enlargements - digital vs film

[jing q]

And that world is a very small subset of working or creative still photography. The only reason film is still dominant in the world of motion pictures is because all but the very most expensive professional digital video cameras still have performance specs similar to today's P&S digicams; low DR, high noise, interlacing artifacts, etc. But that has little to do with still photography, where image quality in the professional cameras substantially exceeds that of film in the same format, and the majority of photographers and clients at all levels have gotten over the "only film is good" hangup. Since you claim to shoot digital, I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet.

Just because you "like" the flaws of film doesn't mean that opinion is universally shared, or even shared by the majority of photographers or clients. And it's a bit arrogant to define your personal stylistic preference as the photographic nirvana that represents what all photography should aspire to. I doubt Ansel Adams would agree with you. It's especially ironic, given your sig, that you so strongly defend the look and limitations of a visual recording medium that is quickly going the way of the 8-track tape.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think we're losing the point here
Let's get back to the original question on which enlarges better.

I think your belief is that
"Once individual specks of film grain are prominently visible, a film image can and does "fall apart" when printed large. There are many techniques for printing digital images extremely large without exhibiting obvious pixelization artifacts. A few rounds of alternately upsizing and adding small amounts of luminance noise will effectively disguise any artifacts in much the same way film grain hides the shortcomings of a film image."

whereas a number of us do not believe that an image falls apart when film grain is visible.
Those of us also have the belief that digital enlargements have their failings, mentioned earlier

"As the file 'breaks up" the color information also falls apart and makes more evident the failings of the enlargement. Careful uprezzing aside, you can't put information there that isn't, and that is what you are doing (interpolation) when upsizing a digital file and adding noise to cover the tracks."

I am of the belief that digital noise added on an image is a superficial method that misses the effect of film grain, which causes an unevenness of colour and texture which I feel adds more depth and a certain more organic feel to the image.

I've printed files from a leaf aptus 75s, a H39 (33 and 39 megapixels respectively), a kodak pro back, 6 megapixel cameras, 16 megapixel cameras,I've done cold head RA4 prints up to 40x60 inches, I've printed with large format photo printers from canon and epson, I've seen billboard prints close up I've seen large fine art prints close up, and I am hardpressed to say which one enlarges "better"

Have you seen a well scanned, well printed 4x5 slide above 40 inches? I walked up close to a Tina Barney print, absolutely gorgeous.
I've seen 35mm b/w negs printed 40x60inches beautifully too

It depends on your criteria of what's important for you in an image. Personally I feel that film well scanned and printed large retains a more organic feel, whereas a digital file may be able to retain a clean well coloured file but be prepared for lack a dimensional texture. This however works well for very graphic images perhaps.

Just different ways of perceiving the world I feel.

[jing q]

btw last time I checked the world of motion pictures using the most expensive professional digital video cameras was not an issue for a film with 7 to 8 figure budgets upwards.

I think a point to note regarding which enlarges better has to consider that digital SLRs lack the dynamic range capable of handling a wide range of tonalities which contributes to that graphic look. When you uprez and interpolate you are interpolating a limited palette of colours in the first place.

[Jonathan Wienke]

It depends on your criteria of what's important for you in an image. Personally I feel that film well scanned and printed large retains a more organic feel, whereas a digital file may be able to retain a clean well coloured file but be prepared for lack a dimensional texture.

And if your personal preference is for the image to have a bit of texture, the technique I posted earlier can give a digital image the exact same texture as scanned film. The primary difference is that you have complete control over the type of texture and how prominent it is in the image on the digital side. Digital can be as "clean" or "dirty" as you make it.

[jing q]

And if your personal preference is for the image to have a bit of texture, the technique I posted earlier can give a digital image the exact same texture as scanned film. The primary difference is that you have complete control over the type of texture and how prominent it is in the image on the digital side. Digital can be as "clean" or "dirty" as you make it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll believe it when I see it.I've been looking and trying different solutions. Still nothing close to that look. I'm sure video people have been trying hard too.Still yet to see a good authentic result.
Theoratically possible, yet still can't see it.
=)

[Jonathan Wienke]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Did you even try my method?

[Craig Arnold]

Have either of you tried the DXO film pack?

Like Jonathan's method on steriods from their blurb.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_filmpack

[jing q]

Have either of you tried the DXO film pack?

Like Jonathan's method on steriods from their blurb.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_filmpack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I actually played around alot with Alienskin's Exposure 2(actually helped abit with their beta testing to get their noise profile more authentic looking..)
still not quite there but one of the better ones...it varies the grain depending on shadow midtones and highlights to get a more random spread.

the test is in large scale reproduction. I'll test abit more.
Has anyone actually printed a large image (above 20 inches) and reproduced a film grain look with a digital file that actually looked filmic?

