Differences Between the "Look" of Film & Digital Capture?

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

I agree, but I'm not thinking quite as technically as you seem to be. I'm thinking about the perceived looks of film and digital. I think a typical perception of the digital look has to do with depth of field, the linear dynamic range, absence of focus/exposure errors and/or artifacts like grain, dust, scratches, and other evidence of film processing, etc. In film (motion picture) circles, there's not much debate about whether film and video have different looks, for some of the same reasons. I know, video and digital are different things, and I'm not trying to prove there is a digital look, or define what it might be, but suggesting there might be more to the question than the results of exceeding the limitations of the media.

[paulr]

I think there are some generalizations you can make ... although in most cases the "look" of either medium is specifically a result of limitations. Limitations are not necessarily flaws. Some people love the look of film grain, for example, but technically grain is noise (non-image information).

When you compare images that are mostly free of the artifacts of the medium (like a carefully made, moderately enlarged print from a big color negative) it can be very hard to tell a digital caputre from a film capture.

Sometimes when I'm bored at a gallery I try to guess. Unless there's prominent film grain, or prominent digital artifacts, I get it right about 50% of the time.

I suspect differences in motion picture are much more prominent because you're always dealing with giant enlargement. So there's no hiding grain and other artifacts. And the dynamic range constraints of digital are probably more challenging to handle when making movies.

[mandoman7]

A guy can have a long time spouse who has certain habits that drive him nuts, but then when she dies, he'd give anything to have her come back and do them again.

Something about patterned behavior.

[Greg Miller]

I think whether or not there are differences in looks is much less important than finding the process with which you can achieve the look that you, the artist, desire.

If you find a process that allows you to achieve the look that you desire, and it is a process that you enjoy just enough to keep doing it, then whether or not that process looks likes another process is highly irrelevant.

And I think that the process is much less important than having something meaningful to say. If you don't have something meaningful to say, than the process is irrelevant.

[Greg Lockrey]

A guy can have a long time spouse who has certain habits that drive him nuts, but then when she dies, he'd give anything to have her come back and do them again.

Something about patterned behavior.

Reminds me of the adage: "I refuse give a nickle for another one like her but I won't take a million dollars for her."

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

I agree completely. I was just trying to make the distinction between actual differences and perceived differences, and some possible reasons for both. Most people who know me know I'm a photographer and I work with film, so when we talk they feel free to tell me how they think digital photography is dead/flat/lifeless/soul-less, take your pick, and I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending digital photography. I'm not uncomfortable because I have a problem with digital photography, but because I simply don't know much about it. What I do know is that it is every bit as capable as film photography, with its own advantages, disadvantages, and potential.

[Rider]

There is no digital output at the present that can mimick a chrome. It's a physical object that just can't be made with any digital processes at the present. I can always tell a 4x5chrome from anything else

But I know everyone is talking about output--prints, screen shots, so here goes...

Film is continuous, whereas a digital sensor is mostly empty space that does not record anything (the space is needed for the wiring). The light gathering photodetectors have relatively large gaps between them. This must have an effect on diffraction and the overall look of an image.

In addition there is tonality. Film records more tones than today's digital sensors which probably contributes to the look. Also, film and digital sensors respond to extremes in exposure at a different rates.

That said, I would have a hard telling a print made from a digital sensor and one made from an analogue capture. There are many reasons for this.

In digital post processing, you can add film noise, dust, scratches. You can clip the colors, shift the colors and add crossover, to mimick any emulsion you want. You can expose the digital picture so there is none of the telltale digital clipping. You can even create a silver print from a digital negative.

The flip side, you can also scan and process an analogue film to eliminate the film grain for normal sizes, and you can introduce digital artifacts if you want.

Still--my scans of 4x5 chromes have a quality that my DSLRs captures can't...capture.

[Brian Ellis]

People make prints. They use tools to make the prints. The prints can look however the maker wants them to look within the limitations of the tools. The tools don't dictate how the print looks, the person making the print does that.

[engl]

Film is continuous, whereas a digital sensor is mostly empty space that does not record anything (the space is needed for the wiring). The light gathering photodetectors have relatively large gaps between them. This must have an effect on diffraction and the overall look of an image.

I agree with most of your post, but regarding the "empty space" of digital sensors, that is not a major concern any more. Modern sensors have fill factors of 90%, which means 90% of the area is active, achieved in part by microlens arrays.

One thing that digital is still unable to emulate is non-linear response. Films have reciprocity failure, which essentially means that recorded signal does not only depend on how many photons hit the film, but also at what rate. In static scenes the rate does not change, so the effect can be emulated with a tone curve (increasing contrast). The same is not true for scenes with moving light sources, which I shoot a lot (urban scenes at night). Light trails from traffic are essentially not affected by reciprocity failure since the photon rate is high, while all the static parts are. In other words, the light trails are going to be brighter relative to static parts in the film shot compared to the same shot on digital.

There will also be less noise in a long exposure (especially in hot conditions), and there will be color shifts caused by reciprocity failure affecting different layers differently.

[paulr]

Still--my scans of 4x5 chromes have a quality that my DSLRs captures can't...capture.

That's all about square inches.

A big digital back likewise gives quality that a dslr can't.
What the big film offers is price/performance that today can't be matched by anything else, unless you shoot tremendously high volume.

If you shoot negatives, film also has more dynamic range.