I know I said I was done with the film vs. digital debate
but sometimes I end up with two images of the essentially same thing, one film
and one digital, and I just can’t resist comparing the two.
The image above was taken with a 50/1.7 Carl Zeiss lens
mounted on one of my all manual K-mount SLR bodies and loaded with Fuji Superia
400. I don’t recall the exact settings but believe it was about f2.8-3.5 with a
shutter speed of 1/125 (I use a Y/C to K adapter for the lens that robs me of 1
stop). The film was processed and scanned by The Darkroom.
This is not a high resolution so when you “zoom in” you will
see pixels before you see grain but even at that level of scrutiny the quantity
and quality of the textures and tints is just amazing which explains why this
image just seems to vibrate with life.
Below is a similar image taken the same day with my Pentax
K-01.
Now by now you guys know that I also shoot digital and I
truly love my K-01. It produces some amazing images with its state of the art
16 MP sensor. There are many cameras with more MP’s that can’t come close to
the IQ of the K-01. The IQ and resolution of this shot is excellent but next to
the film image it just looks dead. Could it be improved in post processing –
maybe, but why bother. I’d rather just shoot film! With high resolution scans
or better yet – wet lab prints, there really is no comparison.
I do often find the same thing with film. Film usually comes out with the look I want without a lot of extra work. Digital can make some good images, however it usually takes more post-processing.
ReplyDeleteTed, Thanks for stopping in again and taking the time to leave a comment. Yes, film almost always gives me the look I want but in selecting a film stock I make many of the decisions up front that digital photographers defer until later, especially when shooting RAW instead of jpeg. When I do shoot digital the equipment and techniques I use allow me to essentially imitate the analog process and avoid post processing.
Delete