A few flowers at 85mm to compared between digital and film
May 18, 2021 10:09:46 #
The classic portrait focal length range is considered lenses between 85mm through 135mm on a full frame camera. The 85mm focal length is also useful for landscape photography, creating a slightly compressed view of the world. When working with fast apertures, the 85mm focal length can isolate a close subject against a blurred background.
Flowering Pear
This isn't intended as a scientific comparison. Rather, a look at the results of similar 85mm lenses of similar subjects at similar distances in similar lighting.
Flowering Pear
The film shots are the first three, using the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM and the Canon EF 12mm II Extension Tube that allowed me to focus at about 18-inches from the nearst blossoms. The film is 17-year old expired Fuji NPH 400, a now discontinued professional film stock.
Flowering Pear
The remaining images use the 1981 manual focus Canon FDnew 85mm f/1.2L lens mounted to the 24MP Sony a7II mirrorless camera. A Vivitar FD 12mm Extension Tube provides the same close-focus abilities with this manual focus lens.
Wrigleyville Spring
The images are visually similar, possibly some are blossoms from the same tree, but on different days. A crop at the end of this sequence looks at details of one blossom and discusses how they're the same and how they differ.
The primary difference has less to do with the visual aspects, and instead, the differences are found in the shooting process. The film shots are 1-off shots. I'm not going to rip 3 to 5-frames over and over. Instead, I have the film camera in a BBF configuration with AI Servo and a single AF point on the subject. While holding the BBF (Back Button Focus) and trying to hold myself still and watching the flowers to pause for a moment in the breeze, I smoothly tripped the shutter once. There's no feedback to review. Unless I think I completely futzed the frame, I move onto another blossom or tree.
Wrigleyville Spring
The manual focus lens on the digital mirrorless body is both similar and rather different in shooting technique. On the MILC I can very precisely focus the lens in the Electronic View Finder (EVF) using the 10x zoomed display where I can see the fine details of the point of focus. MILC - Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera. Most important of all, I can rip 3- to 5-images at a time (per second) and then check a few results if desired, and most importantly, I can repeat the process multiple times expecting one or a few to be in perfect focus and position in the frame.
Wrigleyville Spring
When I get the digital results to the computer, there's more total images to select from and the best of the best are always 1 to 1 sharper than the best of the film, even when the film frame seems 'perfect'.
Wrigleyville Spring
The crops below present two 800pixel squares from two different images. The digital was show above, the film comes from another post. The exposure details are listed in the images. The manual focus lens does not report the aperture into the EXIF. I probably have more depth of field at probably a smaller aperture, I'm guessing at f/5.6.
Another difference is the pixel resolution. These are pixel level crops, where the film was scanned to a file at 5035x3339 (17MP). I haven't tried to resample the digital file to the size of the film scan.
pear-compare
Details on the exposure and lenses are provided in the EXIF data from Flickr, just use the image titles as URL links to Flickr. The scanned JPEGs were processed in Adobe Lightroom v6, as were the digital RAW files.
Flowering Pear
This isn't intended as a scientific comparison. Rather, a look at the results of similar 85mm lenses of similar subjects at similar distances in similar lighting.
Flowering Pear
The film shots are the first three, using the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM and the Canon EF 12mm II Extension Tube that allowed me to focus at about 18-inches from the nearst blossoms. The film is 17-year old expired Fuji NPH 400, a now discontinued professional film stock.
Flowering Pear
The remaining images use the 1981 manual focus Canon FDnew 85mm f/1.2L lens mounted to the 24MP Sony a7II mirrorless camera. A Vivitar FD 12mm Extension Tube provides the same close-focus abilities with this manual focus lens.
Wrigleyville Spring
The images are visually similar, possibly some are blossoms from the same tree, but on different days. A crop at the end of this sequence looks at details of one blossom and discusses how they're the same and how they differ.
