| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: old town Rhodes - digital & film |
 |
|
poilu wrote:
digital with tokina 12-24 on 40D
film distagon 28 on contax 167, fuji z200
please comment your preferences
it is funny; with the jpg conversion, most color difference have disappear !
film
digital
100% crop film-digital
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 544
Location: London, UK.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
Its no supprise to me that the digital shots are sharper than film but I was supprised at the colour differences. (The sky in the film shot is a much nicer blue than the sky in the digital shot.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesito
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 5745
Location: Olivella, Catalonia, (Spain)
Expire: 2015-01-07
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesito wrote:
Long life to film, Poilu!
Nice shots. I've never been at Rhodes...
Is it where the Colossus was?. Are there any traces of it?
Jes.
_________________
Jesito, Moderator 
Jesito's backsack:
Zooms Sigma 70-300, Tamron 35-135 and 70-210 short, 70-210 long, 28-70 CF Macro, 35-70, 35-80, Vivitar 70-210 KA, Tamron 70-250.
Fixed Industar-50, , Tamron 24mm, Tamron 135mm, Sands Hunter 135mm, Pancolar 50mm, Volna-3, many Exakta lenses
DSLR SIGMA SD9 & SD14, EOS 5D, Sony A700 and NEXF3, Oly E-330, E-400, E-450, E-1
TLR/6x6/645 YashicaMat, Petri 6x45, Nettar, Franka Solida, Brilliant
SLR Minolta X300, Fuji STX II, Praktica VLC3, Pentax P30t, EXA500, EXA 1A, Spotmatic(2), Chinon CM-4S, Ricoh, Contax, Konica TC-X , Minolta 5000, 7000i, 3Sxi, EOS 500 and CX
Rangefinders Chinon 35EE, Konica C35 auto, Canonet 28, Yashica Lynx, FED-2, Yashica electro 35, Argus C3 & C4, Regula Cita III, Voigtlander Vitoret (many), Welta Welti-I, Kodak Signette 35, Zorki-4, Bessa-R & L, Minolta Weathermatic, olympus XA2
Compact Film Konica C35V, Voigtlander Vitorets, Canon Prima Super 105, Olympus XA2 and XA3
Compact Digital Olympus C-5050, Aiptek Slim 3000, Canon Powershot A540, Nikon 5200, SIGMA DP1s, Polaroid X530, IXUS55, Kodak 6490, Powershot G9 and G10
CSCCanon EOS-M, Samsung NX100 and NX210, Lumix G5, NEX-F3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
I used the 40D on bellows to scan the negative
Here is the result I get from the labo Kodak on CD
_________________
T*
Last edited by poilu on Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
| Jes wrote: |
| Is it where the Colossus was?. Are there any traces of it? |
Hi Jes! We are still looking for it 
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
I personally prefer the colours in the digital shot because the neutral tones (whites, greys) are kept neutral while in the film shot, they take on a blueish cast, which is a bit displeasing to me on the stone floor.
Detail-wise I don't notice much differences, except the digital is cleaner (less noise) so in the film picture, the noise goes against the perception of clarity. But looking at the amount of detail in the busier areas, I would say that resolution-wise, the two media seem very close.
In other words it seems to me that digital puts its head ahead, mostly because of the signal-to-noise ratio, and not really because of a difference in the resolving power.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
I edited the files of Kodak
with a simple auto color, results are much better!
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
| poilu wrote: |
I edited the files of Kodak
with a simple auto color, results are much better! |
Yes, of course, it's easy to adjust.
I just made my comparison on the two images you presented, "as they are".
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
If you look to the yellow wall on the background, you can see some grain.
On a print, the brain transform this grain to texture
The clean digital is perceived as without texture, everything is like 'plastic'
Skins, stones, clothes, everything look made in plastic
A print is viewed from a distance and the grain is not so apparent
This is the theory I learned from a photographer
but now we are used to 'plastic' and we found it more natural
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
| poilu wrote: |
If you look to the yellow wall on the background, you can see some grain.
On a print, the brain transform this grain to texture
The clean digital is perceived as without texture, everything is like 'plastic'
Skins, stones, clothes, everything look made in plastic
A print is viewed from a distance and the grain is not so apparent
This is the theory I learned from a photographer
but now we are used to 'plastic' and we found it more natural |
Well, this of course enters the realm of the aesthetical, and so it's subjective.
