which is which?

Jack Conrad

Jack Conrad

Well-known
Local time
6:22 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,612
Which is film and which is digital? :)

1.
015_15-1.jpg


2.
_9244149.jpg
 
Since the top one is clipped in the shadows and the highlights and it's focused narrowly and can't resolve the twining of the string -- I'm guessing it's the digital and you made it look pretty bad so we'd call it the other way. The bottom image is lovely but note the dust.
 
Funny. The bottom examples shadow looks more "clipped" to me than the top one on my monitor. It was taken with a Nikon F using asa 400 drugstore developed and scanned film.

Examine the grain or noise closely in each image. The bottom one is just beginning to band into horizontal line patterns which I find very unappealing. This was taken at iso 400 believe it or not, using a 4/3 e-520 camera.
 
I'm going to be a bit pedantic here...

1. Digital
2. Digital

We're looking at pictures posted on the internet, via a computer and monitor of some sort - ergo they're *both* digital. Not only that, the film original has been scanned to a digital image. Apples and Oranges, no?
 
Jack Conrad said:
Which is film and which is digital? :)

1.
015_15-1.jpg


2.
_9244149.jpg
Click to expand...

Useless comparison IMO... but I appreciate the posting.

I use film for both the experience as well as the final result with my Summarit lens. Completely different result from my M3 + Summarit than any DSLR I have ever used. Can't wait to see what I can do with an M9 plus the Summarit but the cost of admission is too high at the moment.

Having used digital mostly over the last 10-12 years, I can honestly say that both formats have their place in my life. I use digital for different purposes than the M3. And I get entirely different results with the M3 + film.

To try to throw out an image and ask which is which doesn't really make a lot of sense when they are similar. Now, try some character lenses and films and produce something you like. I have to question why one would compare with a digital image of the same scene, except to decide which final result you prefer? I have done it with the Smoky Mtns thread and there is a marked difference between the DSLR, the M3 with color film and the Nikon FA with Kodachrome. Once I noticed the differences, I selected the M3 with color film as my favorite tool for certain tasks.

To try to select an image based on film or digital is not really a fair exercise for my eyes unless I am using a character lens, etc. But, that's just me.:p

BTW, the Smoky Mtns. thread is here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83474&highlight=smoky+mtns
 
Last edited:
Jack Conrad said:
Funny. The bottom examples shadow looks more "clipped" to me than the top one on my monitor. It was taken with a Nikon F using asa 400 drugstore developed and scanned film.

Examine the grain or noise closely in each image. The bottom one is just beginning to band into horizontal line patterns which I find very unappealing. This was taken at iso 400 believe it or not, using a 4/3 e-520 camera.
Click to expand...


The difference is probably in the scanning.

The giveaway on the bottom one is the dust showing up on the scan. Post processing is required if that is what one likes. Now, have a lab print the digital from a file and the film image from a negative and I bet the banding goes away.
 
Falling from grace?

Falling from grace?

My head is spinning over all of this. I get the fun of using film, the slower pace, using wonderful older gear, the delayed gratification of seeing your image, the serenity that comes from the processing, I get all of that and understand that there is more as well. But for most of us, we get tot eh point where we see the negative and then stick it is a scanner. Is this a fall from grace. We then import the now digital image into our software and play with it a bit. Does anyone limit themselves to the adjustments that could be done in a darkroom with an enlarger; cropping, dodge and burn, and simple exposure adjustments? Or do we play with curves and all of the other fun things that come along with digital post-processing?
 
I agree with Dave. Why are you doing this comparison? Print off a digital 16x20 at the lab and go into the darkroom to do a 16x20 print, put them both on a wall and compare. You're only obscuring facts about digital vs film photography by judging what is on a screen and mixing the film process with a digital process.
 
jordanstarr said:
I agree with Dave. Why are you doing this comparison? Print off a digital 16x20 at the lab and go into the darkroom to do a 16x20 print, put them both on a wall and compare. You're only obscuring facts about digital vs film photography by judging what is on a screen and mixing the film process with a digital process.
Click to expand...

Well I find it kind of fun.
 
The second looks digital. The first is harder to tell, but could be digital as well. (It would be easier to tell if the two images were the same). The differences between film and digital are more apparent in an actual print, as opposed to on a computer monitor.
 
Well, as Roger pointed out, B+W does not scan well. Not at all, although I can get some workable scans they are nowhere as good as the negatives.

But, the larger issue is the image comparison...which images? What lens? What film? etc.... The comparison can be made between similar images or with totally different images which the Summarit, Summitar, and countless other images will give you. Then, there is the film... Kodachrome? Color? Black and White? too many choices.

Although comparisons can be fun, it is better to get them out of the way and use which ever medium you prefer. I think a lot of folks here would choose film over digital for B+W for very good reasons.

