Life's not fair comparison. Foveon v. Film

[yee]

Foveon v. Film with Costco development & scan, handheld f/2.8 & f/1.4, good & junk composition, respectively. Leica M6ttl, 50mm 'lux asph, Ektar Film

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawaiia...in/photostream

[mdarnton]

Your life is going to be moving very slowly if you require valid scientific tests for everything!

Using my eyes, the tools I usually use for evaluating photography, I prefer the Costco scan, myself. The Foveon looks artificial and strident.

[varjag]

I tend to agree with Dan, should really be titled "Foveon vs Costco scan".

[shadowfox]

So, which one do you like?

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by yee

Foveon v. Film with Costco development & scan, handheld f/2.8 & f/1.4, good & junk composition, respectively. Leica M6ttl, 50mm 'lux asph, Ektar Film

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawaiia...in/photostream

Certainly the film shot looks much better. If you are in it only for the details then use a tripd, cable release and stopped down macro lens next time on any digital SLR.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

Certainly the film shot looks much better.

Not sure I'd agree with that...

[Hatch]

No way to tell really, different shots.

[yee]

The film shot very closely matches the real flowers at our farm. The Foveon seems to have captured an entirely new hibiscus variety not known to date. I could use either depending on the purpose. However, I could not use the Foveon for documentation, but maybe for artsy or gaudy purposes.

On another note, it's still more fun to use the Leica M6ttl than the DP2X. I'd add that I always have to be on guard about the foveon - perhaps digital captures in general - to avoid washing out highlights. Maybe it's possible to do some post processing or plastic surgery on the foveon capture but I really don't feel I'd like to spend time doing that.

[nighstar]

i like them both. which i would ultimately choose would depend on what kind of image i was going for.

[happy]

I'm going to have to see the flower in person. Please ship me a living sample, then I can tell you my conclusion.

[yee]

Happy, you'd be welcome to come visit our farm in Hawaii to see and take photos of the flowers and kava plants. We have no license to ship living plant/animal materials. There's also a lot of botannical gardens dedicated to hibiscus (Kapiolani area) and plumeria (Koko Crater) that photogs can be seen snapping happily away.

Btw, I viewed these results on an iPad2, Macbook Pro and some generic PCs. Still the film version looks closer to the original flower. It would be interesting to note if somehow a standard color ID(s) and/or contrast setting could be assigned to what I see on the screen so that any other viewer would be assured of seeing the same.

[emasterphoto]

Originally Posted by yee

It would be interesting to note if somehow a standard color ID(s) and/or contrast setting could be assigned to what I see on the screen so that any other viewer would be assured of seeing the same.

That's exactly what a color profile does and why they should be included within every image. The problem though, is that even if you've got your cameras and monitor completely calibrated for accurate color, there's no guarantee that the person on the other end does and so all you can really do is go by good faith that what they're seeing is reasonably accurate.

As long as you're keeping your end of the bargain though, no point in worrying too much about what others do.

[Reddot9]

I'd vote Foveon hands down

[DrTebi]

Costco development & scan

... that says it all.

[Archiver]

Funny, I stopped using film almost entirely when I got my DP1. I found the images much more film-like than anything that was coming from my Canon compacts or DSLR. Even now I hardly shoot film and prefer to shoot Sigma instead.

[downstairs]

You won't like this.
Scanned Neopan versus M9 here.
Also scanned 8x10 sheet film versus M8 and M9 stitch. Digital wins again.
Details from the shots tell the story.

[pvdhaar]

Originally Posted by downstairs

...Digital wins again...

If that were really true, then why are so many digital shooters so obsessed with emulating the look of film?

[downstairs]

Originally Posted by pvdhaar

If that were really true, then why are so many digital shooters so obsessed with emulating the look of film?

Because of the aura of culture that surrounds the historic limitations of the medium. Even the M8 has 'sepia' built in.
Not to be caught out emulating, I shoot B&W on large format, defects and all, and set up with Leicaroids. Most of the time the Leicaroids look better.
"l meglio è nemico del bene" - as they say over here.

[Araakii]

I am very happy with the Foveon sensor even though I only shoot film. If they put the foveon sensor in the M9 I will never look back (except B&W).

[brianjames]

Film shot for sure

[Dylan Hope]

Originally Posted by downstairs

You won't like this.
Scanned Neopan versus M9 here.
Also scanned 8x10 sheet film versus M8 and M9 stitch. Digital wins again.
Details from the shots tell the story.

Eh, it's not really a fair comparison to use a flatbed scan of a 35mm negative against a full frame digital camera.
Get an Imacon. For the benefit of your testing and for science of course, this isn't some silly indulgance!

[jaffa_777]

Better, what does it mean? Everyone wants better?

Its easy to see that the digital shot of the flower is technically better. It probably has more resolution, less grain, and is a true to life representation of the scene. But to me it looks boring and like every other digital capture, lifeless.

The film shot is obviously technically inferior, but its more impressionistic of the original scene. Just look at the way the highlights in the background glow. I like it, and I like the way film can look more 'painted'.

So who care about whats better, maybe we should be asking about what look you like and want to acheive.

[wkkato]

The scan is a terrible scan--it looks uprezzed to me. Ergo not a valid comparison.

Warren

[ianstamatic]

it really is crap how people compare digital versus film and use either costco or epson flatbed scans. the difference in quality between these and pro scans is massive.
much as i like my epson flatbed it makes 6x7 look about the same quality as 35mm from my drum scanner. the drum pulls in almost twice the details with alot better dynamic range. also it doesnt end there. compare film iq developed by an professional expert lab tech versus the local minilab

this just for fun i did a really unfair test thing is kind of tired.