what's considered a digital looking image?

[peterm1]

Speaking for myself I have never understood this phrase. Or let me qualify it - not when speaking of images striaght from the camera. It is true however that I have occasionally seen over-photoshopped images (skin like satin etc) that look artificial or unrealistic. Other than that I honestly believe I have never seen an image that makes me say - "that is a digital looking image".

 

[Godfrey]

To me it means this:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40068222
See it all the time in most glossy magazines.

That's just fugly. There's a reason I don't buy glossy magazines... ;-)

G

 

[squareshooter]

I showed some of my black and white (film-based) photographs in an art gallery for a while but most of the photographs shown there were digital. Most of the digital color photographs looked like they were printed using a second-rate type of color printing process. The colors were off. They reminded me of the old Anscocolor from the 1940s and 1950s. I suppose if you have never seen good film-based color prints you would think the digital ones were okay. But you give a kid a real home-grown tomato these days, not one from the supermarket picked green, and he thinks the real tomato tastes funny.

 

[Bill Clark]

Digital has really improved, so much so it can be hard to distinguish from a film photo.

Some areas that can make a difference:

I find digital printed on an ink jet printer is getting closer to a darkroom print but the AgGel still has a certain look to them. A plus with an ink jet printer are all the different types of paper available.

Also I see over processed (Can do this with scanned film negs as well!) photos. Skin too perfect, eyes over worked as the white is too white, using the liquify tool to tuck in here and there, make arms look thinner, swap heads, change bodies and other things.

Large prints are easy with digital. At least that's my thoughts. I have a 40x30 that I've shown to folks. Tough to get the same quality unless using a large format neg.

Easy to move digital files with the internet. Easy to share digital files.

Film takes more time. Environmentally, consideration to chemicals and disposal, water use. The set up for film is different than digital.

There are other elements to consider. It's not one is better than the other period. There are pluses and minuses for each.

 

[Godfrey]

I didn't say that did I? If so let me clarify. I prefer the way the shoulder of a film compresses the highlight in order to render several stops of information in that part of the curve.
If you put your specular (paper white) parts of those highlights on the white then the diffuse highlights (often 4-5 stops) can be recorded close.

That's not badly rendered just an honest difference between the two mediums.

Didn't mean to imply that you did, but it's easy for folks to get the wrong impression from what you said.

While film compresses the highlights for you chemically, digital sensors record the most information in the highlights. The key is learning how to expose the digital medium properly, then, in rendering, separate out the highlights by modifying the gamma correction to achieve the tonal values you're looking for. The standard gamma correction in most raw conversion software is often too blunt when set to the defaults to do the job for finely differentiated work.

Proper exposure for a digital sensor is also different from proper exposure for your favorite film/developer combination. With film, you're generally the most concerned with getting enough exposure into the shadow areas to work with, and the chemical compression of highs retains the data you're looking for. With digital, the primary concern is placing the Zone IX exposure so that you don't lose data to sensor saturation, and the challenge (given a sensor with adequate dynamic range) is adjusting the gamma curve drivers to place the tonal values where you want them.

How you render the different mediums to best effect requires different skills. Film photography and darkroom printing requires a feel for the slippery slopes of chemical interactions. Digital photography underneath all the tools requires a feel for the mathematical transformations of image processing.

There are, of course, differences and limitations to both mediums. And the end results will be different in nuance based on a) the technology of the capture, b) the scene, c) the skill of the photographer in capturing the exposure properly, d) the quality of the software used to render the image, and e) the skill and vision of the photographer in rendering.

As Michael Johnston titled a recent blog post, "Photography Is Difficult". Both film and digital... ;-)

G

 

[squareshooter]

Large prints are easy to make with digital, huh? Somebody please tell me how to make a test strip, an inch wide, for a 24x24 print on my overpriced Epson Stylus Photo R2880. It will only make full size prints and if it is off my dough is thrown out the window. If I want to use glossy paper in the matte setting it will not print. Heaven forbid I do anything different with this digital monster. An why have I spent $500 for various colors of ink when I have only printed b&w on it? I don't think I need Deep Mauve to print b&w or whatever those colors are in this beast.

 

[Photo_Smith]

That's just fugly. There's a reason I don't buy glossy magazines... ;-)

G

I took my little daughter to the doctors this week and browsed some, and while I honestly wouldn't put forward they sucked because they were digital, they sucked because of the current aesthetic of the smooth skin and ultra sharp hair-eyes and lashes.
I just find it disconcerting, that everyone wants a barbie doll look and to me that's plastic skin.

