comparing my film images to digital images

eddo123

eddo123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
311
Name
Edward Fury
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all.

Last friday i went out in all the snow and got a great day for landscapes. I took both my large format camera and the digital. When it came around to sunset i shot 3 frames with the large format and about 5 with the digital.
The light was similar, and when looking back through the digital files last night i was reasonably happy with those results.
Today when i got in from work, my slides had come back which i had been eagerly waiting for all week. I opened them straight away and went through them.
Some of the shots from earlier in the day were ok, looked alright, well exposed and focused. Then i got to the end 3 frames. The ones from sunset.

WOW!! they were beautiful. :D:D:D

I have just got round to looking at them against the digital files and the difference is unbelievable. The amount of detail held in the highlights of the film by far outdoes the digital version. The colours and contrast look a lot better. Its much more the scene as i remember it.

To think that a year ago i never used film much, certainly not slide, and had pretty much condemned it to disappearing in my own mind. Looking at this comparison, digital still has a long way to go to equal the natural and beautiful look of slide film.

I think this has convinced me that shooting in flim has so much more to give. the experience and with the final product. From now on, i think i will exclusively shoot my landscapes with film. Whats the point with digital when it cant even compare!!

sorry I've wound on, i just wandered if anyone else had experienced the same as me. I would be interested to hear your comments about film and digital comparisons you have personally made.
 
Let me get this right, you are comparing a 5 x 4 slide against a digital image at best on FF and think that the 5 x 4 images have more detail? Are you really surprised?

Now if you had shot 35mm slide film and judged it against a FF digital image then you may have an different argument to put forward.

Glad you are pleased with the 5 x 4 images though!
 
TTIUWP. (this thread is useless without pictures)

I want to see the difference as well!
 
EdBray said:
Let me get this right, you are comparing a 5 x 4 slide against a digital image at best on FF and think that the 5 x 4 images have more detail? Are you really surprised?

Now if you had shot 35mm slide film and judged it against a FF digital image then you may have an different argument to put forward.

Glad you are pleased with the 5 x 4 images though!
Click to expand...

I know the answer to that. Im not thick, i was just saying about how digital seems to fail with highlight detail in comparison.
Makes me wander what ive really missed with shooting digitally over the past few years.
 
eddo123 said:
I know the answer to that. Im not thick, i was just saying about how digital seems to fail with highlight detail in comparison.
Makes me wander what ive really missed with shooting digitally over the past few years.
Click to expand...

I was not saying you were thick, just that you should be comparing apples with apples and not apples with water melons.

I think you will find that modern digital cameras hold up quite well against their film counterparts if the same formats are used.

i mean, a good big un always beat a good little un even in 35mm film days, and the amount of information able to be canptured by a 4" x 5" image is so much higher than that able to be captured on an 1.5" x 1" (approx) digital sensor.

35mm beat 110, 6 x 4.5 beat 35mm, 6 x 7 beat 6 x 4.5, 5 x 4 beat them all.
 
eddo123 said:
I know the answer to that. Im not thick, i was just saying about how digital seems to fail with highlight detail in comparison.
Makes me wander what ive really missed with shooting digitally over the past few years.
Click to expand...

You have to use software and skill to get the most out of digital files, whereas film produces straight out of the cam.
It makes something that exists in a physical sense by default.
With the right software and skill, you can make digital files a little more competitive.
The same dynamic range is available on any format of film, its not limited to 5x4 ofcourse, but having seen 5x4 slides on a light table, I know exactly what you're getting at.
It isn't just dynamic range, its the whole damn concept of pictures made by cameras :)
 
I'm guessing these 5x4 cameras are very expensive, as i've never used or seen one, so could someone please point me in the right direction, not that i'm thinking of buying just very curious :)
 
"film by far outdoes the digital version"

Couldn't agree more - much to the disgruntlement (?) of the digital fraternity - I recently did a direct comparison between a Canon 5D with L glass and a Contax 645 using negative b&w film. I shot consecutive shots - same lighting same focal length same settings............ I sold the 5D. The difference was too much to ignore - clarity, detail, range, everything important was noticably better apart from the obvious convenience of digital.(the digital files were converted and processed in the tried and tested way in PS).
Admittedly the frame size is bigger but the camera isn't - don't tell everyone though as the 2nd hand equipment prices might go up.


ps. Bit hasty with the sale of the 5D, replaced it as digital has it's place in other arenas - for me.
 
Depends what you're shooting. Mono dev'd at home can be as cheap as sixty pence a frame. Slide can be as much a fiver a frame!

Certainly makes you think before you press the shutter!
 
:thinking:

I don't even notice how much stuff costs, maybe L/F might have me totting up, dunno, maybe I'd just shoot less, cut the cloth sorta.
I don't feel like I'm missing anything though, shooting 12 on a roll instead of limitless frames.
I think if you want to shoot shedloads of film, 35mm is more economical.

There's no getting away from it, digital to film is a right shock to the system.
 
I would imagine they do, but its a double edged sword.

I dunno about bracketing, I hardly ever bracket unless its something with really daft lighting like the middle of the night.
You get to know your equipment and how it exposes after a while.
I still wonder why, if you meter correctly with an accurate meter and your camera shutter speed is accurate, it would expose incorrectly.
I suppose that's part of getting to know your gear, and what/how to meter.

Personally, I don't do any of that stuff any more, the camera meters perfectly everytime, depending on what I point it at, so I should just stfu...:lol:

ere, no that's a thing, sometimes I take 2 shots of a scape, one using exposure bias, that's like bracketing :)
 
Nope, average metering on a Mamiya 6, spot metering is on the Mamiya 7.

Shame it doesn't do both, spot metering could be useful..for portraits maybe.
 
blinkerz said:
Do people bracket with LF?
Click to expand...

With black and white large format, rather than bracketing, it's common to shoot two identical shots on the two sheets of film in a film holder (one per side).

One sheet is processed normally then it is looked at critically to see if it would have been better with either more or less development. In which case, there is another sheet to have another go with!


Steve.
 
As for cost, 120 film is cheaper per roll than 35mm but you only get 15/12/10/8 shots per roll depending on format. 5x4 is more expense but you find yourself taking fewer shots.

As you go up in size, you tend to take more time thinking about and setting up the shot. In the end, I think you end up with just as many good shots whatever the format.

A machine gun aproach with 35mm (and digital) may give you 5-10% keepers, 120 film perhaps 50 - 70% and large format 80 - 95%

Basically, the larger the format, the less you tend to waste it.


Steve.
 
Sometimes the actual picture is more important than the quality of the recording. Don't see many people taking 5x4 shots at weddings, sport and action shots - Horses for courses.

If I wanted top quality and a large print i'd opt for 5x4 or even 10x8 but invariable how large a photograph do most people want?

Sometimes the benefit of photographic ease is far outweighed than quality and vice a versa
 
joxby said:
I still wonder why, if you meter correctly with an accurate meter and your camera shutter speed is accurate, it would expose incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Breakdown in visualisation process in my case lol. I can meter, I know about reciprocity failure and bellows extension and filter factors and all the other rubbish you have to wade through. But if you can't see how the final image is going to look as a result of your metering then you're stuffed.

blinkerz said:
I always thought 5x4 was good for landscape & architectural cause of the huge tilt/shift made possible?
Click to expand...

Good for landscape cos of image size, tonality, sharpness. I don;t think you'll find many landscape togs using much more than a bit of front tilt most of the time unless they're trying some funny effect.

Lots of movements good for architecture though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top