Dramatic evidence - film v digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ryadia@home, Jun 20, 2005.

  1. Ryadia@home

    Ryadia@home Guest

    How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
    file?

    Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
    produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
    comparisons made for the Internet are biased.

    Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
    What do you think?
    http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm

    Douglas
    Ryadia@home, Jun 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. No, you have a very complicated film camera, wait a month for the film to be
    fully exposed, then wait two days for it to be processed, then throw away
    most of the photos.Or alternatively, buy a cheap, simple digital camera, see
    immediately your photos on its tiny screen, and keep only the best, and
    download directly to your computer.That would be a fair comparison.

    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
    FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    Ï "Ryadia@home" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:42b6ad57$...
    > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a

    digital
    > file?
    >
    > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,

    each
    > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.

    Certainly
    > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    >
    > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size

    source.
    > What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    >
    > Douglas
    >
    >
    Dimitrios Tzortzakakis, Jun 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Ryadia@home" <> wrote:
    > How do you compare digital to film?
    > What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm


    Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is a
    crime against humanity.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Ryadia@home

    SimonLW Guest

    >Ryadia@home" <> wrote in message
    news:42b6ad57$...
    > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a

    digital
    > file?
    >
    > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,

    each
    > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.

    Certainly
    > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    >
    > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size

    source.
    > What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    >
    > Douglas
    >
    >

    There are different aspects of the mediums that must be considered. Just a
    couple examples: Color negative film has a wide exposure tolerance (wide
    dynamic range) and doesn't blow out highlights as easy. Digital SLRs can
    make higher ISO images with less graininess (noise) than film.

    For me, I'm finished with film. I have no compelling reason to ever use the
    medium any longer. I stopped using film after I bought my first digital SLR
    a year and a half ago. It is a 6mp camera and now, the technology is further
    along.
    -S
    SimonLW, Jun 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Ryadia@home

    Eric Miller Guest

    "Ryadia@home" <> wrote in message
    news:42b6ad57$...
    > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a

    digital
    > file?
    >
    > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,

    each
    > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.

    Certainly
    > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    >
    > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size

    source.
    > What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    >
    > Douglas
    >
    >


    Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
    I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
    is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
    That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
    purports to show.

    Eric Miller
    Eric Miller, Jun 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Ryadia@home

    Scott W Guest

    Ryadia@home wrote:
    > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
    > file?
    >
    > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
    > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
    > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    >
    > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
    > What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    >
    > Douglas


    I think your film example is not representative of what a good film
    shot can do, but I do think it is representative of some of the things
    I have gotten back from the mini-labs and so there for what a lot of
    people see in their photos.

    I did a challenge with a friend of mine who believed in film, we both
    shot the same scene and then did 8 x 10 prints. When looking at the
    prints even he had to admit the digital photograph looked both clearer
    and more life like. When zoomed in at the pixel level he had a bit
    more detail, but this detail was so small and low contrast that you
    could not see it in the final print.

    In the end there was little to choose from between his print and mine,
    but he had to be very careful about how it took his shot and how he got
    it processed. I did not have some much trouble.

    The comparison we did was when I was using my Sony F828, with the 20D I
    think it is very hard for a film print to look as good. It takes a lot
    of skill in scanning the film and getting the color right as well as
    adjusting the curves. He shot negative film, I understand that a lot
    of people feel they get much better results from slide film, but for me
    I hate the small range that slide film gives me.

    I always fleet with film, either slide or negative, that it was a
    constant battle to get good quality out of the film.

    Let's face it 35mm photography has always been more about convenience
    then quality, if you really care about quality then you would shoot MF
    or LF. So I find it odd that there are people who think that you
    should be drum scanning your 35mm film when comparing it to digital
    cameras, if you are going to the work and expense of drum scanning you
    really should be shooting MF.

    35mm better then MF for many forms of wild life photography because a
    telephoto lens is easier to deal with, but this is where digital really
    works well, since you can bump the ISO up to 800 you can shot a very
    fast shutter time.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jun 20, 2005
    #6
  7. Ryadia@home

    Scott W Guest

    Eric Miller wrote:
    > "Ryadia@home" <> wrote in message
    > news:42b6ad57$...
    > > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a

    > digital
    > > file?
    > >
    > > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,

    > each
    > > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.

