Any technical explanations as to how or why film sharpness looks different from digital sharpness ??

[snusmumriken]

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but it seems relevant to do it again. Take a look on Instagram at the Arthur Steele archive. Those massive enlargements (like this one, for instance) demonstrate (IMHO) the still-surprising resolving power of film (35mm Tri-X in this case); the undeniable success of high quality scanning and really expert post-processing; and the fact that even after digitisation, film still has its own look, which in the main is distinct from the look of digital captures. I suggest that settles several issues discussed above.

 

[chuckroast]

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but it seems relevant to do it again. Take a look on Instagram at the Arthur Steele archive. Those massive enlargements (like this one, for instance) demonstrate (IMHO) the still-surprising resolving power of film (35mm Tri-X in this case); the undeniable success of high quality scanning and really expert post-processing; and the fact that even after digitisation, film still has its own look, which in the main is distinct from the look of digital captures. I suggest that settles several issues discussed above.

For another tribute to the possibilities of digital remastering of analog film see the new book "Apollo Remastered."

 

[Steven Lee]

Steven - the error some people make is to inspect grain under high magnification or even a microscope, but not in relation to how a given paper might see it instead, and at a specific level of enlargement. Back in graded paper days, certain easel focusing devices came with a deep blue filter accessory to simulate how the paper saw it. But we can get an idea with VC papers simply via test strips, or by viewing the neg atop a lightbox looking through deep blue and green filters respectively. Staining developers like pyro-based ones have been endlessly discussed (or warred over) in relation to how they factor into all of this.

Drew, but that's why I asked about your thoughts. Not other people's. Please stop constantly shitting on other dumb/incompetent/hypothetical people in every comment, it doesn't add anything to the conversation. Draw from your own experience instead. Don't you find yourself not liking the grain on your paper of choice above a certain enlargement? And when this happens, don't you think it happens before you're unhappy with the level of detail?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Demanding credentials or otherwise dismissing claims based on who said them (rather than what was said) is a debating tactic.

Something isn't right- or wrong based on who said it. Something is right or wrong based on the evidence presented. If you have specific objections and can enumerate the problems with this article, that's one thing. But dismissing the work out of hand because he's just a landscape photographer, his title, or the currency of his website is to the side of the discussion and irrelevant.

By this line of reasoning, most of us here (I suspect) shouldn't be called "photographers" because we are not formally trained in sensiometry, chemistry, and/or art.

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. In the current culture of hyperventilation, people tend to demand credentials and make arguments from authority when they are unable to either articulate or defend their own views.

And, yes, I'd love to hear a thoughtful explication of the many problems with which this article is "riddled". That might well be a path to learning on my part... for which I acknowledge there is great opportunity

If you shoot photos, you are a photographer. Don't be so hard on yourself. I consider myself a photographer. Now we can debate how good or bad I am.

 

[Helge]

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but it seems relevant to do it again. Take a look on Instagram at the Arthur Steele archive. Those massive enlargements (like this one, for instance) demonstrate (IMHO) the still-surprising resolving power of film (35mm Tri-X in this case); the undeniable success of high quality scanning and really expert post-processing; and the fact that even after digitisation, film still has its own look, which in the main is distinct from the look of digital captures. I suggest that settles several issues discussed above.

What was the post processing steps on these? And what was the scanner?
They are incredible.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The appearance of grain is yet another practical and esthetic tool. I absolutely love the blatant grain in many old journalistic 35mm images. But it's not my personal style. I enjoy looking at all kind of images which differ from my own predominant genre. I rarely care for digital attempts to mimic actual film grain. Once in a great while I shoot 35mm black and white for sake of apparent grain in small prints. And back when Agfachrome 1000 was still available, along with fast Scotchchrome, I took 35mm and 6X7 shots, especially portraits, based on the highly evident dye cloud structures these particular films provided in a manner no longer possible. But that was only for special projects or paid commissions.

My personal work has mostly been in large format, where apparent grain is essentially null in even big enlargements, even nose-up to a framed print. The fact I print all my personal work is via total optical workflow in the darkroom is probably recognized by everyone by now; but I still had pre-press commercial projects lab-done instead, including high-end scan at times. There's no sense going into all the extra fuss and expense of making a fine print when the object is just a temporary ad or magazine cover. Publishers knew how to do that kind of thing themselves, given an acceptable chrome.

It's all good, provided one knows what they are doing, and why, or at least experimenting to get there. Same with sharpness - another tool set. I've never been a soft-focus lens type myself, but certainly admire the work of those who did master that, especially prior to WW I. Once in awhile a particular soft focus connoisseur still chimes in on this forum. His expectation from lenses are quite different from any described on this thread, and some of those lenses fetch very high prices indeed resold, even if they're over a century old.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That Arthur Steele archive link proves nothing. It's apparently a Hassie or Rollei 6x6 shot scanned and digitally prepped. But since we're only viewing that print sized to about 3X3 inches on our screens, no telling what it actually looks like up close, or how much detail it really holds. Grain would be blatant unless artificially suppressed by some digit app.

Post sharpening can't add any detail not already there, but merely highlights it by removing certain other detail. I'm certainly not at all fond of how numerous venues scan old photos and blow them way up big and out of character; but it is an obnoxious trend among galleries and museums these days. I can understand it as home and office decor. I saw a huge inkjet print done by the AA foundation not long ago, and know for darn certain a lot of the seeming crispness and "detail" isn't in the original at all. It's been artificially "sharpened" and de-grainified. It would look stunning above someone's sofa, but no serious collector would touch it with a ten foot pole. Those types would spend a hundred thousand dollars more for a relatively fuzzy vintage print made by human hands.

 

[snusmumriken]

What was the post processing steps on these? And what was the scanner?
They are incredible.

I’ve no insight, wish I had. The lab is Metro Imaging, London. I think they have shown themselves to be expert at the job!

That Arthur Steele archive link proves nothing. It's apparently a Hassie or Rollei 6x6 shot scanned and digitally prepped. But since we're only viewing that print sized to about 3X3 inches on our screens, no telling what it actually looks like up close, or how much detail it really holds. Grain would be blatant unless artificially suppressed by some digit app.

You haven’t looked into it adequately before reacting. They are all 35mm Leica shots, and almost invariably Tri-X.

If you look at his website, you can see larger images, which might give you a slightly better impression of content and graininess, as well as all the information about format.

As you say, you can’t add detail in post-processing. So I contend that these remarkable enlargements do show the astonishing amount of information captured by film, even in 35mm, as I suggested. And that even after digital sharpening, they still look like film captures.

I don’t know what motivates a ‘serious collector’ (I have never encountered one), but if ‘stunning above the sofa’ isn’t good enough for them I have to wonder what they are doing it for. I could happily sell them a lot of pictures that don’t look stunning anywhere.

 

[Helge]

Post sharpening can't add any detail not already there, but merely highlights it by removing certain other detail. I'm certainly not at all fond of how numerous venues scan old photos and blow them way up big and out of character; but it is an obnoxious trend among galleries and museums these days. I can understand it as home and office decor. I saw a huge inkjet print done by the AA foundation not long ago, and know for darn certain a lot of the seeming crispness and "detail" isn't in the original at all. It's been artificially "sharpened" and de-grainified. It would look stunning above someone's sofa, but no serious collector would touch it with a ten foot pole. Those types would spend a hundred thousand dollars more for a relatively fuzzy vintage print made by human hands.

Not so with new sharpening techniques. It’s like comparing stilts to a plane.
Tried ChatGPT? Seen Dall-E?
Transformer networks are a gigantic step beyond the rule and algorithm based sharpening hitherto used and hated.

In the same way you can easily distinguish grain from image content in a very good scan, and you could, if given enough time selectively sharpen the images micro contrast, and attenuate or remove grain, in that way a well taught net work can pull up very low contrast detail. And suppress grain.
Because as opposed to other sharpening algorithms, it has some concept of what it’s looking at and what photographic grain is and looks like.

 

[brbo]

Because as opposed to other sharpening algorithms, it has some concept of what it’s looking at and what photographic grain is and looks like.