I can agree with your photographer that grain sometimes gives a more pleasing character to some subjects.
However, in my personal opinion, the texture statement is disputable. Take for instance the yellow wall: to my eyes, the yellow wall looks more realistic without the grain of the film; in the digital image, it feels to me like the smooth paint over a stucco wall - which it actually is. In the film image, instead, I think that the grain kills the original texture completely. It doesn't look like a smooth stucco wall anymore. It replaces it with an undetermined "gritty texture" that has nothing to do with the reality of that wall anymore.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
| the yellow wall looks more realistic without the grain of the film |
most believe the same and now manufacturer create film without grain
when old photographer see the new film, they say that the results look digital -> plastic
exactly like the distortions in vinyl that few still prefer
but we cannot stop evolution...
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
I think there could be room for both, film and digital. Also with a single photographer, one may prefer film for some things and digital for others.
I think it's great that we can choose 
So currently it's important to support film, because if we support film, we will have a choice also in the future,.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| Quote: |
| So currently it's important to support film, because if we support film, we will have a choice also in the future. |
I started film cameras section above reason in mflenses.com gallery. We are in 24th hours to safe this technology, seems lenses are fine people started to respect them. Next huge todo to save film.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maddog10
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1072
Location: Maryland, USA
Expire: 2015-02-12
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
maddog10 wrote:
| poilu wrote: |
If you look to the yellow wall on the background, you can see some grain.
On a print, the brain transform this grain to texture
The clean digital is perceived as without texture, everything is like 'plastic'
Skins, stones, clothes, everything look made in plastic
A print is viewed from a distance and the grain is not so apparent
This is the theory I learned from a photographer
but now we are used to 'plastic' and we found it more natural |
At first I thought it was detail, but I looked closely at the crops and could see it was grain.
From the 2 original photos you posted, I liked the digital version better.
The lab did not do a good job with their scans, the white of the awning is blown out and over all the sharpness is not strong. Someone did a quick scan and burned it to CD.
_________________
Michael Hill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 8551
Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
And at the end of the day that is one of the major obstacles to film - there are too many processing transforms with the chance of error at each turn. And remember - an error at the very first stage in the development of the negative and all is lost. At least with digital there is often a chance and there will be more as soon as the camera producers can reach some point of agreement and the technology of the chips settles down. Much as I used to love film I fear we are entering the time when it becomes like vinyl - an expensive hobby for the afficionados. 
patrickh
_________________
DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 4809
Location: Western Washington State
Expire: 2016-06-19
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Laurence wrote:
I love the style of your photography poilu! Thank you for showing some of the differences between the two kinds of shooting!
_________________
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
Emily Dickinson
Cameras and Lenses in Use:
Yashica Mat 124 w/ Yashinon 80/3.5,
CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5SL, (Thank you Klaus),
Pentax 645,
Flek 50,
Pentax-A 150
Pentax-A 120 Macro
Voigtlander Vitomatic I w/Color Skopar 50/2.8
Konica TC and zoom lenses (thanks Carsten)
Contax AX
Yashica ML 50/2
Yashica ML 35/2.8
Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4
Tamron Adaptall SP 17/3.5
Tamron Adaptall 28/2.5
Tamron Adaptall SP 300/2.8 LD (IF)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoeCool
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 134
Location: Kassel/Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
JoeCool wrote:
Nice comparison! I think film still holds good against digital. We should not forget that we do not see film pics here, but only digitalized versions of film pics. There is always one step more, and as you can clearly see in the lab scan, there can be much impact on the quality. Even with good scanners there will be an influence in quality.
Computers allow us to look at pictures in 400%crops and bigger and see things we never saw before. In those old days you would have needed a microscope to look that close.
For me the biggest difference is in the way I work with film. Digital hundreds of shots can be taken in an hour or two. With film, I tend to be more careful, think twice before shooting, and my percentage of decent pics is a bit higher hopefully....
Gerd
_________________
My pics @ flickr: http://flickr.com/photos/21700382@N06/
(miscellaneous) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 3614
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
hi poilu !!!
nice pictures !
keep doing your film and digital comparison, please...
Its superb for me!
I'll give you this back in the nearest future promise ..
