I’ve been using these Lightroom presets for a while. I’ve mentioned them before and they bear mentioning again. They are Micky G’s Black & White Presets for Lightroom.
I’ve often wondered how good/accurate they are. I’ve been pleased with them, to say the least. While I was out shooting last week, I came upon the scene pictured here and took a number of photos with my 645e. At that time, I just happened to remember that I wanted to make a comparison of a real film shot with one of the B&W presets. Well, I was shooting with some 10 year Tech Pan and that, unfortunately, is not in the preset list. However, a close cousin, Agfa Pan 25 is. Since I was shooting on the tripod, I decided to go for it.
I took the shot, first, with the 645e at f/5.6, removed the camera, put on the D300 with the 18-270 mm Tamron, moved the zoom to 35 mm, approximating a normal lens, adjusted the aperture to f/5.6, and took the same shot.
As many of you will notice this is not exactly a controlled experiment. First, f/5.6 on a 35 mm camera does not give the same depth of field as f/5.6 on a medium format camera. I’m not quite sure what the relationship is, but i probably should have gone a stop higher on the 645e. You can see the difference in DOF between the two but, in truth, I really like the DOF fall off of the 645e. I remember shooting with my view camera and f/5.6 was like shooting at f/1.4 on a 35 mm. There was hardly any DOF at all.
In looking at the two photos, I’m quite impressed with the job that the filter did. It looks pretty realistic. I tried not to tweak much at all with either of the photos and I like the whites of the film better; however, that could easily, very easily be tweaked to make them look the same, but out of the box, that’s a pretty good starting point!
What do you think?
Related posts:
17 Responses to “Film and Digital – Side By Side”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The DOF is definitely noticeable and something I had not thought about. On my monitor and with my failing eyes the preset seems to have darker blacks, while the whites stand out on the film.
Monte, I think that your eyes are doing just fine! That’s what I see, though my eyes are certainly not to be construed as an exemplar!
How interesting.
I’m truly sorry I’ve not been around. Have my hands very full.
Well, I like the “tones” or “Grayscale” better on the “second” tree of the Film shot better while I like the tones of the first tree better on the Digital. Very good shots for both of them as it relatates to film and digi.
I don’t think it matters to me either way as even though I enjoy film more and shoot it exclusive, it’s what you like that counts. Do you like the Digital image better? Do you like the process of downloading your camera’s photo into LR or do you enjoy the processing of making a photo in the can?
I enjoy images… bottom line. Both of these are to my taste and shows your talent as a photographer.
Tom, actually I like both of them. On a personal level, I enjoy the whole film process and like the different characteristics that films bring. You can do a lot of mimicking with software, but cannot get the exact texture. This worked well with this very low speed, fine grained film. However, they would look remarkably different, even with the filters, had there been grain involved. In some cases, I really like grain, and digitally added grain doesn’t look good. It’s too uniform and looks fake.
BTW, thanks so much for the film donation. I appreciate it.
DOF problem would be more in line using an FX sensor than the DX. The conversions are very close I would love to see this side by side done using Nik Silver Efex, I think you would find it hard to tell the difference between the two.
Ray, though I’ve never used Nik Silver Efex, I’m pretty sure that with enough careful tweaking, you couldn’t tell the difference. I think that I could have accomplished it with Lightroom and Photoshop, but I wanted to see how close it was out of the box and I”m pretty impressed with those filters. Not bad for free!
Paul, nice demonstration that says to me the final results, for most practical purposes, can be near identical. I’d agree with Ray that “Nik Silver Efex” would make them even closer to the same, except for the DOF.
So, it really comes down to which process you prefer in getting there, film or digital.
Have a good weekend.
I would comment on one thing, generally pisses people off, I think using film is a photographers method, and I think any use of Digital software for “developing” make the shooter a graphic artist. For some reason shooters don’t want to be a “graphic artist” they want to be a “photographer”
I think I’ll write about that soon.
T
I guess that I straddle the line, then. I actually enjoy the digital developing, for as far as I take it. In that respect, I really don’t miss the darkroom, though it would be cool to pump out a classic dark room print, but I don’t have the space nor the desire to set one up.
I don’t think that it makes anyone less of a photographer, just different strokes.
Yeah… when I know the image was made with film it conjurers up so much more meaning and emotion I am just overcome with awe at the message and deep meanings based on how it was made. Method all to often is substituted for substance, if the how matters more than the image why bother. Labels like that are best for making someone feel more important than they are. Where do you draw the line 35mm, glass plate, 8×10….. gimme a break.
OK I am not a photographer so what?
What I find interesting is the need to apply labels. I personally believe applying labels is terribly counterproductive, in photograph or any other part of ones life.