That sounds really convincing. Can you name one product that employs AI and knows how to deal with (distinguish between) detail and film grain. All those AI enhancers / upscalers that I've tried all failed spectacularly.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it's just that there are really really slim chances that anybody trained the network on thousands and thousands of extremely high quality scans (down to the proper "grain" - which is nothing like bayer/pixel-shift sensors or even drum scanners (which are actually the worst at capturing the grain as seen under microscope or very high optical magnification) can do).

"Smart" Adobe AI 4x super-resolution from 20MP vs. "stupid" pixel-shift:


(you need to click to see full 200% crops)

 

[Rudeofus]

I didn't bring up Tim Parkin's credentials. Steven Lee and Rudeofus did. I merely pointed out that the credentials they claimed he had didn't imbue him with any special expertise to conduct the test.

I brought in example pics to show my point (posting #141), that in low contrast areas photographic film loses resolution. What then started was not a discussion about the Velvia 50 and the Adox CMS 20 sample, but the usual turd slinging "the srticle is soooo stoooopid!" (postings #142 and #144), "haha petapixel" (posting #146) and "he is CEO of a two person outfit" (posting #151). The "there are more errors in this article than I have time to report here" meme is getting old, too. The whole reason Steve brought up Tim Parker was because people questioned the author's knowledge about scanning.

@chuckroast 's assessment of the discussion here is quite accurate.

 

[Rudeofus]

Rudeofus - you are obviously unfamiliar with much of what color printing involved in the 20th, whether in a darkroom setting or in the commercial printing trade even before Cibachrome. Staggering amounts of masking was routine, workmen were expected to master it, and specialized films were made in even quite large sizes with respect to it. A single color dye transfer print might involved more than fifteen sheets of film before even the sheets of printing matrices were involved. Before that there was carbro.

I had an SLR since the early 80ies, and ran through hundreds of rolls of film until that camera broke in the year 2000. All these films were developed by some lab, and small 9x13cm prints were provided by that same lab. If you tell me, that a single one of these prints was made with a mask made specifically for this print, then a whole new world has just opened for me. On average I was already lucky, if the color balance was somewhere in the ball park.

 

[Helge]

That sounds really convincing. Can you name one product that employs AI and knows how to deal with (distinguish between) detail and film grain. All those AI enhancers / upscalers that I've tried all failed spectacularly.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it's just that there are really really slim chances that anybody trained the network on thousands and thousands of extremely high quality scans (down to the proper "grain" - which is nothing like bayer/pixel-shift sensors or even drum scanners (which are the actually the worst at capturing the grain as seen under microscope or very high optical magnification)).

"Smart" Adobe AI 4x super-resolution from 20MP vs. "stupid" pixel-shift:


(you need to click to see full 200% crops)

No I can’t, there is nothing readily commercial out there.
But as with anything tech, there will be a large number of people doing proprietary solutions before someone picks up the courage to do a product.
If this

is possible in real-time, then certainly pulling up low micro contrast and attenuating grain is possible.

Let me make it clear, I don’t necessarily want this to become compulsory. I love grain and the full package of film, like most on here.
But it’s a nice thing to be able to do on occasion.

It’s not creating something that isn’t there already. It’s processing the information that is available.
In a way learning from digital.

 

[Helge]

I had an SLR since the early 80ies, and ran through hundreds of rolls of film until that camera broke in the year 2000. All these films were developed by some lab, and small 9x13cm prints were provided by that same lab. If you tell me, that a single one of these prints was made with a mask made specifically for this print, then a whole new world has just opened for me. On average I was already lucky, if the color balance was somewhere in the ball park.

Drugstore prints was just glorified contact prints, to entice people to want larger prints, and just to see what was on the roll.
But as often is the case with these schemes, people run with the lure and take it as the whole and only product.

 

[warden]

That Arthur Steele archive link proves nothing. It's apparently a Hassie or Rollei 6x6 shot scanned and digitally prepped. But since we're only viewing that print sized to about 3X3 inches on our screens, no telling what it actually looks like up close, or how much detail it really holds. Grain would be blatant unless artificially suppressed by some digit app.

