Digital Capture vs. Film Capture...the PRINTS...

[Findingmyway4ever]

After receiving some Canon 5D prints recently, only sized at 8X10, I found it a bit distracting that some prints about 3 years back made with a Contax G2 and 28mm and 45mm lenses, negative film, and printed to 8X12, look much better in these ways:

1) Color
2) Aliveness-feeling
3) Artistic

No particular order, though I have to say the "feeling" of anything digital I have seen and anything film I have on hand is "very" different, be it 35mm-4X5.

I have used about every camera that supposedly looks like film be it FF or something from say, Sigma with Foveon tech or Fuji/Kodak with the Kodak sensor reminiscent in some way or another to the Leica M8 (never used). I have not used anything larger than DSLR, but don't know why it would make a difference when I see it on the print where it matters most.

In the end, I have not seen, to this day, a digital image look like a film image. I can always seem some nuance/issue with digital capture that distinguishes itself in a poor way from film. I prefer clean and clear images, hence why there is a reason to shoot with larger film dependent on final print size.

When looking at web images, digital capture can look phenomenal, simply awesome. But on print, I just do not see it and have not seen it.

There is a guy that shoots with a Phase 45 setup and I will be able to view his prints. He does this as a hobby and works hard to follow a lot of what is out there regarding final print quality and simply technical merits of getting a very good image. So I have rather high and low expectations of this person's work, especially after thinking this person's Canon 5D prints would plain/simply be superior to even 35mm negative film images. It was a big time shock when all I wanted to do with the 5D images was do what I have wanted to do with my own digital experience, and that is to tweak the image as much as possible to make it look good and subjectively similar to film with film's attributes mentioned above.


Am I the only one alone in this digital vs. film "prints" thing? If not, I don't understand why people ever bring "resolution" into digital/film discussions if the print from digital is never going to look as good to the eye as what the film image looks like OR even vice versa=people that feel a digital print looks aesthetically nicer on a whole and of course resolution shouldn't mean squat to them either.


Don't want this to be a digital vs. film debate, but I cannot find a way out of this digital "look" that lacks the "quality" film provides...and this is only speaking on behalf of color work. Won't even get into b/w...

[Don Hutton]

And I've been looking at some 8x10 prints which look amazing - and they're shot with a tiny compact digital called a Sigma DP1... All a matter of perference. I personally find digital capture really excels in the area of color, but you need to understand a fair bit about color management to be able to effectively translate that into prints. Personally I think digital color is a doddle to produce decent results compared to wet color darkroom work.

[Eric James]

There are many confounding variables here. The CZ lenses you mention are some of the finest.

[Kirk Gittings]

Personally, speaking b&w, I think this kind of never ending comparison is completely off the mark. Each medium has its own unique look, strengths and beauty. Its like dye transfer and a really good ilfochrome. Which is better? They are simply different and in the right hands both can be beautiful or crap. I do both digital and traditional prints from film and exhibit both side by side. I am trying to make each print the best it can be. Some print better in silver and some better in digital. There are images I can make come alive in ink that simply won't print worth a damn any other way, because of the amount of tonal control I have in digital. Likewise I have reached a point with digital capture that I can make a b&W print from stitched DSLR files that will hold its own next to my best silver prints. It is allot of work, more work than silver I think, but worth the effort.

[sanking]

Kirk,

I agree with you in terms of the final print. Carbon tranasfer , Dye transfer, cibachrome, inkjet, pt/pd, silver, are all different media and each has its strong points, and weak points as well in many cases. And of course, printing directly from an in-camera negative is an entirely different experience than printing with a digital file, whether made by digital capture or scanned.

Basically I think it is wonderful that we have all these technologies, and more than I have not mentioned.

However, on the issue of digital capture versus film capture I have been and continue to be very interested in the comparison, for the simple reason that I can not afford to own every camera in the world, and even if I could, the excess would probably be counter productive. So I don't find the subject of a comparison of scanned MF or LF film with 22-25 mp DSLR or MF digital back at all off the mark. Chances are most of us can only afford to own and use one of the other, and it makes sense to use the system that best fits your needs. For that reason I am interested in hearing as much as I can from others about the comparisons, and any time I have the opportunity I make my own comparisons I plan to do so.

