I admit… this is digital!
Yes, there it is, that ugly word! But these are photos anyways.
And I wanted to grab the opportunity to compare them to the same subjects, treated with film.
Which one do you prefer?
In my eyes they are both valid. Differences in colour, in exposure, in processing are there but both have some appeal I think.
And these? What’s your opinion?
I think I went ‘a bit’ over the top with the film version of this one…
But then again, the light was different, sun slanting through a doorway, hitting the wall with these windows. Much more dramatic… too much so?
And then there’s just these two to compare:
And the older film version, note that Luxembourg City is a living thing… even graffiti evolve!
I’ll be looking forward to your opinions!
Thanks a lot for being here!
Frank Lehnen Photography 
Digital is just digital. Unless it looks like film. The ones people are really looking at are on film. A photograph is a photograph. Maybe. But one made on film is something different.
LikeLike
I use both film and digital, but I like the character of film, and the dynamic range.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tough call Frank. Some I like digital better, some I like film. #2 film image is my favorite.
Thanks for sharing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Jon
LikeLike
I find the film in set #1 has a much warmer and inviting look to it.
#2 I really love the composition of the film.
#3 to my (untrained) eye, anyway, is almost indistinguishable less the difference in graffiti.
I think both digital and film have their places and both can create amazing photographs, especially once you factor in a little post processing. It is however, undeniable that film adds a characteristic to a photograph that is impossible to duplicate with digital.
Great post Frank, I’ve often thought about doing an experiment like this as well!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks!
LikeLike
Gudde Moien Här Lehnen,
Ech fotograféieren och digital, mee dat ass dann fir mech éischter e fotografescht Notizbuch, oder Familljefotoen a Familljefeieren wou jiddereen da gären sou séier wéi méiglech eng Foto hätt, ech nennen dat dann knipsen.
Wann ech awer, wéi ech emmer soën, “wirklech richteg Fotoen well maachen” a main Hobby Fotografie well ausliewen an mech als “Fotograf” well fillen, dann huelen ech am léifsten meng kleng handlech Minolta CLE a gin op den Tour, da sin ech an mengem Element :-)!
Mir gefalen souwuel Äer digital wi Film-Fotoen, si hun allen 2 hire “Charme”, jiddereng op hir Manéier.
Apropos Spotmatic: De Foto-Trade huet der 2 ze verkafen, eng fir 29 euro an eng mam Takumar 1,8/55mm fir 79 euro…
Bescht Gréiss,
JC Argentix
LikeLiked by 1 person
Merci fir den Tip mat der Spotmatic. De Problem as dass dei bestemmt grad esou onzouverlässeg sin wei meng dei ech elo hun. Muss nach iwwerleen op ech se elo repareieren loosssen oder net. Aah hätt ech d’Suen fir eng richteg zolitt nei Film-Leica…😉
D’CLE as en super Apparat. Ech haat emol eng CL an war immens zefridden domat. Ech fänken just un Angscht ze kreien dass all dei schein Maschinen net mei jonk gin an Problemen kreien.
Digital as we Wee, op et dee Richtegen as wees ech awer guer net… sin erem an enger Zweifel-Phase hehe
LikeLike
Gärgeschitt :-)!
Ech hat virun 10 Joër och eng nei M6TTL an der Nues fir ze kafen, hu mer dunn awer eng Zeiss Ikon mat M-Bajonett kaft, 1. war de Sucher besser, an 2. krut ech fir de Präis vun der M6 eng Zeiss Ikon mat 3 Objektiver. Ausserdem huet meng Zeiss e “normalen Klappdeckel” fir de Film ze lueden an erauszehuelen, dat Gebinners mam Filmlueden bei der Leica war mer ze emständlech.Vum Design hier ass esou eng Leica awer emmer nach zeitlos, schéin ze kucken an an d’Hand ze huelen, sou e richtegen “Handschmeichler” wéi se di aner Säit vun der Musel soën…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Strangely, of the second pair, I think the film one is over processed for my liking so I much prefer the digital one. The other two pairs there’s very little in it.
Personally the times I like my film photos best over my digital ones are when I have found colours, textures and grain that is difficult to emulate with digital. And then it’s usually the kind of images where 90% of the photo is (intentionally) out of focus, so the natural textures and grain of the film is more apparent in these out of focus areas.
For street photography where usually most of the image is in focus and there’s a large depth of field, for me the differences are far less obvious. And this is on the whole more like the sort of photography you favour I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, as for the second ‘windows’ shot it IS over processed, that’s sure. One day I’ll have another go at that one.
LikeLike
You know my view, and I prefer the richer colour of over exposed colour film and a lot more of a challenge to shoot film in low or poor lighting too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right!
LikeLike
Hi Frank,
There’s quite a bit of difference in some and not much in others… if I was to be hyper critical…. the digital ones just edge it for me…. but then again it’s all a matter of “just what” the pics being used for…. if it such things as country living publications then the richer the colours the more effect that pic has, if it’s just for showing friends or even listing on the numerous social media sites… then I’m pretty sure that 99% would just look at it/them as pics….. end of… so to speak….
Rgds
Lynd
LikeLike
Thanks for your input, Lynd. Sure much depends on the use of the photos.
LikeLike
generally I prefer the film ones, they have warmer tones, and seem to have captured more details, but perhaps that’s just me!
LikeLiked by 1 person