BenXiaoHai
Member
I would go for 3, 4, 5, 6 being digital
I could be way off though
I could be way off though
sojournerphoto
Mentor
My bold - that would be foolish I think and completely miss the point.
I like both, but would be very hapy to shot digital only from a time management viewpoint...
Sorry
Mike
martin s
Well-known
1,4,6 digital.
martin
martin
Fujitsu
-
Well, you used a lot of tricks to hide traces with these. I see color and tone adjustments, JPG artifacts and different levels of sharpening. Plus you cut the borders on all precisely, some may even be cropped.
No.1: ?
No.2: either digital or a badly exposed positive
No.3: ?
No.4: ?
No.5: looks cropped, probably digital
No.6: probably film
No.7: early digital camera? or a bad scan.
But honestly, none of these show the unique quality of film that I love.
btgc
Mentor
as many rant over and over "look of digital pictures isn't worse than look of from flilm" I think it's wrong starting point. For casual shooters there is freedom to switch to instant response digital or continue to use that 10/20/40/80 years old film camera he uses after his dad used it. I'm tactile type - I like feeling of old cameras, I'm never fully satisfied with feeling of modern materials.
Pros are different - they earn living by taking pictures, so they can't afford luxury liking or not modern plastics. They use what gives them needed results with minimal costs, formula of businesses.
In terms of costs I don't understand people who invest several grands into digital to shoot hundred of frames - their film gear would work cheaper. So amateurs, shooting LOTS AND LOTS of frames, are somehow similar to pros - they are cutting costs. But what's about "look", I don't understand that look.
Pros are different - they earn living by taking pictures, so they can't afford luxury liking or not modern plastics. They use what gives them needed results with minimal costs, formula of businesses.
In terms of costs I don't understand people who invest several grands into digital to shoot hundred of frames - their film gear would work cheaper. So amateurs, shooting LOTS AND LOTS of frames, are somehow similar to pros - they are cutting costs. But what's about "look", I don't understand that look.
KenR
Well-known
As kuzano points out, I've never seen a direct paper to paper comparison of a silver-gelatin print to a digital print. There always is a scanned intermediate from the film to the computer to the paper. Now that full frame sensors are common enough for Canon, Nikon and Leica it should be easy to do - allowing the same lens on the bodies under test. Previously, the excuses of the crop factor had to be made to "keep things fair." I recall one article where they discarded 1/3 of the scanned film pixels to keep the pixel count the same as with the digital sensor. So now where are the paper to paper tests?
gnuyork
Well-known
I did this same exercise in another thread but all with B&W images.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1207243#post1207243
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1207243#post1207243
Daneinbalto
Established
How to determine if image was cropped
How to determine if image was cropped
Fujitsu: You state that 5. looks cropped. I tend to agree with you but I'm not sure why. Can you pin it down? Or can anybody else?
How to determine if image was cropped
Fujitsu: You state that 5. looks cropped. I tend to agree with you but I'm not sure why. Can you pin it down? Or can anybody else?
kuzano
Mentor
Of Course It's Foolish!
Of Course It's Foolish!
No need to be sorry. Of course it's foolish. As far as missing the POINT... What is the point?
All of these film vs digital vs scanning tend to be truly pointless and a waste of time.
A truer measure of time well spent on these forums would be posters sharing images, critiques and helpful suggestions, or questions about equipment usage, problems and answers resolving those issues.
Not to stop there of course, but to continually debate the question of "how many and how much film vs digital do you shoot" consistently degrades into a discussion of which is better.
I can play that game as well as everyone, and as you suggest, It's simply "Foolish" and misses the point of the Forum in the first place.
But then, as Ken R concurred, when will someone exhibit a comparison of a complete film process from capture to print WITHOUT digital to an identical image print using digital from capture to digital print on inkjet dye or pigment, Without POST PROCESSING just to compare capture and print mechanisms. No dodging, burning or manipulation of the film process as well.
Of Course It's Foolish!
No need to be sorry. Of course it's foolish. As far as missing the POINT... What is the point?
All of these film vs digital vs scanning tend to be truly pointless and a waste of time.
A truer measure of time well spent on these forums would be posters sharing images, critiques and helpful suggestions, or questions about equipment usage, problems and answers resolving those issues.
Not to stop there of course, but to continually debate the question of "how many and how much film vs digital do you shoot" consistently degrades into a discussion of which is better.
I can play that game as well as everyone, and as you suggest, It's simply "Foolish" and misses the point of the Forum in the first place.
But then, as Ken R concurred, when will someone exhibit a comparison of a complete film process from capture to print WITHOUT digital to an identical image print using digital from capture to digital print on inkjet dye or pigment, Without POST PROCESSING just to compare capture and print mechanisms. No dodging, burning or manipulation of the film process as well.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Mentor
A digital workflow requires post processing. The data coming off that sensor is just data, not an image. Such a comparison would be highly biased toward film, without actually proving anything.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Krosya, I think you're leading us on, and they all are digital! 