I guess I remember the crayons, and airbrushing that went on in the 1980's nothing quite as bad as the current 'Vogue' but still awful.

I think when we say something 'looks digital' we mean it doesn't look like film, or what we think looks natural. I have heard people say XX camera looks 'filmic' which is even more curious IMO

 

[Photo_Smith]

Large prints are easy to make with digital, huh? Somebody please tell me how to make a test strip, an inch wide, for a 24x24 print on my overpriced Epson Stylus Photo R2880. It will only make full size prints and if it is off my dough is thrown out the window. If I want to use glossy paper in the matte setting it will not print. Heaven forbid I do anything different with this digital monster. An why have I spent $500 for various colors of ink when I have only printed b&w on it? I don't think I need Deep Mauve to print b&w or whatever those colors are in this beast.

I use Epson 2400 and HP designjets and even though I print B&W on them (sometimes) they still use colour inks.
I took a look at my mono prints from the 2400 and can see lots of LM an LC dithered in with the K LK and LLK.
The thing that slightly freaks me out is my favourite inkjet paper is more expensive than my choice in Siver gelatin FB paper–now put ink on it!

 

[msbarnes]

Film can look very different--I find that Fuji Acros looks digital which is not necessarily good or bad, just an observation.

 

[f16sunshine]

I think viewing monitors instead of prints creates the majority of the "Digital look".
For me though...it's harsh color and tone transitions.
I commented on the tomato image posted from your new 27 (BA).
The image was definitely a torture test for lens and digital sensor (as well as Post SW).
Flat green over bright shiny red. It looked quite digital to me. Not sure it would look any different unless printed.

I think that grain (even applied grain in PP) can help this sometimes. It's creates a longer transition for colors and tones giving the image a more animated, warmer, and lifelike appearance .

My 2c

 

[Photo_Smith]

I understand the Acros point, it can look very smooth especially in MF. I think though it retains just enough character when processed in Rodinal but yes its a very neutral film.

 

[thereabouts]

Hmmmm. My 2 cents.

I've been using Photoshop to zoom in on digital images (scanned from film and transparency and also digitally created) for the best part of twenty years. I'm a designer, it's my job.

Can I tell the difference between a scanned film image and one from a digital camera? Sure. But (all other things being equal) I can also tell the difference between an image taken on a low end point and shoot digital camera, or cameraphone and one taken with a high end dSLR, for example. But then, as people upthread have said, there's also a difference between medium format transparencies and 35mm negatives (especially in high-end scanning, in my experience).

Scanned film will show film grain, a different kind of noise to digital noise and so on. But, low end digital images will have digital artefacts which are not present in high end images.

But that's all zooming in.

Zooming out again, blown highlights? Again, depends on the camera and the photographer. With film, I personally find overexposure allows me more leeway for recovering blown highlights in Photoshop. With digital, I tend to underexpose slightly (if I feel there is a danger of blown highlights). I find this allows me to bring out more detail.

In 'normal' view – printed, or on-screen viewing – I'd be suprised if anyone spotted the difference between any of my Sony Nex-7 images and my Canon P taken images (assuming I'd bothered removing the dust from the scans 😉 ).

But that may be just me and my style of photography, as much as anything else. My images tend to be gritty and 'grainy' irregarless of the medium. But I'd still be suprised if I could spot the difference between a printed 12x8 colour landscape taken by a skilled photographer on either digital or film.

That's not to say there isn't a difference. Sure, I can sometimes notice how the highlights in the sky of digital images can blow out quite noticably. And perhaps black and white film does have a wider (or differently balanced) density range?

But I think it's as much in the aesthetic of the using the medium, than it is in the result. I take different types of images when I use film. But I also take different types of photos when use a dSLR, than when I use a Nex-7 or my cameraphone.

 

[Keith]

It's the unanswerable question IMO because people immediately draw a comparrison to a film image.

It's like someone asking for a description of a cat and being told it's nothing like a dog!

 

[daveleo]

I do think the question is unanswerable because it is not specific enough;
but it is basically asking "what do you mean when you say a picture looks
too digital" and gives people the opportunity to comment, but again
answers will be all over the place because of that.
Are we talking about prints? Monitor images? Color or B&W? etc etc etc

For me, Photo_Smith (below) explained something that I could not. I do
see this often, but did not understand what caused this "look" - I need to
do some homework on how to deal with this effect.

