Fuji NPH
RAW file from Canon 20D
detail film
detail digital
I had a corporate portrait job the other day, which I shot on color negative, medium format, like I have all the previous board members. It was the perfect opportunity for a side-by-side comparison. The conclusion—I like the digital version better. The color balance is better, the image is tack sharp, it looks great. The negative shown here is from a lousy, oversharpened scan from Prolab, and there’s more information in the negative than there is here, but the sharpness is certainly comparable. And given that, in addition to prints, I’ve been delivering this job in the past by scanning the negatives, the digital beats film hands down.
I think I’m turning into one of those photographers I’ve always made fun of in the past—a zealous digital convert.
Hello Doug,
Just had to jump in and throw my two cents in on this test.
This is not a fair fight depicted here, because the film scan is both a) inferior, and didn't use a color profile customized for the Fuji negative b) one generation removed from its original form, a shot on Astia or Provia 100F would have been a far better or fair duel.
That said, the time saved, and cost of film processing, assuming you deliver them a digital product anyway, is worth the switch to digital. Save film for art, commerce (and nearly everyone else) accepts digital now.
Posted by: Chris Junker | January 06, 2005 at 09:03 AM