Digital Camera R&D...

[David Luttmann]

Bobby,

Post your 1Ds sample then. My apologies if you're getting insulted. However, I do know who I'm talking to. This is a common issue that a lot of digital users complain about when they are first starting out with their Photoshop work. I teach a RAW workflow workshop at a local college a few times a year. I find that the people who mention this issue no longer have the problem once they understand how to process their RAW images. B&W conversion is actually more difficult than color. How are you converting your color work to B&W?

Your issues are a matter of Photoshop workflow, not "depth" differences. Because each film has a particular curve characteristic, I believe what you're trying to do is mimic the light response curve you see for each film and find a digital counterpart. Because you haven't found it, you're equating this difference to a lack of depth. As well, I believe that you appear to expect some grain in an image and by not seeing it, you feel the digital source may be "flat."

The depth difference you're describing sounds like nothing more than contrast difference because of this curve. I know you're disagreeing with this, but considering you appear to be the only person on this thread experiencing this particular problem, I would say that this issue is in your workflow, rather than an inherent depth difference between film and digital.

Let us know how you converted yor B&W. As well, post a 1Ds sample. Maybe a color & B&W explaing why you think it lacks depth.

Bets regards,

[Bobby Sandstrom]

Ok. Let me try and clear this up. I've been using photoshop for probably 8 or 9 years. I understand all of the benefits of doing whatever work deemed necessary in the RAW stage to minimize data loss. I know that every move made including simply switching color modes produces a loss of data and thereby decreases image quality to some degree. I use adjustment layers to minimize this effect by giving me the option to go back and make non distructive changes. To convert my images from Color to B&W, typically I first look at the individual channels then go into the channel mixer and play with the percentages to find an appropriate balance or simply use 1 channel if I like it. If I wish I can mask different parts of the image and blend different mixes. I have local and global contrast control using masked curves. I often play with midtone contrast in the shadow/highlight dialog box and sometimes apply either globally or locally via masks. If I wish I can apply grain either scanned from film or generated via the noise filter and applied wih a blend mode. All of the above subtley controlled to taste with opacity. I know a slew of ways to shapen an image, from very advanced methods with ultimate control to simple USM. I think anyone with any taste quickly learns the perils of oversharpening. If anything, I might be guilty of undersharpening. I can go on but I think you get my point. I really do know how to control my images. All this said, I may have been misconstrued because of the simplistic way I posed my question to start with. I'm not talking general global or even macro contrast. I believe there is something on a micro contrast level that I get from film that creates a subtle yet to my eye noticeable difference when I view a scanned piece of film vs a straight digital capture. Maybe it's the way light bounces off the individual pieces of grain, I don't know. However, at this subtle stage things can get subjective very quickly. I'll take responsibility for the confusion because of the way I asked the question and for the very obvious posted photo. I should have been more clear. I was hoping to hear of a newer capturing technology, something other than ccd and not as impractical as a scanning back. Something along the lines of a Foveon or what have you. Sorry for the heated thread.

All the best

Bob

[Jim collum]

one of the things i've found is that grain itself gives an added impression of depth and additional resolution. when you photograph an object (even with 8x10 or 11x14 film), there remains detail that is not captured. If you look at a digital image at 100% (at least with the bayer pattern sensor), that detail stops, and there's a feeling of smoothness. if you look at the original two film images vs the digilux, you'll see the grain adds an additional impression of detail to the surfaces of the buildings, while the digital building looks smoother. adding grain/noise to the digital image, adds the impression of that detail (although a 'false' detail in both cases). in almost all of my images, i add a very small layer of noise (masking shadows, highlights, and decreasing the effect for water and sky).

[bglick]

Bobby, there is a lot of very experienced people on this list, it's unfortunate members resort to name calling or insults when someone asks a question. But it's an open forum, and this how some people react, but the good news is, there is still very many generous and knowledgeable members, so try not to be discouraged. It's been this way since I started lurking in 1999.

