Film Vs Digital

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

To me, it seems somewhat unclear what point you are actually trying to make. Your starting post asserted that one could simply look at the images in Vogue magazine and tell whether they were shot with digital or film. As I responded, I think this is something that cannot be accurately asserted. I also questioned your use of the term "selective focus" which was a vague term which could be interpreted in many ways. You responded to that part of my query that you were really talking about was DOF. Thus it seems to me that you started by making two assertions that were either vague (imprecise) and questionable. I believe this may have put the following thread responses on a wrong footing.

As a result, I still don't know what your point is. Could you perhaps state in a different way what you feel your issue is. I used a RB67 for many years and currently use the Canon 20D. After scanning photos from the RB67 days (directly from the negatives or chromes) and then comparing them to comparable 20D shots (shot in RAW), I am not able to tell the difference when each photo is printed on the same printer. In other words issues of DOF do not seem to enter into the equation. When shooting with the RB67 I could control the DOF in any way I wanted by using appropriate camera settings, distances, etc and can do likewise with the 20D. Obviously these are two totally different types of cameras, but the laws of DOF are the same. One still manipulates those laws in the same way to come up with the end results.

In the old days, I would simply shoot a Polaroid on my RB67 and look at the resulting DOF. Now days I do the same thing, except I look at the LCD preview (zoomed - or on a laptop). Naturally I choose an fstop, focal length, distance to subject(s), etc, based on my knowledge of how DOF works and then check the LCD or laptop to confirm that I'm where I wanted to be.

So I don't find talking about DOF control particular something that should be made an issue between film and digital. Nor do I think that one can tell just from looking at a photo in a magazine whether it was shot in digital or on film.

Cheers,
rfs

[ErrantWanderlust]

Selective focus is a vague term?

Selective focus: Employing shallow depth of field through the use of a wide aperture so that the subject is isolated from its surroundings because they are not in focus.

I've never heard any other interpretation.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by ErrantWanderlust

Selective focus is a vague term?

Selective focus: Employing shallow depth of field through the use of a wide aperture so that the subject is isolated from its surroundings because they are not in focus.

I've never heard any other interpretation.

The term can have a number of meanings and in different eras, and for different lens and camera combinations one can find a level of confusion when using a less precise term. For example, if I use a Lens Baby, then you literally select the point of focus in your photo by moving the lens from side to side and bending it this way or that to get a point of focus. Another example is using the AF points in the view finder of many modern cameras where one selects the focus point by rotating a dial to move from one focus point to another. In using a view camera, one also has an opportunity with tilts and shifts, etc to create selective focus. The definition you give above for "selective focus" is quite vague and confusing. For example it would imply that "wide aperture" is the key when in fact controlling focus by DOF could just as easily use a non-wide aperture to get more of the items in the scene in focus. In addition, sometimes people use modifiers on the lens to control areas of focus (Vaseline on a lens filter, or a black scarf over the lens, etc)So when I hear the term selective focus I always wonder what the user really means. Also keep in mind that in your original post, you coupled your "selective focus" statement with the ability to determine by looking at a photo in a magazine whether it was shot in digital or film.

Bottom line --- for me anyway, I found a "circle of confusion" being formed in my mind when I read your original post and so was hoping you might share more about the rational that you were using for your original statements.

cheers,
rfs

[ErrantWanderlust]

Here's my ultimate point, and an example of what I'm talking about. I shot these on Saturday using 6X7 film. I was using a normal 110mm lens working about six feet away from the model. I can't get this look with a 35mm format digital.

See:
http://www.timothyjohn.com/gallery/a...s/eimg139.html
and:
http://www.timothyjohn.com/gallery/a...es/img122.html

-Tim

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Why do you think these can't be shot with 35mm? It seems to me that if we use the right lens on a 35mm camera and the correct distance and an appropriate aperture that we could duplicate the DOF in each of the photos. So I'm interested to hear your rationale for why they could not be shot with 35mm?

Re: Film Vs Digital 

Cheers,
rfs

[lsc1]

RFS,

This shot looks to me as if the blurred part of the image was applied in PP, not captured in camera. Am I wrong?

[ErrantWanderlust]

LSC:

Might be a lensbaby or something similar. Either way, it doesn't look the same to me.


-Tim

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by lsc1

RFS,

This shot looks to me as if the blurred part of the image was applied in PP, not captured in camera. Am I wrong?

Since this shot was made several years ago, it is difficult to say what I did. I could have been using a Canon Soft Focus lens, or it could also be Vaseline on a UV filter on the lens, or it could be PS, or it could be a combo of all of the above, since I do use all of these techniques. I also often use one of the NIK Efex Color filters in PS for soft effects. I then sometimes apply black masking for selectively applying or not applying effects. Back in the old days when I was shooting mostly with an RB67 I made lots of use of the Vaseline trick and also had a lens hood with a variable vignetter device. If I recall it was something I learned in a lecture (it was something that J Frederick Smith use to teach and use - he died just last year -- also Farber used this technique often).

Cheers,
rfs

[cifcap]

I've used film cameras before for fun, but now I seriously use an Olympus E-300. I'd love to learn how to use a view camera one day, but I'm investing my money into digital. I think it is indeed a good teacher.

My 2 cents,
JW

[trwphoto]

My 10D produced Good enuf files I put them through photoshop for editing and sizing and they produced 24x36 prints that today still hang on the wall of an Engineering Firm in Tampa Fl. AND those people were picky. I produced 75 images for them and they used every one. The Graphics people that printed them said they were the sharpest, cleanest, and best colour they had seen in a long time in their lab. Far superior to all the 35mm they got in and was as good as most medium format.
I miss film, the dark room, and the chemicals. It was quiet in their. no one bothered me. but the quality and ease of use it is digital all the way now.
This from a man that loved his Crown Graphic and my 4x5 studio camera. I loved those large negs. They were a thing of beauty.