View Full Version : What is wrong with the "digital Look"?
From time to time there are posts exclaiming : "That looks digital", meaning "not good". Now I start to wonder. I won't contest that many, if not nearly all, images captured on sensors look different from film-captures. But since when is different a value judgement? Negative film looks different from slide film, black and white certainly from colour, Tri-X from ISO25 recording film, acrylic paints from watercolours or oil paint etc.
I just want to say : so what!
Great images are being made on film, great images are being made on digital. Let's use the different renderings creatively and let's get digital photography into its own as a seperate medium and not a stupid imitation of "film" (which film???)
I hate to say it, Jaap, but I can't agree with you more. :)
jan normandale
11-03-2006, 12:04
I don't have any issue with digital images except images that are small and used for printing, then the shortcomings are clear. You do get a poorer quality image in 8x10. However for the internet where the images are small and people use either 'digitized' film images or images directly from a digital camera, which then is digitally resized there is little qualitative difference even on a quality monitor.
Do I care? Not if it is on the net. If it is in a gallery and the images are greater than 8x10 ... sometimes I do.
After all that, I only upload digitized film images at RFF. Why? Because that's what this particular forum is all about.
Jaap, you were always slamming Canons' plastic "digital look". A chance of heart for you? Investing $5K on an M8 will do that to ya. However, in all the M8 excitment, I can imagine how easy it is for people to loose their minds, perhaps we'll see the old Jaap return after a brief hiatus with the M8 and its "digital image goodness"
NaturFoto, a very respected German semi-pro magazine: "the files impressed with extremely low noise. Noise became visible but not intrusive at 800 ISO and 1600 ISO is usable" I would call that very good for a CCD, and a small price to pay to avoid digitally dead CMos pictures.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=261624&postcount=4
The Lord forbid! The quality of the DMR is that it does NOT have a CMOS sensor with its plastic digital look!
Time investment- don't ask my wife, there are moments that I fear to see the computer fly through the window..... Seriously, I think a professional who has his workflow just right would do it in five minutes, I myself would be nearer your 20 minutes I suppose. As it is, I find scanning and working my film captures the most timeconsuming part. It is the "plastic look" of especially CMos sensors of Canon that I don't like, though it is fine for wildlife photography. Canon use taught me Photoshop skills. It has spoilt me so much though, that I tend to remove the grain from blue skies in film scans..That is the reason I'm so excited about the Leica contribution to Digital Photography, as they get the right look without too much postprocessing.The comments on the DMR are "It brings Kodachrome to digital" Those people obviously haven't seen the results of the Digilux2. It pointed the way in a more modest sense that the DMR, but it was, together with the RD1 the only option for digital "film look" I can't wait to see what they will make of the M8dig.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129546&postcount=42
sebastel
11-03-2006, 12:54
What is wrong with the "digital Look"?
nothing's wrong with it. it's just different in the making.
I seem to remember well what Ywenz mentioned about Jaaps views on canon DSLR's ....
furhtermore I agree with Ywenz' conclusion.
Maybe Jaap would like to elaborate ?
as for the Leica M8 results, I have had one in my possesion for the 48 hours or so, they are not any different than the D5 results, they are good, not complaining at all, but no different and nobody could tell the difference if put to the choice. The M8 is just a lot smaller, and lighter, and nicer (i find) but the results are quality Digital images, just like many others on the market today.
Jamie123
11-03-2006, 13:06
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "digital look" most of the times but I'm not anti-digital. There are some people that really impress me with their digital work( and their post-processing!).
I may someday buy a dSLR but if I do it's definitely going to be a full-frame one like the Canon 5D. At the moment I don't have the money for it, though, and if I had I'd rather spend it on a Leica M or some new Hasselblad lenses.
Jaap, it was you who said over and over again that you don't like the digital plastic look from the Canon DSLR. A chance of heart for you? Yes, I agree that anyone who invests in an M8 ought to re-think their views on digital photography.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129546&postcount=42
I was wondering when this would come up :) Will some of the anti digital brigade now be singing the praises of digital with the advent of the M8? Not looking to start a war, just find the prospect amusing. ;)
I don't have a problem with digital or film - I use both, so no axe to grind on that front. Which is better? I'll leave that up to others.
Jaap, it was you who said over and over again that you don't like the digital plastic look from the Canon DSLR. A chance of heart for you? Spending $5K on the M8 would do that..
LOL. My first thought too. :) You don't have to justify your purchase, Jaapv. :p Most of us at one time or another stated that we preferred film and rangefinders, but that doesn't mean we hate digital images and slr's.
I agree. Digital is a different look. I think the difference is greater than say that between film speeds. It's really a matter of conditioning. Us old guys have a lifetime of looking at images made from film. In the end that's a good thing.
:)
Nachkebia
11-03-2006, 13:12
Oh my, don`t get me started here... will pass this topic okey? :)
I am not anti-digital (some would disagree!), but I think there are just so many digital shots/photos that it is inevitable there is a lot of dreck (technically speaking) published, especially on the net. In the hands of someone who really knows how to handle the post, I can see it can be very different. Most of the "digital look" shots that I see are so sharp and clean that texture and volume (3-dimensionality) are severely reduced if not totally obliterated, IMO of course. It is a lifeless look to me.
