The DSLR vs Bridge vs P & S Debate. Quick Thought

navillus said:

Just kidding.

The truth of the matter is that I shoot both. I have an s6000fd that
I am trying to get to know better. I really love the camera. I use
it quit often with the famliy.

However, for my own personal enjoyment, I still shoot my Contax 167
MT with a Zeiss 35mm and 50mm lens. To be honest, it is cheaper for
me to shoot this camera than a digital FOR WHAT I SHOOT. (And I
really want to stress the last part because I am an odd duck)

I got 7 - 100ft rolls of outdated Arista 50 (which is rebadge PanF+)
for $12/roll , some Rodinal and and enlarger which allows me to print
quality BW prints for less than a inkjet print does (because I do not
have to by any ink, and I got wome great AGFA paper and ultrafine
online for less than cheap inkjet photo paper).

Film slows me down, makes me think and I enjoy it for what it is.

I am not a great photographer in any stretch of the imagination, but
I just enjoy the theraputic qualities of looking for beauty in little
things and trying to express it. Here are some examples of my 50
with a closeup lens attached in the fall on Panf+

Click to expand...

Hi,

I was just lurking really as I'm not really interested in the debate about film v digital.......your photos however are a different matter entirely as I do care about that and I thought they are great. You are seriously underselling yourself.

This one in particular I find beautiful for some reason...the simplicity and wonderful tones may be the reason...I'm not quite sure why but just wanted to let you know that's all. I'm not really interested in film because digital is so easy to use, however if you tell me that you could not have achieved this with a digital camera (of any brand or make) I'll believe you and do some more thinking about it.

Kind regards,

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

From my own experience, each support has its merits...

For sure, Digital is far easier and user-friendly... I made more progress in the last 2 years with my s9500 than in the previous 10 shooting film!

And let be serious : digital high-ISO is far less noisy than its analog counterpart. Anyone ever tried 1600 ISO rolls? Even the s9500 produces more usable shots!

And a good old 3mp still can hold its own in terms of resolution, at least as long as you don't do A2 prints... I've made A3 prints from a s5000 that are really cool...

But for all this, Digital is still far behind film in the Dynamic Range Area... Let's face it : nearly every negative around here can hold far more EV than the S5Pro...

I shot some Fuji NPH Pro lately, and you can see everything, from things lurking in the shadows to bulbs in lamps, without losing anything... It's HDR in one shot!

I goofed one day, and forgot the flash sync speed factor while shooting in full sun, on a beach : shot at 1/125 instead of 1/2000 (that's 4EV!!!)... The picture is still quite useable, and not a white lump...

Of course, you have to scan the negative in order to achieve the best results...
And that's a real pain...

Thank you for the compliment.

As for your question. PanF+ is great film, especially with Rodinal. It has a magical quality about it, but it is very slow film. I know that if I shot this with a different film, it would have a different look. As for digital, I don't know - maybe playing with the Channel mixer in photoshop could get you the same tones. I would assume it is possible, but I really don't know.

Please understand that I am a novice, so my advice on a "lucky shot" may not be the best, but here is what I did. I used a Planar 50mm 1.7 lens and took the shot with the aperture set at 1.7 (hence the shallow depth of field). (I think I also used a Minolta +1 close up lens for even shallower depth of field. )

I used my camera's spot meter and put the leaf between zones 6 and 7 (in other words I spot metered on the leaf and over exposed it 1 1/3 of a stop). This got me the contrast that I wanted.

I have been reading Ansel Adam's series "The Camera, The Negative, and The Print" in which he explains the Zone system. What he writes is very useful and I can't recommend these books enough - even if you shoot digital. Photoshop techniques are all based in film development and printing, so reading these books will also help for photoshop.

That is my advice, but I am new at this. These books seem to have helped me.

Have fun.

Michael

. . . compared to all the others you referenced. I already conducted the hard test for the film uninformed - I shot, processed and scanned them. You, OTOH, simply have to mash your digishutter and upload the results. It's digital and won't cost you any money to process and if you make a mistake just push digidelete and digido it again.

Believe me conducting the test would have taken far lest time then it did for you to type that response . . .

Bury your head in the sand?

Sony R1 is discontinued.
Sigma DP1 is not on the market yet.

It's interesting looking at these film shots and the grain is quite obvious but certainly not unattractive.

