what's considered a digital looking image?

[willie_901]

Every image you view on your computer screen is digital looking image.

 

[noisycheese]

In my view, it is an image that -

Has overdone hyper-sharp appearance
Has overdone hyper-contrast appearance
Has an unrealistic color shift

Please explain further... digital doesn't have to have any of these attribuites.

You are right, jsrockit - digital images do not have to have any of these attributes. Yet we see these attributes all the time.

Why is that??

In my experience, it is extremely rare to encounter work created by a digital photographer who strives to make his/her digital images look as much like silver halide based images as is possible.

The digital look is not "wrong." It is just different from the look of film images. By the same token, the look of silver halide based images is not "wrong" - just different from digital.

I am at a loss to understand why so many people seem to prefer the look of overcooked digital images. Over sharpened, hyper contrasty HDR digital images do not look like the world that the human eye sees in everyday life.

Whether a person prefers that look over an image that accurately represents the natural world as perceived by the human eye is a separate issue.

I am not saying overcooked digital images or HDR images are "wrong." They look manipulated and contrived. What I am saying is that these types of images do not look natural or look like what the human eye sees and reports to the brain.

Personally speaking, I do not comprehend the preference for images that look like fantasy as opposed to images that look like reality. If a person prefers visual fantasy over visual reality, that is their choice - but I still do not understand that preference... 😕

 

[Ranchu]

Wanting digital to look like film has everything to do with nostalgia.

It has to do with the greater brightness range captured, and the resulting tonality of film. I found that to be unavailable in digital, so I stopped using it because I had no use for what it was capable of. It's a technically and aesthetically based selection of what's available. Not nostalgia.

 

[Ranchu]

I am at a loss to understand why so many people seem to prefer the look of overcooked digital images. Over sharpened, hyper contrasty HDR digital images do not look like the world that the human eye sees in everyday life.

I think it's just that people flop around with the tools they're told are good. 'Unique' is as good an adjective as any after a few hours (days...years...) of that.

 

[back alley]

...or maybe to our eyes that is the look we like?
i'm fine with images that don't look like film.
i like higher contrast shots...not very high contrast...
sharp is good to my eye...tho i only use unsharp mask at low levels...

 

[Ranchu]

...or maybe to our eyes that is the look we like?

I didn't mean you, I was speaking of the extremes noisycheese was talking about.

 

[igi]

Does digital have to adhere to film standards? That's a good question...

 

[icebear]

If you love unsharp photos ..... Ok. I take the LR standards for sharpening, sometimes even increase this and use the sharpening during export. This is how I like it.

Everyone has a certain idea about how his/her images should look like. If your images look "unsharp" w/o extra digital sharpening, you might want to check if something causes out of focus or movement (either subject or camera) during exposure. If your image was sharp to begin with and you still like to crank up that slider and top it off with an extra dollop when exporting, then this is your choice but I guess the result is a perfect example for this thread 😉.

If a negative looks sharp on a light table with a 5x loupe, then everything was in focus and there was not enough camera shake to degrate the IQ visibly. I guess the same applies to a digital raw image on a screen.

I prefer no sharpening and no noise reduction on my MM files ... but that's of course just my personal preference😉.
And of course I love the important parts of the image to be in focus.

All this discussion, also about showing digital scans of analog prints here on RFF, as a 390kb jpg should no be taken too seriously😉. This is great to show your work and see what others are doing, to get feedback but the continued hammering of the technology (analog or digital) determining the "look" is not accurate, to phrase it politely.

If you hold it in your hand it MIGHT be analog, if you watch it on a screen in IS digital.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Since this looks to have become a film v. digital thread, here's another take on it.
This image has a good amount of digital pixellation and jagged edges.

😀
Phil Forrest

 

[clayne]

These comments about viewing analog based images on computer screens somehow making them the equivalent of a digitally captured image is such a crock. Look, the work has already been done by the time it comes out of the development tank. At that point, unless one is using a crappy scanner, the scanner is going to digitally represent an analog image. It is NOT the same as source capture being a CCD. Do not ignore sensitometry and the non linear saturation of the original source medium and additionally the presentation device/medium is not the source medium.

Guess what quite often is done to digitally multitracked audio in the studio? Final mixes are commonly bounced to tape and back into 2 track digital because of the pleasurable and positive benefits of the medium having to do with tape compression and saturation. Just because it went back into a digital device doesn't mean it's the same as the source. Conversely, multitracked analog tape mixed down to 2 channel and stored digitally is sonically different than an entirely digital process.

If you think it's also about sharpness and resolution you're way off the mark. A large portion has to do with making use of the medium to compress more range than normally possible without risk of digital clipping. Along with that comes all of the other beneficial aspects.

 

[back alley]

let's not get nasty folks...this thread has been exemplary in it's civility so far.

 

[icebear]

Don't forget that you have to resharpen if you resize an image. That's typically the case at the output stage.

In any case you can but you don't have to, whatever floats your boat to get you the print result you imagine.
You seem to be quite a sharp guy😉, sorry couldn't resist😀.

 

[lawrence]

Plastic. Too sharp. Blown highlights.

Yes, 'plastic' is the word.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Digital B/W - narrow DR.
Color - very often is over saturated.
Both - unnecessary detalization and image is often flat.

 

[jsrockit]

Digital B/W - narrow DR.
Color - very often is over saturated.
Both - unnecessary detalization and image is often flat.

Many of the same can be said for film though...

 

[icebear]

I assume marketing has had some serious influence when promoting digital cameras.
The results had to be different, with an immediate WOW factor.
Why would anyone buy the latest and greatest digital Canikon when the results look exactly like film ?

How is hifi equipment (middle of the road) sold ? The in store WOW factor.
And then people are getting bored after a very short period of time because it just doesn't sound right at home.
After half an hour listening you get nervous instead of relaxed.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Many of the same can be said for film though...

Well, even some oversaturated lomography is much more pleasing to my eye compared to some digital.

Yes, I sold my Yashica 124G Mat, because it was too sharp for me.
And I don't like Kodak TMAX b/w films because it looks kind of digital to me.

People with digital cameras trying to emulate film like appearance of their photos.
I never seen someone with film trying to emulate digital...

 

[back alley]

I never seen someone with film trying to emulate digital...

i have...plenty.
and that was before they invented digital even.
film users have long tried for smooth, grain free images...hence the history of different film/dev combinations...

i understand that you don't like digital...fine, but don't make a religion out of it.

 

[jsrockit]

i understand that you don't like digital...fine, but don't make a religion out of it.

It's cool to make a religion of it...

 

[icebear]

...
People with digital cameras trying to emulate film like appearance of their photos.
I never seen someone with film trying to emulate digital...

Maybe I'm a little picky with the language but you are obviously generalizing by a huge margin.
Of course some people do over sharpen and crank up saturation and clarity and what ever else there is to modify the look but this is how they like it.
It's not that digital has to have that look.

As for film users trying to emulate digital :
If you have a grainy image you can't emulate grain less unless you overdo noise reduction and then it will look like three layers of makeup 😉. How many discussions on film & developer combinations are out there, trying to figure out how to get the finest grain possible ?

Arcos 100 shot on MF will yield a certain look. The MM for example goes in the same direction but the color sensitivity of film vs sensor is different. And I don't try to emulate film look. I played around with SFX Pro and I don't like it at all. For me the presets look artificial.