JayGannon
Well-known
1st is film, hilights retention looks better than 2. Interesting though, would have liked them a bit bigger to get a better feel for it.
They do look quite different. Not saying one is better than the other, I have some images that never worked in the darkroom for me that have shone on Inkjet prints, and being able to save badly scratched negs etc but their easy enough to tell apart.
They do look quite different. Not saying one is better than the other, I have some images that never worked in the darkroom for me that have shone on Inkjet prints, and being able to save badly scratched negs etc but their easy enough to tell apart.
Matus
Well-known
At this image size and quality the difference is all left to bit more natural highlights of the left image, so I guess left is film.
But again - at this size an technical quality one could be a 30 years old $30 film P&S and the other 5 years old digital P&S.
Show us 300 dpi files for 4x6" prints and there would be no doubt left.
But again - at this size an technical quality one could be a 30 years old $30 film P&S and the other 5 years old digital P&S.
Show us 300 dpi files for 4x6" prints and there would be no doubt left.
Stuart John
Well-known
Earlier this year I went out with a digital and film camera shot some B&Ws to compare the two and get a better idea how to convert digital to B&W. You can find the some of the shots here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/sets/72157623776289660/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/sets/72157623776289660/
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
yes, the pictures are too small and have too many compression artifacts to judge anything.
Paul T.
Veteran
The textures of both shots are good, and could have told us something interesting about the rendering of the Foveon. But unfortunately the way you've saved them, quality and size, only illustrates how pointless a lot of comparisons on the Web are...
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
lots of good eyes! I really learned something from this small game. To look at the highlight details. That is right they are too small to make an evaluation sorry but the first image was from leica M6 elmar 5cm and tri-x pushed to 1600iso. Second is from Sigma at iso800 on the shoulder of my wife 
Lots of nice reasonings, I liked the one saying "you got the sigma recently and first image is marked 2009 so second one is from sigma" I said no cheating!
Well it was a useful game for me. I learned how to look to a photograph next time. Thanks a lot!
Lots of nice reasonings, I liked the one saying "you got the sigma recently and first image is marked 2009 so second one is from sigma" I said no cheating! Well it was a useful game for me. I learned how to look to a photograph next time. Thanks a lot!
The blown highlights in the 2nd picture made this pretty easy.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Now put one from a D40 alongside....and blow 'em both away!
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I will put one from Canon 40d and you will see more details in the one from sigma dp1, no kidding...D40 has no chanceNow put one from a D40 alongside....and blow 'em both away!
ashrafazlan
Established
It is an amazing little thing isn't it? The results from my DP1 is the closest thing I can get to reproducing the look of Tri-X...which coincidently is also loaded into an M6
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
It is an amazing little thing isn't it? The results from my DP1 is the closest thing I can get to reproducing the look of Tri-X...which coincidently is also loaded into an M6
Very curious. I always try to look into Sigma's sensor technology details, but I haven't really figured anything out. Do you think 3 layer sensor is contributing to "film-like" b/w? Would you say the same on the inkjet printed b/w from dp1 as well?
ashrafazlan
Established
I haven't printed any DP1 shots (sadly I've already given it away to my sister) but what makes it look "film-like" for me would be a combination of sharpness from lack of aa filter (similar to what you get from the M8) and the foveon's dr and wide tonality. The amount of highlight recovery you can do on overexposed scenes is crazy.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I concur all those, except sometimes when I do lock my exposure for dark areas in certain situations, there is significant cut in highlights (it goes complete white!). could not figured why and how i can prevent....but I still enjoy a lot.
It really gives me feeling like I shoot film. I like to tonality. And you can play with sharpness and contrast in camera so you can mimic HP5 or tri-x...
Last edited:
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
You should try I strongly recommend! I did not print either but on screen, they look very similar. I will try to post more images!
paragon
Established
my vote is left is film
but what's the purpose of such a comparison of such images on the web
it's interesting and amusing but one is digital and one is film - so we are led to believe
are we suppose to chose a preferred medium from such a comparison
I'm not being contentions just interested
but what's the purpose of such a comparison of such images on the web
it's interesting and amusing but one is digital and one is film - so we are led to believe
are we suppose to chose a preferred medium from such a comparison
I'm not being contentions just interested
ashrafazlan
Established
I noticed that problem after the SPP 4.0 was released, no idea why but I'm guessing they changed a few things. Even the noise reduction was a tad too much, made the b&w mode really muddy which is why I switched to RAW developer.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Where is Magus to tell us the second is the M6, obviously- the zinc top-plate is a dead give-away.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
My aim was to show how much dp1 gives similar images to film for film lovers that is important as todays digital cameras, still can not replace film for black and white images due to low tonality (well sorry I am not so technical person to explain this in detail).
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
LeicaFoReVer & ashrafazlan,
Very interesting observations. So do you think (I'm assuming we are talking about RAW), DP1/2 enables you to think a bit like shooting negative films: can recover highlights (with good RAW developer), watch out for the bottom end, don't have to NAIL the exposure like slide film/typical digital? And has the tonality of scanned Tri-X?
Very interesting observations. So do you think (I'm assuming we are talking about RAW), DP1/2 enables you to think a bit like shooting negative films: can recover highlights (with good RAW developer), watch out for the bottom end, don't have to NAIL the exposure like slide film/typical digital? And has the tonality of scanned Tri-X?
Last edited:
cliffpov
Established
Great poll. I enjoyed reading the replies. My observations are similar after using the DP-2 as well as the SD-14. More real and less plastic than other digital camera systems.