Which is film, which is digital?

[ped]

Just for a bit of fun.

Same(ish) photo, taken a year apart. One is shot on digital format (Epson R-D1) and the other is on 35mm film (Leica M4, Ilford Pan F 50). Which is which? I won't tell you the lenses used. I was standing in roughly the same spot but not exactly, as you can see.

Cheers
ped

 

[Roger Hicks]

They're both digital. I'm looking at both on a computer screen. Make a couple of reasonably sized prints; hang them side by side; and the question might mean something.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ped]

They're both digital. I'm looking at both on a computer screen. Make a couple of reasonably sized prints; hang them side by side; and the question might mean something.

Cheers,

R.

Pah! I didn't expect logic!

Ok so which was taken with a film camera originally?

 

[DNG]

I think #1 is film, and over developed. by time or dilution... no shadow detail on the trees or some wood posts...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Pah! I didn't expect logic!

Ok so which was taken with a film camera originally?

Dunno. Too many variables. The lighting is different: one day is much hazier than the other. A bad film scan can look awful: almost certainly worse than a half-competent digi conversion. Or did you scan a print? Pan F is a bar steward to develop. And so forth.

If I wanted the ultimate image on screen I'd wet print it and scan the print, probably with further post processing on the print to allow for the fact that a screen is self-luminous and a print isn't.

I don't know what you did, or how. I quite like both pictures. I could probably reproduce either effect with film, and possibly with digi. But how much does it matter? Either a picture works or it doesn't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[driver]

Film/Digital matters not . . .

Film/Digital matters not . . .

. . . call me a thread killer - I prefer the image on top. I really do not care if was 'digital' or 'film' as both sensors are recording analog data.

 

[shortstop]

Pah! I didn't expect logic! Ok so which was taken with a film camera originally?

I completely agree with Roger. The only way to do a comparison is printing both (file and negative). Without prints no question is possible.

 

[ped]

I completely agree with Roger. The only way to do a comparison is printing both (file and negative). Without prints no question is possible.

But would we then be comparing two print techniques rather than two photographs? Where do you draw the line? How deep is the rabbit hole?

What you're both saying is, to all intents and purposes, that for putting images online, on a screen, using a scanned film is the same as using a digital camera.

So, how come so many RFFers post images taken on their film cameras and so many RFFers comment on them and attribute their qualities to being shot on film?

Just for fun, you understand!

ped

 

[Roger Hicks]

But would we then be comparing two print techniques rather than two photographs? Where do you draw the line? How deep is the rabbit hole?

What you're both saying is, to all intents and purposes, that for putting images online, on a screen, using a scanned film is the same as using a digital camera.

So, how come so many RFFers post images taken on their film cameras and so many RFFers comment on them and attribute their qualities to being shot on film?

Just for fun, you understand!

ped

Not exactly. The real variable is the skill of the photographer at every stage of the process. Post a rotten picture and I don't know where you screwed up; post a great picture and I don't know how much is luck and how much is skill.

As for "Film gave me this: digital couldn't", my suspicion is that most of the time people are seeing what they want to see, at least with 24x36mm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ped]

Not exactly. The real variable is the skill of the photographer at every stage of the process. Post a rotten picture and I don't know where you screwed up; post a great picture and I don't know how much is luck and how much is skill.

As for "Film gave me this: digital couldn't", my suspicion is that most of the time people are seeing what they want to see, at least with 24x36mm.

Cheers,

R.

I see, thanks.

So with the above pictures, perhaps I prefer the film version not because it looks much different on screen, and is in fact essentially digital now after the fact, but perhaps because I feel like I crafted the photograph in a more personal way by developing the film and scanning it.

I suppose working on a file in Lightroom doesn't have the same romantic feel as carefully souping a film.

So what to make of comments regarding the qualities if a film image, such as 'wow the colours of this film are great' or 'that film is so sharp' or 'love the contrast this film has' - are they really talking about a scanner?

It feels like we're chasing our own tails to some extent!

 

[__--]

...What you're both saying is, to all intents and purposes, that for putting images online, on a screen, using a scanned film is the same as using a digital camera...

No, I don't think that's what people are saying. To me it seems, with the two tiny JPGs that you've posted, people don't care which is digital and which is film. With two larger JPGs, to pick a number, say, something like 864 pixels or 1024 pixels on the long dimension, a JPG on a profiled monitor will often give the experienced viewer a reasonably good idea of how the print will generally look. Now, if the pictures posted at this size are ones the viewer likes or is interested in, he or she may try to guess which is digital or which is film; but, still, what most people will react to is the quality of the pictures. On the other hand, people who make a hobby horse of film or digital, may try to go further...but that is hardly interesting, at least in my view.

—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria
[Direct download link for pdf file for book project]

 

[shortstop]

But would we then be comparing two print techniques rather than two photographs? Where do you draw the line? How deep is the rabbit hole? What you're both saying is, to all intents and purposes, that for putting images online, on a screen, using a scanned film is the same as using a digital camera. So, how come so many RFFers post images taken on their film cameras and so many RFFers comment on them and attribute their qualities to being shot on film? Just for fun, you understand! ped

In fact, from the screen is often impossible to tell the difference. compare the images on the PC is misleading. the photo on paper is one thing, another one on the screen. the screen makes the image look brighter, but in reality it is not. the same samples of leica monochrome images on the leica site does not satisfy me. I always see the pixels of the screen. to assess a picture made by Leica monochrome I should see a print.