In the interview with Tod Papageorge referenced in another thread, Papageorge was asked about digital:
"We have a couple of huge digital prints up at Yale that were made from Walker Evans's negatives. I was uninterested in them the first moment I looked at them. They just don't have what, to me, makes Evans a great photographer, that sense that the lens has cut like an especially sharp knife into the light and drawn out a radiant fact."
This is in regard to monocrhome work, of course, and Papageorge does say that print quality for colour is pretty much there. I agree that the potential is there, but, of course, it really depends on the execution, both exposure and post.
Frankly, I think a lot of these discussions are based on web images, as Jan has indicated. To a certain extent, web images are irrelevant to me wrt photography as a documentary or artistic medium.
you see this phenomena on all the (responsible) fori the Leica forum for instance, most would intelectually write digital photography into an early grave, now the M8 has come out their views start to change all of a sudden, BUT remebering their initial formulated dislike of digital they will come up with the most absurd excuses why M8 is the better digital camera.
One of the things that I miss on the M8 is autofocus, digital shooting is different than film, autofocus works with digital. For the rest it is a very decent camera, is it worth it's money ... no
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Walt Whitman
Come on - Give Jaap a break. He's entitled to leica his new purchase. :)
People forget that digital photography is only approximately 10 years old as a mass medium, and much of the stylistic qualities are technologically, rather than artisitically driven (ooh look! isn't my new sensor sharper and cleaner than my old one - look at my new sharp/clean pictures).
Nachkebia
11-03-2006, 13:58
They have to sell cameras, so they give crap so they can sell better years to come :D
Jaap, you were always slamming Canons' plastic "digital look". A chance of heart for you? Investing $5K on an M8 will do that to ya. However, in all the M8 excitment, I can imagine how easy it is for people to loose their minds, perhaps we'll see the old Jaap return after a brief hiatus with the M8 and its "digital image goodness"
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=261624&postcount=4
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129546&postcount=42
Where did I say I started to like the way Canon digital photographs look? :rolleyes: I still don't. So no contradiction there. if you look up my old posts you'll find me firmly on the fence with my feet planted on the ground on both sides where the old and new technology are concerned. Yes- I dislike Cmos sensors for their results, as I dislike the Leica Digilux3, what I've seen of it Plastic or vaseline both are useful only for Barbie ads imo. But- I have always liked the Digilux 2 and Nikons for the way they digitally rendered photo's. Having said that, the intention of this post was something quite different, a redefining of terms. I think that with the M8, and, let's be fair, the 5D, digital has come of age. And in that context I think the whole film vs digital debate is obsolete. Digital is a big boy now. It does not have to resemble Daddy any more.
I prefer shooting film, but there's nothing wrong with digital. I just think of it like shooting a different film emulsion and let it go at that. Ultimately, I can't usually tell how an image started (film or digital) and I don't really care as long as it's good/appealing/whatever.
Nachkebia
11-03-2006, 14:08
Yes it is big, but it is chip looking clean and sharp mobile image with more colors and alot of details! how exiting is that? :D
The answer to "Can't we all just get along?" is "No...no we can't".
Bob
Just say that you're buying the M8 because you like to shoot with a Leica made digital RF and be done with. No one can argue with that statement. Making bold statements that are basically saying: "M8 is the new definition of digital photography" and "The digital look is great" is just asking for debates like this. You don't need to try to convince sensible individuals that you bought the M8 for any reason other than affection for the Leica brand and the RF photographic style.
Guy on photo.net summed it up nicely:
"I don't think the M8 is so much about results, if the results are within reason. It's about being able to use essentially the same old camera, but with digital guts. Big price to pay though. For some, too much."
The first I said and believe to be true, the second I did not in any way say and is putting words into my mouth.And your analasys of my motives is a good condensed rendering of about every second post I made.
I hate to say it, Jaap, but I can't agree with you more. :)
I second ray_g on this.
Thank you for bringing the thread on track again.:)I would like to discuss the advent of digital photography as a seperate entity.
I love film, I love digital. They're different and digi pics remind me more of col slides than anything else. I've had great results from both media, and lots of duds in both.
The thing that keeps me using film is that I like film CAMERAS more than digital CAMERAS. If I could afford top-end digital gear, that might change, but I'm still taken with the feel, heft and operation of manual cameras. Doesn't make them better, just nicer to use -- for me.
Gene
Hey, we're all in a major paradigm shift; an inflection point in photography.
Film usage will diminish but not go extinct: everyone will have more choices for their personal expression as a result.
I just don't want to be dominated and controlled by all the necessary nitty-gritty (boring) computer work after shifting more of my image creation from film to digital. I've had a film scanner for four years so I'm not going at this "digital thing" cold but still would rather be taking pictures than bit-twiddling them.
-g
You said it; it is a digital look. You like it, so this is good for you.
What I mean to say is that let's each enjoy what we like to use.
Raid
I agree 100% with GeneW's comments above. I love the feel of film cameras, a reason the Hexar AF makes me just want to get a digital. And digipics do remind me of color slides, I guess because they share the fact that their light is filtered direct light, instead of the reflected light of prints.