Again, I appreciate this thread as we all need to make up our own minds in choosing horses for courses.:)
 
You should not need identical images to see the differences or not see the differences. You should use what you like and be happy with your choices. There's no reason why scanned B&W film will not make a good print and there is no reason why digital could not make a decent B&W print. If the differences are so close that identical 16x20 images are needed to tell the two apart then the differences can't be that great and are likely not worth worrying in the great scheme of important things like image content. I would say that smaller prints could show some good reasons why 300ppi digital prints is just not the way to go over hand enlarging.

Thats not to say the enjoying the B&W darkroom is not a perfectly good reason to shoot film and thats not to say that scanning B&W film and making prints is not a good reason to shoot film, at the end of the day you need to know why you yourself like film and that reason is good enough even if it is pretty much impossible to tell the difference between two well made prints or web uploads..

Now which is which.. Can anyone tell or is it just a guess. Why does one look different from the other, are there any dead give aways or are they so close in this situation that the medium did not really matter.

For what it is worth I would rather make B&W prints in a darkroom but thats not because I make bad digital prints it's just a preference for workflow and where I would rather be, added to the fact that I share the PC with the rest of my family..
 
Stuart John said:
You should not need identical images to see the differences or not see the differences.

Actually, identical images -- i.e., with the same lighting and contrast range -- make it much easier to see the differences. One of the major differences between film and digital is how they handle the highlights, as digital tends to blowout the highlights very easily and thus appears much more unattractive in bright, high contrast situations. Identical images help one differentiate blown digital highlights from extreme lighting contrast that even B&W film -- with its far greater dynamic range and shoulder -- might have difficulty handling. For example, it is much easier to tell the first leaf/compass photo is digital because the blown highlights are much more evident when compared to the identical image taken in the second photo on film with the same lighting. The identical subject matter and lighting rule out extreme light contrast as an explanation for the blown highlights in the first digital photo of the leaf and compass.

That's why I believe the second image of the girl above is digital, as the far side of her face and the highlights on her clothing are blown out, even though the lighting does not appear to be overly contrasty. The first image also appears to be digital, although it blown highlights are more subtle.

I also believe both images are digital because they seem to exhibit some noise and an absence of fine textural detail in the even tones. This is more evident in the second photo -- along the near side of the girl's face -- than the first. That's why I'm more confident that the second photo is digital, although I also think the first is also digital, as there is a similar noise and lack of detail in the shaded portion of the girl's face, although more subtle. The problem with alot of digital photos that I have seen is that the noise reduction features of digital cameras tend to eliminate fine textures in favor of emphasizing edges, which makes images appear to be superficially sharper, but which tend to look somewhat artificial. In both photos of the girl, note the almost total absence of textural detail on the side of the girl's face (aside from the freckles), although the individual strands of the girl's hair are resolved (which eliminates absence of DOF as an explanation for the absence of textural detail). That's why film can be -- properly handled -- both more subtle and actually sharper than digital. Digital "sharpness" is frankly somewhat artificial in drawing the eye to edge contrast, as opposed to resolving fine textural detail.

Don't get me wrong -- digital cameras can take very fine and pleasing images. However, their relative shortcomings only tend to become evident when compared to an identical, properly executed film image which tends to show better highlight detail, finer gradations of tonality and textural detail. If you disagree, take a look at the Zacuto website with their comparison between digital cameras (including full frame cameras such as the Canon 5D MKII and Nikon D3s) and movie film (which is HALF FRAME 35mm). The digital images look great, until you compare them to identical film images. None of the experts -- users of film or digital -- dispute that film is definitely superior (except in very low light situations). The experts conclude, though, that digital absent such a comparison looks very good. Of course, the extremely detailed and well conceived and executed testing demonstrates that even 35mm film images can outperform full frame digital in many respects, as the movie film images did so -- even though they are only half 35mm frame. The reason why most people mistakenly think digital is sharper than 35mm film is because they are comparing digital images on a monitor to poorly printed and poorly scanned low resolution film images. In doing so, they ignore that there is a tremendous loss in film's image quality in the course of the poor printing and scanning, while the digital images are being displayed essentially in their native format.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Stuart John said:
You should not need identical images to see the differences or not see the differences. You should use what you like and be happy with your choices. There's no reason why scanned B&W film will not make a good print and there is no reason why digital could not make a decent B&W print. If the differences are so close that identical 16x20 images are needed to tell the two apart then the differences can't be that great and are likely not worth worrying in the great scheme of important things like image content. I would say that smaller prints could show some good reasons why 300ppi digital prints is just not the way to go over hand enlarging.
.
Click to expand...

...an 11x14 and 8x10 would also show differences between digital and film. To a trained eye, even 5x7. If it's just "fun" to compare a digital image to a scanned film digital image, than have at 'er. If you're comparing because you're trying to prove a point, it's not going to work because there's lots of flaws in that rationale. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk. I slipped into the same trap when I thought "there's no way I'm going to be able to set up a darkroom in this apartment or city, so I'm just going to buy a good negative scanner and get the same quality of images", so I bought a $1200 negative scanner, made prints and compared them to my 8x10 darkroom prints with great disappointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom