Film vs digital, one last time

vaibhav — Apr 21, 2005 12:20:01 AM — # ↩

I think the D70 would have done better with custom settings. But yes, nothing beats film.

Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 12:24:59 AM — # ↩

Umm, black tea?
- jdutta78 — Apr 21, 2005 12:37:15 AM — # ↩
  
  hmmm, one just needs to see a b/w print coming up in the developer tray to understand pure bliss... even slides dont compare. :)
  - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 12:41:04 AM — # ↩
    
    But of course. Neither slide nor digital nor colour negative can match the dynamic range of black and white film. I blame the processing lab's liberal use of the Auto Contrast button for this disaster.
- vaibhav — Apr 21, 2005 12:58:10 AM — # ↩
  
  Me not a photography techie, but from whatever I have learnt so far, better colors maybe. Right one seems underexposed, maybe because of the scanning too.
  
  We are actually comparing two digital images here. I dont think the scanning equipment used for this frame worked well. Was this the Print+CD deal from that I_forgot_the_name shop on MG road?
  - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 1:21:19 AM — # ↩
    
    Yeah, Prabhu Digitals. I don't have any setup to look at the film directly and see if its any different from the scanned version, since holding it up to the light isn't very effective. I guess a histogram will show the right one hitting both ends of the scale, which will be very odd because the scene has no shadows beyond the little gap between the bushes bottom centre.
    - vaibhav — Apr 21, 2005 1:29:26 AM — # ↩
      
      I've screwed up a lot of rolls because of crappy processing. Well, I did not have a decent camera at that time, but I have never had such bad results. Even the print version was crap.
jdutta78 — Apr 21, 2005 12:40:14 AM — # ↩

vaibs is right... out of camera digital files are always muddy. needs a lot of tweaking with individual RGB curves to get the similarity of film output. there are custom curves that mimic particular films.

when u get paid to shoot, and under deadlines, nothing beats digital.

in every other case, nothing beats film. speak about archivalness, the magic of b/w negs, and the bliss of viewing projected slides along with family... i can just dream of showing slides of the california roads with my bike in the foreground... it is like dying and going to heaven.
- Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 12:46:08 AM — # ↩
  
  What are you talking about? The film version is a disaster. The tea has gone dark green. The house has gone white. That picture may be rich in detail, but reality looks nothing like it.
  
  Every single frame in that roll has blown out skies. Either the dynamic range of the scene exceeded that of the film, which I don't believe, or the camera picked wrong exposure, or the scanning was manned by a dolt who hit Auto Contrast on every frame (and Auto Contrast does produce results like this; it does with the digital image too.)
  - jdutta78 — Apr 21, 2005 2:37:49 AM — # ↩
    
    jess, it is difficult to compare a prabhu-scanned slide with an untweaked d70 output. i can only say that seeing that slide projected is much more bliss than seeing a full screen image on the monitor or lcd.
    
    in both medium, no pain = no gain.
    in digital u need to know how to process the image to get exactly the scene u saw and felt. it is really difficult to come up with the mind's image.
    on the other hand those beautiful slide films are results of decades of improvement, and when u properly expose them, they become beautiful frames ready to be viewed. i have grown up seeing old slides my father took, and i forever loved those projection sessions. maybe thats why am a little bit biased to film. plus thinking of carefully shooting travel pics on film giving me the assurance that it will be easily archived safely for years to come without the worries of copying CDs after CDs every 2 years.
    
    digital is god when it comes to action/sports/events when quick results are more important that longevity. also for portaits, bcoz no one is patient to wait a few days for the slides to come back from lab, and everyone wants to share pics thru online albums and blogs... so digital rules in our age, but... one thing happens very silently... that u become a little less careful in composing pics, being more trigger happy. this brings the ratio of keepers much much down, and most frames deserve to be deleted right away.
    
    i use rebel-D for campus photography assignments, and use it for some portrait sessions too... but for my own pleasure, i will stick to my fm3a with 100mm series e nikon lens and b/w neg film.
    
    enjoy.
    - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 9:05:45 AM — # ↩
      
      one thing happens very silently... that u become a little less careful in composing pics, being more trigger happy. this brings the ratio of keepers much much down, and most frames deserve to be deleted right away.
      