Bob Ross
11-03-2006, 18:48
Having now read through all the posts in this thread, I thoght I'd toss a few bits in. In 1964 I made my first enlarger, so that I could get prints the way I had envisioned them when I took the picture. I spent 40 years doing the dark, wet smelly thing, to keep doing the same. This was all hobby work and about 60%/40% color/ B&W and mostly self taught. In that time I certainly made all the mistakes possible and tried every process to come out. Beyond all that fun, I began to see what I was looking at for years. Now, we have a new process and hey, it is again different. A lot of the "difference" comments are generalities, rather than specific traits. Not a lot of comments are made about where certain traits would be very useful, either.
The real question might be, can we still get prints the way we envisioned then when we took the picture? If not, why not and how can we? When I wet printed, I used to make as many as 6 generations of prints before I got what I wanted. Now, I might do two or three, but seldom hear about others doing that. I like digital as a process. I think the craft is still there and I think the results can be every bit as good as the wet trail. Another thing I like about the digital process is that I can make more mistake in a shorter period of time and that is an important part of my learing process...LOL
Bob
bronekkozka
11-03-2006, 19:24
This so called "digital look".... as a opposed to a "film look"...I'm guessing...I'm struggling with this concept a little.... is it a film look when it is shot on film (obviously)....then hand printed in the darkroom (on fibre based paper ;) no less ) ... is it still a "film look" when a neg is scanned...or a tranny for that matter (no not a man in a dress..chrome??) .... and printed...what if it is an inkjet print....what if it just "lives" online???....Is it still a "film look" when you've spend 3 days photoshopping into something very different from where you started.... and this "film look" is it Tri-x...Velvia...Kodachrome...Polaroid T55.....
I'm sorry I just can't buy into this "film look" "digital look" idea... I realise a lot of you are saying its not a X Vs. Y....but you are saying that there is a divide, a difference....but that divide exists between EVERY type of film, every type digital capture device, every way the film or digital file is processed...isn't that the whole point of having different film stocks and different digital cameras and backs...so there is no ONE look, rather many....
One thing I will say is that with film, if you don't have the knowledge or facilities...you send your film off to be processed...BUT with digital you grab that raw file and have a hack...maybe these are the results that look "digital"... maybe what is being pick up as "digital" is just poor control...
Just a few thoughts
Bronek
What Gene said and, to an extent, what Doug said. Digipics remind me of slides, but they are NOT slides.
And just to emphasize what Gene said, the tool (camera) is an integral and intimte part of photography. If one camera/medium is significantly "better" in my hands than another, then who the hell cares whether it is analog or digital? I don't. It's simply a better tool for achievng my vision.
SteveM(PA)
11-03-2006, 20:19
When I look at one of my film prints, from an FSU camera in particular, I can recall, primary, the reckless abandon I felt by photographing with something that was essentially free. Beyond that, I recall the scent and feel of the Fed leather ERC, the little sting of the cold eyepiece on my lashes. I remember how the wind lever felt when I advanced to that frame, with all the perfect mechanical harmony inside, and a quick whiff of lithium grease. I remember what the emulsion smelled like when I loaded it. I impart all this to what I see in the print, and I'm sure it's not much, compared with those who do their own processing. The crafting of a digital print has it's own remembrances. But to me, it is akin to traveling to my favorite fishing hole. It seems more special when I've gotten there by bicycle, than it does if I've driven my car. Of course, the fish don't care how I got there.
What the hell am I blabbin' about. Blab blab blab, curse you, $9 wine. :)
Nikon Bob
11-03-2006, 20:32
It is nice to see that most have a sensible approach to digital and film. I like Genes comments on the matter very much. I also find what Magnus has said about how it is funny that once Leica made a digital camera quite a few Leicaphiles that were formally anti digital now feel that the Leica is/will be a superior digital camera. Some things never change but are still good for a chuckle.
Bob
humanized_form
11-03-2006, 20:36
i think for me a big difference between digital and color slides is that the slide IS the final image. this really is a big difference between slides and digital.
a slide isn't a starting point for a "digital workflow". your photoshop comes in camera with your choice of film, lens and metering. personally, i think it is really fun knowing that it is all up to you and the decisions you make as you take the picture. i think it's cool that you are making the final image as you take the image.
for best results with digital it is necessary to use a computer to "fix" the image that another computer captured. some may prefer this method and believe that digital gives them more "control" over the final image. maybe they enjoy the post processing rituals, whatever makes people happy, ya know?
i just know that with slides if you use a sharp lens and focus correctly, the slide is tight and sharp. there is no need for sharpening "tools" in post. i like that.
and with slides if you meter right for what you are going for, then you get a nicely exposed image right out of the camera. there is no tweaking like is necessary with a digital file. there is no histogram watching and trying to push everything to the right or whatever.
i started with and still like digital for some stuff and have been on a M8 waiting list, but have realized that all digital really has to offer to me over slides is convenience. i don't know if that is worth $4795. i have the money set aside and have been waiting so long for the digital M, but for some reason i'm just sort of underwhelmed at this point.
i think maybe i will wait a while for the firmware fixes etc and to see more images.
xayraa33
11-03-2006, 20:52
the calotype had a different look to a daguerreotype, collodion wet plate gave a different look than the calotype and the dag-type.
dry plates gave a different look still..... and so on,
in time we learn to love them all.
just think, in a few years we will nostalgic about that crispy digital look of the first decade of the 21st century, and seek out those legendary cameras that took them. all photographic process are fashions of sorts.
boilerdoc2
11-03-2006, 21:13
First there was drawing with a stick,then scupting from stone, then painting with pigments/dyes/oils, then photography with plates and films, now images with sensors and computers. It's evolution at work. And you know what?-all the pre existing techniques to create images/art are still in use. Embrace them all they are here to stay.