The primary difference has less to do with the visual aspects, and instead, the differences are found in the shooting process. The film shots are 1-off shots. I'm not going to rip 3 to 5-frames over and over. Instead, I have the film camera in a BBF configuration with AI Servo and a single AF point on the subject. While holding the BBF (Back Button Focus) and trying to hold myself still and watching the flowers to pause for a moment in the breeze, I smoothly tripped the shutter once. There's no feedback to review. Unless I think I completely futzed the frame, I move onto another blossom or tree.
Wrigleyville Spring
The manual focus lens on the digital mirrorless body is both similar and rather different in shooting technique. On the MILC I can very precisely focus the lens in the Electronic View Finder (EVF) using the 10x zoomed display where I can see the fine details of the point of focus. MILC - Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera. Most important of all, I can rip 3- to 5-images at a time (per second) and then check a few results if desired, and most importantly, I can repeat the process multiple times expecting one or a few to be in perfect focus and position in the frame.
Wrigleyville Spring
When I get the digital results to the computer, there's more total images to select from and the best of the best are always 1 to 1 sharper than the best of the film, even when the film frame seems 'perfect'.
Wrigleyville Spring
The crops below present two 800pixel squares from two different images. The digital was show above, the film comes from another post. The exposure details are listed in the images. The manual focus lens does not report the aperture into the EXIF. I probably have more depth of field at probably a smaller aperture, I'm guessing at f/5.6.
Another difference is the pixel resolution. These are pixel level crops, where the film was scanned to a file at 5035x3339 (17MP). I haven't tried to resample the digital file to the size of the film scan.
pear-compare
Details on the exposure and lenses are provided in the EXIF data from Flickr, just use the image titles as URL links to Flickr. The scanned JPEGs were processed in Adobe Lightroom v6, as were the digital RAW files.
May 18, 2021 10:27:47 #
May 18, 2021 10:37:06 #
Cutting to the chase - Digital is better than 17 year expired film. Picking from the best of many digital shots is easier than getting one perfect shot on film. A native 24MP shot is superior to a 16.8 MP scan. An interesting exercise. No one questions that digital offers opportunities and convenience that film doesn't, but what about the same exercise with fresh film, either single shots or the same number of exposures per subject. Even with a level playing field, almost certainly advantage Digital, but a more even match.
May 18, 2021 11:30:35 #
Thank you Joe, QD! This wasn't an attempt to be 1:1 scientific. Rather, representative of 35mm results based on recent available results in my own work. Although I don't shoot a medium format, the more accurate 1:1 resolution compare seems to be medium format film to 35mm digital. But then, you're not swapping lenses between bodies, at least as can be done for certain Nikon film bodies and Canon EOS bodies. I think the MILC and EVF shooting process also moves digital even further above any possible result, in the field, from film of any size.
I recently spent some time watching a summary presentation of a young photographer covering his university thesis of film vs digital. He wasn't presenting one over the other, but looking at the considerations of why people are picking film even in 2021. He had several areas of comparison, two that stick in my memory is the technical imperfections of film and the film shooting process, where every film frame becomes a mental consideration.
For me film is just to do something different. The results can generate some different colors, but still in my own work, I know I'm much more conservative in film. I might shoot 1 or 2 rolls in a day rather than several hundred frames in digital. In digital I experiment with the exposure (ISO, aperture, shutter) giving several different options to select from within the results. Film is typically just one frame, usually not pushing the envelope in wide apertures or artistic framing. I send my film out in batches, so it can be a month to three months turnaround on film to completing edited results. From those several versions and overall hundreds of digital frames, I do pick and keep only the technically perfect results that fit my tastes.
My own film journey tries to achieve a technical proficiency that is comparable to digital. That's why I'm only AF and many times IS-enabled in film. Out of focus / blurry or only full sunlight isn't an interest given the slower and more expensive shooting process in film. I've also started to look at lower light situations, trying to expand the situations where I can 'make film work' to come away with something visually and technically unique. The daylight flowers here, even with expired film, might not have achieved film images that meet the 'visually and technically unique' threshold, part of the drive for a high-level comparison of the two.