      Yes, but must disagree on end effect. Digital gives me the freedom to experiment with shots I'd never have dared with film. The ratio of keepers may be low, but I also shoot 10x more, so the final count of keepers is vastly more with digital.
      
      Film encourages you to take only safe compositions, ones you know you can't screw up.
      - jdutta78 — Apr 21, 2005 9:15:12 AM — # ↩
        
        jess, thats true... digital is king for experiments, especially using flash... wont disagree.
        
        i just feel the archival of thousands of jpg is a plain PITA. only that thing has kept me from going into digital for personal photography. but once i figure out a neat workflow and an assured way of storage, i will go for a d70. but b/w negs will be there parallely. in a month i finished printing 120 8x10 ilford sheets and bought another 100-pack, plus 10 rolls of bw. :)
        
        good day.
        -rider
        
        Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 9:28:44 AM — # ↩
        
        Have you tried image archival software? I use iView MediaPro and totally love it.
        
        I don't trust archival media like CD-Rs at all. They rarely last beyond a few years. As jwz says it, the only reliable way to keep a digital backup is to keep it on live media and transfer to a new disk every so often. My 150 GB FireWire drive is getting full. There's barely 20 GB spare now -- about six months at best. Time for a new disk.
        
        jdutta78 — Apr 21, 2005 9:34:01 AM — # ↩
        
        now u r talking :)
        ppl talk about how cheap the CDs are and how u can store 600mb of pics on a 10 rupees CD :)
        
        i have seen how CDs fail. have been thinking of an external usb hdd of 200-250 GB. any suggestions on where to start looking for good prices ?
        
        thanks.
        -rider
        
        kalyancreddy — Apr 22, 2005 12:07:42 AM — # ↩
        
        Try here
shortindiangirl — Apr 21, 2005 10:53:08 AM — # ↩

HUH ?
Sorry, don't have time to read all the comments. But methinks this film version SUX compared to the digital shot. The digital shot lets me see the shadows on the side of the house.

The digital image is of a warm day with a bit of chill in the moist air. The film shot is one of a cold, damp and slightly gloomy day. I prefer the former myself, reality aside.

I also prefer digital because it is a bit like windows. It gives the potato farmer in Idaho a way to do things he wouldn't have otherwise dreamed. As long as I had a real camera, I never took pictures. For one thing the damn thing was too bulky for me to carry around and spontaneously shoot. For another thing it cost painful money to develop, and then painful time to organize and put away (granted filing and editing digital pics takes MORE time, but this is a lot more appealing to me!), and then I have been far more apt to experiment with digital, and take shots prolifically, coming up with some pretty decent ones. Without my digital, I'd have never experimented and photography would have remained comfortably outside my realm of interests!
- vaibhav — Apr 21, 2005 6:55:55 PM — # ↩
  
  Re: HUH ?
  But methinks this film version SUX compared to the digital shot. The digital shot lets me see the shadows on the side of the house.
  
  Well, again, we are comparing two digital images here, not exactly film and digital. In this case, both images could be tweaked to look better. The digital version could have had more richness and the film version could have been exposed/printed/scanned better.
  
  I also prefer digital because it is a bit like windows. It gives the potato farmer in Idaho a way to do things he wouldn't have otherwise dreamed.
  
  Very True. Both film and digital have their respective (dis)advantages. As jdutta78 mentioned in another comment - "No pain = no gain". That gain/pain varies from person to person. I prefer digital too.
  