Digital has revitalized and energized my photography and I still shoot 50% film.
Steve
jan normandale
11-03-2006, 21:20
This so called "digital look".... as a opposed to a "film look"...I'm guessing...I'm struggling with this concept a little.... is it a film look when it is shot on film (obviously)....then hand printed in the darkroom (on fibre based paper ;) no less ) ... is it still a "film look" when a neg is scanned...or a tranny for that matter (no not a man in a dress..chrome??) .... and printed...what if it is an inkjet print....what if it just "lives" online???....Is it still a "film look" when you've spend 3 days photoshopping into something very different from where you started.... and this "film look" is it Tri-x...Velvia...Kodachrome...Polaroid T55.....
I'm sorry I just can't buy into this "film look" "digital look" idea... I realise a lot of you are saying its not a X Vs. Y....but you are saying that there is a divide, a difference....but that divide exists between EVERY type of film, every type digital capture device, every way the film or digital file is processed...isn't that the whole point of having different film stocks and different digital cameras and backs...so there is no ONE look, rather many....
One thing I will say is that with film, if you don't have the knowledge or facilities...you send your film off to be processed...BUT with digital you grab that raw file and have a hack...maybe these are the results that look "digital"... maybe what is being pick up as "digital" is just poor control...
Just a few thoughts
Bronek
Hi Bronek, take a full size digital image say 5-8mb and then get a 30x20 print, you'll see what happens to the image. Take any reasonably shot piece of 35 mm and scanned to it's full image of 15- 20 mb and have the 30x20 image printed. You'll see this image is also not as good as a MF. The difference between retail digital and retail film cameras is still visibly apparent.
This may be irrelevant for people shooting for 4x6 or perhaps up to 8x10 but after that my eyes see the difference in a colour print from digital.
Trius said..."Most of the "digital look" shots that I see are so sharp and clean that texture and volume (3-dimensionality) are severely reduced if not totally obliterated, IMO of course."I tend to agree with this and at times, 100% "sharp and clean" are what I might find interesting for a particular shot, but not that often. (Geez, I guesstimate focus distance at least half the time. Razor sharp is just no biggie to me... usually.) Most often what I prefer is the "texture/volume/3-D" depth Trius mentions over "sharp/clean/flat-ish". Again, it's just a preference for me, but down the road, some endeavors or projects might encourage me to invest in something to play with the tack sharp "digital look" somewhat - like scenic shots, architecture, etc. That would be fun.
The "equipment side" of digital photography just hasn't tripped my trigger enough yet to even attempt a dabble with digital... until the R-D1 and now the M8. But for the time being, both are waaaay-hay-hay out of my range to even consider. However, despite the price tags, they give hope and I feel fairly confident that a niche will be realized and the future will bring more digital compact RF-types with [maybe] interchangeable lenses, etc. that [maybe] aren't sooo pricey for a tourist like me. So who knows? It might not be that long until I toy with the "digital look" as we say (if I can get used to batteries - arghh! ;) )
bronekkozka
11-03-2006, 21:45
Hi Bronek, take a full size digital image say 5-8mb and then get a 30x20 print, you'll see what happens to the image. Take any reasonably shot piece of 35 mm and scanned to it's full image of 15- 20 mb and have the 30x20 image printed. You'll see this image is also not as good as a MF. The difference between retail digital and retail film cameras is still visibly apparent.
This may be irrelevant for people shooting for 4x6 or perhaps up to 8x10 but after that my eyes see the difference in a colour print from digital.
When you say "5-8mb" I take you mean mega bytes not mega pixels??...Well yes it will look like crap...that would be akin to taking 110 film and blowing it up to 30x20.... but who is suggesting that... 10Mp camera or 16Mp camera is going to give you a 30+ or 50+ meg file.....
yes "retail" film and "retail" digital is a different story...for the comparison to be fair resolutions need to be at least in the ball park.....also remember alot of those cameras employ bad jpeg compression...I guy I work with has a canon 7Mp camera...shot on RAW...it is great ...on jpeg...OK little snaps....but this thread is really talking about the likes of the M8... not really retail.... Also I think you have look at the glass too, everyone is bagging Canon...I have a crappy little 350D for home...with a crap lens on it it is awful but if I put my 85mm 1.2 (probably the best lens I own) the difference is amazing
I just shot a job recently that was blown up to 3x2m, this is the largest I have gone with digital - to date....so I don't think resolution is an issue...anyway this is more about the so called "film look" and "digital look" isn't it....surely there are no arguements abot rez anymore...
