|
English
Language Teaching in Japan
| |
|
 |
Film vs. Digital II: In Black & White |
|
This is a comparison between 35mm film
and an APS-C digital sensor. This test uses 35mm (film) SLR Seagull DF-2ETM
with Ilford Delta 100 (100iso), and the Sony A200. |
|
What's
this about?
Have we been sucked into the marketing hype? Have we been like sheep and followed the crowd? Or are images made by
digital means as good as film, or better? I'm a bit pragmatic about some
things, and so below, you'll see why I think it's good to be so.
To be fair, Ilford (spelt
ilford) was founded in 1879, so with a long time to develop their
product, one would expect the film to be significantly better. So, of
course the first generation of digital cameras would be shoddy, but with some
improvements in the second and third generations. The digital camera being
tested here is of the third generation, made by
Sony. The
Konica Minolta company virtually dumped their SLR camera division on
Sony, so today we may have Sony camera bodies, but have Minolta lenses
in our kits. In my opinion, the former Minolta engineers under the Sony badge have done a fantastic
job of their succeeding cameras, as they have a pedigree
going back to 1928 when the Minolta company was first formed. Minolta
had led the way with many innovations that companies like Canon
and Nikon had later followed (eg: Auto focus, detachable lenses, and
others).
A little history about the film camera to be used. The Seagull
(company founded in Shanghai, in 1958) is known for its TLR, and large
format cameras, though this 35mm manual camera, was produced under licence
from Minolta by Seagull in the 1990's apparently based on the Minolta
X-700. Apparently, Seagull still
produces (Minolta MD) manual cameras today.
|
1.
 |
2.
|
| The Seagull
DF-2ETM
(Minolta MD, 35mm film format) |
The Sony A200
(Minolta AF, APS-C format sensor) |
The lenses
Below are details of the lenses used. The lenses are
an important factor in considering image quality.
3.
 |
4.
 |
5.
 |
| 3. Seagull's 50mm 1.8
(Minolta MD)
lens, with Cokin P003. |
4. Sony A200 with
Minolta (AF) 50mm 1.4 (35mm equivalent to 75mm focal length) |
5. Cokin P003 Red filter |
The test
|
For the test, a Cokin red filter was used, as this
blocks certain wave lengths of light, with on black and white film,
darkens the sky whilst making the clouds really stand out. It is thought
that this is the hallmark of black and white photography: the ability to
use various filters to produce various effects. |
6.
6. A Cokin P003 red filter held up
in front of a camera showing
cirrocumulus clouds. |
Seagull with Ilford Delta 100 (black &
white)
7.
 |
8.
 |
9.
 |
| 7. From Seagull,
50mm 1.8: F2.8,
1/500, 100iso, with Cokin Red P003. These were reportedly scanned
with SP-2000. This is prior to LightRoom processing |
8. Same image with
Contrast, Lights, and Darks adjusted in LightRoom. Notice some
green-turquoise hue at full size; the image was scanned and saved in
RGB. |
9. Same image at full size (1840x1232px, 576kb).
Notice some grain and dust specs. In this case, the grain probably
adds some charm. |
Sony A200 with colour settings on B&W and
processing in LightRoom
10.
 |
11.
 |
12.
 |
|
10. Sony A200, 50mm 1.4, f2.8, 1/500, 100iso, with Cokin Red
P003
filter, prior to processing. |
11.
Same image with 100% desaturation |
12.
Same image with desaturation and contrast increased 100% |
Other Samples
13.
 |
14.
 |
15.
 |
| 13. Sony A200 in AdobeRGB (colour,
no red filter), prior to processing. |
14. Same (colour) image with 100%
desaturation. |
15. Same (colour) image with 100%
desaturation, and 100% contrast increase. |
16.
 |
17.
 |
18.
 |
|
16. Seagull, 50mm, with Ilford Delta100,
with Cokin Red P003. |
17. Seagull, 50mm, with Ilford
Delta100,
with Cokin Red
P003. |
17. Seagull, 50mm, with Ilford
Delta100,
with Cokin Red
P003. |
Comments
Conditions on the day:
This day was bright and sunny. It was at about 5pm when the light is the best, and
with some light scattering of cloud which did not block the sun's light
on the subjects.