    > Certainly
    > > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    > >
    > > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size

    > source.
    > > What do you think?
    > > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    > >
    > > Douglas
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
    > I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
    > is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
    > That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
    > purports to show.
    >
    > Eric Miller


    I have had a few that bad, below is a photo that I scanned from a
    negative that is about 20 years old, clearly something is growing on
    it.
    http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Mis/0204.jpg
    Ask me if I think film is a safer way to store photos over digital.

    But I have to agree I see very few photos from a 35mm camera that are
    as poor as the one the OP posted.

    Scott
    Scott
    Scott W, Jun 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Ryadia@home

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:17:49 -0700, Scott W wrote:

    >
    > I have had a few that bad, below is a photo that I scanned from a
    > negative that is about 20 years old, clearly something is growing on
    > it.
    > http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Mis/0204.jpg
    > Ask me if I think film is a safer way to store photos over digital.
    >
    > But I have to agree I see very few photos from a 35mm camera that are
    > as poor as the one the OP posted.
    >
    > Scott
    > Scott

    That looks like reticulation which can have a number of causes . One of
    them is a drop in temperature between baths during processing.

    --
    neil
    delete delete to reply
    Neil Ellwood, Jun 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Ryadia@home

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:44:32 -0400, Conrad wrote:
    u.
    >
    > Medium and large format film is stil awesome - particularly for
    > enlargements. I realize that there are larger format digital cameras
    > available but the current prices cause many of us to pause.

    Can't understand why you would think that, just sell a couple of mansions
    and that would be enough for a downpayment :-(

    --
    neil
    delete delete to reply
    Neil Ellwood, Jun 20, 2005
    #9
  10. Ryadia@home

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <FMAte.113009$>, Eric Miller
    says...

    > Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
    > I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
    > is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
    > That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
    > purports to show.


    My experience is that unfortunately film is that bad. See for example
    this scan:
    http://www.ddde.de/Scan.jpg

    Scan done at 4000 dpi with a Nikon LS 50 film scanner with digital ICE,
    resized to 2000 dpi, unsharp masked at 100%, radius 0.3

    There are issues with noise, detail in the shadows and white balance
    (just to name a few).
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
    Alfred Molon, Jun 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Ryadia@home

    Sheldon Guest

    IMO I think a fair test would have been to use the same brand film camera
    that can accept the digital lens, or the other way around. Shoot both shots
    of the same thing through the same lens using a tripod at the same ISO.
    This eliminates everything except the final image.

    While I'm sold on digital, I agree with others here that the film shot looks
    a lot worse than it should. My large film prints do show grain, but they
    are much sharper with more detail.

    Sheldon

    "Ryadia@home" <> wrote in message
    news:42b6ad57$...
    > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
    > digital file?
    >
    > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
    > each produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
    > Certainly comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    >
    > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size
    > source. What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    >
    > Douglas
    >
    Sheldon, Jun 20, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <d96j3f$t7b$>,
    David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    >"Ryadia@home" <> wrote:
    >> How do you compare digital to film?
    >> What do you think?
    >> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm

    >
    >Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is a
    >crime against humanity.


    You are saying that all 35mm film scanned will be as bad as what Ryadia
    manages to get?

    Showing film at 6000 dpi is going to be messy, no matter what format you
    use.

    One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).
    But Ryadia show only about 1/3rd (lengthwise) of the original frame. No
    wonder things look a bit strange.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jun 20, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >In article <FMAte.113009$>, Eric Miller
    >says...
    >
    >> Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
    >> I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
    >> is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
    >> That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
    >> purports to show.

    >
    >My experience is that unfortunately film is that bad. See for example
    >this scan:
    >http://www.ddde.de/Scan.jpg
    >
    >Scan done at 4000 dpi with a Nikon LS 50 film scanner with digital ICE,
    >resized to 2000 dpi, unsharp masked at 100%, radius 0.3
    >
    >There are issues with noise, detail in the shadows and white balance
    >(just to name a few).


    What film did you use?



    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jun 20, 2005
    #13
  14. On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:40:17 -0600, "Sheldon"
    <> wrote:

    >IMO I think a fair test would have been to use the same brand film camera
    >that can accept the digital lens, or the other way around. Shoot both shots
    >of the same thing through the same lens using a tripod at the same ISO.
    >This eliminates everything except the final image.