Bronek
Allen Gilman
11-03-2006, 22:31
If you know what you're doing, you can "process" a RAW to an infinite number of looks. What gets lost in all this debate about the film vs digital "look" is that there is no homogeneous digital look. I've processed and seen Canon files that do look too smooth for my tastes and, yet, on the other hand, I've had Canon files that don't have that look at all (as well as many that people can't tell if it's digital or film). It all comes down to your chops. The only thing that gets revealed when someone says they hate the "Canon plasticky" look is that person's lack of skill and understanding with what you can do with a digital file. The only way you get there is by throwing yourself in the water and doing the necessary tinkering to see where you can go.
bronekkozka
11-03-2006, 23:00
If you know what you're doing, you can "process" a RAW to an infinite number of looks. What gets lost in all this debate about the film vs digital "look" is that there is no homogeneous digital look. I've processed and seen Canon files that do look too smooth for my tastes and, yet, on the other hand, I've had Canon files that don't have that look at all (as well as many that people can't tell if it's digital or film). It all comes down to your chops. The only thing that gets revealed when someone says they hate the "Canon plasticky" look is that person's lack of skill and understanding with what you can do with a digital file. The only way you get there is by throwing yourself in the water and doing the necessary tinkering to see where you can go.
Thank-you Allen, this is the point I was trying to make....also there is no homogeneous film look either... if there was there would be no need for dif film , devs etc. As you say it comes down to the skill of the person processing their digi files....
as I said
One thing I will say is that with film, if you don't have the knowledge or facilities...you send your film off to be processed...BUT with digital you grab that raw file and have a hack...maybe these are the results that look "digital"... maybe what is being pick up as "digital" is just poor control...
Allen Gilman
11-03-2006, 23:11
sorry bronekkozka - looks like I just repeated what you were saying actually...happens when you post just after you've woken from a nap :P
Nachkebia
11-03-2006, 23:18
One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks! going to start comming and comming! asking more stupid questions, like which lens is the best for M8 :D :D :D ofcourse that is what Leica wanted, and also it might be good for forum, but for me its not :D
I enjoy the process of using an old camera to shoot photos on film, and somehow I like the way photos look on film better. That said, I do like the convenience of digital for certain things.
Forgive me if this link has already been posted somewhere around here, I can't remember where I found it:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
It's an article about Magnum photographer Alex Majoli, who won the 2004 Magazine Photographer of the Year with photos he shot with digital point & shoot cameras. I guess I'm going a bit off topic, but I was amazed with the images he was getting with those consumer cameras.
btw, before digital he was a Leica shooter :)
Allen Gilman
11-03-2006, 23:37
"One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks! going to start comming and comming! asking more stupid questions, like which lens is the best for M8 "
From where I'm sitting, seems more like you luuuuv em :D Ahhh, ambivalent affairs...can't live w/ em, can't live w/out em
bronekkozka
11-03-2006, 23:54
I enjoy the process of using an old camera to shoot photos on film, and somehow I like the way photos look on film better. That said, I do like the convenience of digital for certain things.
That is something that has not and does not get discussed in all this "pixel peeking" debate.... How does shooting film or digital change the look f the image...and what I mean is how is the shooting approached, the approach to the subject....how does instant feedback change things....
I shot a project in western Kenya a few years back, it was a series of portraits , all shot on meduim format (Fuji rangefiner) and 35mm (leica+Nikon)....it all worked well.... it was shot just before I was getting into digi capture. Since then I have done a lot of enviro portraits generally now on digital....being able to show and share the image with the sitter is something that has changed the interaction (for me for the better)....in many ways I wis I could go back to western Kenya again (I will) and shoot with a digital, be able to show and share....and make it more of a collaboration... I realize that showing the image will not work for all photographers all the time...BUT....if you want to talk about how digital is changing things maybe this line is a little more interesting than pixels....
One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks!
....maybe this will keep them at bay :)
bronekkozka
11-03-2006, 23:57
sorry bronekkozka - looks like I just repeated what you were saying actually...happens when you post just after you've woken from a nap :P
I think you said it more sussinctly anyway
Take care
Bronek
... I shoot digital quite alot lately. Much more than I ever intended too. There clearly is a difference, not better not worse, all a matter of personal taste. I am allways a bit dissapointed by the sharpness, not the overall sharpness because you can alter that, but the levels of sharpness in a digital picture..... there is none..
Well there is obviously but film shots have a much more natural feeling to them.
You get DOF with 5D for instance, but it's definately not the smooth DOF you can achieve with film.
Also the saturation can get really out of hand if you don't monitor this carefully.
But then again it's a totally different form of photography to which even photographers are getting use to, apart from that with the right stuff digital is so easy and fast to do (good or bad ? .. who knows)
I do see a bleak and expensive future for film because digital cameras are getting better and better, so are the tools for post processing. It will not be long before you can electronically convert a "cheap zoom" image to a Summicron 50mm type of image, you can allready convert digital images to any kind of film, you can create grain etc. etc. The end result of all these tools is certainly not as good as the original, but noones will ever notice without taking their 10x schneider louped along to exhibitions
But then originally this thread is not a film vs digital thread, but the sudden change of heart by some people since the introducton of the M8 and over all their arguments for all of a sudden "liking" digital images, it's like the M8 has brought digital photograhy up to a point of acceptance for some people.