Post sharpening can't add any detail not already there, but merely highlights it by removing certain other detail. I'm certainly not at all fond of how numerous venues scan old photos and blow them way up big and out of character; but it is an obnoxious trend among galleries and museums these days. I can understand it as home and office decor. I saw a huge inkjet print done by the AA foundation not long ago, and know for darn certain a lot of the seeming crispness and "detail" isn't in the original at all. It's been artificially "sharpened" and de-grainified. It would look stunning above someone's sofa, but no serious collector would touch it with a ten foot pole. Those types would spend a hundred thousand dollars more for a relatively fuzzy vintage print made by human hands.

I don’t know how Arthur Steel’s pics were treated but the newer sharpening tools definitely add detail that’s not already there.

Edit: Ah never mind, I Didn’t see Helge’s post which I’m basically repeating.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, even if the Steele prints that size were made from 8X10 format Tri-X, the grain would look like buckshot even reasonably close up. Who ya kidding? Either that, or the detail would have to be blurred to suppress it, or artificially broken up and reconstructed as if it were something else. That's downright alteration, not detail retrieval. So now we've got a digital bandwagon going on. Please keep it going all the way to the part of the forum where it really belongs. Now Ai jumps in too - my gosh!

It's all interesting, and I enjoy reading about it; but it sure has nothing to do with darkroom work. Just more digital options to paint in what's not really there to begin with, or to disguise what you don't want. Sure, there were and still are all kinds of darkroom tricks to suppress blemishes and so forth. Entire studios like that of Hurrell of Hollywood fame specialized in it. Sheet film came with a retouching surface to facilitate it. But that fact just emphasizes the sheer apples versus oranges nature of this whole thread. You want to run off on a wild goose chase about every latest digital tweak out there, but seem unaware of just how big a tool set darkroom printers themselves once had, and still potentially do. The commercial difference is mostly in the time/labor plus materials factor. But those of us who print for ourselves aren't necessarily on the clock.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rudeofus - no inexpensive snapshot photofinishing operation ever employed masking. It was routine for serious commercial printing and pro work, as well as standard in the printing industry. It was quite common for people to pay a thousand dollars or more for a well-made commercial print, and numerous labs specialized in high end optical color enlargements. A few hired guns still do things that way today. I seldom printed other peoples chromes, but when it did, same story. Expect to pay for the quality.

 

[faberryman]

Well, even if the Steele prints that size were made from 8X10 format Tri-X, the grain would look like buckshot even reasonably close up. Who ya kidding? Either that, or the detail would have to be blurred to suppress it, or artificially broken up and reconstructed as if it were something else. That's downright alteration, not detail retrieval. So now we've got a digital bandwagon going on. Please keep it going all the way to the part of the forum where it really belongs. Now Ai jumps in too - my gosh!

I remember looking at Richard Avedon's rather large portraits (81 3/4 x 66 3/4 inches) from his In the American West series, and, while the grain was visible, it did not look like "buckshot" to me. Of course, I don't know all that much about guns so I could be mistaken. Either that or someone is exaggerating. Wouldn't that be a surprise? Maybe you printed them and used masks. That's possible.

I sort of wonder about people who use masks. They sure seem to be fixing a lot of stuff all the time. Are the materials not good enough or is there some problem with the process?

 

[warden]

Well, even if the Steele prints that size were made from 8X10 format Tri-X, the grain would look like buckshot even reasonably close up. Who ya kidding? Either that, or the detail would have to be blurred to suppress it, or artificially broken up and reconstructed as if it were something else. That's downright alteration, not detail retrieval. So now we've got a digital bandwagon going on. Please keep it going all the way to the part of the forum where it really belongs. Now Ai jumps in too - my gosh!

Digital discussion started with post number one of this thread, and it’s in the title so you could have avoided it. Report the thread if your darkroom sensibilities are insulted and maybe a moderator will move it to an area you would approve of. I’ve enjoyed the discussion of sharpness from both sides of the imaging isle.

And you’re right, some modern sharpening approaches involve alteration and invention in addition to data retrieval, welcome to 2023. I prefer darkroom work myself, but enjoy modern software approaches too. They both have their place.

 

[Rudeofus]

Rudeofus - no inexpensive snapshot photofinishing operation ever employed masking. It was routine for serious commercial printing and pro work, as well as standard in the printing industry. It was quite common for people to pay a thousand dollars or more for a well-made commercial print, and numerous labs specialized in high end optical color enlargements. A few hired guns still do things that way today. I seldom printed other peoples chromes, but when it did, same story. Expect to pay for the quality.