    I keep hearing people talk about "the digital lens" at least with
    Canon except for a couple of mutants all their lenses work on both
    digital and film bodies.

    So for your test let's use a 1DsMkII and 1V for the bodies and then
    test them with the following "L" lenses, 35mm F1.4, 135mm F2.0 and
    200mm F2.0L.

    Care to pick a film?
    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
    John A. Stovall, Jun 20, 2005
    #14
  15. Ryadia@home

    Scott W Guest

    Sheldon wrote:
    > IMO I think a fair test would have been to use the same brand film camera
    > that can accept the digital lens, or the other way around. Shoot both shots
    > of the same thing through the same lens using a tripod at the same ISO.
    > This eliminates everything except the final image.
    >

    It is really hard to say what a fair test would be. I think this is an
    area where each person needs to work it out on their own. I rarely use
    a tripod when shooting, this gives digital a big boost for the kind of
    photography that I do, since I can shoot at ISO 800 with digital and I
    tried to never buy a film faster then ISO 100.

    I have a vast number of images, both film and digital, my current
    digital images are better by far then my film ones. Why should I
    compare film to digital, shooting the film in a way that I never shoot?

    The other thing about film vs. digital is that you have to decide what
    it is you are after. I use my photo mostly in two ways, either for
    viewing on the computer screen or making 8 x 12 inch prints. For both
    of these even my Sony F828 has more then enough detail, the big win
    then is that the colors are much better with the digital then film.

    I have no problem with people saying that they prefer film over
    digital, I do have a bit of a problem when they try to say that they
    get much better photos from film but are unwilling to show these
    photos.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jun 20, 2005
    #15
  16. Ryadia@home

    Mike Henley Guest

    Ryadia@home wrote:
    > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
    > file?
    >
    > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
    > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
    > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    >
    > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
    > What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    >
    > Douglas


    There is an obvious problem; you're not comparing like to like. Compare
    the digitally enlarged image, without special digital enlargement
    procedures, to film, or put the film through the same *nice* special
    digital enlargement procedure.
    Mike Henley, Jun 20, 2005
    #16
  17. Ryadia@home

    Mike Henley Guest

    Ryadia@home wrote:
    > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
    > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
    > file?
    >
    > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
    > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
    > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
    >
    > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
    > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
    > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
    > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
    > What do you think?
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    >
    > Douglas


    Wait. Your film shot is dramatically different from this
    http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html
    There's something wrong with your film shot.
    Mike Henley, Jun 20, 2005
    #17
  18. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >>"Ryadia@home" <> wrote:


    >>> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm

    >>
    >>Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is
    >>a
    >>crime against humanity.

    >
    > You are saying that all 35mm film scanned will be as bad as what Ryadia
    > manages to get?
    >
    > Showing film at 6000 dpi is going to be messy, no matter what format you
    > use.
    >
    > One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).


    Another rule is don't print over 5x7.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 20, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <d97gta$6if$>,
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    > >
    > > One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).

    >
    > Another rule is don't print over 5x7.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    Why print at all :)

    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
    Gregory Blank, Jun 21, 2005
    #19
  20. Ryadia@home

    Scott W Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Philip Homburg" <> wrote:
    > > David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    > >>"Ryadia@home" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
    > >>
    > >>Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is
    > >>a
    > >>crime against humanity.

    > >
    > > You are saying that all 35mm film scanned will be as bad as what Ryadia
    > > manages to get?
    > >
    > > Showing film at 6000 dpi is going to be messy, no matter what format you
    > > use.
    > >
    > > One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).

    >
    > Another rule is don't print over 5x7.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    Just out of curiosity how large of a good print do you believe a 20D
    can produce?

    Scott
    Scott W, Jun 21, 2005
    #20
    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. Michael T. Anderson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    471
    Michael T. Anderson
    Sep 29, 2005
  2. MattewH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    MattewH
    Feb 2, 2005
  3. Nod

    Dramatic skies in Photoshop?

    Nod, Jul 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    552
    David Eppstein
    Jul 27, 2003
  4. Metamucil

    America's #1 comedian makes dramatic film debut!

    Metamucil, May 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    549
  5. Metamucil

    America's #1 comedian makes dramatic film debut!

    Metamucil, May 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    268
Loading...

Share This Page