 

[hepcat]

I see, thanks.

So with the above pictures, perhaps I prefer the film version not because it looks much different on screen, and is in fact essentially digital now after the fact, but perhaps because I feel like I crafted the photograph in a more personal way by developing the film and scanning it.

I suppose working on a file in Lightroom doesn't have the same romantic feel as carefully souping a film.

So what to make of comments regarding the qualities if a film image, such as 'wow the colours of this film are great' or 'that film is so sharp' or 'love the contrast this film has' - are they really talking about a scanner?

It feels like we're chasing our own tails to some extent!

In the final analysis, once a certain threshold is reached in recording data (around 10mp actually) the sad truth is that the sensor really doesn't matter unless you're just posting OOC .jpgs. If you post-process RAW images, a file may be more or less to your liking, but you can PP it any way you see fit. And it's the same with scanned negatives... except you have more steps in the film process... there are properties given them by how the negatives are developed, and then how well or poorly they're scanned.

I think what folks most want is consistency, and that can be difficult to achieve. Consistency, or the ability to deviate from consistency at will can be elusive and is in the purview of the accomplished printer; be it wet printing or digital printing.

I'm beginning a return to shooting medium format film commercially, and advertising wet print products; not because of any intrinsic advantage of the medium particularly, but because of the very myths you're describing. I'm going to target the print market towards 'connoisseurs' much in the way vinyl LPs and high-end tube amps are marketed.

I would say that if the image works, how it was captured and how its presented are largely inconsequential. If people are looking at a print (or image) and trying to figure out what equipment it was made on, the image apparently isn't holding their attention. In the final analysis and as a practical matter, though, from viewing distance with proper printing and display techniques it is impossible to tell what sensor or film made what image even compared side by side because there are just too many variables in both digital and wet processes. The archival qualities may be different, and papers may give print sources away, but the quality of the image won't.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I see, thanks.

So with the above pictures, perhaps I prefer the film version not because it looks much different on screen, and is in fact essentially digital now after the fact, but perhaps because I feel like I crafted the photograph in a more personal way by developing the film and scanning it.

I suppose working on a file in Lightroom doesn't have the same romantic feel as carefully souping a film.

So what to make of comments regarding the qualities if a film image, such as 'wow the colours of this film are great' or 'that film is so sharp' or 'love the contrast this film has' - are they really talking about a scanner?

It feels like we're chasing our own tails to some extent!

Highlight 1: To be honest, yes.

Highlight 2: Or, "This film gives me what I want, easily, without excessive piddling around in post production." Colours can go all over the place; so can contrast; and "sharpening" has made something of a mockery of sharpness.

They might not be talking about scanning, of course. With B+W especially, they could be talking about proper wet printing. Even then, I despair when I hear someone say that one black and white film is "contrastier" than another. You can develop pretty much any B+W film across a wide range of usable contrasts -- if you know what you're doing, which presumably they don't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[KansanTim]

...perhaps because I feel like I crafted the photograph in a more personal way by developing the film and scanning it...

I certainly get a greater sense of accomplishment when I hand-develop film over not (which, for me, is having it commercially processed, as I have no digital camera), just as I did when I lino-cut and printed some wine labels to replace the previous computer printed version, or when I make that wine myself rather than going to the store and buying it. Quality is one thing to be considered when deciding how to do something, but it doesn't have to be the only thing. That said, I still like to think I get better b/w results from film, but as I am still waiting for digital technology to mature before I take the plunge and buy another camera, I don't really have a good basis of comparison.

If I were guessing, I'd pick the top picture as film, but I really can't say, as the two days have different conditions and the interpretation is pretty different.

 

[jande9]

There a lot of people squirming around afraid to take sides. "Its all fun until someone loses an eye" as our moms used to say.

Anyways, the top one looks like film and the bottom digital. I hope I'm right because I like the top image a lot more.

 

[ped]

Yes the top is film.

This thread has been quite revealing, for me. It's certainly interesting to hear people say it doesn't matter as soon as you post online, yet to see countless threads of pictures with comments about the certain film used and dynamic range etc.

It would seem that everyone here uses film because they prefer the process and using the equipment, rather than any difference in the image - unless you're wet printing?!

 

[rfaspen]

I guess. I like the "process" of working with film. Its familiar and, as Roger said, I've learned how to get what I want from it. I just need to get a replacement for my now-broken old scanner to share digitally.

I think the film-digital difference is certainly to be found in physical products (print/negative from film, print/negative from digital) but as pointed out earlier, one or the other isn't necessarily "better". There's a matter of equipment and/or skill characteristics that can improve/negate any advantages (if that's the right term) in the final product.

That said, I seem to be able to pick out a wet print (from film) from a digital print every time I try. They appear that different to me. And that's from "smaller" sensors such as 24x36mm film or FF/APS digital. If you want to be unfair, check out a platinum/palladium print from a LF negative. I bet you'll see a difference then -- but maybe not a valid comparison unless we're also looking at a native LF digital product? or Pt/Pd print from a LF-sized digital negative made from a MF/FF/APC sensor? Ah, this all hurts my head now. I'm going for a walk with my camera.

BTW, I thought the top was film too. Maybe there's more to this than we thought?