As to your question....I shoot digital and film of all formats also. And I think a previous poster somewhat touched on my response. The obvious difference in depth you see in these images is the lack of contrast in the Digital image. I will expand though, as I see many variables in this equation.

Here is my take on the subject. Digital sensors record RGB, nothing else. And even then, since each set of 4 pixels only records 4 data values, i.e. 1 blue, 1 red and 2 greens, you are starting with 4 data values, whereas the other 8 need to be "interpolated" in software to acheive the 12 data values for the 4 pixels, so with no uprezzing, the interpolated raw file is at best 33% recorded values. Of course if the subect colors do not contain green, the numbers can fall apart very fast. (more below)

Now, this shortcoming can be "helped" by bombarding the image with more pixels, as the more pixels, the more information to work with. Hence why digital sensors keep growing. So far, this explains color digital, not B&W digital. Now, taking these "weakened" digital files and converting them to B&W, is a second form of interpolation you are asking the software to perform. Quite a task indeed, vs. B&W film.

Next, you are comparing this finished "heavily worked" digital file to B&W film which is specifically designed to record B&W, no interpolation required. Also, unlike comparing color digital to color film, B&W film vs. digital cpature further favors film, as B&W film records much higher resolution then color film. So in your comparison, digital capture has been severly handicapped, yet, still held up fairly well. This demonstrates just how powerful digital software is, as its working with so little to begin with. Therefore, in my opinion, this is a bad comparison to begin with. For a more fair comparison of the above, use color film and coverting it to B&W, then compare to B&W digital capture file.

You have to use the right tools for the task at hand. Of course B&W film is perfectly well suited for B&W output, however, if there is reasons you want to shoot digital for B&W, there is some some techniques / products that can help your digital capture perform better... and under the right circumstances, even supercede B&W film. Which of course would, create the feel of more depth in the image, amongst other benefits. In order of priority, here is the arsenal of products / techniques I would employ to boost digital B&W capture....

1. Use more pixels, either more MP on the sensor or shoot a montage and stitch em. How big? This varies based on output size.

2. Avoid shooting subjects void of green, such as pure red and pure blues as it will knock your recorded MP's in half, and reduce your recorded "after interpolation" values to 2 / 12 = 16%. Yep, before uprezzing, 84% of the file is "guessed", not a good starting point for B&W conversion.

3. Fine tune the digital workflow in the conversion. This may include building profiles from the point of capture to your output. Quite time consuming, but if you do enough work in this area, it may justify the time invested.

4. Use digital capture that records in 16 bit, vs. 12 or 14 bit. As you are trying to squeeze as many levels in the B&W as possible.

And the obvious, don't rule out using B&W film, when possible.... I hope this sheds some new light on your question.

[Paul Kierstead]

I think most would agree that digital files look flat or 1 dimentional when compared with film.

I think most would disagree. I would also hope you actually meant 2-D; 1D would truly be kinda sad.

To even have a slightly sane discussion about this, I would think that:
- What this depth is; at the very least, clear examples containing depth and not containing depth. It doesn't matter if they are digital or film, as surely the medium of film does not automatically grant depth.
- From those examples, draw some kind of hypothesis of what trait(s) provide that depth.
- Take pre-existing examples of photo's and try to add and/or remove depth byt altering those traits. Or, at the least, take multiple pics of the same subject with and without those traits, in the event it cannot be altered post-exposure.

Once you have verified what depth is, what it looks like and how it is achieved, you can have some kind of discussion. Not everyone will agree with you definitions, etc. but at least you will have the *basis* of a discussion. Instead you have just spoken for "most" and determined a medium wipes out a trait which is ill-defined at best. This is why you get no satisfaction. When everyone else looks like a Yahoo, it is time to look at yourself.

[Paul Kierstead]

All this tie and I still do not format lists properly. My apologies for the horribly formatting.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

Paul, read all of the posts!

[Paul Kierstead]

I certainly read all the posts. I see nothing even close to a definition of what constitutes a definition of the term. The provided examples look like 100% crop and certainly are a poor illustration of any aesthetic, including depth.