Let me stress again I have the M8 with the new 28mm, it's a leica it's relatively compact and it's a total dis-investment, I new that before I bought it, but I just wanted the camera and the lens. I have don quite some testing and although the difference between my fuji f30 and the M8 can be seen it is definately not worth the 30x or so more investment. compared to the 5d, which we also have is non-existent, the value of leica lenses in digital photography.... none. and I know there will be people trying to justify the value of there leica stuff by bringing up lots and lots arguments about lpm, this that and the other.... it is just not true!
This is my point all these pseudo arguments about the M8 being better, producing beter results ... bull****. I'v said it before there is no visible gain between an M8, D5, D80 or even D70 or any other semi pro digital camera with adequate lenses. I even doubt if anyone can see the difference between a 649$ Sony R-1 and an M8 with 28mm 2.8
Perhaps only if you are into hanging 1200% sized images on your wall will you spot any difference, but wants 1200% inages on their walls anyway
It's interesting that you feel that leica lenses have no value in digital photography. I've found the lens to be twice as important as with film. When I got a 50/1.4 for my canon 20d it transformed my opinion about the camera and digital in general. My experience is the opposite of yours digital made me a bit of a lens freak!
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.
I don't know if you are refering to the Canon 50mm 1.4, but look at the price difference between it and a Leica 50 1.4. This is exactly what I mean ....
richard_l
11-04-2006, 01:30
Digital photography is a lot like digital sound recording. For some reason, in spite of their deficiencies, the old analog recordings sound more 'natural' than modern digital recordings. That's not to say that one is better than the other. There is at least one big advantage to digital, and that is the signal-to-noise ratio. For example, digital recordings have no tape hiss, which is the curse of analog recording (unless it is filtered out, which then adversely affects frequency response), and digital images have much less grain than film. However, as with sound recordings, non-digital (film) images seem more natural, less clinical somehow. Logically, I think digital should be better in every way, but for some reason my brain/eye don't agree.
Richard
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.
I don't know if you are refering to the Canon 50mm 1.4, but look at the price difference between it and a Leica 50 1.4. This is exactly what I mean ....
Look at the MTF tests on www.photodo.com and you'll see that the Canon scores higher than the Leica overall. I'm not saying that MTF tests are by any means the last word in judging a lens but I don't think that just because the leica lens is six times the price of the canon, that means much either. Leica charges a premium because it's leica. You are paying for the name and hand made craftsmanship, but that's not to say others can to the same at lower prices with a different philosophy.
richard_l
11-04-2006, 01:43
...I don't think that just because the leica lens is six times the price of the canon, that means much either...What...???? Obviously it means that the Leica is six times better than the Canon. Everybody knows that. Get a grip on reality, Toby. :D
Richard
there's nothing wrong with the digital look i just love all those rainbow colors with high contrast subjects and those sharp backgrounds beautifull really beautifull beatifull faaaar better then ANY FILM
richard_l
11-04-2006, 01:56
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Girl with Kaleidoscope eyes, I love the Beatles.
Richard.
there's nothing wrong with the digital look i just love all those rainbow colors with high contrast subjects and those sharp backgrounds beautifull really beautifull beatifull faaaar better then ANY FILM
Sometimes I think digital, like Leica's current asperical lenses in harsh lighting, results in a very clinical look and I find that abrasive to the eyes. Certainly, good photographs can be taken with any medium, which parenthetically cuts both ways, but if I had my druthers I prefer the look of film, especially B&W film over B&W digital. I've never been too impressed with B&W digital images, but I've never sat down and analyzed why.
bronekkozka
11-04-2006, 02:49
It's interesting that you feel that leica lenses have no value in digital photography. I've found the lens to be twice as important as with film. When I got a 50/1.4 for my canon 20d it transformed my opinion about the camera and digital in general. My experience is the opposite of yours digital made me a bit of a lens freak!
I agree totally lens choice is very important, some of the crap they are putting out there and selling with digi slr is shocking....put one of those canon 18-55 pastic mount zooms on any camera...and guess what it will still be rubish , be it film or digital.
bronekkozka
11-04-2006, 02:55
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.
Hi Magnus...I can't agree with you here, I have tried to use lenses that were fine for film....just don't cut it for digital.... even just in the canon world...using non L glass on a 1dsMk2...just does not cut it....even some L glass isn't there.... I know guys that with older blad kits that are struggling when the whack a 22 or 39mp back on there cameras.... Lens quality becomes more important with digital
bronek
...is it still a "film look" when a neg is scanned...
Yes! Scanning film, slow and annoying as it may be, is also the best of both worlds, asthetically speaking. You keep the look of film, but you also get the tremendous advantages of the digital darkroom, too.
Digital capture has two clear advantages over film that I can see. Resolving power, and lack of high iso noise. Film has two big advantages over digital. Natural skin tones right out of the camera and dynamic range. Film has one final, arguable, advantage over digital that seals the deal for me: A digital file can't be made to look like film, particularly in B&W. Film has a sense of depth, fullness and tonality that digital just can't match. Disagree if you must, but I can tell the difference 9 times out of 10, even on the web.
I think the obsessing over lenses has more to do with the fact we rarely, if ever, looked at our chromes with a microscope and that what we are effectively doing with our digital files at 100-400% view in Photoshop.
<snip> A digital file can't be made to look like film, particularly in B&W. Film has a sense of depth, fullness and tonality that digital just can't match. Disagree if you must, but I can tell the difference 9 times out of 10, even on the web.</snip>
Digital capture B&W conversion tools get close; but not quite "there" yet ya know?
