Although I will only be able to show compressed jpeg images here on the web, the characteristics I will be pointing out should still be quite apparent. Of course the differences are much more marked in the original tiff files, but since part of my argument is that the differences actually come through in digital delivery (i.e. images on a web page), jpeg will do. I might add that the jpegs on this page aren't even full quality – they were exported from Photoshop using the "Save for Web & Devices" function with a quality setting of "70". Still, all four images on this page add up to a significant number of kilobytes, so if you're on a slow-ish connection let 'em load and then check 'em out along with my explanations.
First, let’s zoom in on the protrusion at the top of the “antique” bronze container and a few of the beads hung around it.
Here's what I think I'm seeing in this crop. Ignoring the differences in color, the knob on the container seems to be sculpted better in the film shot, and the surface texture is more natural. Now, looking at the beads (these are polished nuts from the linden or "bo" tree ... the tree under which Buddha supposedly sat when he achieved enlightenment), the surface of the beads in the digital image lack texture, which makes them look more like plastic than the organic material they actually are. The film representation seems more real, both because I think there's more texture visible, and because the highlights are more contoured. Also, the roughness in the grooves in the beads is much more realistic.
And now the beaded band hanging on the upper left corner of the stand.
If you look closely at the red beads in the digital image, you can see a rather nasty mosaic effect – which stands to reason because this is a 100% crop at the full resolution of the image. This may be exacerbated a bit by sharpening. Anyway, looking at the film image it should be clear that, although not as sharp as the digital version, the beads actually look spherical. They have the appropriate volume and form.
The gold pocket watch resting on the rock also offers some interest (please pardon the specular highlights).
There are two things about the watch that reveal differences between digital and film imaging. First, looking at the engraving around the outside of the watch case, to me it appears as though the film image shows greater depth and sculpting. The engraving in the digital image looks as though the design has simply been scratched into the surface of the gold, whereas the film version better shows the three-dimensionality of the engraving work. Second, the numerals on the face of the watch in the digital version – particularly the "XII", "I", and "VI" – clearly show digital jaggies while the same numerals are solid and substantial in the film image.
And finally, the silver cross hanging on the stand.
The grain is fairly apparent in this crop of the film image (color film doesn't actually have
"grain," but we'll call it that for the sake of brevity). Undoubtedly it could be reduced
with some judicious noise reduction, but I don't find it objectionable at all. In fact, I find it
attractive. The main feature of this crop that I want to point out, however, is the gradation
that gives form to the silver. Digital sensors seem to have a hard time reproducing such fine
tonal gradations in both the shadow and highlight areas.
– Click on to Page 3 for my conclusions –>
<– Or go back to page 1 –