The difference in processing of old slr vs dslr

There was actually about 5 different questions in the Original post + the way the title was expressed .

This one interests me.

" or are we doing the same thing with the digital bodies that we did with the 35mm bodies in a different way?"

I read that as "Do we treat exposure and composition differently now than we did with film cameras".

I have to admit that I was not a "real" photographer in the film days. I had a Pentax Spotmatic but I never processed my own film. Sent it all off to a lab in Seattle for developing.

Not trying to hijack the thread but I'm trying to think about how I take pictures differently knowing that I'm now doing my own "developing".

Maybe thats in keeping with the intent of the original post.

Tons that could be done with digital could also be done with film, but much less accurate and much more difficult.

As someone who started out in the film darkroom back in the day, I get really tired of how much digital processing has been looked down upon by the general public. Today the attitude is more like "film is 100% reality and digital is all fake and cheating". I get this all the time with people who look at my large prints and ask what I use. I never got this attitude before digital even if I processed the living poop out of my images in the darkroom. Back then it was considered a artistic and worthy skill to manipulate in the darkroom.

Some things that can be done with film and film with a darkroom:
- insane color saturation using Velvia and f22+ (very unrealistic)
- Orton effect using multiple images with one slightly out of focus.
- Image composites using two or more film images combined either by cutting the film itself and piecing together, or by doing separate exposures from each image onto the film paper under the enlarger.
- Global and localized contrast adjustment using enlarger contrast filters and gels on a stick much like a dodging tool.
- All types of whacky Photoshop-type effects like solarization.
- Panorama stitching
- Push and Pull exposure ISO levels by the amount of time spent in the film developing chemicals.
- Global and localized brightness adjustments using the enlarger at different exposure times on the photo paper, or using dodge and burn tools.
- Mirrored images using... a mirror.

There's many more things that can be done with film, but it's been a long time since I worked in a darkroom.


The main difference today is digital lets me do things much more accurately than ever before.

I can't wait for the day when a program comes out equal to Photoshop for my needs. That way when asked if I "Photoshopped that", I can just say "No, that is not Photoshopped".

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16639258
Tons that could be done with digital could also be done with film, but much less accurate and much more difficult.

As someone who started out in the film darkroom back in the day, I get really tired of how much digital processing has been looked down upon by the general public. Today the attitude is more like "film is 100% reality and digital is all fake and cheating". I get this all the time with people who look at my large prints and ask what I use. I never got this attitude before digital even if I processed the living poop out of my images in the darkroom. Back then it was considered a artistic and worthy skill to manipulate in the darkroom.

Some things that can be done with film and film with a darkroom:
- insane color saturation using Velvia and f22+ (very unrealistic)
- Orton effect using multiple images with one slightly out of focus.
- Image composites using two or more film images combined either by cutting the film itself and piecing together, or by doing separate exposures from each image onto the film paper under the enlarger.
- Global and localized contrast adjustment using enlarger contrast filters and gels on a stick much like a dodging tool.
- All types of whacky Photoshop-type effects like solarization.
- Panorama stitching
- Push and Pull exposure ISO levels by the amount of time spent in the film developing chemicals.
- Global and localized brightness adjustments using the enlarger at different exposure times on the photo paper, or using dodge and burn tools.
- Mirrored images using... a mirror.

There's many more things that can be done with film, but it's been a long time since I worked in a darkroom.


The main difference today is digital lets me do things much more accurately than ever before.

I can't wait for the day when a program comes out equal to Photoshop for my needs. That way when asked if I "Photoshopped that", I can just say "No, that is not Photoshopped".

Thanks for this post. This is more in line of the conversation I was expecting when I originally posted. Thanks for your insight.

Frodge wrote in post #16639271
Thanks for this post. This is more in line of the conversation I was expecting when I originally posted. Thanks for your insight.

There's also the fact that in the 90's to early 2000's many of us would scan our film and process it digitally with Photoshop. I've been doing digital composited, focus stacking, exposure blending, and all types of "modern" techniques way back when Photoshop v3 was on my blazing fast Pentium 100Mhz computer. 16 megs of RAM, yeah! Those were the days when you would click on a filter action and go cook dinner and watch a movie before the computer was done.