What I'm waiting for is the "Leica Glow" that people used to (still do) talk about but in a digital file rather than film.
Here's a challenge to you folk out there who get the M8 and have the available equipment. Without using Photoshop (or any other program) for anything other than going from RAW to jpg; take your M8 and your lens (whatever lens you want), put a Zeiss softar I on the lens. Take a portrait shot. Post your "straight from the camera" results. I'll tell you why I'm asking for this after I see your shots :D
Everything I've seen so far shot by the M8 could just as well have been shot with a Canon or Nikon low end (D80/Rebel XTi) DSLR and prime lens. It's hard for me to even tell what I've seen from stuff shot from a digital P&S.
Why should there be a difference? Well.. I guess it does come back to costs. I can run down to my local shop and snag a Fuji F30 for under $400 CDN after taxes. I could also order the M8 and wait and pay $6500-7000 CDN after taxes. If I'm paying that much, I want some "advantage" over the $400 option. One advantage would be that I get to use my fast RF lenses. One disadvantage is that I now have to consider a 1.3x crop factor. There are other pros/cons to it as well but for $6500-7000; there had better be one hell of a lot of pros over the cons and something in the image quality that will convince me that the body is just that special (beyond being Leica's first digital RF).
Myself, I'm happy using my film cams (all Leica currently) and that's likely all I'll ever use for my own enjoyment. My digital gear (and I've got a truckload of it) I only use to make me money... I can live with that; and so can most, if not all, the clientelle I book. The only people who I ever hear complaining about "film" vs "digital" are folks like us who are so beyond "camera geek" that we are a subculture unto ourselves :D
Dave
Gabriel M.A.
11-04-2006, 05:21
Here's another take on it (mine): the exclamation "that looks digital" is a product you have when somebody that doesn't know how to "properly" (i.e. color management, contrast, highlight handling, etc.) work with digital images produces an image that is seen by somebody that doesn't have the eloquence to say what's wrong with it, and can only exclaim "that looks digital".
This combination comes by the dozen of dozen (of dozen).
It's all good. Film and digital. Watercolor and oil. Paper and plastic. Yin and Yang. Not Pepsi and Coke ;)
Not Pepsi and Coke ;)
No Coke!! PEPSI !!
No fries!! Chips!!
Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah...
Belushi-izing,
Dave
Bromo33333
11-04-2006, 05:39
From time to time there are posts exclaiming : "That looks digital", meaning "not good". [...]
I just want to say : so what!
Great images are being made on film, great images are being made on digital. Let's use the different renderings creatively and let's get digital photography into its own as a seperate medium and not a stupid imitation of "film" (which film???)
The characteristics of digital if negative would be - blown out highlights, lack of shadow detail, no subtelty of shading, and a high degree of pixellation and noise visible. If someone says it looks digital, one or more of the above will probably be referenced. Well produced digital pictures have these characteristics minimized or not noticeable.
Positive aspects will be a lack of grain allowing large magnifications without grain.
But the photogrpaher HAS to be mindful of these issues when producing their work in order to avoid it. But film photographers have to be mindful of reciprocity failure, film sensitivity and grain - and the criticism is "that looks grainy" in "bad" analog unless it is an effect sought after.
No Coke!! PEPSI !!
No fries!! Chips!!
Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah...
Belushi-izing,
Dave
Thanks Dave, now I'll have to walk down to the Billygoat for lunch. :D
grantray
11-04-2006, 08:55
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Walt Whitman
Nice usage of Leaves of Grass to describe the ever evolving fickleness of the human soul that changes its mind concerning the nature of the justification to the adult equivalent of toy shopping.
-grant
Thank-you Allen, this is the point I was trying to make....also there is no homogeneous film look either... if there was there would be no need for dif film , devs etc. As you say it comes down to the skill of the person processing their digi files....
as I said
I still contend there is "a film look" vs. "a digital look", regardless of film type vs. sensor type/post processing. It's a "family" look, if you will.
It all boils down to preference, the vision of the final image the photographer wants, etc. In the end, you are "stuck" with the original image, whether it is a neg/chrome on filmstock or a file from a particular sensor, and I'm sort of assuming a raw file of the highest quality you can capture.
So, choices are made at the exposure end that will dictate some of what the final image can be. Film or sensor? If film, which film? If sensor, which sensor?
And THAT piece (which sensor?), is the digital divide. Until someone makes a camera with interchangeable sensors, that is. Even then ...
Film: ~ $4-15
Sensor: ~$???
But then originally this thread is not a film vs digital thread, but the sudden change of heart by some people since the introducton of the M8 and over all their arguments for all of a sudden "liking" digital images, it's like the M8 has brought digital photograhy up to a point of acceptance for some people.
:confused: :confused: This is a wondrous world - some hecklers convict me for changing my mind about film vs digital which I didn't, others criticize me for preferring Nikon and Leica digital over Canon witout a word about film , others PM'd me some time ago that I had too many digital shots in my gallery, still others paraphrase my posts and present that as a hidden agenda on my part .....:rolleyes:
I guess some like to interpret without reading...:(
Not with a microscope, but with a very good loup! ;)
Pherdinand
11-04-2006, 09:14
Nothing. It's just a bit different.