Does digital 'grain' (aka noise) look OK is some shots or is it less appealing than film grain?

Are we so concerned about digital noise that we try too hard to avoid it and perhaps miss the appeal of it in some shots?

I know that the kind of noise which includes noise reduction artifacts from compacts is almost always degrading so I do not want to include this in the discussion. This includes JPEGs above ISO400 from my S6500.

I have found when I PP my RAW images form my S6500 that I often don't bother to perform noise reduction and not because I may lose some fine detail but the image loses some of it's appeal somehow.

What do you think?

Cheers

navillus said:

I have been reading Ansel Adam's series "The Camera, The Negative,
and The Print" in which he explains the Zone system. What he writes
is very useful and I can't recommend these books enough - even if you
shoot digital. Photoshop techniques are all based in film
development and printing, so reading these books will also help for
photoshop.
That is my advice, but I am new at this...

Click to expand...

I am not new at this, and that is good advice.

--
Film & Digital
http://www.jaymoynihan.com

I really don't know about adding grain. I try to take away digital noise (the color stuff annoys me - but it also annoys me when I scan film).

I use to be really antigrain in everything. I wanted to most grain free film, I want a digital SLR that I could not afford. But one day I posted a picture on Photo.net I took, and Michael Ging responded to it. I looked up his portfolio and I was impressed! This guy even had a picture of one of my favorite photographers: Ansel Adams. I send him a PM about digital versus film and what was the best film to get for low grain, and he wrote back about how digital is a great way to go, but he shoots BW film and develops it himself because he likes the process (not because one or the other is better). He said that he has seen a lot of nice digital work.

Regarding grain, this is what he wrote to me, and his answer has never left me because it is soo true - the last two sentences being the most important.

"I shoot mostly Tri-x film and develop it in D76. Its not the finest grain film or does it have the largest tonal range. I shoot it because its fast enough for when there is not the best light and if you do have lots of light it does not block up in the highlights. Film does have grain in each photo, that is what makes up the photo. In most cases I think if you are looking at a photo and all you see is the large grain then you have not done your job as a photographer. I think subject,composition, expression, story telling, humor , communicating a feeling are all more important to have in a photo and if the viewer only sees the grain then you did not do your work making the photograph."

rocklobster said:

Does digital 'grain' (aka noise) look OK is some shots or is it less appealing than film grain?

Click to expand...

Very interesting question.
It is a personal preference question probably.

I just got a copy of Salgardo's Africa monograph, and wow, talk about beautiful grainy pictures! He until recently (using 6x4.5 for current project) shot only 35mm (Tri-x/Rodinal) and i heard he has negatives copied to 4x5 internegatives before printing.
Might make me shoot some 35mm/Tri-x again!

Anyway, re digital, I have gotten in the habit it seems of only using high iso when I intend to do a B&W image, guess I do not like the chromatic noise at all, and I seem to be kind of sensitive to it. I never liked high-speed color film "in the old days", either. Seems I will do noisy color only if I am aiming for mood/feel and "sharpness" can be sacrificed for the intent.
--
Film & Digital
http://www.jaymoynihan.com

LesDMess said:

Bury your head in the sand?

Click to expand...

That makes exactly zero sense in the context of the "children, children" sub-thread. You, of course, think that this sub-thread is still about film versus digital ... which frankly is more than a little obtuse ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

LesDMess said:

. . . compared to all the others you referenced.

Click to expand...

Huh? Your tests look pretty bogus when compared to those references.

LesDMess said:

I already conducted the hard test

Click to expand...

It would have been much harder to get it right. Unfortunately, you took a shorter path.

LesDMess said:

for the film uninformed -

Click to expand...

Presumably anyone but you ...

LesDMess said:

I shot, processed and scanned them.

Click to expand...

Without getting anything equalized ... without getting any analysis run by software ... without writing anything rigorous regarding methodology, testing philosophy, or even your results.

Which makes it all a waste of your time.

LesDMess said:

You, OTOH, simply have to mash your digishutter and upload the
results. It's digital and won't cost you any money to process and if
you make a mistake just push digidelete and digido it again.

Click to expand...

That I do ... and I revel in that ability. If you want to wear the badge of honour for the hassle and expense of film, by all means enjoy it ... just don't shove it down our throats with bogus tests and excessive rhetoric.

