Everyone knows that digital photography is now “as good as” film ever was, right? And that film is on the way out, only kept alive by a few nostalgic hobbyists and technophobes?
I’m not convinced.
In the general rush to adopt digital technology, which is wonderful stuff to be sure, it seems that it’s just too easy to replace quality with convenience, contemplation with quantity, and insight with ephemera.
There’s no doubt that for pure expediency digital imaging has thoroughly outmaneuvered film in the last few years. But I can’t help noticing that film has a beauty that digital still can't quite match, even though current digital is darn good. I will go as far as to argue that medium and large format film deliver resolution and gradation that result in a visual depth that transcends digital, even after scanning and digital delivery. Of course it has to be exposed right, and processed right, and scanned right, and ... frankly it's a pain, but for me the results are worthwhile.
In this article I will attempt to organize and present my thoughts on this subject in semi-coherent form, while providing a few examples that I believe explain, at least in part, the appeal of film for quality image making.
Graphs and Charts, and Why You Won’t See Any Here
(… plus a disclaimer …)
I am interested in what I actually see and respond to in photographic images, and not in the least in graphs and charts. Graphs and charts and numbers are essential guidelines for engineers who are developing new equipment or refining existing designs, but once the gear is in my hands those design tools have already done their job and what I see becomes the primary criteria. That of course throws a huge dose of subjectivity into the equation (and I retain the right to change my mind at any time), so please don’t interpret anything you read here as the last word. I am simply sharing my “lab notebook” with others who might have similar interests.
Whys and Wherefores
Why would anyone want to spend time making comparisons like this? The short answer is that I need to know! It’s sort of a “because it’s there” type of thing. As someone who shoots both film and digital, I spend time looking at both types of images and am intrigued by the differences. I see things in film images that I find appealing, and want to know if they’re real or just my imagination. I am surprised by the fact that I see the same appeal in film images that have been scanned and thus have entered the digital domain, and I want to know why. Questions like this can only bounce around in my brain for so long before serious geek mode kicks in and I have to head to the lab … thus this little comparison.
The Sample Images
In order to compare digital and film images one obviously needs to acquire identical images in both media, so that’s what I have done. I created a cluttered little still life and did the shooting indoors under controlled lighting (a pair of monoblock strobes) to avoid the light variations and movement that can affect the outcome of outdoor tests. First let’s look at the overall images and how they were made, then we’ll zoom in for a closer look.
The Digital Capture
The digital image was captured with a Nikon D700, thus representing the output from one of the most highly acclaimed 12 megapixel full-frame sensors on the market (as of August 2008). The lens used was the AF-S Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 ED, generally considered to be one of Nikon’s best, and on a par with the best primes in terms of image quality throughout its range.
• Camera: Nikon D700
• Lens: AF-S Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 @ 70 mm
• ISO: 200
• Shutter Speed: 1/250 sec.
• Aperture: f/11
The Film Capture
The film image was captured with a Horseman 45FA view camera fitted with a Nikkor 150 mm f/5.6 lens and a Horseman 6x9 roll film back. The film was Fuji Pro 160 (negative film). No camera movements were used.
• Camera: Horseman 45FA View Camera with Horseman 6x9 Roll Film Back
• Lens: Nikkor W 150 mm f/5.6
• Film: Fuji Pro 160 roll film shot in 6x9 format
• ISO: 160
• Shutter Speed: 1/250 sec.
• Aperture: f/22
Scanning
The film image was scanned using an Epson GT-X970 flatbed scanner. “GT-X970” is the model number in Japan, but this model is essentially the same as what is called the V750 Pro scanner in other countries. The manufacturer-supplied 120 film holder was used for the test. The scanner comes with EZcolor software and targets, which were used to create an ICC color profile for the individual scanner used.
The film was scanned at 4800 spi, and later resized in Photoshop to match the 4256 x 2832 pixel dimensions (approx.) of the D700 image.
Why didn’t I have a high-quality drum scan done? The goal is to illustrate real-world characteristics that are pertinent to most photographers. Drum scans are simply not practical for a large percentage of film image makers and, frankly, I find that the Epson delivers quality that is quite good enough for my needs, as I think you’ll see below.
Post Processing
The color and exposure response of digital cameras and film are quite different, and I didn’t go out of my way to match the images in this regard. I got the color close, without pushing so hard that I would otherwise affect the quality of the image. As for sharpening, I carefully applied as much pre-sharpening and output sharpening as I could to both images without getting into ugly territory. In short, I believe I have pulled as much out of the original captures as possible without overdoing things. Subjective, I admit, but that’s what this comparison is all about.