Sure Jamie, film can give blown highlights, but then burning them in during printing gives a very different look than blown digital highlights. What I see is a very sudden saturation and bang 255,255,255.
Film tends to roll off more gradually, not always and has limits, but mostly is better so it's not the blown highlights it's the way the two different mediums treat that situation.

The "plastic-y" comments in my mind don't apply strictly to digital - I can do that
on my computer to a scanned film image - horrible "look" I agree.

 

[ferider]

There are three aspects to this, Joe:

1) film grain vs. digital noise
2) Tonal response, colors, contrast, etc.
3) Digital vs. wet printing

Regarding 1), I think you know. Hard to summarize in a single statement because there are a lot of degrees of freedom. Depends on which film/developer, ISO capabilities of the digital camera, etc. But I think most of us see the difference when a picture is blown up enough.

Let's skip 3), since I assume that you are talking about looking at an image on a monitor (the difference will largely depend on exactly how you print digitally or wet).

Regarding 2), modern monitors have a dynamic range of 8bit / color.

With modern scanners or digital cameras, 12-14 bit/color dynamic range is typical. Depending on the film, a film camera can produce a negative with up to 17bit dynamic range or so. However, you have to scan it to end up on your monitor, reducing that range to the dynamic range of the scanner (or less). And: whatever input (film or digital) you use, the additional 4-6bit dynamic range of a digital camera or scanner over the monitor's 8bit is enough to mimic any tonal film response digitally; provided, of course, that your picture was exposed correctly. Therefore 2) reduces to nothing. Somebody claiming a difference just doesn't know how to use photoshop.

If you look at the final picture on a monitor, digital vs. film means noise vs. grain. That's the only rational difference.

Roland.

PS: now, "what's considered" is not necessarily rational, but that's another story 🙂

 

[redisburning]

it's funny but the things I think of as typically digital are declining in use.

where images look the most "digital" to me, or at least what I associate that word with, is in harsh daylight. the truth is that in these situations digital still looks horrendous to me, in the way listening to Heifetz in iTunes MP3 quality does.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This is why I don't like b/w digital:
Too much detail where it is unnecessary. Narrow DR, even if manufacturers and gearheads claim it is wide.
Too clean or too noisy, but both are digital. Lifeless and boring.

At the color digital - HDR is 99% over-processed crap. IMHO.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Sure Jamie, film can give blown highlights, but then burning them in during printing gives a very different look than blown digital highlights. What I see is a very sudden saturation and bang 255,255,255.
Film tends to roll off more gradually, not always and has limits, but mostly is better so it's not the blown highlights it's the way the two different mediums treat that situation.

I agree with everything you've said here. But I think these conversations about the look of digital vs film tend to dwell on extremes. Today, only a little bit of care is needed in making a digital exposure that offers plenty of wiggle-room when it comes to PP.

When it comes to prints, I've found that I have just as many 'keeper' digital-based prints as I did when I was making them in a darkroom. One of the things I love about digital now is that I can expose to limit highlight problems, and then in PP I'm able to recover much more of the shadows than I ever could in the darkroom. Maybe its just me, but with modern sensors and PP software I feel digital files give me MUCH more latitude during PP and print making than I ever had in the darkroom. And I can do it MUCH quicker than I could've ever done in the darkroom.

I think the "blown highlights" complaint we hear of so much on the web is just a vestige of the early days of digital when sensors had a very narrow dynamic range.

 

[rluka]

Only if the film image is looking "sharp but blurry". Can't really catch a nice grasp of it, but it looks… wet or something. This is with digitally scanned result, not print.


To generalize, IMO most of the digital is still in the it-can-be-better range, could be saved with skillful processing. Unless it's a garbage to begin with.
Most of the easily visible garish colours are because of the logic that translate what the sensor capture instead of something inherent from the digital sensor itself, CMIIW.

Overdoing the processing is also the person's choice instead of the medium.

People that use HDR program's or excessive amounts of the "clarity" slider in Lightroom

I remember commenting a picture like that in a Facebook group; overdoing the clarity made the picture unpleasant to look at. The photographer's response is that he's making the picture for a gallery website and the curator like these kind of processing and thus more likely to get through the selection, so he made it like that.

 

[Keith]

Those clarity sliders should be renamed the 'let's make this picture look like crap' slider ... it's a horrible effect and is being over used to my eyes.