I'd say the people who complain about it, 50% is a matter of taste and 50% is just snobbish whining.
Pherdinand
11-04-2006, 09:19
I think the obsessing over lenses has more to do with the fact we rarely, if ever, looked at our chromes with a microscope and that what we are effectively doing with our digital files at 100-400% view in Photoshop.
Well,not a "chrome" but a Neopan 1600 black and white.
But yes, there's a microscope involved.
And a digicam shooting through the microscope optics :D
[approx 42 x and 400 x]
Not my 8X loupe, I don't think that is near the enlargement of a 8-12MP file at 100%... maybe a microsite grain focusing scope at 25X.
P.S. I've got to shoot more Neopan 1600!
There is nothing wrong with it for me except that it takes more tweaking to get the image to look my Provia or Kodachromes. I still like the look of film right out of the camera better, just my preference.
Film still rules, digital has a way to go yet.
Ronald M
11-04-2006, 11:32
Digital can have a look that is poor. I have seen it. Seeing the digi stuff from my p&s Canon and scanned color from any Leica, I am convinced the bad pics are from those who can`t properly process the digi files. Perhaps my years in the dark has given me the ability to properly do simple Photoshop.
Thanks Dave, now I'll have to walk down to the Billygoat for lunch. :D
I hope you went to the original one... under the bridge :)
I haven't been to Chicago since 93 so I don't even know if the original one is still around :D
Dave
ffttklackdedeng
11-04-2006, 12:53
Well,not a "chrome" but a Neopan 1600 black and white.
But yes, there's a microscope involved.
And a digicam shooting through the microscope optics :D
[approx 42 x and 400 x]
That is interesting, Pherdinand! I was always curious about how the grain really looks like. Do you need some special equipment to be able to make a picture of it or will any cheap microscope from that auction site do?
Pherdinand
11-04-2006, 13:21
Dunno, Robert.
We have a few quite good Olympuses(Olympussy?) at work. They are definitely not cheap, i would not buy one for myself. This one was a long working distance one.
I guess for a 400X magnification you need reasonable optics. Usually the occular is about 10x, but the objectives are the tricky ones, and, of course the tiney digicam sensor helps as well. A short working distance version might get there much cheaper (for these, objectives above 20x are common)
ffttklackdedeng
11-04-2006, 14:38
Thanks, Pherdinand!
I've seen - and wondered - that on my own 4000dpi scans the image seems to be built from dark spots. However, from a b&w negative I'd expected white spots.. Always thought that the silver particles that get exposed to light somehow stay on the neg while the ones without 'light contact' get washed away by the fix bath.. :confused: Never mind, I'll try to get some simple microscope from my nephew or so and see myself
Bob Ross
11-04-2006, 15:09
Thanks, Pherdinand!
I've seen - and wondered - that on my own 4000dpi scans the image seems to be built from dark spots. However, from a b&w negative I'd expected white spots.. Always thought that the silver particles that get exposed to light somehow stay on the neg while the ones without 'light contact' get washed away by the fix bath.. :confused: Never mind, I'll try to get some simple microscope from my nephew or so and see myself
The Black of the famous Black & White pair is, indeed, nothing other than Silver Tarnish:)
Grain and Noise is one of the "different" aspects of film/digital mediums. In a B&W print from film the blacks will be pure and grainless and grain will appear more toward the highlights, where it will fade again as the grain clumps in the film get densist. In a B&W print from a digital camera the noise begins in the blacks & shadows and fades evenly going to the highlights. Depending on how you convert to B&W from the color digital image, you might get white fleck noise, from the RGB noise, which looks really strange. One of the tip offs to a digital B&W image (or a badly processed one) is the gritty blacks and darker shadows. A grainless B&W may also be a tip off, too....;)
Bob
bronekkozka
11-04-2006, 16:08
Att: Allen Gilman....tried to pm you...your mail box if full....
Bronek
Allen Gilman
11-05-2006, 07:17
sorry bout that - should be clear now bronekkozka :P
Bromo33333
11-05-2006, 07:38
Digital can have a look that is poor. I have seen it. Seeing the digi stuff from my p&s Canon and scanned color from any Leica, I am convinced the bad pics are from those who can`t properly process the digi files. Perhaps my years in the dark has given me the ability to properly do simple Photoshop.
I think the biggest issue is people OVER processing photos (too much sharpening, too much color saturation and contrast, canned "effects" routines) - and in most cases this is what gives that "digital" over processed look. Since there are a ton of canned routines just sitting there, most people think they have to use it to get acceptable results.
The other sin, is that a lot of folks enlarge their photos way too much. All the magazines say you can "magnify" and "rezz up" and get acceptable results - that isn't really true, either. While you don't get grain - you *do* get noise, pixellation, JPEG artifacts and other bad things that you have to be mindful of.
If you can manage to get photographs correctly with film, and you capture in JPEG on a digital camera- you ought to be able to get good results without cropping, and do moderate enlargement (realistically about the same level of magnification as a 35mm frame, or a little bit larger).
From your work in the darkroom, you probably realize the best amount of "post processing" usually is the least - and all the techniques have to be used sparingly and judiciously.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.