Film Vs. Digital

[Axle]

Personally I like both.... But here:



On the left Nikon D70s, on the right Fuji Velvia 100F.

Film wins on this one in my mind.

[photophorous]

The digital shot looks darker but if I'm reading your exposure info correctly, the digital shot got slightly more exposure. Is this right: both at f/8?...1.5 sec / ISO 200 for the digital? 2.5 secs / ISO 100 for the Velvia?

I wonder why the film shot looks so much brighter? It looks like a whole stop difference to me.

Paul

[Axle]

I don't remember exactly what the settings on the film camera where, I pretty much going by memory on those. I do know that it's f/8 since I usually run that aperture in these buildings.

[mjs1973]

I was trying to read the exposure info, but couldn't. I'm curious about the way these were shot and processed. Same time, same lighting, same exposure, same PP work, that kind of thing.

[Frog]

The digital shot looks darker but if I'm reading your exposure info correctly, the digital shot got slightly more exposure. Is this right: both at f/8?...1.5 sec / ISO 200 for the digital? 2.5 secs / ISO 100 for the Velvia?

I wonder why the film shot looks so much brighter? It looks like a whole stop difference to me.

Paul

But its not the same scene so how would we tell?

Were these merged?

[Axle]

One tripod, two cameras. Take a shot with the digital, pull it off, put the film camera on, take the shot again.

Both are straight out of the camera (or CD in the case of the film shot), Pulled into Photoshop to save to JPG.

[photophorous]

...Both are straight out of the camera (or CD in the case of the film shot), Pulled into Photoshop to save to JPG.

I didn't think of this before, but since you mentioned getting a CD of the film images it reminded me. Automatic adjustments done to the film scans could easily account for this difference. This is a dark scene, so I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of autocorrect function made it brighter. It's hard to do a fair comparison when there are so many steps in the film process before you ever get to the point where the digital camera image starts. But, I know which one I like anyway.

[Xia_Ke]

Interesting comparison. Looks like these were shot on completely separate occasions. Did you use any filters at all?

[ComicDom1]

Part of the problem is that while there may be some apparent differences on a viewers monitor, as you probably well know, the best place to judge any image is in a print. Of course you might want to calibrate your printer so if reflects the colors and contrast you see on your screen as close as possible. Add to that difference in calibration of monitors, and the light collecting differences of a digital sensor, its A/D converter, sensor read noise, and the quality of lenses used. What was the color space used in the camera. Was there a frame shot for white balance reference in post processing for both exposures? Are you aware that Kodak film has a different tint base to it than Fuji?

In addition, there is some software being used by the digital camera when taking the image. Film Camera's of course are much different. You do not have all the tweaks in a film camera that you do in a digital one. So even if you have a similar Film body and lens to your digital one, in my opinion, it will never be the same as comparing apples to apples. Of course the final post processing can be done in Photo shop or some other imaging software, but then depending on the quality of your negative scanner, its resolution, software, interpolation, the outcome will affected as well.


Jason

[GB1]

I do like the film side better, but as others have pointed out you really have to be certain that the exposures were identical before drawing conclusions. Plus as Frog stated, they are really two different scenes... One side could have had different lighting than the other.

[fx101]

You have way too many variables to draw any conclusions. The lens must be the same (to eliminate sharpness concerns), you must shoot RAW on the digital in srgb and process the slide film with no sort of modification, use a calibrated scanner (to the same gamma as the monitor), and use identical shooting settings for this to be a fair comparison.

[Kajuah]

Like fx101 said; There are wayyyy too many variables to draw any conclusions. For starters (like already said)... where is there to start???

-sensor size...the d70 is an amatuer camera with an amatuer sensor, how does it compare to 35mm ?
-Lenses (what lens was on the film? what was on the digital? Are they the same lens? Are they the same make?)
-Many don't realize that digital's darkroom is a post-processing program (photoshop) - a film uses a darkroom. What is a film camera's photo without a darkroom? Pretty much nothing.
-what procedures were used in the darkroom to create the image in the film shot compared to the digital shot?
-what scanner copied over the photo of the film shot? what compression was the shot of the digital image recorded at (tiff, png, jpeg?)
-Metering modes
-Time of day, lighting, humidity, dust in the air, etc.
-The film shot is visibly more lit up than the digital shot...but the light seems to be coming more harshly from the left and the digital shot you can't see evidence of this in the digital shot ..is that a fault of digital or is that a fault of the time of day and the position of the light hitting the other side of the room?

It would be a lot more accurate of a test if you compared two images with considerations and a more thorough understanding of how each camera worked in equivalency to the other. The images would have to be the same, and I would advise choosing a much simpler subject with less complex lighting with carefully controlled environmental considerations.
While an interesting photographic concept...there is just way too many variables for it to be successful in its test
You're comparing a ferrari to a ford f-350. They're two totally different vehicles for two totally different tasks. They have different abilities and different capabilities. One has more features, the other is more efficient. One has more speed, the other has more durability. Which is better? It's silly to compare cars as it is to compare an entire medium of photography.