Yet, I can understand choosing to go back to film, I did so myself. Like a fellow member said, it feels more as if the images are 'yours', as if the digital shots more are 'lucky finds', while the film ones more are 'acquired'.
Yet, I can understand choosing to go back to film, I did so myself. Like a fellow member said, it feels more as if the images are 'yours', as if the digital shots more are 'lucky finds', while the film ones more are 'acquired'.
Fujitsu
-
For someone not interested in the topic you still have a lot to say...
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, I think my point was made - noone can guess correct but rather comment - poor scan, post processing (btw, nearly everyone does post processing - be that film or digital), blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying that photos I posted are super quality, but rather similar stuff you see online and here in a gallery all the time. Thats the reality of things. When everything is done properly (digital and film examples) - be that film or digital it will still be hard to tell which is which. It's just a bunch of excuses that people come up with, which cracks me up.
So, it all somes down to a personal choice. As i said - I like both. In some cases I have no choice as there are many cameras i have and love - they are vintage and film is the only option. But if there was a way to use a digital back/insert - I'd be happy to try that too.
BTW, from the photos I posted digital ones are:1, 4 and 5
So, it all somes down to a personal choice. As i said - I like both. In some cases I have no choice as there are many cameras i have and love - they are vintage and film is the only option. But if there was a way to use a digital back/insert - I'd be happy to try that too.
BTW, from the photos I posted digital ones are:1, 4 and 5
Fujitsu
-
Not quite. I have a ton of scanned Velvia, Portra and others that simply look different than digital capture. Like I said before, your samples are affected by (obviously) different processes, JPG compression, cropping, random color balance or plain bad scanning.
Just check some flickr groups and compare with your results. The point in all this is not to degenerate an analog original into something that could have easily been taken by a 99$ Casio point and shoot. It´s the other way round. To proof that digital can look like proper scanned film. None of the samples you posted does (and thats what I wrote in the first place.)
jjovin
Established
They are either taken with a digital camera or scanned film.
So they are all digital. You are wrong too. Compare prints or project slides and you will see the difference.
Krosya
Konicaze
I think it's obvious that when we say "digital" in this particular thread, it means taken with a digital camera. :bang:
I can see your point... but it can look good (digital that is). I am with you though... using my M2 felt better than my M8... but I love the convenience of my M8 and the fact that I can do the whole photographic process in my apartment without having to make the room safe from light leaks and what not while inhaling harmful chemicals.
Pickett Wilson
Mentor
I think the whole thing is just spitting into the wind. You can extol the benefits of RF's all day, but in the contest for popularity, SLR's won. You can argue the benefits of film all day, but for all practical purposes, digital won. Good or bad, right or wrong, the future is controlled, and history is written, by the winners.
I post that after having loaded 12, 4x5 film holders for my weekend shooting. The heart doesn't ultimately care about logic.
I post that after having loaded 12, 4x5 film holders for my weekend shooting. The heart doesn't ultimately care about logic.
Last edited:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Are those 4x5 holders double sided? If so, that's a lot of shooting in one weekend.
eooojj
Member
Pickett, I really love what you wrote! Awesome.
If believable, i could have guess 1,4,5 is digital ( I know its on the hindsight
Most of the time i tell the difference between my film and digital is when:
1) OOF (Out of Focus) for film is less clean and random, especially at portion away from center of lens. I read its because the digital back will never match how film can receive light rays from an angle. This gives film photos more 3D like result. (Correct me if i am wrong..i gather from experience and readings)
2) The foreground's sharpness and background's "blur-ness" relative difference is much greater for film than for digital for the same lens and camera body. Again making it more 3D. Post-production on digital can never change this.
3) Graininess and alittle more contrasty (of course Post-production on digital can emulate this
Just from my experience,
Ed Forrest
If believable, i could have guess 1,4,5 is digital ( I know its on the hindsight
Most of the time i tell the difference between my film and digital is when:
1) OOF (Out of Focus) for film is less clean and random, especially at portion away from center of lens. I read its because the digital back will never match how film can receive light rays from an angle. This gives film photos more 3D like result. (Correct me if i am wrong..i gather from experience and readings)
2) The foreground's sharpness and background's "blur-ness" relative difference is much greater for film than for digital for the same lens and camera body. Again making it more 3D. Post-production on digital can never change this.
3) Graininess and alittle more contrasty (of course Post-production on digital can emulate this
Just from my experience,
Ed Forrest
I think the whole thing is just spitting into the wind. You can extol the benefits of RF's all day, but in the contest for popularity, SLR's won. You can argue the benefits of film all day, but for all practical purposes, digital won. Good or bad, right or wrong, the future is controlled, and history is written, by the winners.
I post that after having loaded 12, 4x5 film holders for my weekend shooting. The heart doesn't ultimately care about logic.