film or digital?

stillshunter

Super Moderator Emeritus
Location
Down Under
Name
Mark
Thought it might be interesting to share black and white images taken from both digital and film (for those still holding onto the old ways) media - and especially if there's similarities enough that they can be compared.

Here's two images from a recent day out - both taken with serious compacts. Be keen to hear opinions of your preference - if you are willing to share.
Also love to see similars from other dualists out there.
NB: I know you can easily 'cheat' by checking the image details via Flickr, but resist if you'd like to entertain some intrigue

Image #1
11201091894_033518d7f6_b.jpg


Image #2
11148372396_8556c3297a_b.jpg


P.S. I have a clear favourite, but that simply betrays my bias :blush:
 
I can see differences but no real preference - prefer the bluish tint of the first & the sharpness of the second

close call I'm on the fence

I guess first is film - softer less sharp which is what I get from scanned film images
 
James and ReD. Thanks fella. Yep, the first is film - well digitised via scanning :blush: - and the second a straight digital file. The former from my 'can never part with' mju-ii (a.k.a. Stylus Epic) and the other from the GR. Got to say they are a nice duo. …though the GR does make me hanker for something slim, film and wide.

Got to admit say though when it comes to B+W there is just something about film….yeah it's 'noisier' but there's just something about the feel of the image.
 
I preferred the second before I saw which was which, but I think it might have as much to do with the photograph as which was which technology. More emphasis on the shape of the tree, larger leaves, more detail in the foreground. I'd be mildly interested to see identical photos with film and digital, but nothing is gonna chase me back to film so it's pretty much academic interest for me...

-Ray
 
The second is my pick as well, but then photographically I have "grown up" completely in the digital era. I don't really know if the first looks distinctly filmlike or not, but I just prefer the second. I do agree with Ray however that I prefer the framing of the digital image and the removal of the leaves in the foreground.
 
Thought it might be interesting to share black and white images taken from both digital and film (for those still holding onto the old ways) media - and especially if there's similarities enough that they can be compared.

Here's two images from a recent day out - both taken with serious compacts. Be keen to hear opinions of your preference - if you are willing to share.
Also love to see similars from other dualists out there.
NB: I know you can easily 'cheat' by checking the image details via Flickr, but resist if you'd like to entertain some intrigue

Image #1
11201091894_033518d7f6_b.jpg


Image #2
11148372396_8556c3297a_b.jpg


P.S. I have a clear favourite, but that simply betrays my bias :blush:

I won't venture which is which, but just simply say I prefer #2.
 
I preferred the second before I saw which was which, but I think it might have as much to do with the photograph as which was which technology. More emphasis on the shape of the tree, larger leaves, more detail in the foreground. I'd be mildly interested to see identical photos with film and digital, but nothing is gonna chase me back to film so it's pretty much academic interest for me...

-Ray

^^ what Ray said.
 
Bill, you make an excellent point, but following your own logic, it should be a wet print vs. a digital file viewed on a monitor. :tomato2:

I would take issue with this statement. In my logic after developing your film you have a film negative, after post processing your digital image you have a digital negative. You then print each in the way that they are meant to be printed, so a wet print process for the film negative and a digital printer for the digital negative.

I would expect the wet print to show better tonal gradation, but it might not show better resolution than the digital print.

I must repeat something I'm on record as saying before, the act of down sizing for the web removes so much of the information in an image that it becomes very difficult to judge quality in the way that many people would have you believe.

(stands back and waits for the flack :))

Barrie
 
In my logic after developing your film you have a film negative, after post processing your digital image you have a digital negative.

I see your point Barrie and I agree with you in theory. But as one who never prints, I might say that the RAW file is the negative and the final processed JPEG is "the print".

*makes a mental note to actually print some photos*
 
I see your point Barrie and I agree with you in theory. But as one who never prints, I might say that the RAW file is the negative and the final processed JPEG is "the print".

I can see your logic there Luke when, for you, the end product is a digitally viewed image using either a monitor or a projector.

*makes a mental note to actually print some photos*

That reminds me to obtain some more printing paper tomorrow :)

Barrie
 
Well, downsizing for the web didn't remove so much info that I couldn't spot the film shot right away. No contest, I could tell from the softer colors and milkier tones vs the relatively crisp GR shot. Also the GR glass is a lot better at the edges, so in a way the glass gave it away for me quicker than the recording medium. "That top one looks like old glass" is what went through my head.
 
Also, I did this once before but I can't seem to get Imageshack to upload any images so I can re-post it here... but I shot the same woods scene with TMax 400 and the X100, and even halved the images and put them together.
 
Back
Top