1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

film or digital?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by stillshunter, Dec 4, 2013.

  1. stillshunter

    stillshunter Super Moderator Emeritus

    Nov 5, 2010
    Down Under
    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
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/46650120@N04/11201091894" title="mangrove by Mark, on Flickr"> 11201091894_033518d7f6_b. "1024" height="673" alt="mangrove"></a>

    Image #2
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/46650120@N04/11148372396" title="mangrove by Mark, on Flickr"> 11148372396_8556c3297a_b. "1024" height="678" alt="mangrove"></a>

    P.S. I have a clear favourite, but that simply betrays my bias :blush:
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. TraamisVOS

    TraamisVOS SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2010
    Melboune, Australia
    Is film #2? bah... I can't tell.

    Actually #2 looks like it might have a bit more post-processing than #1 so maybe #1 is film.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. ReD

    ReD SC Hall of Famer

    Mar 27, 2013
    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
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. stillshunter

    stillshunter Super Moderator Emeritus

    Nov 5, 2010
    Down Under
    Mark
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. TraamisVOS

    TraamisVOS SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2010
    Melboune, Australia
    Have you tried an M8 for B&W before? The noise grain in the M8 is very film-like. I can see the difference when I compare it with noise grain from my 7D.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    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
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. TraamisVOS

    TraamisVOS SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2010
    Melboune, Australia
    At first I picked #1 as the digital because it looks like there are some blown highlights on the ground (or is it swamp water?).

    But then #2 looked like it has been post-processed which makes it more likely to be the digital file.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    I won't venture which is which, but just simply say I prefer #2.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    ^^ what Ray said.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I could have never told you which was which, but I definitely prefer the composition in the 2nd.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    Point of order...

    Once a film image has been scanned, it is by definition digital. If you want to compare and contrast surely you should do so via a wet print vs a digital print?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    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:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    How true! ;)

    Sent from another Galaxy
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Yeats

    Yeats SC All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    Chris
    I have a digital thermometer, but I consider myself Analog...

    [video=youtube;fsI4XykjXiM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsI4XykjXiM[/video]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. grebeman

    grebeman Old Codgers Group

    Jul 13, 2010
    South Brent, south Devon (UK)
    Barrie
    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 :smile:)

    Barrie
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    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*
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. grebeman

    grebeman Old Codgers Group

    Jul 13, 2010
    South Brent, south Devon (UK)
    Barrie
    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.

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

    Barrie
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. KillRamsey

    KillRamsey SC Hall of Famer

    Jun 20, 2012
    Cambridge, MA
    Kyle
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. KillRamsey

    KillRamsey SC Hall of Famer

    Jun 20, 2012
    Cambridge, MA
    Kyle
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1