So I certainly hope that you, as moderator of this forum, do not discourage others from making and discussing these types of comparisons. I believe they are both interesting and relevant to the choices we will make now and in the future regarding the equipment we buy and use.


Sandy King

Personally, speaking b&w, I think this kind of never ending comparison is completely off the mark. Each medium has its own unique look, strengths and beauty. Its like dye transfer and a really good ilfochrome. Which is better? They are simply different and in the right hands both can be beautiful or crap. I do both digital and traditional prints from film and exhibit both side by side. I am trying to make each print the best it can be. Some print better in silver and some better in digital. There are images I can make come alive in ink that simply won't print worth a damn any other way, because of the amount of tonal control I have in digital. Likewise I have reached a point with digital capture that I can make a b&W print from stitched DSLR files that will hold its own next to my best silver prints. It is allot of work, more work than silver I think, but worth the effort.

[Findingmyway4ever]

Personally, speaking b&w, I think this kind of never ending comparison is completely off the mark. Each medium has its own unique look, strengths and beauty. Its like dye transfer and a really good ilfochrome. Which is better? They are simply different and in the right hands both can be beautiful or crap. I do both digital and traditional prints from film and exhibit both side by side. I am trying to make each print the best it can be. Some print better in silver and some better in digital. There are images I can make come alive in ink that simply won't print worth a damn any other way, because of the amount of tonal control I have in digital. Likewise I have reached a point with digital capture that I can make a b&W print from stitched DSLR files that will hold its own next to my best silver prints. It is allot of work, more work than silver I think, but worth the effort.

Thank You Kirk, Don and Sandy.

I have been waiting "a lot" for a good deal to come across for the DP1 as I know it has a very special sensor and glass on it. I also agree about the different chemicals, processess, one thing working for one and another working for another, etc. etc.

I'd really wish to get to a place where I can have out in front of me various prints done with different camera types, digital and film, and see if these issues I have disappear or if I can still see them and the are still distracting.

Too bad New Mexico is a bit out of range from a trip I'll be taking across the States from Detroit-Pacific NW.

[Merg Ross]

What concerns me in all of this is not the inevitable comparisons of film versus digital images. Both have their own special look.

My concern is where will this digital prominence lead us, say in the year 2059. Having been around awhile, I am using equipment that I purchased fifty years ago, for the majority of my work. I have made purchases along the way, but not many. That, of course, is due to the lack of great technological advances in film based photography over the last fifty years. When film and paper disappear, I will be out of business, but the beauty of aging is that both will be around as long as I will.

So, my question is, how many photographers invovlved with digital work find it necessary to make major purchases to keep abreast of technological changes. Will what you purchase today be useful in fifty years, ten years, five years?

Kirk, do you miss the days when a 90mm on a Calumet Wide was sufficient, or do you feel digital is giving your clients a better product? I think I know the answer, like all of us, former and present in your field, we strive to please the client and deliver accordingly. I have said this before, as a former commercial photographer I am relieved that I retired at about the time digital made an entrance. What little I comprehend about digital, I enjoy. For now, I will continue with what I understand best, silver.

[Marko]

What concerns me in all of this is not the inevitable comparisons of film versus digital images. Both have their own special look.

My concern is where will this digital prominence lead us, say in the year 2059. Having been around awhile, I am using equipment that I purchased fifty years ago, for the majority of my work. I have made purchases along the way, but not many. That, of course, is due to the lack of great technological advances in film based photography over the last fifty years. When film and paper disappear, I will be out of business, but the beauty of aging is that both will be around as long as I will.

So, my question is, how many photographers invovlved with digital work find it necessary to make major purchases to keep abreast of technological changes. Will what you purchase today be useful in fifty years, ten years, five years?

