something that has not and does not get discussed in all this "pixel peeking" debate.... How does shooting film or digital change the look f the image...and what I mean is how is the shooting approached, the approach to the subject....how does instant feedback change things....

I shot a project in western Kenya a few years back, it was a series of portraits , all shot on meduim format (Fuji rangefiner) and 35mm (leica+Nikon)....it all worked well.... it was shot just before I was getting into digi capture. Since then I have done a lot of enviro portraits generally now on digital....being able to show and share the image with the sitter is something that has changed the interaction (for me for the better)....in many ways I wis I could go back to western Kenya again (I will) and shoot with a digital, be able to show and share....and make it more of a collaboration... I realize that showing the image will not work for all photographers all the time...BUT....if you want to talk about how digital is changing things maybe this line is a little more interesting than pixels....

One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks!
Click to expand...

....maybe this will keep them at bay :)
 
Allen Gilman said:
sorry bronekkozka - looks like I just repeated what you were saying actually...happens when you post just after you've woken from a nap :p
Click to expand...


I think you said it more sussinctly anyway

Take care


Bronek
 
... I shoot digital quite alot lately. Much more than I ever intended too. There clearly is a difference, not better not worse, all a matter of personal taste. I am allways a bit dissapointed by the sharpness, not the overall sharpness because you can alter that, but the levels of sharpness in a digital picture..... there is none..
Well there is obviously but film shots have a much more natural feeling to them.

You get DOF with 5D for instance, but it's definately not the smooth DOF you can achieve with film.

Also the saturation can get really out of hand if you don't monitor this carefully.

But then again it's a totally different form of photography to which even photographers are getting use to, apart from that with the right stuff digital is so easy and fast to do (good or bad ? .. who knows)

I do see a bleak and expensive future for film because digital cameras are getting better and better, so are the tools for post processing. It will not be long before you can electronically convert a "cheap zoom" image to a Summicron 50mm type of image, you can allready convert digital images to any kind of film, you can create grain etc. etc. The end result of all these tools is certainly not as good as the original, but noones will ever notice without taking their 10x schneider louped along to exhibitions
 
But then originally this thread is not a film vs digital thread, but the sudden change of heart by some people since the introducton of the M8 and over all their arguments for all of a sudden "liking" digital images, it's like the M8 has brought digital photograhy up to a point of acceptance for some people.

Let me stress again I have the M8 with the new 28mm, it's a leica it's relatively compact and it's a total dis-investment, I new that before I bought it, but I just wanted the camera and the lens. I have don quite some testing and although the difference between my fuji f30 and the M8 can be seen it is definately not worth the 30x or so more investment. compared to the 5d, which we also have is non-existent, the value of leica lenses in digital photography.... none. and I know there will be people trying to justify the value of there leica stuff by bringing up lots and lots arguments about lpm, this that and the other.... it is just not true!
This is my point all these pseudo arguments about the M8 being better, producing beter results ... bull****. I'v said it before there is no visible gain between an M8, D5, D80 or even D70 or any other semi pro digital camera with adequate lenses. I even doubt if anyone can see the difference between a 649$ Sony R-1 and an M8 with 28mm 2.8

Perhaps only if you are into hanging 1200% sized images on your wall will you spot any difference, but wants 1200% inages on their walls anyway
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's interesting that you feel that leica lenses have no value in digital photography. I've found the lens to be twice as important as with film. When I got a 50/1.4 for my canon 20d it transformed my opinion about the camera and digital in general. My experience is the opposite of yours digital made me a bit of a lens freak!
 
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.

I don't know if you are refering to the Canon 50mm 1.4, but look at the price difference between it and a Leica 50 1.4. This is exactly what I mean ....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Digital photography is a lot like digital sound recording. For some reason, in spite of their deficiencies, the old analog recordings sound more 'natural' than modern digital recordings. That's not to say that one is better than the other. There is at least one big advantage to digital, and that is the signal-to-noise ratio. For example, digital recordings have no tape hiss, which is the curse of analog recording (unless it is filtered out, which then adversely affects frequency response), and digital images have much less grain than film. However, as with sound recordings, non-digital (film) images seem more natural, less clinical somehow. Logically, I think digital should be better in every way, but for some reason my brain/eye don't agree.

Richard
 
Magnus said:
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.

I don't know if you are refering to the Canon 50mm 1.4, but look at the price difference between it and a Leica 50 1.4. This is exactly what I mean ....
Click to expand...


Look at the MTF tests on www.photodo.com and you'll see that the Canon scores higher than the Leica overall. I'm not saying that MTF tests are by any means the last word in judging a lens but I don't think that just because the leica lens is six times the price of the canon, that means much either. Leica charges a premium because it's leica. You are paying for the name and hand made craftsmanship, but that's not to say others can to the same at lower prices with a different philosophy.
 
Toby said:
...I don't think that just because the leica lens is six times the price of the canon, that means much either...
Click to expand...
What...???? Obviously it means that the Leica is six times better than the Canon. Everybody knows that. Get a grip on reality, Toby. :D

Richard
 
there's nothing wrong with the digital look i just love all those rainbow colors with high contrast subjects and those sharp backgrounds beautifull really beautifull beatifull faaaar better then ANY FILM
 
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Girl with Kaleidoscope eyes, I love the Beatles.

Richard.

jaap said:
there's nothing wrong with the digital look i just love all those rainbow colors with high contrast subjects and those sharp backgrounds beautifull really beautifull beatifull faaaar better then ANY FILM
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes I think digital, like Leica's current asperical lenses in harsh lighting, results in a very clinical look and I find that abrasive to the eyes. Certainly, good photographs can be taken with any medium, which parenthetically cuts both ways, but if I had my druthers I prefer the look of film, especially B&W film over B&W digital. I've never been too impressed with B&W digital images, but I've never sat down and analyzed why.
 
Toby said:
It's interesting that you feel that leica lenses have no value in digital photography. I've found the lens to be twice as important as with film. When I got a 50/1.4 for my canon 20d it transformed my opinion about the camera and digital in general. My experience is the opposite of yours digital made me a bit of a lens freak!
Click to expand...



I agree totally lens choice is very important, some of the crap they are putting out there and selling with digi slr is shocking....put one of those canon 18-55 pastic mount zooms on any camera...and guess what it will still be rubish , be it film or digital.
 
Magnus said:
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.
Click to expand...


Hi Magnus...I can't agree with you here, I have tried to use lenses that were fine for film....just don't cut it for digital.... even just in the canon world...using non L glass on a 1dsMk2...just does not cut it....even some L glass isn't there.... I know guys that with older blad kits that are struggling when the whack a 22 or 39mp back on there cameras.... Lens quality becomes more important with digital

bronek
 
...is it still a "film look" when a neg is scanned...
Click to expand...

Yes! Scanning film, slow and annoying as it may be, is also the best of both worlds, asthetically speaking. You keep the look of film, but you also get the tremendous advantages of the digital darkroom, too.

Digital capture has two clear advantages over film that I can see. Resolving power, and lack of high iso noise. Film has two big advantages over digital. Natural skin tones right out of the camera and dynamic range. Film has one final, arguable, advantage over digital that seals the deal for me: A digital file can't be made to look like film, particularly in B&W. Film has a sense of depth, fullness and tonality that digital just can't match. Disagree if you must, but I can tell the difference 9 times out of 10, even on the web.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom