Film or digital?

Robin Usagani · Jul 28, 2012

That is the question. These are either Ilford HP5 400 straight from lab OR digital file with VSCO edit.

mikemueller2112 · Jul 28, 2012

Photos aren't showing up. "content protected by owner".

Robin Usagani · Jul 28, 2012

mikemueller2112 said:
Photos aren't showing up. "content protected by owner".

#$!@#%!!@.. Ok fixed

Derrel · Jul 28, 2012

The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print.

Robin Usagani · Jul 28, 2012

Derrel said:
The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print.

Pull that stick out of your derrel... seriously.. It is getting old. All you do is bashing me. Has anyone told you that you have multiple personalities? What do you want me to do to make you take the test? Send you the prints? Send you high res? Tell me.

Alex_B · Jul 28, 2012

could be both. I am sure you can emulate film on digital so that you do not see the difference if you do not know what the light was like. The difference between Ilford FP4 and a digital sensor might become obvious if you have scene with a very wide dynamic range originally. In easy light conditions you probably cannot spot much of a difference.

Also, when you scan, a lot of the extra information in the ilford emulsion will get lost, and the grain will look more pronounced.

Anyway, what would the lab be good for if this was classic b&w film? So easy to develop the negatives

Robin Usagani · Jul 28, 2012

Alex_B said:
could be both. I am sure you can emulate film on digital so that you do not see the difference if you do not know what the light was like. The difference between Ilford FP4 and a digital sensor might become obvious if you have scene with a very wide dynamic range originally. In easy light conditions you probably cannot spot much of a difference.

Also, when you scan, a lot of the extra information in the ilford emulsion will get lost, and the grain will look more pronounced.

Anyway, what would the lab be good for if this was classic b&w film? So easy to develop the negatives

Ill attempt it one of these days. One step at a time!

dxqcanada · Jul 28, 2012

As Alex says ... your Film has been copied to a Digital image, so now we are not comparing apples to apples ... so I think a better comparison would be a print from a B&W neg vs. a print from a Monochrome Digital file.

Alex_B · Jul 28, 2012

Schwettylens said:
Ill attempt it one of these days. One step at a time!

But you are aware of the fact that there is an almost infinite number of ways to process classic B&W film? The results will vary in terms of grain, gradients/contrast ... if you send the film to the lab you will always get the same, but maybe never what you want.

Derrel · Jul 28, 2012

Schwettylens said:
Derrel said:

The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print.

Click to expand...

Pull that stick out of your derrel... seriously.. It is getting old. All you do is bashing me. Has anyone told you that you have multiple personalities? What do you want me to do to make you take the test? Send you the prints? Send you high res? Tell me.

I am not bashing you. Your images, as listed, look patterned on this Apple Cinema Display 30 inch monitor. The images shown look awful--on this monitor. No matter "how" you created them. I think you are deliberately trying to game the results. I took a couple of these images, #1 and #2, and cropped out the face section, and enlarged them 200 percent. The images are SO LOW REZ, and so bad, that it is pretty much impossible to even tell HOW they were made. I am not bashing you. I simply stated, the results look really BAD, and with samples that low-rez, with a horrible "patterned look" to them, it's hard to determine what the origin is...

How did you manage to make the images so poor?

Is your daily monitor so poor that you can NOT see the pattern noise overlaying the images???????

Robin Usagani · Jul 28, 2012

What do you want me to do? TELL ME! Save it at higher res? It was my first roll ever. Josh recommended the film. I wanted some grain (not saying those 2 photos are either film or digital ).

pixmedic · Jul 28, 2012

OMG! I love the dog on the can and the triplets on the blanket! Almost makes me wish we had triplets instead of just one....ALMOST.

Robin Usagani · Jul 28, 2012

dxqcanada said:
As Alex says ... your Film has been copied to a Digital image, so now we are not comparing apples to apples ... so I think a better comparison would be a print from a B&W neg vs. a print from a Monochrome Digital file.

Ok... I'll print them. When ate you guys coming to Denver?

dxqcanada · Jul 28, 2012

That is something for you to do ... if you seriously want to compare both mediums, then try to reduce the number of transformations equally ... and I think that may be the point that photographers who have used both are trying to convey.