I recently spent some time watching a summary presentation of a young photographer covering his university thesis of film vs digital. He wasn't presenting one over the other, but looking at the considerations of why people are picking film even in 2021. He had several areas of comparison, two that stick in my memory is the technical imperfections of film and the film shooting process, where every film frame becomes a mental consideration.
For me film is just to do something different. The results can generate some different colors, but still in my own work, I know I'm much more conservative in film. I might shoot 1 or 2 rolls in a day rather than several hundred frames in digital. In digital I experiment with the exposure (ISO, aperture, shutter) giving several different options to select from within the results. Film is typically just one frame, usually not pushing the envelope in wide apertures or artistic framing. I send my film out in batches, so it can be a month to three months turnaround on film to completing edited results. From those several versions and overall hundreds of digital frames, I do pick and keep only the technically perfect results that fit my tastes.
My own film journey tries to achieve a technical proficiency that is comparable to digital. That's why I'm only AF and many times IS-enabled in film. Out of focus / blurry or only full sunlight isn't an interest given the slower and more expensive shooting process in film. I've also started to look at lower light situations, trying to expand the situations where I can 'make film work' to come away with something visually and technically unique. The daylight flowers here, even with expired film, might not have achieved film images that meet the 'visually and technically unique' threshold, part of the drive for a high-level comparison of the two.
May 18, 2021 11:49:13 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Thank you b Joe, QD! /b This wasn't an attempt t... (show quote)
I haven't done any film recently, but do have and F5 with a AF Nikkkor 28-85 1:3.5 4.5. That will work on newer Nikons, and though I haven't tried, I believe D series will work on the F5 as well. I know I haven't got any fresh 35mm color film on hand, but I'll see what I can come up with. My Wife's flower garden will be in full bloom by the end of the month. Easy and convenient subject, often superb light. You captured my attention and interest!
May 18, 2021 12:19:10 #
The plus side of your experiment for me is double the beauty! These are all wonderful!
May 18, 2021 12:52:02 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The classic portrait focal length range is conside... (show quote)
Thank you for doing this post. Not too long ago I watched a video about using an 85mm prime for landscapes just because the final look was slightly different from other lenses. I still may buy one eventually.
May 18, 2021 15:24:05 #
quixdraw wrote:
I haven't done any film recently, but do have and F5 with a AF Nikkkor 28-85 1:3.5 4.5. That will work on newer Nikons, and though I haven't tried, I believe D series will work on the F5 as well. I know I haven't got any fresh 35mm color film on hand, but I'll see what I can come up with. My Wife's flower garden will be in full bloom by the end of the month. Easy and convenient subject, often superb light. You captured my attention and interest!
You might consider some of the film analysis posts I've done in the Film Section. I've added some fresh rolls of Ilford FP4 to my stock, specifically for B&W flowers for this summer. As much as the talk of TMAX being sharp, it seems FP4 in my older film results is sharper still. Ektar 100 also seems sharper than other color films, assuming flower details are what is desired.
May 18, 2021 15:25:30 #
Thank you Carol, Dean! It's taken nearly 10 years for the 85mm to grow into my regular usage, adding the extension tube is the main difference this year.
May 18, 2021 16:22:19 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
You might consider some of the film analysis posts I've done in the Film Section. I've added some fresh rolls of Ilford FP4 to my stock, specifically for B&W flowers for this summer. As much as the talk of TMAX being sharp, it seems FP4 in my older film results is sharper still. Ektar 100 also seems sharper than other color films, assuming flower details are what is desired.
Many thanks! Was shopping film a few places - a bewildering selection of new ones, most OOS! I had planned to stick to Kodak and Ilford, just need to order & pay.
May 19, 2021 06:30:53 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The classic portrait focal length range is conside... (show quote)
Digital shots were super sharp. Beautifully done and great commentary. 👍
May 19, 2021 06:45:05 #
May 19, 2021 07:25:03 #
May 19, 2021 07:26:05 #
May 19, 2021 07:43:34 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.