What are you looking at when are comparing film to digital?`
That is, are you comparing an analog print to a paper print made from a digital camera? Or something else?
With film, the sharpness is quite subtle and soft even on medium format meanwhile with digital the sharpness is much more glaring and just pops out. Basically, the two have different character when it comes to sharpness. Is this just as a result of the grain sort of masking everything ?
How much of this is confusing lossy "sharpness" for the real deal? Digital edge enhancements do so by subtracting, not adding, actual detail. But film to film unsharp masking preserves the detail, while potentially enhancing edge acutance, provided one understands how to do that. Yet it can be overdone and look annoying either way. Basically, a lot of this line of debate is based on superficial generic stereotypes of things actually involving all kinds of variables. As usual, the Devil is in the details, either way.
How much of this is confusing lossy "sharpness" for the real deal? Digital edge enhancements do so by subtracting, not adding, actual detail. But film to film unsharp masking preserves the detail, while potentially enhancing edge acutance, provided one understands how to do that. Yet it can be overdone and look annoying either way. Basically, a lot of this line of debate is based on superficial generic stereotypes of things actually involving all kinds of variables. As usual, the Devil is in the details, either way.
high-altitude or LEO reconnaissance imagery from the 1990s.
Of late, I've been doing a lot of fiddling with developers to optimize acutance - which typically is expressed as images appearing more "sharp". A lot of this has to do with edge transitions (see the examples below) rather than absolute sharpness.
What's the negative size in those LEO cameras? Standard 35mm?
When it comes to big expensive surveillance cameras, and both ground-based and space telescopes, and even very high end optical microscopes, there are engineering, design, and budget options that go well beyond anything likely to be taken into account here among us in either a film or digital capture frame of mind.
But more down to my own humble scale of gear and budget, the limitation of TMX100 mentioned by Matt, having high detail capacity but relatively poor edge acutance or perceived detail, can be cured by special development tweaks allowing a little more grain growth.
But more down to my own humble scale of gear and budget, the limitation of TMX100 mentioned by Matt, having high detail capacity but relatively poor edge acutance or perceived detail, can be cured by special development tweaks allowing a little more grain growth.
Pyros work fine with TMX100, but not in relation to improving edge effect. For that purpose, I use Perceptol 1:3 @ 16 min, which at that greater dilution favors just enough grain growth.
Well, keep us updated per results. I shoot a lot of Tmax in 120 formats. It's the best all-round film out there in terms of scene contrast range, spectral sensitivity, development gamma potential, and fine grain. The only thing that needs curing is the edge acutance. TMax 400 solves even the latter issue by itself; but I generally use that in sheets instead.
When it comes to big expensive surveillance cameras, and both ground-based and space telescopes, and even very high end optical microscopes (in distinction from electron microscopes), there are engineering, design, and budget options that go well beyond anything likely to be taken into account here among us in either a film or digital capture frame of mind.
But more down to my own humble scale of gear and budget, the limitation of TMX100 mentioned by Matt, having high detail capacity but relatively poor edge acutance or perceived detail, can be cured by special development tweaks allowing a little more grain growth.
Light travels, just like sound, in waves.
Till a certain extend both, light and sound, can be approached equally, so you can convey a theory about sound to light.
I think that the illustration in appendix can explain something...
How so? It’s just the usual fallacy of a sampled digitized signal as a bar chart.
More than that, it completely ignores the factor noise, and it compares a wave, which is observed over time, with a wave, which is observed as a whole packet in one. Whatever the differences between analog vs. digital may be, they are not explained in this chart.
Of late, I've been doing a lot of fiddling with developers to optimize acutance - which typically is expressed as images appearing more "sharp". A lot of this has to do with edge transitions (see the examples below) rather than absolute sharpness.
It is also my experience that maintaining good local contrast in the midtones, especially, improves the perception of sharpness.
There is no magic here. Digital can do unsharp masking to improve edge transitions, and there is plenty of post processing possible to improve local contrast. Moreover, tools like Topaz can do all manner of automated image repair.
The perception the digital is magically sharper stems from two things I think.
First, analog is a lot clumsier to post process in the darkroom than something from a digisnapper going onto a Mac for quick fixes. I have worked in the darkroom for 50 years and I am well aware how much effort it takes to really get a silver print right. I see tons of promising analog images that have not been sufficiently "tuned" in the darkroom after capture. The photographers just seem to give up after a certain point or - perhaps - lack the darkroom technique. IOW, it's more likely - IMHO - that someone will take the extra time with digital post production, because it's just easier.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of digital images I see are dreadfully over produced with post processing adjustment, Excessive HDR "fixes", over saturation, and - yes - too much unsharp masking gives so many promising digital images a kind of garish, bordering on cartoon like look. And that look absolutely can appear astonishingly sharp, if not terribly aesthetically interesting.
Here are a couple images shot handheld with a Nikon F3 and a 35mm Ai-S f/1.4. I was experimenting with what Double-X would do in a small format with respect to edge transitions and apparent grain. I have no doubt that a mirror lockup and tripod would have made these even sharper. Even so, note the nice edge transitions and how the midtone local contrast is held by means of highly dilute, low agitation (EMA) in Pyrocat-HD.
These are scans of my "workbook" silver prints. The only post scanning adjustments I make is to try to match the physical print as best as possible to overcome scanning artifacts. They're not final and could still bear futher refinement. But these are 8x10s I make as a record of work I may later want to make into wall hangings. These are printed pretty much edge-to-edge from the negative onto an 8x10 sheet:
I love exactly that characteristic of TMX.
I usually describe it as velvety.
The “cure” is to use Delta 100, it has exactly that extra little “bite”.
Threads merged - with a caution. Photrio rules prohibit digital vs. analog - it is only the qualitative comparison inherent in tis thread's premise that allowed for its continuance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?