Digital vs Film

I’ve been experimenting a bit with film of late, and thought I’d post some comparisons. Although I’ve shot on film years ago, it was always just on compact cameras which provided no real control over anything, and this is my first experience with manual film cameras (an SLR and a rangefinder). I quite like the experience, but find that at my skill level (beginner), digital is still the only format flexible enough to save my mistakes from looking really bad. Anyway, have a look at this comparison of three shots I took of the swimming pool at Tintagel, the boutique hotel down Rosmead Place in Cinnamon Gardens; the first is digital, the other two on film (the digital RAW image has been processed on Camera RAW and then on PS as a JPEG, while the film shots are scanned negatives that have had some contrast and exposure tweaked in PS):

Canon EOS 600D and EF-S 18-200mm lens at 18mm, 1/500, f/3.5, and ISO 100.

Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 and Kodak Tri-X 400 film, with a MC 35-70mm lens, at 35mm, 1/500, and f/3.5.

Leica M6 and Kodak Tri-X 400 film, with a Summicron 50mm f/2 lens, at 1/500 and f/2.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Digital vs Film

  1. Pingback: Digital vs Film #2 | Son of the Morning Light

  2. Pingback: Digital vs Film #3 | Son of the Morning Light

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s