Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do digital photos look different from film photos?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 20, 2005 3:46:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Currys, a national chain of photographic and electrical retailers here
in the UK, announced the other day that they are to stop stocking film
camera and films. They say that the sale of digital cameras is 15 times
that of film cameras:

Currys also stated that a survey showed that 93% of those questioned
could not tell a digital from a film photo; this is a very interesting
statistic - could the 7% REALLY tell the difference or did they make a
lucky guess - I would have expected lucky guesses to be a far higher
ratio.

I would be interested to hear comments from members.

Denis Boisclair
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 5:20:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1124520400.012978.292730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Currys, a national chain of photographic and electrical retailers here
> in the UK, announced the other day that they are to stop stocking film
> camera and films. They say that the sale of digital cameras is 15 times
> that of film cameras:
>
> Currys also stated that a survey showed that 93% of those questioned
> could not tell a digital from a film photo; this is a very interesting
> statistic - could the 7% REALLY tell the difference or did they make a
> lucky guess - I would have expected lucky guesses to be a far higher
> ratio.
>
> I would be interested to hear comments from members.

They were most likely asked regarding 4x6 inch prints. The general public
doesn't even seem to know what a good image looks like, much less understand
what to look for to differentiate digital/film.
At that small print size, the two more closely resemble each other...
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 11:00:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>
> Currys, a national chain of photographic and electrical retailers here
> in the UK, announced the other day that they are to stop stocking film
> camera and films. They say that the sale of digital cameras is 15 times
> that of film cameras:
>
> Currys also stated that a survey showed that 93% of those questioned
> could not tell a digital from a film photo; this is a very interesting
> statistic - could the 7% REALLY tell the difference or did they make a
> lucky guess - I would have expected lucky guesses to be a far higher
> ratio.
>
> I would be interested to hear comments from members.
>
> Denis Boisclair

Currys are part of the Dixons group, and it was they who made the
announcement of ceasing to support films cameras. They also said this
some time ago about VHS... and if you look on their web page you'll
see they've hardly stopped selling those

http://tinyurl.com/9d7nm

As for film and digi differences. It would depend on the quality of
each picture and size etc. Some of my less successful shots are easily
spottable as digital to me

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:44:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

: <denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:1124520400.012978.292730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > Currys also stated that a survey showed that 93% of those questioned
: > could not tell a digital from a film photo; this is a very
: > interesting statistic - could the 7% REALLY tell the difference or
: > did they make a lucky guess - I would have expected lucky guesses to
: > be a far higher ratio.

: They were most likely asked regarding 4x6 inch prints. The general
: public doesn't even seem to know what a good image looks like, much
: less understand what to look for to differentiate digital/film.
: At that small print size, the two more closely resemble each other...

At that size either image capture form is printing at much below maximum
resolution, so they should be roughly equivalent. And if the prints can
not be closely examined to allow the eye to pick out the orderly rows of
digital prints, vs. the more random grains of optically printed film, a
true test would tend to be rather equal quality.

But we all know that it is very easy to process either or both images to
present one "superior" image that would for all intents and purposes
appear to be a "fair test". Since the two processing procedures and
printing mechanisms are so different it is very hard to be sure that any
side by side comparison is absolutely equivalent with the one exception of
the capture device. And that would be the only way to make a fair test.
Without that equivalency the difference could be either the capture device
OR the processing process/device.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:24:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Actually, the mtf of a mosaic sampling focal plane, like a CCD or CMOS
imager, does have a different shape to it than most older film based stuff.

For the same cutoff frequency (limiting resolution) the curve is fuller
at spatial frequencies approaching cutoff. That is, it appears a bit
sharper with detail approaching cutoff frequency. That does tend to
make a different look.

Now, with higher res cameras, such as 6-8 Mpixel stuff, the mtf of the
focal plane is of relatively less importance. Lens mtf, mtf due to
vibration, etc. does affect total system mtf more.

The effect was more noticable in older stuff with fewer pixels. It
would surprise people with image quality compared to film or scanning TV
of same limiting resolution.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:44:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Currys also stated that a survey showed that 93% of those questioned
> could not tell a digital from a film photo; this is a very interesting
> statistic - could the 7% REALLY tell the difference or did they make a
> lucky guess - I would have expected lucky guesses to be a far higher
> ratio.

93% of the general population does not know what to look for; and, what can
one tell from a 4 x 6 print? A meaningless statistic, in my opinion.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 9:18:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1124520400.012978.292730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Currys, a national chain of photographic and electrical retailers here
> in the UK, announced the other day that they are to stop stocking film
> camera and films. They say that the sale of digital cameras is 15 times
> that of film cameras:



I doubt these figures, I would have expected them to be more like 100 to 1
or even higher perhaps even 1000 to 1.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 9:18:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "Pete D" <no@email.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:4306d941$0$55630$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> <denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1124520400.012978.292730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Currys, a national chain of photographic and electrical retailers here
> > in the UK, announced the other day that they are to stop stocking film
> > camera and films. They say that the sale of digital cameras is 15 times
> > that of film cameras:
>
>
>
> I doubt these figures, I would have expected them to be more like 100 to 1
> or even higher perhaps even 1000 to 1.
>
>
Many people who don't have a computer or can't understand digital camera
technology and usage still use film cameras, also many professionals don't
make the jump to a dSLR.
!