what's considered a digital looking image?

[wintoid]

Any poorly processed digital file looks digital.

I agree mostly with what Ronald said. I think digital has altered the importance of talent/skill.

For snapshooters, I think prints from a digital P+S are much better than the results I remember people getting from colour film P+S cameras in the 80s, although perhaps advances in autofocus have helped a bit here.

For maximum quality, I think digital files need a lot of work compared to film. In the hands of an expert, I can't tell the difference. For a buffoon like me, often it's simpler to stick to film... choose your film, choose your dev, scan (or print) the negative. No sharpening, no HDR, no clarity, it just looks good.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I use both but have a bias towards film ...don`t see it as a problem.
Happy to have the choice.

Sanity is always refreshing

I also use both. I really like the clean look I get from digital colour but in monochrome, film has much more character, in my opinion, even after scanning.

 

[thereabouts]

One other thing crosses my mind. The number of steps taken. Each additional step of graphic reproduction, results in a loss (or change, if you prefer) of quality.

A film image is developed as a negative, or transparency, and then it is either enlarged and reproduced the traditional way, or it is scanned. That is already one step more than a digitally captured image (two steps if we include the negative development itself). A scanned image nearly always undergoes sharpening, tonal and other adjustments - it is simply a part of the process. Already we are adversly affecting an 'original' capture in a number of ways. And that doesn't even take account of the type of film used, dust, heat, how flat the the negative was on the scanner, the skill of the scanner operator and so on.

A digitally captured image, assuming we have exposed the scene as we wanted, is already binary. It is as sharp and 'clean' as a photo can be and it won't change.

None of which matters in the slightest of course! I still prefer film for my black and white photos (for the most part) and digital for my colour shots.

So, 'digital looking' or 'film looking'? It's a matter of prefernce and interpretation really.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

A good point of reference on the aesthetic differences between film and digital would be Salgado's Genesis project....

Good example.
I've been an admirer of Salgado for a while. I was very anxious to see the new Genesis book, and found the 'big' edition at the Taschen shop in LA. I was disappointed.

The man is obviously (still) a master. But, what i saw in the book left me indifferent to the work. I loved the grainy, impressionistic Tri-X of his work in the 70s and 80s. I don't really care for the 'larger format' look of more recent work. The subject matter is still dynamic and just as incredible as ever, but the rendering isn't what i became a fan of.

I've made this comparison before: it's almost like if Modigliani could have painted half of his works with a technique that didn't reveal brush strokes. When i view paintings in books, it's not an emotional experience. When i see those same works in person, i'm awestruck.

A simpler example: I've seen certain cars that are 'blah/meh' in certain colors. And, then, in one particular color, the design somehow seems to be so much better. Same form, same design. A detail changes the experience.

 

[jsrockit]

It's funny how an artifact (grain) has become the focus of what makes a photo work instead of not work. I'm not immune either... I sure as hell wouldn't want to look at clean Daido Moriyama photos...

 

[msbarnes]

It's funny how an artifact (grain) has become the focus of what makes a photo work instead of not work. I'm not immune either... I sure as hell wouldn't want to look at clean Daido Moriyama photos...

Me too. B&W images are supposed to have grain, for me. It is not just a digital vs film thing but I am moving away from Acros because of this reason. And with digital, I add it with silver efex.

 

[ferider]

It's funny how an artifact (grain) has become the focus of what makes a photo work instead of not work. I'm not immune either... I sure as hell wouldn't want to look at clean Daido Moriyama photos...

I used to build Tube amplifiers. Have often thought about the parallels ....

Moriyama with grain is like Anne Sophie Mutter with a tube amplifier

 

[furbs]

I have never been able to get truly satisfying color images with digital. Certain hues look "too" real, and downplaying them often sucks the life out of an image. I may set the white balance for an image then be unhappy with it the next day, or even the next hour. I can usually tell an image was digitally captured if its color rendition has no definite signature or interpretation to it - if it is exceptionally "accurate".

Obviously one can spend hours fiddling with sliders on a digital image, which negates the supposed time saved and convenience of digital. Or you can shoot without changing your white balance in an effort to emulate film, similar to adding grain in PP. These methods cancel the advancements of digital to look like film, which for me was never broken in the first place.

 

[jsrockit]

I used to build Tube amplifiers. Have often thought about the parallels ....

Moriyama with grain is like Anne Sophie Mutter with a tube amplifier

And the more obvious tape vs. digital in recording.

 

[redisburning]

I used to build Tube amplifiers. Have often thought about the parallels ....

everyone has a different taste.

grain and tube overdrive are pretty similar. how much you like can change and clearly some combinations fit certain circumstances better.

personally I play a strat into an 18w marshall without any boost. that's not that dissimilar from my favorite acros in rodinal 1:50. enough to notice but not too much more whether it be grain or distortion.

btw I'd consider something like acros in xtol to be akin to a super-strat with a Twin Reverb. not much character but there is still enough there to sound natural. but digital? like those awful solid state monsters Jerry Garcia used to play.

 

[back alley]

i have thought about buying the silver f-x software to add a little grain to my b&w's...but then realized that i really like that super clean, digital look!

 

[shadowfox]

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.

But... but, if we follow your suggestion, we'd be calling a hammer "the finger smasher" too.

The "crap" is the result of (ab)use or (mis)use of the slider.