Kirk, do you miss the days when a 90mm on a Calumet Wide was sufficient, or do you feel digital is giving your clients a better product? I think I know the answer, like all of us, former and present in your field, we strive to please the client and deliver accordingly. I have said this before, as a former commercial photographer I am relieved that I retired at about the time digital made an entrance. What little I comprehend about digital, I enjoy. For now, I will continue with what I understand best, silver.

Merg, I'll try to answer this question from another angle. You are basing your craft on certain technology, as was the norm all along until the computers were introduced into the mainstream. The information revolution that they brought with them was named so because for the first time in history a non-physical entity - information - has become the base of everything. The actual technology used for its processing becomes less and less relevant and more easily and indeed more frequently replaceable.

In other words, the image itself is becoming everything as it becomes increasingly detached from the technology that produced it.

I may have easier time accepting it since I've worked in an information-based profession all my life - or perhaps I chose such a path because it came easier to me, I am not really sure, but I can tell you with certainty that I have enjoyed it all along precisely because of its changeability. The beauty of this kind of work is that there is always something new to learn and to play with. Change is simply part of the equation, not something to fight.

One of the changes that digital brought along is that digital cameras now replace not just the old film cameras but also the film itself. One now buys both the camera and the supply of film for the life of that camera. The other change, less obvious and more long term, at least the way I see it, is the gradual shift from purchasing the equipment and media to renting it. When you think about it in terms of the end-product - the information, aka the image, detached from the technology that produces it - why would you want to purchase something that you could neither fully utilize nor amortize during its short lifespan?

That, IMO, is a much bigger shift than simple change of technologies. Like all new paradigms in history, it will take a couple of generations to fully complete. We are now in the middle of it and only the youngest among us may see the end of it. That is what makes it so stressful to some and so exciting for the others.

[Merg Ross]

Merg, I'll try to answer this question from another angle. You are basing your craft on certain technology, as was the norm all along until the computers were introduced into the mainstream. The information revolution that they brought with them was named so because for the first time in history a non-physical entity - information - has become the base of everything. The actual technology used for its processing becomes less and less relevant and more easily and indeed more frequently replaceable.

In other words, the image itself is becoming everything as it becomes increasingly detached from the technology that produced it.

I may have easier time accepting it since I've worked in an information-based profession all my life - or perhaps I chose such a path because it came easier to me, I am not really sure, but I can tell you with certainty that I have enjoyed it all along precisely because of its changeability. The beauty of this kind of work is that there is always something new to learn and to play with. Change is simply part of the equation, not something to fight.

One of the changes that digital brought along is that digital cameras now replace not just the old film cameras but also the film itself. One now buys both the camera and the supply of film for the life of that camera. The other change, less obvious and more long term, at least the way I see it, is the gradual shift from purchasing the equipment and media to renting it. When you think about it in terms of the end-product - the information, aka the image, detached from the technology that produces it - why would you want to purchase something that you could neither fully utilize nor amortize during its short lifespan?

That, IMO, is a much bigger shift than simple change of technologies. Like all new paradigms in history, it will take a couple of generations to fully complete. We are now in the middle of it and only the youngest among us may see the end of it. That is what makes it so stressful to some and so exciting for the others.

Marko, thank you; a thoughtful assessment of where we are and where we may be headed.

[Frank Bagbey]

I could help not chiming in on this one. Rants in the past pretty well clarify my position, if anyone can remember. I keep reading in trade publications about "big time-big money" wedding, food, and portrait photogs who have given up digitial and gone back to film. One example, making a bride look like white wedding dress is not smudgy, dirty, and her complexion real looking, not like a corpse in a coffin. There are lots of other examples. Interesting in todays news that Kodak digitial profits dropped almost as much as the film profits. I also agree there is a "different" look to black and white digitial and film digitial. Here, it is almost more of an artistic decision. I know a few digitial photogs whose work looks great, but usually that is when it is extremely contrasty. On the whole, however, most of the stuff looks like crap produced by someone just learning darkroom print quality.