In fact, I use Photoshop CC today almost 100% like I used Photoshop v3 back in the day. I used v5.1 up until a couple years ago when I started using Adobe Camera Raw converters.

I think an interesting viewpoint would be - what the difference in quality would be between a Good Raw copy to Jpeg/tiff from a good DSLR, and an equiv picture from a good SLR with good quality film then processed and converted to digital via a scanner....


P.

Pagman wrote in post #16639371
I think an interesting viewpoint would be - what the difference in quality would be between a Good Raw copy to Jpeg/tiff from a good DSLR, and an equiv picture from a good SLR with good quality film then processed and converted to digital via a scanner....


P.

No competition in terms of resolution. Some will argue film has more accurate color, but from my personal experience this is just not true, especially considering that even the film companies could never agree on what was actually an accurate film. One would have stronger reds, another weaker reds, etc. Then when you factor in the lens being used, it becomes even more difficult, as they can also alter the colors to a noticeable degree.

You would need a medium format film to equal 35mm digital with modern good glass.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16639410
No competition in terms of resolution. Some will argue film has more accurate color, but from my personal experience this is just not true, especially considering that even the film companies could never agree on what was actually an accurate film. One would have stronger reds, another weaker reds, etc. Then when you factor in the lens being used, it becomes even more difficult, as they can also alter the colors to a noticeable degree.

You would need a medium format film to equal 35mm digital with modern good glass.

I had wondered about this, many times i have seen excellent prices on some realy brillant film AFSLR's like a canon EOS 650 i wonce owned or Nikon equiv, for silly money like $30 and similar for a lens, but it is the cost of all the other parts required to convert to digital that concerned me.
I used to love the 80-90s using these kind of cameras with Fuji 400 film or Ilford b&w.

P.

my god!what a question to ask,i for one coming from film camera back round about 23 years ago ,totally different hole new ballgame plus the rules have changed and i suppose they will change again,dam i'm still trying to understand this digital stuff and make grate photos....

^^^^
This. And as one trying to learn to do PP so it looks professional, I can tell you it's not that easy.

The principles of exposure value, ISO (film speed), shutter, aperture, making that all work, depth of field, composition, stopping motion, blurring motion, being able to visualize the end result in your mind's eye then using the technology at your disposal to make it happen ... not that much has changed, frankly.

And like in the film days, there are hundreds of crappy photos taken for every one that was worth taking in the first place, and of those, there are hundreds that are poorly focused, poorly exposed, poorly processed, or otherwise deficient. Good lighting is still as much a skill as it was when I took a photography class in college in the 70s.

Technology has changed, to be sure. For those willing to work hard at being good photographers, some things have gotten easier, but just like in the film days not everyone who picks up an expensive camera makes great images. That has not changed at all.

This, by POTN Timberspirit ...

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

As a hobbyist, for me the difference is this:

Film SLR/TLR/RF/MF:

Mental block on spraying and praying. The film costs slow me down, make me think and I compose carefully.

Huge viewfinders allow to see composition better.

Rangefinder viewfinders don't show DOF effects and it's easier to take in the whole scene to see what's happening.

Scanning - 1 hour per roll. Developing takes at least 30 minutes with sleeving/archiving.

Printing - hours for setup, usually have to make an evening out of it.

Results: 2 out of 3 shots I'm happy or ok with compositionally. 3-10 per roll I want to keep or print.

Digital:
I think about composition less. I just do. Amount of tweaking and massaging the raw files is big.

About spent learning the software and new processes is pretty significant.

I end with a lot of mediocre shots and less keepers.

Great for action/PJ/spontaneous stuff

Digital is expensive. My Leicas are the cheapest cameras of them all if I consider digital stuff I have.

Frodge wrote in post #16637814
I don't think it is a crazy question at all. Different developers had subtleties in the way things were done.

Not to mention the impact different films had on the final print.