  I was with him on this weekend and got to see a small set of slides (100) from his vast collection. They are just awesome. I have never seen such rich detail in any digital image. I asked him why were the colors so much better in those slides? He said its basic physics. Pictures on paper or digital reflect light, slides are projected when light is passed through it. Makes a lot of difference.

arunshanbhag — Apr 21, 2005 12:51:30 AM — # ↩

Now I won't be able to give away all my slide film!
Dealing with airport security is a pain. and particularly remembering to ask for a hand-check is difficult when you have multiple segments.
Locally, I still use 100 Sensia, primarily because I love the Nikon FM3a and 24 mm lens.

eppendorfs — Apr 21, 2005 1:15:25 AM — # ↩

Even though the tea and tress have gone awry in the film picture, i think the mountains and the rocks have a very soothing shade to them. But i must agree with JAce, that digital has made a revolution.

Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 1:23:19 AM — # ↩

If it's the background hill you're referring to, note that it's cropped out in the digital version; the digital version isn't missing detail. But I agree the foreground hill looks better in the film version.

PS: What revolution?
- eppendorfs — Apr 21, 2005 5:09:04 AM — # ↩
  
  Opps, i meant " Digital is more evolved/ better".... i was in a completely different frame of mind :)
  - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 8:13:12 AM — # ↩
    
    Huh? When did I say anything about digital being more evolved or better?
    - eppendorfs — Apr 21, 2005 9:28:00 AM — # ↩
      
      when you said "The film version is a disaster" - i took you meant that
      - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 9:30:01 AM — # ↩
        
        I only meant to say that this particular roll coming out of this particular process is a disaster. Nothing more.

gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 11:29:40 AM — # ↩

my take..project the slide and then compare with digital. The scans are a very lousy comparison to make. I am sure the detail in slide will out do the digital image by a large large margine

Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 1:26:06 PM — # ↩

Really, what is the point of detail when the colours are all wrong?
- gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 1:31:41 PM — # ↩
  
  I dont think the colors are wrong on the slide. Have a look at the projected version of slide and then decide. I just got a slide roll scanned and the colors do get screwed in scanning. Heck one bunch of negatives i got scanned the pakistani cricketer outfits came out almost as yellow as the australian ones.
  
  I never ever trust the scanned version of films. I always try to look at the color on the slides/prints to decide whether the image was actually bad or the scanner screwed up(90% of the time its the latter )
  - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 1:36:52 PM — # ↩
    
    So what do I do if the scanner is wrong? I have no use for these images anywhere but online.
    - gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 2:12:01 PM — # ↩
      
      The scanner isnt wrong. The problem is scanning requires a lot of work. The scanning that prabhu digital etc do is mostly stock scanning. If you want good results then you need to either a) acquire a film scanner or b) sit with them and preview images as they are scanned.
      
      If you can do neither, then accept the fact that a scan coming out good is pure luck and nothing else.
      
      Also if the only purpose it to put up online, then why shoot slides in the first place?? Our monitor resolutions are incapable of differentiating the minute details in slides. Esp scanned ones. Its more or less better to just shoot digital or film negative(save money).
      
      Shoot Slides only if you are really interested in blowups and a very high color saturation and snaps of places with not a very large dynamic range.
      - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 2:52:33 PM — # ↩
        
        If you want good results then you need to either a) acquire a film scanner or b) sit with them and preview images as they are scanned.
        
        So you're saying that I should (a) blow a lakh or two on a scanner that is unlikely to ever pay for itself, or (b) pay Prabhu's Rs. 350 per roll and effectively do the scanning myself.
        
        Also if the only purpose it to put up online, then why shoot slides in the first place??
        
        Because I do like the occasional print, and a large one at that.
        
        gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 3:22:47 PM — # ↩
        
        if you are serious about slide film photography and want good quality scans yes...you need to blow a lakh or two or pay 350 and sit with him.
- gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 1:35:19 PM — # ↩
  
  Also slides have a very little latitude...and from your picture I would say you metered so that the highlights retain details. hence the loss of detail and dark colors of the greenery.
  
