Ok... This may have been discussed long before but I'm bringing it up more as a serious discussion based on my observation that I've been doing lately. This is not intended to be a flaming session. Just pure objective reasoning please...
I've been using a Canon D30 DSLR for some time and have also taken pictures on prosumer compact digital cameras. Before that, I'm a big film SLR user.
From the prints that I did on my own and others I've seen, either from friends or showrooms, eg Canon, I noticed that by and large, I could tell without much difficulty if the print was from a digital camera. They all 'suffer' (for want of a better word) from the following characteristics:
1. 'Smudged out' look. I don't really know how to describe this... But it's just that the final printout has fine details 'blurred' out.
2. Tendency of chromatic aberration. This is probably the number one weakness in prosumer cams. No matter whether it's a $500 or $1500 digital cam, take a picture of a sharp outline against say a fairly bright overcast sky and chances are you get to see some colour cast at the edges, usually bluish or purple in colour.
3. Blown out highlights. They don't hold details as well as print films. Limited exposure latitude.
4. Colours sometimes appear less punchy. Some people say you have to use external softwares to bring out colours like those you see in films like Velvia or other pro ones. Even then, it's almost always necessary to use photoshop to improve the contrast and colour of images.
I've shot both in RAW and jpg formats and the above are characteristics I observe in a prosumer cam and even on my D30. Some of them are even made on L lenses! But when I shoot on slide or film, the saturated punchy colours for one just say a lot about the films used. The sharpness and details cannot run when a high quality lens is used too. May not be so for a DSLR.
The only exceptions I notice to the above are big digital photography events where they used big models like a Canon 1D/1DS or Nikon D1H and blow the prints to A3 or larger. Then it's almost impossible to tell if it's from film or digital.
So is it due to post-editing, whether low or high end camera is used.... or just that we are not quite there yet in digital photography?
I've been using a Canon D30 DSLR for some time and have also taken pictures on prosumer compact digital cameras. Before that, I'm a big film SLR user.
From the prints that I did on my own and others I've seen, either from friends or showrooms, eg Canon, I noticed that by and large, I could tell without much difficulty if the print was from a digital camera. They all 'suffer' (for want of a better word) from the following characteristics:
1. 'Smudged out' look. I don't really know how to describe this... But it's just that the final printout has fine details 'blurred' out.
2. Tendency of chromatic aberration. This is probably the number one weakness in prosumer cams. No matter whether it's a $500 or $1500 digital cam, take a picture of a sharp outline against say a fairly bright overcast sky and chances are you get to see some colour cast at the edges, usually bluish or purple in colour.
3. Blown out highlights. They don't hold details as well as print films. Limited exposure latitude.
4. Colours sometimes appear less punchy. Some people say you have to use external softwares to bring out colours like those you see in films like Velvia or other pro ones. Even then, it's almost always necessary to use photoshop to improve the contrast and colour of images.
I've shot both in RAW and jpg formats and the above are characteristics I observe in a prosumer cam and even on my D30. Some of them are even made on L lenses! But when I shoot on slide or film, the saturated punchy colours for one just say a lot about the films used. The sharpness and details cannot run when a high quality lens is used too. May not be so for a DSLR.
The only exceptions I notice to the above are big digital photography events where they used big models like a Canon 1D/1DS or Nikon D1H and blow the prints to A3 or larger. Then it's almost impossible to tell if it's from film or digital.
So is it due to post-editing, whether low or high end camera is used.... or just that we are not quite there yet in digital photography?