[djgarcia]

Here's another perspective. Except for artistic symbolism, such as pointillism or impressionism, why try to reproduce another medium's problem (for me grain was a problem to be solved, not something I normally wanted) while trying to deal with your own? I try to get an image that looks beautiful of its own. What "look" depends on the specific subject, but I want a beautiful image that gives me a certain feeling or emotion but doesn't necessarily "look like film" or "look digital". It is its own thing.

When things go off in an image, the "offness" will manifest itself differently depending on the medium. But the basic idea is to reduce the "offness" so that it isn't noticeable and you're left with an image that affects you in an intended manner. At that point there is no "film" and there is no "digital", just the image you wanted.

I believe this can be accomplished in either medium within their own particular capabilities. Otherwise it's like saying oil paints are better than water colors.

But then we wouldn't be having these interesting discussions .

[Jonathan Wienke]

That pretty much sums up my perspective. I have no issue doing blurring, color distortions or adding grain/noise for a creative effect, but I do so on an image by image basis, not to every image indiscriminately. Every image is different; some look best in B&W, others look best wearing a hypersaturated Velvia-like color palette, and still others look best with a true-to-life color palette or something else between the extremes. Some images are best with everything in razor-sharp focus; others are best with only one element in focus and everything else blurred to one degree or another to draw attention to something or away from something. Some images bebefit from a heavy dose of grain, and in others, grain is a distracting annoyance. There is nothing wrong with having a personal stylistic preference for a particular subset of these parameters, but declaring that one's personal preference is "the look" to which all images should aspire is both narrow-minded and ridiculous.

Image artifacts, whether film grain, pixelization, blur, skin smoothing, altered color palettes, contrast manipulations, or whatever else one can imagine, are like spices. In the right combinations and proportions, they can greatly enhance an image. In the wrong combinations, thay can be quite detrimental. The combination of spices appropriate for a pot of chili are not what you want on an ice cream sundae, and vice versa. And some foods really don't need much in the way of spices, like an apple. In much the same way, the approach for processing a landscape with lots of fine detail shouldn't be the same as that for a "glamour shot" of a woman in her late forties who needs a bit of help to look her best, and a product shot where accurate color is paramount will require yet another approach.

There's no single "recipe" that is best for all images. If there was, it could be made into an action and there would be no need for creative thought after the image is captured. Use the best recipe for the particular dish being served. To do otherwise is pointless traditionalism.

[SecondFocus]

There is an article in the brand new issue of Rangefiner Magazine that is very much on topic with this discussion. Luckily it is online in pdf. Here you go...

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Oct07/120.pdf

[jing q]

That pretty much sums up my perspective. I have no issue doing blurring, color distortions or adding grain/noise for a creative effect, but I do so on an image by image basis, not to every image indiscriminately. Every image is different; some look best in B&W, others look best wearing a hypersaturated Velvia-like color palette, and still others look best with a true-to-life color palette or something else between the extremes. Some images are best with everything in razor-sharp focus; others are best with only one element in focus and everything else blurred to one degree or another to draw attention to something or away from something. Some images bebefit from a heavy dose of grain, and in others, grain is a distracting annoyance. There is nothing wrong with having a personal stylistic preference for a particular subset of these parameters, but declaring that one's personal preference is "the look" to which all images should aspire is both narrow-minded and ridiculous.

Image artifacts, whether film grain, pixelization, blur, skin smoothing, altered color palettes, contrast manipulations, or whatever else one can imagine, are like spices. In the right combinations and proportions, they can greatly enhance an image. In the wrong combinations, thay can be quite detrimental. The combination of spices appropriate for a pot of chili are not what you want on an ice cream sundae, and vice versa. And some foods really don't need much in the way of spices, like an apple. In much the same way, the approach for processing a landscape with lots of fine detail shouldn't be the same as that for a "glamour shot" of a woman in her late forties who needs a bit of help to look her best, and a product shot where accurate color is paramount will require yet another approach.

There's no single "recipe" that is best for all images. If there was, it could be made into an action and there would be no need for creative thought after the image is captured. Use the best recipe for the particular dish being served. To do otherwise is pointless traditionalism.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

actually the point that some of us made was that a digital image when enlarged doesn't maintain the same photographic integrity as a film image
even if you add your digital grain to it it's still going to have that issue of a base file that needs to be interpolated.
a film image might be grainy but it doesn't "break up" the same way a digital one does

but of course you're going to continually argue otherwise as will I.
I mean, what do I know, I only regularly reproduce fine art prints for exhibitions 30 inches upwards all the way to 6 ft.

sigh I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so I'll just leave it as it is.

