Noise: Film vs. Digital

These days it's quite common, that people are talking about noise in digital photos. They often use words like "terrible" or "intolerable" even with connection to modern FullFrame DSLRs. I decided to create little comparison between film and digital images, which starts with Ilford HP5 and Delta 3200 and Canon EOS 40D - so it's quite brief, but i hope, it will be interesting.

for viewing the comparison please follow this link:
http://www.photographypospech.com/filmvsdigital.htm

I'm working on broader test, which will be published within following weeks (middle format, positive films and FF DSLR will be involved)

Thanks for the photos. All in all I'm preferring the digital. As for why we talk more about noise with digital than we do with film, as I recall we actually did discuss grain quite a bit ten years ago. I also think we have higher expectations now than we did before.


Kent in SD

Kent, I think that you are right about expectations. For those of us who shot seriously shot film before digital cameras took over, the level of quality and capabilities is something that we would have never dreamed about ten years ago. We've gotten spoiled, whether we realize it or not.

Alexandr, thanks for the link to your article.

Interesting topic. I have been doing tests of my own with a Nikon D3X and made a comment on my blog post entitled Nikon D3X – The DSLR 24.5MP Body about the ISO and how Nikon approached Noise on this camera.

It is more like high ISO film than Digital Noise. Maybe I should post some test shots?

Happy shooting,

Paul

Thanks, Alexandr. Your posted images are instructive and, for me, a welcome reminder to stop obsessing about noise. With film, we didn't try to make mural-size enlargements just to see what detail we captured (the equivalent of zooming in 500% or 1000% to see the noise).

Maybe I should post some test shots?

Yes please! Having never shot film, I've always wondered about the comments that a certain digital camera's noise is "more film-like" or something similar. But I've never seen good examples of what that means. (Especially examples showing a range of digital cameras and comparing the quality of the noise.)

Thanks for the examples Alexandr! Very interesting.

I'm glad, that you like my comparison - it's just a beginning of it, i plan to add more samples soon - (i hope this evening). I can add samples of different films and several Canon DSLRs, so that will be probably next step. i'm also preparing same sample shots using digital and film (positive film and middle format is also involved) - but that would take some time before i finish, develop and scan these films

I still think there are some negative issues with digital at higher ISO. First of all, the blurring applied means that the latest 24MP uber body is probably giving you more like 12MP of resolution at ISO 1600 or higher and the AA screens make you wonder if you ever really got 24MP at all. Second, as the amps are turned up for the higher ISO images, the "buckets" are effectively smaller and stretched and the dynamic range decreases.

In the sample photos, Photo 2, the film shot shows significantly more detail in the shadows and the sky. The digital is blocked up and blown out. On film, higher ISO does result in larger grain, which does reduce resolving potential, but the dynamic range usually increases with higher ISO films. In addition, if the goal is to compare noise HP5+ is not really the best performer in that class. TMax 400 will produce a better result, but it does have a much different personality.

For alternative views, I offer

Kodak G-800 (Utramax800) shot at ISO 1600, Standard development

100% Crop

Kodak HD400 shot at ISO 800, Standard development

100% Crop

I've always had trouble keeping the sky from clipping a channel in shots like this on digital.
Kodak HD 400 at ISO400

100%

Kodak Ektar 100

100%

E100G

100%

All scanned on a Nikon LS4000 at 4000ppi, no post processing after the scan applied to the crops. Keep in mind that the LS4000 does not have quite enough optical resolution to capture 4000ppi worth of data, but its a lot closer than a flatbed. Its also a long way from the highest resolving drum scanners.

My feeling on the high ISO digital is that we're gaining smoother photos, but are forced to give up dynamic range, tonal range and color sensitivity as the ISO climbs. I don't trust the individual tests on DXO Mark, but the trends show EVERY digital camera loses dynamic range, tonal range and color sensitivity rapidly as ISO exceeds 400. The random nature of film grain is typically deemed more attractive than digital noise in big enlargements regardless of grain size. Film (regardless of type) still has qualities that cannot be matched by any digital capture, but scanning is time consuming and certainly not for everyone.

I agree that the complaints about noise with digital capture are pretty silly when you look at what traditional films were producing. But at the same time, there are some things about digital that really aren't so great as the ISO climbs. Unfortunately, we'll quickly have no option except digital at higher ISOs. High ISO films are disappearing from the market with great speed.

Thanks for that Mel. I'm being forced by circumstances to do a bunch of high ISO shooting these days (3200) and my experiences reflect your points. I can't imagine what the grain of a 3200 ISO film would be like, even as digital noise isn't really an issue in my uses. But there is a noticeable loss of saturation and contrast in some circumstances. My past experience (distant past) with high ISO film (400 and 800 pushed) showed a drop in saturation and contrast, too, but it was pretty academic. Grain was so bad that the shots were useless for more than documentary projects. I do recall a distinct loss of contrast as ISO went up, but I never got as high as 3200 ISO.

Do you have any examples of TriX or an E-6 film pushed to 3200 for comparison with digital? That would be the truest test of performance beyond considerations solely of grain versus noise.

I don't have those samples Hank, but I'll bet you can find some examples on the web at photo.net or apug.

There have been alot of developments bringing the T-grain technology from B&W to color films in the last 10-15 years and this is driving higher quality options than the common products available before. Kodak has released 7 new still photography products in the last three years and continue to drive motion picture film development. However alot of products are disappearing too. Tungsten balanced films are almost completely gone from the market. High speed films are harder to find. Kodak just stopped production of the warm balance E100GX.

If you've got to shoot E-6 and push, I'd go for Provia 400X. Seems to be the best product in that category. I haven't shot any but have seen some samples and its a good looking film.

On color negative, Kodak's Portra and Ultramax 800 products both have the same grain value. Ultramax 800 I've shot and it seems to be pretty saturated even when underexposed. Fuji's Pro800Z is supposed to be really good as well. Because of the channel separation in color negative, I've read they can form color shifts with push or pull development where each channel reacts differently to the development. That's relatively easy to compensate for in scanning by using separate curves for each color channel, but adds work. The latitude can usually compensate for underexposure of a stop without pushing, but using the latitude to compensate will reduce the saturation and shadow detail. Unlike slide films, color negative typically increases in saturation with overexposure.

For pushed B&W I think that TMax 400 pushed or TMax P3200 (ISO800) would be the better route to shoot at ISO 3200. The T-grain films should exhibit finer grain and more detail at a given ISO and development combination than a traditional grain film such as TriX or HP5+. But I don't shoot B&W often and wouldn't consider myself an expert in the various film/development combinations.

I always shoot at 100 ISO on Canon cameras (5D Mark II now) and shoot to the right of the histogram, so I have not seen even a speck of noise for some years now.