What makes 35mm film different than digital?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mark_digital, Apr 14, 2004.

  1. mark_digital

    mark_digital Guest

    I spoke over the phone with a pro photographer at great
    length last night and we compared ideas. One of the things
    he said was white balance is the most important factor. I
    told him group shots drive me up a wall. Looking back, when
    I shot pictures with film I never gave white balance a thought.
    I didn't have a variety of different bulbs burning in the house
    either.
    Back when I shot with film the hard copies were different
    depending on only two situations. Either the pics were shot
    outside or inside with a flash. Digital is a bit more picky.
    Or I am. I probably stare at the images way too long.
    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Apr 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mark_digital

    Dave Guest

    Actually, when shooting with film, I was very seldom happy with the color
    rendition. But then, I didn't have the time to keep taking the results back
    to the film lab and say, "get it right." Because, after all, there is quite
    a bit of subjectivity to it if you don't do it real scientifically. With
    digital, on the other hand, at last I have the opportunity to get it how I
    want it, without spending piles of time. Then I can take it to Wal-mart or
    Costco and get reasonably close. Of course, for those who REALLY need good
    work, they can still take their digital files and go to pro lab and get the
    results they are paying for.

    "mark_digital" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > I spoke over the phone with a pro photographer at great
    > length last night and we compared ideas. One of the things
    > he said was white balance is the most important factor. I
    > told him group shots drive me up a wall. Looking back, when
    > I shot pictures with film I never gave white balance a thought.
    > I didn't have a variety of different bulbs burning in the house
    > either.
    > Back when I shot with film the hard copies were different
    > depending on only two situations. Either the pics were shot
    > outside or inside with a flash. Digital is a bit more picky.
    > Or I am. I probably stare at the images way too long.
    > mark_
    >
    >
     
    Dave, Apr 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mark_digital wrote:
    > I spoke over the phone with a pro photographer at great
    > length last night and we compared ideas. One of the things
    > he said was white balance is the most important factor. I
    > told him group shots drive me up a wall. Looking back, when
    > I shot pictures with film I never gave white balance a thought.
    > I didn't have a variety of different bulbs burning in the house
    > either.
    > Back when I shot with film the hard copies were different
    > depending on only two situations. Either the pics were shot
    > outside or inside with a flash. Digital is a bit more picky.
    > Or I am. I probably stare at the images way too long.
    > mark_


    Frankly white balance is no much different than the computer changing
    the filter pack on the printer based on measurements of the negative.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Apr 14, 2004
    #3
  4. mark_digital

    mark_digital Guest

    "Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    :Actually, when shooting with film, I was very seldom happy with the
    :color rendition. But then, I didn't have the time to keep taking the
    :results back to the film lab and say, "get it right." Because, after all,
    :there is quite a bit of subjectivity to it if you don't do it real
    :scientifically.
    :With digital, on the other hand, at last I have the opportunity to get it
    :how I want it, without spending piles of time. Then I can take it to
    :Wal-mart or Costco and get reasonably close. Of course, for those
    :who REALLY need good work, they can still take their digital files and
    :go to pro lab and get the results they are paying for.

    --------
    When you view your pictures individually I assume you are satisfied.
    But when you place them inside an album along side a previous
    order are the colors and skin tones similiar or are there striking
    differences? Like you said it's a matter of personal taste, in other
    words there is an acceptable range. My own experience with digital
    is the walls and furnishings from one room to the next has an impact
    on the overall color. With film I never noticed it. If someone's skin
    was a particular shade, it stayed that way throughout the house.
    I have the biggest problem when the women have their make-up
    on. The digital results have me scratching my head what to do.

    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Apr 15, 2004
    #4
  5. On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:36:20 -0400, "mark_digital"
    <> wrote:

    >I spoke over the phone with a pro photographer at great
    >length last night and we compared ideas. One of the things
    >he said was white balance is the most important factor. I
    >told him group shots drive me up a wall. Looking back, when
    >I shot pictures with film I never gave white balance a thought.
    >I didn't have a variety of different bulbs burning in the house
    >either.
    >Back when I shot with film the hard copies were different
    >depending on only two situations. Either the pics were shot
    >outside or inside with a flash. Digital is a bit more picky.
    >Or I am. I probably stare at the images way too long.


    You must have used a far more forgiving film that I.

    Lighting played a big roll in the results and I've been reviewing
    those results on a daily basis for the last month plus a bit.

    The color rendition between indoor and outdoor lighting is terrible in
    the films I have used.

    New flurosescents give a different color than old and there are a
    number of color temperature fluorescent lights available. There is
    also a variation in the color temperature from Tungsten lamps as well.

    In digital I just leave the white balance on auto and it *seems* to do
    a good job. Far better than the stuff that came back from any place
    except a custom lab.

    We the E20N I had problems with the color Red washing out all the
    details in bright red flowers (saturation). I've not noted that with
    the D-70, but in another month those roses will be out for a
    comparison.

    I have not found "in my limited experience" that digital is more
    picky.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >mark_
    >
     
    Roger Halstead, Apr 15, 2004
    #5
  6. "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >noted and snipped<

    :In digital I just leave the white balance on auto and it *seems* to do
    :a good job. Far better than the stuff that came back from any place
    :except a custom lab.
    >noted and snipped<


    :Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    :(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    --------
    I may have to ask someone to hold a piece of white paper
    in view because many of my trouble shots had no white.
    Flesh tones in these cases are, for lack of a better phrase,
    metallically goldish. Next to impossible for me to adjust
    later.
    mark_
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=, Apr 15, 2004
    #6
  7. mark_digital

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/14/04 9:16 PM, in article ,
    "Roger Halstead" <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:36:20 -0400, "mark_digital"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I spoke over the phone with a pro photographer at great
    >> length last night and we compared ideas. One of the things
    >> he said was white balance is the most important factor. I
    >> told him group shots drive me up a wall. Looking back, when
    >> I shot pictures with film I never gave white balance a thought.
    >> I didn't have a variety of different bulbs burning in the house
    >> either.
    >> Back when I shot with film the hard copies were different
    >> depending on only two situations. Either the pics were shot
    >> outside or inside with a flash. Digital is a bit more picky.
    >> Or I am. I probably stare at the images way too long.

    >
    > You must have used a far more forgiving film that I.
    >
    > Lighting played a big roll in the results and I've been reviewing
    > those results on a daily basis for the last month plus a bit.
    >
    > The color rendition between indoor and outdoor lighting is terrible in
    > the films I have used.
    >
    > New flurosescents give a different color than old and there are a
    > number of color temperature fluorescent lights available. There is
    > also a variation in the color temperature from Tungsten lamps as well.
    >
    > In digital I just leave the white balance on auto and it *seems* to do
    > a good job. Far better than the stuff that came back from any place
    > except a custom lab.
    >
    > We the E20N I had problems with the color Red washing out all the
    > details in bright red flowers (saturation). I've not noted that with
    > the D-70, but in another month those roses will be out for a
    > comparison.
    >
    > I have not found "in my limited experience" that digital is more
    > picky.
    >
    > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    > www.rogerhalstead.com
    >
    >> mark_
    >>

    >

    Roger, next time you need to shoot film in 'mied' lighting try Fuji Realia
    and have it printed by a 'pro' lab. The results are pretty damn good in most
    cases.


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Apr 15, 2004
    #7
  8. mark_digital

    Don Stauffer Guest

    To me, proper color balance is a bigger problem with film than with
    digital. I can easily shift color when processing a digital image. I do
    not have a color darkroom, so if a film print comes out bad, I have to
    work with lab for a reprint with a better color, and hope they do what I
    want.

    mark_digital wrote:
    >
    > I spoke over the phone with a pro photographer at great
    > length last night and we compared ideas. One of the things
    > he said was white balance is the most important factor. I
    > told him group shots drive me up a wall. Looking back, when
    > I shot pictures with film I never gave white balance a thought.
    > I didn't have a variety of different bulbs burning in the house
    > either.
    > Back when I shot with film the hard copies were different
    > depending on only two situations. Either the pics were shot
    > outside or inside with a flash. Digital is a bit more picky.
    > Or I am. I probably stare at the images way too long.
    > mark_


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Apr 15, 2004
    #8
  9. On 15 Apr 2004 12:07:53 GMT, George Kerby <>
    wrote:

    >On 4/14/04 9:16 PM, in article ,
    >"Roger Halstead" <> wrote:
    >

    <snip>
    >> In digital I just leave the white balance on auto and it *seems* to do
    >> a good job. Far better than the stuff that came back from any place
    >> except a custom lab.
    >>
    >> We the E20N I had problems with the color Red washing out all the
    >> details in bright red flowers (saturation). I've not noted that with
    >> the D-70, but in another month those roses will be out for a
    >> comparison.
    >>
    >> I have not found "in my limited experience" that digital is more
    >> picky.
    >>
    >> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    >> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    >> www.rogerhalstead.com
    >>
    >>> mark_
    >>>

    >>

    >Roger, next time you need to shoot film in 'mied' lighting try Fuji Realia
    >and have it printed by a 'pro' lab. The results are pretty damn good in most
    >cases.
    >

    I did mention "except for pro labs"<:))

    The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there.

    However the custom labs are pretty good at making the *usually* minor
    corrections. The standard labs were pretty poor. Surprisingly, I
    found the one hour at the local Meijer store to be *almost* as good as
    the custom lab in that respect.