I like more the film shot --- although the digital has smoother rendering...
| Quote: |
| Much as I used to love film I fear we are entering the time when it becomes like vinyl - an expensive hobby for the afficionados. |
hello patrickh
yes I agree --
digital can save a lot of money before you get a good result.
Moreover the digital allows to take pics in extremely bad light conditions and has to many features which film does not
i.e. --- the ISO on the film is NOT adjustable
We know all these aspects -- but expensive hobby?
All you need to do is to shoot less and think more
Digital and film camera can become a great combo to take pics in vary situations..
some scenes on digital, some pics (usually fine works in good light conditions) on film - and that's it
thanks
tf
Last edited by trifox on Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A G Photography
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 1480
Location: Bologna - Italy
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A G Photography wrote:
I sometimes convert digital shots in B&W but they're none close to real B&W film. This is an area where film still holds its ground in my opinion.
I also partially agree with poilu about the "plasticky" look of some digital shots, that cannot be amended. Using very fine grained film (like Velvia 50, too bad there's no Ektachrome 25 anymore) you can reduce grain a lot, using medium format film grain is the last of your problems as you can see in my 100% crop of Venice on film. And film has a great advantage of milder shoulders while on digital when you blow some highlights out they're unrecoverable.
_________________
Alessandro
My Photography Website
My Blog about Photography and Italian Cuisine
My Photostream on Flickr
--------------------------------------------------------
DSLR: Nikon d80, Olympus e410
SLR: Chinon CX, Fujica ST605n, Nikon f601, Pentacon FM, Pentax Spotmatic SPII, Praktica FX, Praktica FX2, Voigtlander VST1, Yashica FX-3, Zeiss Contaflex
RF: Altissa Altix, Zorki Ie, Kiev 4b
Medium Format: Pentacon Six TL, Zeiss Ikonta 520/2, Mockba 4, Voigtlander Bessa I, Agfa Isolette II, Agfa Isola
Large Format: Cambo SC 4x5, Rodenstock Sinaron 150/5.6, Rodenstock Rodagon 150/5.6, Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180/5.6
Lenses
Nikkors: 28/3.5 AIS, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/2 H, Micro 55/3.5, Micro 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/3.5 AI, 200/4 NAI, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 28-80/3.5-5.6, 55-200/4-5.6
CY: Distagon 28/2.8, Planar 50/1.4, Yashika 50/1.7, Sonnar 135/2.8
CZJ m42-Exakta: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Tessar 40/4.5, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Pancolar 50/2, Biotar 58/2, Biotar 75/1.5, Tessar 80/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 135/4, Triotar 135/4
CZJ P6: Flektogon 50/4, Flektogon 65/2.8, Biometar 80/2.8, Biometar 120/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer-Pentacon: Orestegon 29/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Primagon 35/4.5, Helioplan 40/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Primotar 50/3.5, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Orestor 100/2.8, Trioplan 100/2.8, Helioplan 135/4.5, Orestor 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5, Primotar 180/3.5, Telemegor 180/5.5, Orestegor 200/4, Pentacon 200/4, Orestegor 300/4, Telemegor 300/4.5, Telemegor 400/5.5
Schneider-Kreuznach: Curtagon 28/4, Curtagon 35/2.8, Xenon 50/1.9, Xenar 50/2.8, Tele Xenar 135/3.5, Tele Xenar 200/4
Russians: Arsat Zodiak 30/3.5, Mir-I 37/2.8, Volna-9 50/2.8, Industar-50 50/3.5, Industar-61 50/2.8, Helios 44 58/2, Helios 44-2 58/2, Helios 44-M-4 58/2, Volna-3 80/2.8, Helios 40 85/1.5, Jupiter 9 85/2, Jupiter 11 135/4
Others: Chinon-Tomioka 55/1.4, Helios 28/2.8, Isco Iscotar 50/2.8, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Ludwig Meritar 50/2.9, Schacht Travegon 35/3.5, Schacht Travenon 135/4.5, Sekor 55/1.8, Sigma MF 28/2.8, S-Takumar, 28/3.5, S-Takumar 50/1.4, S-Takumar 55/1.8, S-Takumar 55/2, Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, Steinheil Culminar 135/4.5, Vivitar 135/2.8, Voigtlander Ultron 50/1.8, Yashica Yashinon DX 50/1.4, Zuiko MC Auto-W 28/2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 3614
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
alessandro - seen your pics of venice --
that is a good example..
tf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