[Lisa Nikodym]

actually the point that some of us made was that a digital image when enlarged doesn't maintain the same photographic integrity as a film image

At the risk of possibly repeating what might have been said above:
If you enlarge a digital image to the point where the digital artifacts you object to start occurring, and enlarge an equivalent film image by the same amount, the film image is going to look equally (or more) crappy, because the film grain is becoming more obvious and interfering with the image content.  You might personally like obvious film grain (because it reminds you of the old days, perhaps?), but most of us here see it as a flaw rather than a feature.

Lisa

[jing q]

At the risk of possibly repeating what might have been said above:
If you enlarge a digital image to the point where the digital artifacts you object to start occurring, and enlarge an equivalent film image by the same amount, the film image is going to look equally (or more) crappy, because the film grain is becoming more obvious and interfering with the image content.  You might personally like obvious film grain (because it reminds you of the old days, perhaps?), but most of us here see it as a flaw rather than a feature.

Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

ok I guess I'm just lucky to have not had to deal with that problem with my film shots.
Perhaps we're working with different scanners and films.

anyway!that's that.cheerio.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I have a hard time understanding this love of grain. I am one of those who have always considered it a defect to be overcome.

I'm sure I have seen hundreds of thousands of grainy prints in my life. I think about a half dozen of them convinced me that the grain was a positive aspect of the image.

If you like the look of grain, fine. I almost never do.

[Rob C]

Film grain. Hmmm... yes, it is and is not the bee´s knees, depending on both your mindset and the requirements of the job.

Look at Sarah Moon´s work for Pirelli, Cacheral et al and the grain, as she used it in those days, and as did David Hamilton too; if you fail to see the beauty, the failure is in your eyes, I´m afraid.

I have both film and digital capture available; my time is spent most happily working on film, old Kodachromes which are virtually grain-free dyes. I sometimes add noise simply for the beauty I see in the granularity. I stress that this is mainly in b/w conversions - the more I work in the digital darkroom, the more I find myself drawn to b/w and the ways in which it is now better than the wet process used to be. Heresy? Some might think so, and four or five years ago I would have thought so too.

What is happening to me is that as time goes by, colour seems less and less important and more and more of a cheap version of almost anything you care to turn into a subject.

I´m sorry if this offends anyone - it isn´t meant to, it´s just how I feel within myself now.

Ciao - Rob C

[djgarcia]

A person's preference for a particular style or view should never offend or detract. It's the way of the world, many cultures, many paths, many perspectives. I for one am grateful for it, as different perspectives are the seed of growth and evolution.

Having said that, I can't believe I said that ...

[KAP]

I have just scanned an old picture at 5550 dpi, I picked something to show the grain, something without lots of detail. The best I could find was an image on Kodak EPP, I don't know much about this film it must of been a one off for me, I'm sure Provia is even better.
The crops at 100% do show grain, printed at 300 dpi I don't think you would see it, from my experiance I know you would not. The print would be 4ft wide at 300 dpi.
I have not done anything extra to the image like sharpen or run a noise reduction filter etc I let the scanner sort out most things, if I'd paid more attention I would of turned the croma down to normal, lightened it a touch and cleaned the film!
I find DSLR's struggle with this kind of scene, you to often get a banding somewhere.
Scanned on a Dainippon Screen 1045Ai.

Take a look here:-

http://homepage.mac.com/kevin_allen/PhotoAlbum15.html

Kevin.

[Jonathan Wienke]

You're comparing 6x7cm film to a DSLR; the film has nearly 5x the area of a full-frame DSLR sensor. How about comparing 35mm film scan to a DSLR RAW, which was what the OP was asking about. Or better yet, compare your film to a RAW from a Phase One P45+?

[KAP]

You're comparing 6x7cm film to a DSLR; the film has nearly 5x the area of a full-frame DSLR sensor. How about comparing 35mm film scan to a DSLR RAW, which was what the OP was asking about. Or better yet, compare your film to a RAW from a Phase One P45+?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A 5550 dpi scan of a section of 35mm or a 10x8 is the same as far as grain structure is concerned.
I was not comparing recorded detail just  emulsion enlarged.


Kevin.

[Jonathan Wienke]

A 5550 dpi scan of a section of 35mm or a 10x8 is the same as far as grain structure is concerned.
I was not comparing recorded detail just  emulsion enlarged.

And that's completely pointless unless you're taking magnification factor between film and print into account. If you're making 20x25" print, the grain structure of an 8x10 negative will be far less prominent in the print than that of a 35mm negative. A 5550 DPI scan of a 35mm negative would print less than 17 inches in the narrow dimension.