Film versus digital comparison

This is interesting:

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm

I have to say that I found the results surprising.

George

Perhaps this is one reason why medium format manufacturers are having such a hard time?

The results do seems surprising for medium format vs Canon 5D. However, the film shots look underexposed, at least on my screen, which might not help contrast or grain.

I've seen a couple of these sorts of reviews, however recently I've been scanning my own slides (using an old Minolta film scanner) and comparing the results against shots taking using my DS. My findings have been that the film results are still better, although that doesn't necessarily mean sharper.

Tou're right about sharpness. Digital sharpness is harder-edged than film. To be fair though film only gets the edge when we use very slow, fine grain emulsions and a tripod. I never did that anyway, so digital is pretty good compared to my Tri-X developed in Paterson FX-39.

I think I like digital for its differences with film, especially that clean, crisp look with the right sort of subjects.

Oddly enought it's B&W that I prefer film for - I still prefer the grain effects from devoping Tri-X or Delta 400 in Rodinal. I find digital B&W too clinical in comparison, unless a lot of post-processing is done.

Going back to the link, I notice that they used Bicubic Sharper as the method to upsize, and also did this incrementally. This is IMHO a fault in the method used. It is no longer necessary in Cs2 to upsize incrementally, it will not help and could make matters worse. Also, Bicubic Sharper is designed to maintain sharpness when down-sizing - for the web, for example. Bicubic Smoother is the correct choice for upsizing for print.

Take everything you see on the web with a pich of salt....

Hi all...

I have seen a lot of these so called comparisons and this on the face of it may be interesting...however it is just futile and a waste of time...

Firstly the film has been scanned...so is in effect now a digital image itself, so hardly a comparison of analogue technology V digital, so the whole thing becomes pointless straight away. Film was never meant to be scanned.

Secondly, making any worthwhile comparisons on a PC monitor is also futile since thay are basically rubbish in terms of image quality.

But worst of all....why does virtually everyone just judge so called 'quality' just on damn sharpness???....there are so many more aspects of quality in a photographic image, contrast, micro-contrast, colour reproduction etc etc

The only true way to judge is have a TOTALLY analogue print (ie darkroom produced) against a totally digital print and view them side by side under true daylight.

Cheers from Grumpy...

Grumpy or not, I agree with what you say. It is interesting though.

I'd also agree - the stuff I've seen would be better regarded as a test of a scanner v a DSLR, not as film v digital.

It's probably more acurate to describe it as a test of the tester, which he failed.

When I first posted the link I was astonished at how much better the digital was. Now upon reflection, I am astonished at how badly the film scanning was done.

I think that the conventional wisdom still holds - that a competent person can usually produce better pictures with an APS-C DSLR than he can get from print film processed by a High Street processor. However, those who do their own d&p will get significantly better results from a good MF film camera.

G

Hi,

I think this just shows how many people just do not know what they are doing. So many of these alleged 'testers' would not be let anywhere near a professional photo studio..ever. There are too many idiots and incompetants putting absolute rubbish on the internet and yet gullible and less experienced amateur photographers are being suckered into believing all sorts of nonsense.

You need to know all the details of every step taken to produce the final comparison images and G has spotted the weak link in this particular chain. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link!!!

Even well regarded testers like the Leica guy Erwin Puts show decided changes of mind and inconsistency when you read the tests done in different publications....

Cheers all....shoot slow trany film...still murders digital.

Ah, but how do you compare a slide with a digital image? At least with print film you can compare a print from digital with a film print, but printing a slide never works well, and projecting a digital image is equally unsatisfactory.

G

Hi G,

A truly professional printer using Cibachrome or the equivalent CAN produce the best colour photographic prints you will see, far exceeding the quality of prints from any colour neg film. It is just that most prints from transparencies are produced by inexperienced printers using poor methods and poor materials, quite often with inter-negs, which just produce rubbish results (as you may expect)

The 'earth from the air' UK touring exhibition used 35mm colour tranny film (Fuji Velvia) and 5 foot by 4 foot prints....they were truly exceptional and proved the point.

I really do not understand why so many people are unaware of the print quality available from transparencies, the processes involved have been widely available and promoted for years, just ask any Ilford rep.

Cheers Steve.

I remember when Cibachrome first came out. The prints were rather strange. Heavy blacks, garish colours, terrible mid-tones.

I have to say that on the few occasions when I have had prints made from slides, the results did not encourage me to continue. The impression I have is that if it is possible (as you say) to get good prints from transparencies, the costs are probably prohibitive for normal purposes.

But I am afraid that even if transparency-prints are cheap to do, and of better quality than digi-prints, these factors are outweighed for me by the convenience of digital. Also, the fact that the highest quality magazines all prefer digital to transparency suggests that not everybody agrees with you about the superiority of transparencies.

G