That was my point: most folks here were NEVER exposed to masked prints, and therefore for many decades sharpness as seen on the negative was the norm. This changed, when either people or photo finishing labs switched to digital printing (which IMHO includes RA-4 print materials exposed through laser light heads). That's when pics "suddenly" became sharp.

 

[snusmumriken]

Well, even if the Steele prints that size were made from 8X10 format Tri-X, the grain would look like buckshot even reasonably close up. Who ya kidding? Either that, or the detail would have to be blurred to suppress it, or artificially broken up and reconstructed as if it were something else. That's downright alteration, not detail retrieval. So now we've got a digital bandwagon going on. Please keep it going all the way to the part of the forum where it really belongs. Now Ai jumps in too - my gosh!

It's all interesting, and I enjoy reading about it; but it sure has nothing to do with darkroom work. Just more digital options to paint in what's not really there to begin with, or to disguise what you don't want. Sure, there were and still are all kinds of darkroom tricks to suppress blemishes and so forth. Entire studios like that of Hurrell of Hollywood fame specialized in it. Sheet film came with a retouching surface to facilitate it. But that fact just emphasizes the sheer apples versus oranges nature of this whole thread. You want to run off on a wild goose chase about every latest digital tweak out there, but seem unaware of just how big a tool set darkroom printers themselves once had, and still potentially do. The commercial difference is mostly in the time/labor plus materials factor. But those of us who print for ourselves aren't necessarily on the clock.

Forgive me if I've missed it, but I don't think you have offered an answer to the OP's question:

Any technical explanations as to how or why film sharpness looks different from digital sharpness ??​

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pretty hard to explain, since this has become a runaway tangent about how to artificially post-manipulate things from what they first were. I'm not going to waste anymore words at the moment. Gotta get outside to clean up last evenings roofing reinforcement mess. It's that time of year before high winds pick up again. You seem to want simple answers about what is a moving target, constantly being altered, and according to an uneven playing field weighted on one side only. Overtly simplistic answers you will not get from me, and it's not because I'm being evasive, but because the generic question itself is unrealistically phrased.

Rudeofus - you too are making a broad statement, based on a statistical sample of only one - yourself. I don't know your age. But millions, or more likely, billions, of people have been exposed to masked images. Ever pick up a nice picture book printed prior to the 80's? - tons of masking and film color separation work was behind it. The high quality standards of photographic color printing like dye transfer and Cibachrome were also based on masking. Millions of people saw big dye transfer prints in the central NYC terminal itself. Millions more saw its outcome in relevant footage of Technicolor movies. Again, masking is a big subject in its own right. But casual amateur snapshots were not candidates for it. The last time I ever ordered some of those myself was so long ago that they were maybe five cents apiece, not five hundred dollars apiece like a well-made custom print at the time.

But I can make color prints "sharper" any day of the week that what any laser printer or inkjet output machine can do. And it's done all optically, no digital input at all. And I've been doing it for decades. So much for your utter myth that only after high-tech scanning options arrived did prints "suddenly become sharp". And there were numerous people also capable of that well before I ever got into printing.

It all boils down to this : do you folks want to talk about achieving or realizing detail, or faking detail? Sound a lot to me like just like more "new e-toy" chatter, just like the plethora of articles which deliberately feed into that very mentality.

 

[faberryman]

But I can make color prints "sharper" any day of the week that what any laser printer or inkjet output machine can do.

My sharpening is bigger than your sharpening?

 

[Pioneer]

This is inherently a digital/analogue comparison thread. Why does the sharpening done in the darkroom look different from sharpening provided using digital techniques. This is NOT a thread discussing which is better. Yet all I hear in opposition are complaints that others are trying explain digital techniques.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The inherent problem with the question itself is that ALL KINDS OF LOOKS and detail treatments are achievable either way. It's a moving target on both sides of the equation. Therefore any generic answer is inherently misleading. And just try to explain all the darkroom options to a generation which doesn't even know they exist, or ever did. Now e-faux has become the norm.