 

[shadowfox]

...but then realized that i really like that super clean, digital look!

That can't be applied to *every* digital images.

Some images look better with a lot of texture (enhanced by grain in film).
Some don't.

So the answer to your question is: It depends on the image.
Digital is super for images that benefits from extreme details, and the lack of grain.

Film is extremely beautiful for images that is not like the above.

 

[Keith]

Digital is capable of producing an image that almost matches perfectly what my eyes see and this is the major difference to me ... there's no real structure. Slow colour emulsions come close but digital is totally clinical in it's accuracy by comparison.

 

[Ranchu]

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

I believe this is incorrect. You seem to be conflating dynamic range with number of bits. All more bits means is that more levels can be defined, not that there is any more dynamic range to be defined by those additional bits. Also, the film has captured around 15 stops of DR at capture, which is compressed into 10 stops or so on the film, then scanned comfortably into the DR of the scanner. Digital at best gets 14 or so stops flat from a to z, which then has to be given an S curve to look right, which increases contrast in the midtones far more than the LOWERED contrast in the midtones of film.

Just sayin.

 

[Aristophanes]

Colour film has better white area roll-off. I agree there. It's the one are where I can readily see where digital makes leap off the scale unnaturally to the eye in many, many cases.

Still, film can destroy shadows where digital (with today's terrific low-noise, high-ISO sensors) easily recreates what my eye can see. Nowhere to me is this more evident in shaded grass areas. Even some top slide films have a muddy look in areas.

I find it funny that some expound on the colour fidelity of film when there 's no such thing! Each emulsion made choices about what wavelengths NOT to reproduce. Digital is almost too true, which is where it gets its pejorative flat, boring, and (especially) sterile labels.

 

[redisburning]

accuracy is a good starting point.

digital photography has become considerably more tolerable for me as raw converters and post processing methods, wrt to color handling especially, have become better.

I was looking at digital pictures on flickr yesterday because of this thread looking at some lenses I like and was surprised at how hard it was to find a really poorly processed picture. then I searched for some cheap Canon lenses and was reminded about what I dont like to see.

btw I LIKE current fashion photography. I had a friend in grad school show me French Vogue at a time when I was OBSESSED with Moriyama and it really made me broaden what pictures I looked at. Granted I wouldn't shoot that sort of stuff myself, but I think it is often quite beautiful. Maybe a bit shallow, but nothing under the sun is perfect.

 

[ferider]

I believe this is incorrect. You seem to be conflating dynamic range with number of bits.

I use the correct definition of dynamic range of a digital system or signal. And the unit of Dynamic Range of a digital system is bits, as is the unit of Entropy. Bits in Information Theory are similar to "dB" used as a unit for Analog Systems. You can keep calling it "Stops" if you like, but I prefer to use established units.

Also, the film has captured around 15 stops of DR at capture, which is compressed into 10 stops or so on the film, then scanned comfortably into the DR of the scanner.

It's not compressed, it's transformed with loss: you can not re-generate the original signal (with 15bit Entropy) out of the 10 bit scanner output. If you could, you would have created - as we say in Information Theory - a Perpetuum Mobile.

Digital at best gets 14 or so stops flat from a to z

Flat or not depends on camera or scanner.

Just sayin.

 

[lukitas]

The analogy to sound reproduction has been barely touched upon here.
Vinyl vs. mp3, film vs. digital.
In both cases, comparisons are hazardous, because of the wide range of reproduction quality that can be obtained in each medium : 35mm Tri-X is no match for 4x5' FP4, 92bps mp3's do not sound as clean as 44.1 Khz per channel.

In both cases, analog is described with 'warm' attributes, and digital gets 'cold' ones.

In both cases, tempers get high, insults fly, and blows fall.

I don't know which is better than the other. Digital can be excruciatingly, scientifically detailed, exact and precise, but it is also the easiest medium to manipulate, in order to produce whatever fantasy one should wish for. and a lot of digital is quite frankly plasticky, in every sense imaginable. But so was a lot of film photography. The plastic/not plastic divide exists across both media.

Analog can be quite frustrating. Don't expect Ansel Adams prints from HP4 in a 35mm camera. The grain will knock out a lot of the recordable detail.
On the other hand, the photo's I love best, I shot with a nikon F2 on 400 ISO b/w film, printed them on baryta paper, and I am engrossed and enthused by the richness of tone and detail I could obtain on an A4 (29.7x21cm). (I'll admit, the shots from the Hasselblad looked even better, but it wasn't an easy camera to lug around. Surprisingly surreptitious, though. People focused on the camera, not on me)

 

[Ranchu]

Actually, I use the correct definition of dynamic range of a digital system or signal. And the unit of Dynamic Range of a digital system is bits, as is the unit of Entropy. Bits in Information Theory are similar to "dB" used as a unit for Analog Systems.

But you were talking about the amount of dynamic range the camera is capable of, which is determined by the analog characteristics of the sensor. By the noise not the bits.

"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."

It's not compressed, it's transformed with loss. Because you can not re-generate the original signal (with 15bit Entropy) out of the 10 bit scanner output. If you could, you would have created - as we say in Information Theory - a Perpetuum Mobile.

I's compressed as in contrast is lowered.

Flat or not depends on camera or scanner.

True but contrast in the midtones is increased to get an S curve, which film already has with less contrast, which was my point.

Just sayin.