    It's amazing how we process color.
    I was out shooting (shotguns) clay targets and wearing the deep pink
    shooting glasses for about half an hour. When I took them off the
    clouds turned a terrible green. It took about 20 seconds for them to
    change back. The change was not gradual. For about 20 seconds the
    clouds were green. I blinked and they were white.
    >

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >_______________________________________________________________________________
    >Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    >
     
    Roger Halstead, Apr 15, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Roger Halstead <> wrote:
    >The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    >and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there.


    I don't know what kind of definition you use for 'real colors', but
    when photography is involved, it is all about our eyes and our brain.
    Reproducing the original color spectrum is a bit tricky.


    --
    Everyone I've met who had any experience with the phenomenon have confirmed my
    opinion that if a Ph.D. in computer science knows anything at all about
    computers, it's probably pretty much an accident. -- J.D. Baldwin, in asr
     
    Philip Homburg, Apr 15, 2004
    #10
  11. mark_digital

    Charlie Self Guest

    Roger Halstead writes:

    >The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    >and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there


    And how do we know what the 'real colors" are if we are interpreting them?

    Charlie Self
    "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our
    institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 15, 2004
    #11
  12. On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:31:13 +0200, (Philip
    Homburg) wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >Roger Halstead <> wrote:
    >>The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    >>and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there.

    >
    >I don't know what kind of definition you use for 'real colors', but
    >when photography is involved, it is all about our eyes and our brain.
    >Reproducing the original color spectrum is a bit tricky.


    Shure nuff is!
    When we go into a room with fluorescent lights we don't see green
    light, but the camera does. Our eyes adjust it to a cool white.
    Course it helps that some of the light is in bands we don't see, yet
    the camera may.

    When we are in a room lit by incandescents we rarely notice the gold
    color...unless the lamp shades are also beige tint.

    In a nightclub we definitely notice the color, but it tends to fade
    the longer we are there and not just from what we have been drinking.
    <:)) Photos shot under the same light may be decidedly monochrome.

    Nor do we all see colors just the same. Maybe close, but not the same.
    Like the one hour photo we do the best job we can to make the colors
    look right to "us"

    Some like high contrast and some don't. What defines excessive?

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Apr 15, 2004
    #12
  13. mark_digital

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/15/04 10:57 AM, in article ,
    "Roger Halstead" <> wrote:

    > On 15 Apr 2004 12:07:53 GMT, George Kerby <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 4/14/04 9:16 PM, in article ,
    >> "Roger Halstead" <> wrote:
    >>

    > <snip>
    >>> In digital I just leave the white balance on auto and it *seems* to do
    >>> a good job. Far better than the stuff that came back from any place
    >>> except a custom lab.
    >>>
    >>> We the E20N I had problems with the color Red washing out all the
    >>> details in bright red flowers (saturation). I've not noted that with
    >>> the D-70, but in another month those roses will be out for a
    >>> comparison.
    >>>
    >>> I have not found "in my limited experience" that digital is more
    >>> picky.
    >>>
    >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    >>> www.rogerhalstead.com
    >>>
    >>>> mark_
    >>>>
    >>>

    >> Roger, next time you need to shoot film in 'mied' lighting try Fuji Realia
    >> and have it printed by a 'pro' lab. The results are pretty damn good in most
    >> cases.
    >>

    > I did mention "except for pro labs"<:))
    >
    > The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    > and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there.
    >
    > However the custom labs are pretty good at making the *usually* minor
    > corrections. The standard labs were pretty poor. Surprisingly, I
    > found the one hour at the local Meijer store to be *almost* as good as
    > the custom lab in that respect.
    >
    > It's amazing how we process color.
    > I was out shooting (shotguns) clay targets and wearing the deep pink
    > shooting glasses for about half an hour. When I took them off the
    > clouds turned a terrible green. It took about 20 seconds for them to
    > change back. The change was not gradual. For about 20 seconds the
    > clouds were green. I blinked and they were white.
    >>

    > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    > www.rogerhalstead.com
    >

    Much like being SCUBA diving and noticing that the red end of the spectrum
    is turning gray. Have you ever had your retinas photographed? MAN that will
    REALLY affect your color perception!


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Apr 16, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    Roger Halstead <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:31:13 +0200, (Philip
    >Homburg) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >>Roger Halstead <> wrote:
    >>>The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    >>>and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there.

    >>
    >>I don't know what kind of definition you use for 'real colors', but
    >>when photography is involved, it is all about our eyes and our brain.
    >>Reproducing the original color spectrum is a bit tricky.