Well, hmm, first off, Paul, thanks for thinking to do this. I’ve been tempted to do this with my 5D and a film SLR, but I don’t currently have a film SLR that takes the same lenses as my 5D does. The variable in this equation is the scanner, which takes the film and digitizes it, removing/adding SOMEthing. Short of making a traditional silver gelatin print ands then scanning that, it’s hard to really equate the two in any meaningful way. I like both images above (heck, I like b&w in general!). But I do know that when I post a scanned medium-format image on my blog (scanned by North Coast . . . I’m not sure what scanner they use, I should ask) my friend Colin can always tell the difference between a digital image and a film image. So I *think* the quality of the scanner makes a difference when getting at what film can bring to the table, although how much and in what way I sure don’t know. There is a film street shooter I know who just went out and took a loan to get an Imacon, because he feels that, even at 35mm, film feels better to him than pixels on a sensor. Man, that’s commitment.
In the end I sure don’t know, but I do know I love the process of developing film and scanning it. I just wish I was better at it.
Yeah, like I said, it’s certainly not scientific and there are a lot of different variables to contend with: two different cameras, two different formats, two different, the scanner, my own tweaking, etc. I would imagine that the scanner would make a bigger difference when scanning to print, or whatever, but at this size and on the screen … who knows. I certainly don’t.
I would think that it would be pretty easy to tell the difference, given grain. Digital looks too clean (compared to film). I’m with you. I just really enjoy the process, which is why I do it. It’s not better, certainly not worse, just different. I don’t think that I’d be taking out a loan to buy a scanner. My $149 (at the time I purchased it) scanner is just fine for me.
I wanted to make myself more clear. Again, I’m about the image. I don’t care if Joe Blow shoots with a Hasselblad H4D, a Nikon D3 or a Holga, I don’t think about that when I’m looking and hopefully enjoying not only the photo but trying to put myself in the Photographers shoes and what he/she was trying to communicate with his/her art and photograph.
I don’t care if someone takes a photograph and a 4 megapixal, crops it, changes it from color to B/W and then uses something to change the depth of field. I care about his or her photograph. Very much along the line of a painting, I don’t really care if it’s an oil or a watercolor, I enjoy (hopefully) the picture.
I do think, and this is not a positive nor a negative, that when changing the photograph with software that then becomes a product of a graphic artist not a photographer. This is not a ding nor a slur. It’s is simply the way I see art. Someone above mentions that they dispise lables. Well, he’s good an excellent point. But I do feel at this stage of technology in the photographic sector that we should have some understanding of “How” the photograph was made. Now, perhaps this should only apply to Journalism? I’m not sure. I do know it’s not my place to judge how anyone makes their art but then again I find it so interesting that someone would be on a defenseive if others feel that they are more of a graphic artist then a photographer.
Could the evolution of digital cameras and the easy entry into it be part of this. Again, I don’t know.
I do know, in my heart of hearts, that there are a great number of peeps that have taken the Title of Professional photograhers, specifically in the Wedding Photography business, that since the introduction of digital, have really no business for charging for their services. I can look at so many works from digital wedding photographers and pretty much date their work based on what “Action” or plug-in was popular at that time. Then again, there are more “new” digital wedding Photographers that have such stunning work they blow away the old Film wedding photographers.
Given this train of thought – when I use power tools to create a sculpture out of marble instead of using very old technology of a hammer and chisel and a lot of apprentices it isn’t a sculpture it is a ? ‘stone representation’ ? And to be fair to the graphic artists it should be called Digital Graphic art (I did learn to do it without the computer first).
Technology doesn’t define art or a photograph or what someone calls what they do. Paint is paint even if it is acrylic and not hand-ground oils. There is just as many bad works done with the old tech as with the new tech, difference is now days they can spread it around easier. I just have a bad reaction to the ‘I’m one and your not’ attitude to a lot of things especially when it is based on technology or equipment. Bad precedent, I can live with the ‘My images have meaning and yours don’t’ a lot easier than if it is based on how it was made.
Definitions are a nightmare, my son is currently studying Philosophy of Science so this whole definition paradigm comes up in our conversations about art frequently and is still a problem for many disciplines.
I started doing this when a 35mm wasn’t considered good enough to be serious because the film wasn’t large enough. You didn’t ‘count’ unless it was at least 6x6cm medium format, now looking back I guess it was good enough, go figure.
In the end it really don’t matter all that much what the title is, just what I do. Sorry if I struck a nerve with the reaction.
On photographers…
I don’t believe the basic role or scope of a photographer has changed. It’s always been from composing and making of the image on one end to delivering the final print or copy on the other. However, the tools and methods used in this process have certainly changed and expanded as has the freedom and reach of photographers.
We may not like all the chaos these changes have brought about but applying labels separates and eventually excludes.
My last comment on this….Everyone have a good weekend!
Nice test Paul – I have used those presets in the past, but always wondered just how close they came to the actual thing.