A difference I have noticed between film scans and digital photos

Discussion in 'Photography' started by richardsfault, May 28, 2004.

  1. I have noticed that 35mm film scans look "deeper" than digital photos
    of similar scenery.

    Depth appears more natural in in film scans whiile the digital photos
    appear "flatter" and compressed.

    For example, if someone is standing in front of trees, the trees will
    look more like they are right behind the subject in the digital photo,
    but more spread out in the film scan.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

    Richard's fault!

    Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
     
    richardsfault, May 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. richardsfault

    dadiOH Guest

    According to what I read here, the digital film plane is less than 35mm;
    therefore, a lens of any focal length covers less area. IOW, a "normal"
    lens on a digital camera acts as a moderate telephoto would on a 35mm
    camera.

    --
    dadiOH
    _____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
    ____________________________
     
    dadiOH, May 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I think you nailed it. The digital picture has more of the telephoto
    depth compression, while the 35mm has more wide-angle depth expansion.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

    Richard's fault!

    Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
     
    richardsfault, May 28, 2004
    #3
  4. richardsfault

    Chris Guest

    That's one reason I'll still keep my Canon film camera, and a slide scanner,
    even if I switch primarily to digital cameras. Digital does have
    convenience over film, but for the money involved, film has digital beat as
    far as quality.

    It tends to cancel itself out, though, as once you spend the $1000 or so on
    a comparable digital, you don't have to buy film, and while you can get
    top-quality for under $500, you have to buy film.

    Still, if the prints matter, I'll go with film, always.
     
    Chris, May 28, 2004
    #4
  5. richardsfault

    E. Hill Guest

    Still, if the prints matter, I'll go with film, always.

    Always is a long time. Let's revisit this 10 years from now, if we're still
    around. ;-)

    Eric
     
    E. Hill, May 28, 2004
    #5
  6. richardsfault

    dadiOH Guest

    Right. However, although I know what you mean with the
    compression/expansion references and while those terms are commonly used,
    let me point out that they don't exist.

    The only thing that changes the relationship and sizes of
    foreground/background objects is the distance of the camera. The
    relationships will be the same with a 20mm lens as with a 200mm as long as
    both photos are made from the same place.

    --
    dadiOH
    _____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
    ____________________________
     
    dadiOH, May 28, 2004
    #6
  7. richardsfault

    Paul Cassel Guest

    I agree with your assessement, but went all digital due to the convenience
    of it all. I have instant proofs complete with a histogram which tells me if
    I got the shot. Also I find that the manipulation of the image is much
    easier in PSP or PS CS than in the darkroom although some would say that we
    who've gone digital have left the legit realm of photography and have
    strayed into some other art form.

    -paul
     
    Paul Cassel, May 28, 2004
    #7
  8. richardsfault

    Chris Guest

    If film is still available, I'll still use it. Better? ;-)
     
    Chris, May 28, 2004
    #8
  9. richardsfault

    Chris Guest

    Well, whether you digitize print film, or work directly with digital images,
    it's only a step removed. Digital is far more convenient, but there's still
    alot of art to working in the darkroom. I'd love to have my own darkroom
    someday, but until then, I'll have my negs processed, and work digitally
    from them.
     
    Chris, May 28, 2004
    #9
  10. richardsfault

    Trey Guest

    What about a camera like the Canon Digital Rebel or other SLR digitals? the
    Cmos sensor is the same size as the 35mm film. Would this fix this flatness
    issue?
     
    Trey, May 28, 2004
    #10
  11. richardsfault

    Trey Guest

    about 15 years ago, someone told me "in ten years they will stop printing
    paper, everything will be computerized"
    ok, where is this paperless utopia? just like with paper, Film is here to
    stay for many more years.
     
    Trey, May 28, 2004
    #11
  12. Of course, those people would be ignoring the following:
    #1: Photoshop is used for digital pictures and film scans to exactly
    what people were doing in the darkroom prior - namely dodging/burning,
    color correction and exposure adjustment.

    #2: Almost all color film is color corrected by a computer at some
    point.

    #3: Any Photoshop "tricks" people may employ (composite photos,
    airbrushing, etc) were done in film, by hand, for advertising, fakes,
    etc. etc. Photoshop just happens to give better results with less
    effort.
     
    Brian C. Baird, May 28, 2004
    #12
  13. richardsfault

    Sander Vesik Guest

    The chances of film not being available in 10 years are rather low.
     
    Sander Vesik, May 28, 2004
    #13
  14. richardsfault

    Trey Guest

    But Photoshop lacks that chemical smell we have all grown to love.
     
    Trey, May 28, 2004
    #14
  15. Oh, just open a bottle of developer and leave it open on your desk! :)
     
    Brian C. Baird, May 28, 2004
    #15
  16. Well said!

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

    Richard's fault!

    Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
     
    richardsfault, May 28, 2004
    #16
  17. richardsfault

    Chris Guest

    Get an "oil" room freshener, fill it with the chemicals, and place it near
    the monitor. ;-)
     
    Chris, May 28, 2004
    #17
  18. richardsfault

    Chris Guest

    They're not the same clarity as the film. Size is size, quality is a
    different animal entirely.
     
    Chris, May 28, 2004
    #18
  19. richardsfault

    E. Hill Guest

    ok, where is this paperless utopia? just like with paper, Film is here to
    That wasn't the point. The question is, will digital mature enough in the
    next decade that it will be a viable replacement for film? Chris stated, "If
    the prints matter, I'll go with film, always." I think that's a bit short
    sighted, because we really don't know where the entire digital movement will
    go. (Actually, I think people are loose with words, and say things they
    don't really mean. But, that's another thread.)

    Technology isn't always the issue. I think how and when people adopt
    technology determines what is successful. For example, the Segway is a
    wonderful concept. But, it's adoption rate has been very poor. Therefore,
    from a business point of view, it will probably be a failure. The failure of
    the business side doesn't negate the technology, but it certainly won't
    spawn any further innovation in that type of transportation.

    Eric
     
    E. Hill, May 28, 2004
    #19
  20. richardsfault

    E. Hill Guest

    If film is still available, I'll still use it. Better? ;-)

    Come see me in 10 years, you might be eating crow. ;-)

    Eric
     
    E. Hill, May 28, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.