    >
    >Shure nuff is!
    >When we go into a room with fluorescent lights we don't see green
    >light, but the camera does. Our eyes adjust it to a cool white.
    >Course it helps that some of the light is in bands we don't see, yet
    >the camera may.
    >
    >When we are in a room lit by incandescents we rarely notice the gold
    >color...unless the lamp shades are also beige tint.


    Ah, you are talking about the about the auto white-balance features of
    our eyes/brain. Sensor based cameras (including analog video cameras)
    have been doing that for years (usually in the consumer models).

    'Accurate' color reproduction is about mimicking our eyes. The real colors
    are what we see. The reason incandescents look yellow on daylight
    film is that the white point for daylight film is wrong for incandescents.


    --
    Everyone I've met who had any experience with the phenomenon have confirmed my
    opinion that if a Ph.D. in computer science knows anything at all about
    computers, it's probably pretty much an accident. -- J.D. Baldwin, in asr
     
    Philip Homburg, Apr 16, 2004
    #14
  15. On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:58:18 +0200, (Philip
    Homburg) wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >Roger Halstead <> wrote:
    >>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:31:13 +0200, (Philip
    >>Homburg) wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>,
    >>>Roger Halstead <> wrote:
    >>>>The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    >>>>and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there.
    >>>
    >>>I don't know what kind of definition you use for 'real colors', but
    >>>when photography is involved, it is all about our eyes and our brain.
    >>>Reproducing the original color spectrum is a bit tricky.

    >>
    >>Shure nuff is!
    >>When we go into a room with fluorescent lights we don't see green
    >>light, but the camera does. Our eyes adjust it to a cool white.
    >>Course it helps that some of the light is in bands we don't see, yet
    >>the camera may.
    >>
    >>When we are in a room lit by incandescents we rarely notice the gold
    >>color...unless the lamp shades are also beige tint.

    >
    >Ah, you are talking about the about the auto white-balance features of
    >our eyes/brain. Sensor based cameras (including analog video cameras)
    >have been doing that for years (usually in the consumer models).
    >
    >'Accurate' color reproduction is about mimicking our eyes. The real colors
    >are what we see. The reason incandescents look yellow on daylight
    >film is that the white point for daylight film is wrong for incandescents.


    I thought that was what I said, but in different words<:))
    At any rate, film has one correct color temperature, but artificial
    lighting can cover a wide range. Most of that can be corrected in
    printing just as it can with photoshop which is where the custom labs
    are nice.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Apr 17, 2004
    #15
  16. mark_digital

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Roger Halstead <> wrote:

    >Shure nuff is!
    >When we go into a room with fluorescent lights we don't see green
    >light, but the camera does. Our eyes adjust it to a cool white.
    >Course it helps that some of the light is in bands we don't see, yet
    >the camera may.
    >
    >When we are in a room lit by incandescents we rarely notice the gold
    >color...unless the lamp shades are also beige tint.
    >
    >In a nightclub we definitely notice the color, but it tends to fade
    >the longer we are there and not just from what we have been drinking.
    ><:)) Photos shot under the same light may be decidedly monochrome.
    >
    >Nor do we all see colors just the same. Maybe close, but not the same.
    >Like the one hour photo we do the best job we can to make the colors
    >look right to "us"


    An interesting phenomenon that exemplifies the brain's white balance is
    that if you use an eye-dropper tool to set white balance in a color
    photo, and select something that is actually very saturated, the color
    selected will turn grey (equal RGB), but it will still look like it has
    saturation.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 17, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    Roger Halstead <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:58:18 +0200, (Philip
    >Homburg) wrote:
    >>'Accurate' color reproduction is about mimicking our eyes. The real colors
    >>are what we see. The reason incandescents look yellow on daylight
    >>film is that the white point for daylight film is wrong for incandescents.

    >
    >I thought that was what I said, but in different words<:))


    You were talking about 'real colors':
    >>>>>The big thing with a good film such as Realia it sees the real colors
    >>>>>and not the ones our eyes and brain think are there.


    >At any rate, film has one correct color temperature, but artificial
    >lighting can cover a wide range. Most of that can be corrected in
    >printing just as it can with photoshop which is where the custom labs
    >are nice.


    Again 'correct'. A fixed color temperature is a design limitation of film.
    You make it sound like it's a feature.



    --
    Everyone I've met who had any experience with the phenomenon have confirmed my
    opinion that if a Ph.D. in computer science knows anything at all about
    computers, it's probably pretty much an accident. -- J.D. Baldwin, in asr
     
    Philip Homburg, Apr 17, 2004
    #17
    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. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    90
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
  2. Paul Ciszek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    98
    J. Clarke
    Apr 26, 2014
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    114
    Whisky-dave
    Apr 29, 2014
  4. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    89
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
  5. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    98
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page