Above are two photos, both taken with available light in the same location at approximately the same time of day. One was taken with a Leica M4 and 35mm 2.5 VC pancake lens (a jewel of a lens, btw, and without doubt the best price to performance M mount lens in existence); the other taken with a Leica X1 and its 24mm 2.8 Elmarit, a rough 35mm field of view on the X1’s cropped sensor.
The M4 was loaded with Tri-X, rated at box speed of 400 ISO and developed in HC110 solution B. The X1 was shot in RAW and processed in Silver Efex Pro using the Tri-X emulation. Both were sharpened at output. (You can click on either photo to see a larger version).
Obviously, a comparison between two 72 dpi jpegs can only tell you so much, essentially how scanned film compares to digital files on a monitor. Scanning film brings an entire new technology into the mix, but then again so does the use of Silver Efex for digital files.
I’m a dedicated B&W film shooter. I love the look of film, its smooth tonality and its depth. In my eyes, its obvious when you look at a silver halide print versus a a digitally captured inkjet print. But I also see subtle differences in the examples above. The difference is still there when both are digitized and displayed onscreen, but judicious use of Silver Efex certainly can create a remarkably ‘film-like’ look. In the above instance, the diffuse natural light works to narrow the distance between the two as digital’s Achilles heel – blown highlights – isn’t in issue.
Can you tell which is which?
One thing to keep in mind, regarding articles about film-versus-digital resolution: They inevitably compare digital images to scanned film. Apples and oranges, really. Scanning of film is a great convenience, but it brings an entire extra technology into the loop.
One thing to keep in mind, regarding articles about film-versus-digital resolution: They inevitably compare digital images to scanned film. Apples and oranges, really. Scanning is a great convenience, but it brings an entire extra technology into the loo
Hits: 1055
The image on the top is the film, the second image is digital.
I also think the upper one is the film image. I see a difference in the pattern of your sweatshirt.
Being a digital shooter until now I also more and more switch to film and I just bought Tri-X 400 film and a used Canon AE1. Can you give me some hints where I can get the necessary equipment for developing film myself? I’ve developed film and made prints in school days and I still think I can do it. 🙂
Thank you,
Karl
Hi Karl,
I hope the site admin won’t mind that I post a reply to your question here.
Developing B&W film at home is very simple, you really need just very few things:
– changing bag (optional – as you can load your film to a developing tank in a totally dark room too, but I prefer the convenience of the changing bag)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/70982-REG/Kalt_NP10101_Small_Changing_Bag_Double.html
– developing tank (I use the smallest one as I prefer to develop one roll at a time – but if you are planning to shoot volume, you can use one which fits 2 or 3 rolls)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/536021-REG/Kalt_NP10113_Stainless_Steel_35mm_Tank.html
– Three graduates (as I develop one roll at a time, I use the 16oz / 500ml size – I need 250ml for one roll of film)
– Three thermometers
– Film clips (for drying)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/70804-REG/Kalt_NP99FC_Stainless_Steel_Film_Clips.html
– I also made a DIY hose solution: 16 inch long rubber tube from Home Depot attached through an adapter to a deep sink faucet.
– Developer, fixer, wetting agent and 1 gallon distilled water
This is all I use to develop my film.
Now, I am “figital” guy, I have no access to any darkroom and prefer to scan my film, I still believe that it preserves the characteristics of B&W film and prefer even my scanned B&W photos to digital.
I use the Nikon Coolscan 5000.
please, fell free to ask any question, I am glad to help.
Miklos
http://www.miklosphoto.com
Thank you, Miklos! I will look where I can find the necessary items locally where I am.
I really love the pictures on your site. The film makes the photos so much more enjoyable.
That is really a question that fits to the topic of this site: Why does film look so much more “credible” and “alive” than digital images? It must be something in the way film catches the information, which is represented differently by a sensor. Even applying a film look, like Tri-X 400, is not the same as really shooting on film. Does anyone have an idea why that is?
Karl