File sizes:
Since fine grain quality is not the emphasis of this test, file sizes
were kept manageably small, so many internet uses would not be
disadvantaged. However, when viewed at a larger size (picture 9) grain
is noticeable, even at 1840x1234px.
Settings:
The Sony A200 colour settings were set to 'B&W', and White Balance was
set to 'Sunny'. The Sony A200 camera produced RAW (ARW) and these
were imported into LightRoom v2.4. Looking at the camera screen we see
that they are indeed black and white, but LightRoom still extracts the
embedded colour information from these, hence the bright red picture
above. Film: The SP-2000 scanner used for the black and white
film, here in Japan, still used RGB in scanning, and when viewing the
histograms in LightRoom, some Reds, Blues, and Greens were not
overlapping, perhaps creating a slight colour hue. No desaturation was
applied, but was tested. This resulted in a very slight and subtle
sepia-ish hue.
Post processing:
All these files were not altered except for adding copyright information
and protection, otherwise they were where specified. All files were exported as jpegs in AdobeRGB colour space, 8bit, 300ppi, and at 100% quality. The files from the Sony A200
needed to have processing into black and white by desaturating (see
Settings section, above).
Desaturation was chosen as it's the simplest means of converting to
black and white that most people can do. It should be noted that there
are better ways to convert colour digital images to black and white.
Film: Only contrast, Lights, and Darks were adjusted, as this would
be the normal means of processing in the dark room with projectors and
chemicals.
Quantity of images
taken:
With no surprise at all, digital seemed versatile. Why? I am in the
habit of shooting experimental shots, looking at the back, and adjusting
settings, and trying again. However, I find I don't experiment with
film and I used digital to take 'proof shots' anyway. With film, I aim
to get it just right, then I move on and look for a different
composition.
Money Talks:
Also, taking one digital photo cost me so little in storage space, that it
comes out at perhaps 1/100th of a cent per megabyte. Compare that to
buying a roll of film, having it developed, scanned, and put onto CD
(prints not included, as print costs are the same, anyway). This cost me
¥1,200.
Interestingly, I worked out for colour film, for me to buy a roll, have
it processed, and scanned onto CD, and repeat this about 270 times, that
cost would equal the price of a new Sony A900 (the current pro-level
camera) (see
here). In contrast, doing this with black and white, 250 films,
processes, and scannings equal one Sony A900.
Feedback:
I am in the habit of taking a photo and then looking at the back of
the camera to see the results, which is a really annoying habit with a
film camera. I handed the roll of film in at the store on the 30th Aug,
seven days after the shoot, and it was available at the store on the
11th Sept.
Flexibility:
The most crucial thing was being able to change iso settings easily. In
a studio, where you only use 100iso, this makes no difference, but for
travel, and other outdoor use, where conditions can vary, the
flexibility of digital wins hands down. On top of that, the quality of
digital iso in low-light / high iso conditions is at such a state that
it is far better to shoot iso1600 on digital than to use iso800 film, I
feel.
Quality Controls:
This being the main purpose of enquiry. When using a red filter on black
and white film, you get nice white puffy clouds. When attempting to do
the same on digital, you have very little contrast and a greatly
compromised picture. Even if you didn't use a red filter and shot colour,
then converted it in PhotoShop or LightRoom afterwards, it is still
artificial. To me, black and white film is the genuine product and
cannot be replicated in the digital format.
Verdict:
For reasons stated in Quality Controls (above), which is usually the
main concern of any photographer, the black and white film
wins, with the digital looking like it can only fake black
and white.
A Wish:
It would be great if they made removable sensors in digital cameras, so
that we can not only upgrade in mega pixels, but also have the ability
to insert true and proper black and white sensors, as it's assumed that
these would behave as black and white film does.
Later other sample images will be added showing the effects
of other filters, especially my favourite portrait filter: yellow-green.
Your Comments
Share them here on the
Photography & Art forums.
|
|
| |
We proudly support:
Support local English language education in Cambodia and get a guided tour of Angkor Wat.
Menu:
Home
Up
Old Homepage
Publications
Forums
Music
Contact Us
We support
|