LesDMess said:

Believe me conducting the test would have taken far lest time then it
did for you to type that response . . .

Click to expand...

That makes no sense ... this sort of test has to take a lot of time, even done poorly.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

navillus wrote:
"... think subject,composition, expression, story telling, humor ,

navillus said:

communicating a feeling are all more important to have in a photo and
if the viewer only sees the grain then you did not do your work
making the photograph."

Click to expand...

Well put.

--
Film & Digital
http://www.jaymoynihan.com

Like I said, it's simpler to conduct the test and if it still isn't clear by then - believe me it will be, I will be happy to help you review the results.

I know what it is, you already know where it will rank because if nothing else digital is predictable that way.

That's alright as I know how overwhelming it is to actually know what may have always been in the back of your mind. Afterall, here it is 2008 and it is what it is . . . ;-)

I guess what you and 'navillus' are trying to say is that you have a preferred type of film and process and you hopefully shoot for the best result. If there is colour noise, you print in monochrome and then the grain is a characteristic of the film and it is what you expect and you like it.

I agree that whatever you are using (film or CCD), colour noise or grain is undesirable most of the time and PP or printing in monochrome can save a photo.

But still I look at some of those National Geographic photos in the deep dark jungles of wherever and the shots are grainy (colour) but they are still fantastic. I can hear you say - yes, its's the subject matter, composition, mood, humour and all of those other things that make a good photo.

Cheers

I feel like putting a bag over my head just having your posts next to mine ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Regarding Noise/Grain, I often find that in order to improve a noisy digital shoot, I have to add noise (!) and shape it like film grain...

This way, the rather unpleasant digital noise disappears, and, in the right proportions, it even gives a sense of added details (as proved by a recent study, I'll try to find the article again).

As for chromatic noise, I'd kill to have the S9500 supported by DxO, with their new noise reduction scheme...

. . . use you D80 with your sharpest lens so we can see where that ranks if you want. Afterall, you went through all the trouble to maximize the results, don't you want to factual know where it stands?

That's alright, it is perfectly understandable that here it is in 2008, and after you've obviously spent a considerable coin on your equipment that can't outresolve lossy desktop scanned 35mm film that you may feel overwhelming cheated. That's ok, you can wait for the next generation . . . maybe . . .

rocklobster said:

I agree that whatever you are using (film or CCD), colour noise or
grain is undesirable most of the time and PP or printing in
monochrome can save a photo.

Click to expand...

I will freely admit that I use Neat Image, which really helps with grain and color noise. When I print in Black and white, I am using an enlarger, so no neatimage there, but when working on the computer - especially in color - neat image can really save a photo. It can not work miracles, but it can help.

In my Flickr set I just upload some aweful pictures I took. I was at a Christmas concert, with horrible lighting. I shoot the pictures with my S6000FD at 1600 in Raw, underexposed byTWO stops with out a flash.

Here are two the best samples from the set after Neat Image. (Remember: the was from an s6000fd, 1600, - 2 stops exposure, trying to get the shutter speed at a usable rate.

navillus said:

Thank you for the compliment.

As for your question. PanF+ is great film, especially with Rodinal.
It has a magical quality about it, but it is very slow film. I know
that if I shot this with a different film, it would have a different
look. As for digital, I don't know - maybe playing with the Channel
mixer in photoshop could get you the same tones. I would assume it
is possible, but I really don't know.

Please understand that I am a novice, so my advice on a "lucky shot"
may not be the best, but here is what I did. I used a Planar 50mm
1.7 lens and took the shot with the aperture set at 1.7 (hence the
shallow depth of field). (I think I also used a Minolta +1 close up
lens for even shallower depth of field. )

I used my camera's spot meter and put the leaf between zones 6 and 7
(in other words I spot metered on the leaf and over exposed it 1 1/3
of a stop). This got me the contrast that I wanted.

I have been reading Ansel Adam's series "The Camera, The Negative,
and The Print" in which he explains the Zone system. What he writes
is very useful and I can't recommend these books enough - even if you
shoot digital. Photoshop techniques are all based in film
development and printing, so reading these books will also help for
photoshop.

That is my advice, but I am new at this. These books seem to have
helped me.

Have fun.

Michael

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed reply Michael.

Kind regards,

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham