digital images: from film vs from digital camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by H. S., Nov 6, 2003.

  1. H. S.

    H. S. Guest

    Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
    scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
    The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
    (this *is* different than that of the film)?

    In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
    other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
    have same resolution.

    Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
    seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
    ones taken with a digital camera.

    Am I alone in this feeling, or have you noticed this too?

    ->HS
    --
    ---------------------- X ----------------------
    Remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one.
    Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.
    H. S., Nov 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. H. S.

    Alan Browne Guest

    H. S. wrote:

    >
    >
    > Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
    > scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
    > The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
    > (this *is* different than that of the film)?


    Scanned film images reveal the grain of the film. In this way they are
    certainly different from digital. DOF is the same for the same FL,
    distance and aperture. Contrast varries accross a variety of films.
    Digital sensors have inherent advantages including lower noise at higher
    ISO... yes they are different ... and so what?
    >
    > In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
    > other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
    > have same resolution.
    >
    > Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
    > seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
    > ones taken with a digital camera.


    I've seen many digital images that look enticing and warm. Seen a lot
    of crappy digital images too. It ain't the equipment...
    >
    > Am I alone in this feeling, or have you noticed this too?


    Well done digital images are difficult to tell from well done film
    images, esp. on the screen (unless the image is many times larger than
    the screen). A large print will show artifacts that are clearly digital.

    IAC, there is no real need for digital to look exactly like film.
    Digital will eventually cover 99% of our images and we will be happy
    with the high quality delivered ... we won't get too warm and fuzzy over
    film except for some particular uses. Time...

    >
    > ->HS
    Alan Browne, Nov 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. H. S.

    Jim Davis Guest

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:02:16 -0500, "H. S."
    <> wrote/replied to:

    >Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
    >scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
    >The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
    >(this *is* different than that of the film)?
    >
    >In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
    >other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
    >have same resolution.
    >
    >Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
    >seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
    >ones taken with a digital camera.


    I think the difference is scanned images tend to have lousy unreal
    colours while digital images have incredible tonal ranges and ultra
    realistic colours. I might add, without frigging around with the
    images either.

    Images tend to feel more personal after you spent an hour scanning,
    cleaning and adjusting them just so...
    Jim Davis, Nov 7, 2003
    #3
  4. H. S.

    Don Stauffer Guest

    The ONLY difference is in the header of some file formats that can
    identify the source. As far as the editing software is concerned, a
    JPEG file is a JPEG file, a TIFF file is a TIFF file, etc. There is NO
    difference as far as the computer or printer is concerned.

    A scanned print will tend to have less dynamic range than a digicam
    image or one scanned with a film scanner, depending on exactly how you
    define dynamic range.

    "H. S." wrote:
    >
    > Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
    > scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
    > The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
    > (this *is* different than that of the film)?
    >
    > In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
    > other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
    > have same resolution.
    >
    > Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
    > seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
    > ones taken with a digital camera.
    >
    > Am I alone in this feeling, or have you noticed this too?
    >
    > ->HS
    > --
    > ---------------------- X ----------------------
    > Remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one.
    > Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Nov 7, 2003
    #4
  5. H. S.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:02:16 -0500, "H. S."
    <> wrote:


    >Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
    >seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
    >ones taken with a digital camera.



    It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
    bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
    sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Nov 8, 2003
    #5
  6. H. S.

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Rafe B. <> wrote:

    >It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
    >bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
    >sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.


    You probably want to upsample the image quite a bit before doing this.

    Photoshop has an actual "film grain" filter, and again, I would severely
    upsample the image before applying it, so it has the texture you want,
    but maintains most of the detail.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 8, 2003
    #6
  7. H. S.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:13:56 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >Rafe B. <> wrote:
    >
    >>It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
    >>bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
    >>sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.

    >
    >You probably want to upsample the image quite a bit before doing this.
    >
    >Photoshop has an actual "film grain" filter, and again, I would severely
    >upsample the image before applying it, so it has the texture you want,
    >but maintains most of the detail.



    I don't propose this as something terribly useful, and it's
    not something I do with my own images or prints. But I have
    noticed that the addition of noise to an otherwise "noiseless"
    digital capture has a startling and dramatic effect, and goes
    a long way toward making the image feel "more like film."


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Nov 8, 2003
    #7
  8. H. S.

    Flycaster Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>,
    > Rafe B. <> wrote:
    >
    > >It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
    > >bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
    > >sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.

    >
    > You probably want to upsample the image quite a bit before doing this.
    >
    > Photoshop has an actual "film grain" filter, and again, I would severely
    > upsample the image before applying it, so it has the texture you want,
    > but maintains most of the detail.


    The upsampling helps some, but as is the case with most of the Adobe
    "artistic" plug-ins, "film grain" is pretty funky. Noise-gaussian is also a
    bit weird...I don't care too much for how it color fringes, if that's the
    right term. Gimmicks, imo.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
    Flycaster, Nov 8, 2003
    #8
  9. H. S.

    Jim Davis Guest

    Re: Re: digital images: from film vs from digital camera

    On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:46:13 GMT, Rafe B. <>
    wrote/replied to:

    >I don't propose this as something terribly useful, and it's
    >not something I do with my own images or prints. But I have
    >noticed that the addition of noise to an otherwise "noiseless"
    >digital capture has a startling and dramatic effect, and goes
    >a long way toward making the image feel "more like film."


    Yuck!
    Jim Davis, Nov 8, 2003
    #9
  10. H. S.

    Don Stauffer Guest

    I think this film grain problem is being emphasized too much. If you are
    using decent film, and only sampling to about 3 to 5 megasamples per
    image, the grain should not be intrusive at all. I use a print scanner,
    and even at 10 megasamples grain is not a problem for ISO 200 film.

    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Nov 8, 2003
    #10
  11. H. S.

    W6DKN Guest

    Don Stauffer wrote:
    > I think this film grain problem is being emphasized too much. If you
    > are using decent film, and only sampling to about 3 to 5 megasamples
    > per image, the grain should not be intrusive at all. I use a print
    > scanner, and even at 10 megasamples grain is not a problem for ISO
    > 200 film.


    See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

    = Dan =
    W6DKN, Nov 8, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,103
  2. fruitbat
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,065
    Joe Price
    Sep 17, 2003
  3. Doghouse Riley
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    3,815
    David J Taylor
    Aug 10, 2004
  4. Michael

    Scanning Film Images into Digital Files

    Michael, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    470
    Michael
    Sep 18, 2004
  5. no spam

    Software that makes digital images look like film?

    no spam, Jun 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    510
Loading...

Share This Page