Film Versus Digital

Photography boards are awash with debates on film versus digital. Comparing results, is always more telling. Sometimes, I'll take a digital photo as a backup or if I need instantaneous results. Afterwards, it is interesting to compare results.

Here is the film version. It's Fuji 400H film take with a Leica M3, Summicron DR 50/2 with the close focusing goggles.



Now the digital, A very capable, prosumer, Leica D-Lux 4 with Vario-Summicron lens. The lens equivalent is 24-60mm, but the actual focal length is about 6-12 mm, resulting few instants where you can use depth of field to separate the subject from the background.



The digital photo looks sharp and crisp, but it looks a wee fake. One quote I saw online I think sums it up well: "Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it."

It actually looks very similar to the film version but with the contrast digitally jacked way up high.





Update - Another Look:

Film, Fuji 400H taken on a 55 year old Rolleiflex versus an unknown digital P&S. The film version looks natural while the digital's colors look fake. Now I know digital photographers spend a lot of time in photoshop to make digital look like film. Digital seems to be that you are removing a hassle, but are you really just trading one hassle for another?

Film:

Digital: