Digital Camera R&D...

[David Luttmann]

Nothing to do with confidence. How about some of us upload some photos and you tell us whether they are digital or film. I've played this game before....and haven't lost yet. Care to try?

[Steven Barall]

As far as the original question goes, I believe you are looking at a problem with user error and not any problem inherent with digital media.

That said, someone out there a lot more smarter that I can comment on whether they believe that the difference between digital capture and LF is the same kind of difference that exists between small format film and LF. It might be that there is nothing wrong with the digital capture but rather that LF has the potential of just being so much better.

Have a nice weekend all.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

No problem dave. You put up 2 photos taken at the same time with the same lens on both digital and analog cameras and I'll be happy to tell you which is which. Now, if someone would tell me how to load a jpg onto the site without a link I'd be happy to post such a comparison and I would venture to guarantee that anyone with half an eye will be able to tell the difference. In fact, the file is from an article that touts the resolution disparity between 35mm film and a digital capture stating the digital file has higher resolution. Maybe so, however the analog photos have much more apparent depth.

In fact dave, I would venture to guess you've never seen 2 files side by side of the same subject taken at the same time with both digital and analog cameras. If you had, you'd not be arguing this. That goes for any other person in this thread that claims there's no difference.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

Here's a picture that clearly demonstrates my point. This image shows 3 shots of the same building. The first is with the digilux 2 the second with an m6 shooting PanF and Agfa 100. If you can't see the difference in apparent depth between the first(digital) and the 2nd and 3rd, then lets just drop the subject and forget I ever asked my initial question.

I apologize for linking to this photo as it is from a photo.net article/review. But, it illustrates my point perfectly even though the photo is used to compare the resolution differences between the 2 fomats. If you want to check it out you simply go to photo.net and look for the digilux d2 review.

[tim atherton]

Not perfect by any means - working with crappy little 72dpi images, but:



the file the digital image comes from may or may not go through various stages in either the Leica software and/or photoshop. Similarly, the scanner software will sharpen and adjust the scan, probably based on a canned profile for that film. So it's taken what would lookj like a pretty flat/linear raw version of that file and applied some curves and contrast to it.

The result is that an image from the digicam that hasn't been tweaked in photoshop by someone who at least vaguely knows what they are doing will probably come out looking a little flat (especially as most of the auto software is geared more towards colour than B&W), whereas one from a scanner will most likely be using a profile that gets it looking closer to the film "look"

But it's pretty simple to take a digital camera file and - if you know at least some of the basics about converting rgb top greyscale properly, applying curves etc, very quickly get away from the "flat" (or at least more linear) look you complain about and more like the one from the film scanners.

Aside from issues of grain, I could pretty much guarantee you that if I had hi-res files of all three, I could get the digicam file looking close to identical to the other two in terms of contrast and what you call "depth"

[tim atherton]

Bobby, if I can make it clearer.

It's just a difference between what adjustments the scanner softare and the camera software have applied to the files.

Each of those two types of images (scnner vs camera) have had (or not had as the case may be) different things doen to them.

You are comparing bananas and plantains as it were..... not two radically different things, but you aren't conmparing images wehre all other things are equal

[Jim collum]

as tim said... a quick bit of work on a 72dpi image

[David Luttmann]

Bobby,

I use high end digital, MF & LF. All of my film work is Imacon scanned by myself. Now you're example is just the type of amateur stuff I'm referring to. Aee you seriously comparing a digilux point and shoot with full size DSLR chips? That's beyond funny my friend.

Here's what I suggest you do. Go out and do some tests with REAL gear rather than playing around with cheap consumer digital stuff. Figure out what you're doing wrong with your digital workflow that is giving you flat prints. Because if you honestly think that a screen size image will be discernable between a DSLR (not your Digilux toy) and film, than you indeed have much to learn.

I won't waste anymore more time with this. I believe others in this thread have pointed out the same.

Best of luck on your journey.

[David Luttmann]

Jim,

you beat me to it. It appears Bobby doesn't quite understand the differences between scanner and digital workflows.

Thanks for posting the cleaned up image. Now even the Digilux doesn't look to bad against the M6.....and the Digilux is junk compared to a decent DSLR.

[tim atherton]

darn I can never get these things to show up...

here's the link

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3955931-lg.jpg