  Slides aren't great when high contrast range is involved. Probably if you had metered differently the tea leaves could have come out much better.
  - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 1:39:07 PM — # ↩
    
    I didn't meter anything. I pointed and clicked with both cameras. Also, digital has more or less the same dynamic range as slide film.
    - gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 2:13:42 PM — # ↩
      
      hmm... Then I can't really say what can be wrong, but from the picture thats what it seems, the metering seems to have compensated for the sky etc. In shots like this I would say metering is of utmost importance. Especially if you are shooting slides, better to understand spot metering due to the slides limited dynamic range.
      - Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 21, 2005 3:01:13 PM — # ↩
        
        The F70's metering is suspect, of course. It's not one of Nikon's better cameras.
        
        gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 3:23:51 PM — # ↩
        
        go spot. But again I am not sure if F70 has spot.. F75 has it but its not easy to use.
        
        satz — Apr 21, 2005 5:44:35 PM — # ↩
        
        Only in Manual metering, Nikon uses Spot or Center Weighted metering,
        Rest of time it's uses Matrix metering.. I dont know is there spot metering in F70.. but it's there in F80..
        
        gromhellscream — Apr 21, 2005 6:14:41 PM — # ↩
        
        I think you manual mode. Which may not be true depending on the make. F80 allows you set metering independent of the mode (M/A/S). Same in d70. F75 has spot metering but it can be accessed by enabling a custom function and use AE lock button to take readings using spot metering. Then switch back to manual and change settings according to the exposure you want. Which IMO is just a pain. F80 you toggle to spot with a button and shoot. No toggling around etc..

tushar — Apr 21, 2005 4:20:12 PM — # ↩

Contrast issues. Slide film. Exposure error.

Film encourages you to take only safe compositions, ones you know you can't screw up.

This varies from person to person. I shoot very little (digital or film), and my film work comes out much better. You do need a good lab, however. I printed my last roll at a round-the-corner shop. The contact sheet was gorgeous; the prints looked like they were covered in chalk powder.

tsk1979 — Apr 22, 2005 4:22:57 PM — # ↩

My take
Digital is better definately.However since you used RAW, WB could have been better. Also i suggest next time go to higher ISO and get more depth of field. This should would have been wonderful at F16+

As far as film is concerned, it depends on the skill ;)
But nevertheless, you can do a lot with your RAW image post processing. I think D70 has DOF preview, right.

Another thing, i would suggest you is to get the D70S firmware being released for D70. It adds lots of D70S features to D70 according to Nikon Web site. It should be out in mid may.

Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 23, 2005 12:53:55 AM — # ↩

Re: My take
The DoF button is largely useless. The viewfinder is too small to see the difference, especially when checking DoF with small apertures. But I was shooting without a tripod (since a tripod would have meant we would never have gotten to the place this was shot from), so shutter speed was more important.

Am aware of the forthcoming firmware update; waiting for it.

skarra — Apr 22, 2005 5:18:32 PM — # ↩

Did you have some (crappy?) filter on the F70's lens?

Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 23, 2005 12:54:45 AM — # ↩

Nothing but a UV filter. I looked at the slides and they seem all right, so it must have been a scanning error. Going for a rescan tomorrow.

sriramb — Apr 22, 2005 7:47:33 PM — # ↩

the slide version seems to have an exposure issue(metering seems to be off the bright sky, hence underexposing the greenery). do you know how it was metered?
sounds like an interesting idea. i shoot assignments on slide (sp. if blow-ups are required. of course, i would do digital if i had a full frame sensor like the canon 1ds that ed uses.)

a bakeoff sounds like a good idea. i just installed the nikon coolscan. let me run a test and post it. the subject should be challenging i.e tricky dynamic range.

ravi — Apr 22, 2005 10:16:01 PM — # ↩

Photographer of the year, 2005.
How come you aren't competing for this ? It seems like this guy is. He's pretty darn good, btw.

Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 23, 2005 12:50:14 AM — # ↩

Re: Photographer of the year, 2005.
I'm not good enough.
- kingsly — Apr 24, 2005 10:25:29 AM — # ↩
  
  Re: Photographer of the year, 2005.
  You do realise winning the award has nothing to do what you think about yourself/your photos!

Kiran Jonnalagadda’s Blog

Leave a Reply

About

Travel

Twitter

Photos at Flickr

Archive

Latest Posts

Kiran Jonnalagadda’s Blog