Photo printout comparison between MF vs DSLR

<p>It is true that it is easier to recognize colour problems, if you can compare a scan to a slide.<br>

But it is not too hard to get the hang of colour correcting in post-scanning processing software, like PS. On a well adjusted monitor, it is not hard to recognize colour problems. If in doubt, the colour picker tool and the info palet help.</p>

<p>My 'workflow' is simple: Scan using the original Nikon software. With as little correction as possible (usually only a bit to the tone scale/histogram). Then transfer processing to PS and do all the necessary tweaking there.</p>

<p>In Mar 2009 I attended a Santa Fe Photography Workshop. One of the participants showed about a hundred images he had shot on Kodak Portra VC film with a Mamiya 6 camera. The prints were on Epson Fine Art Velvet. I've been making and looking a photographs since 1965 and his prints were the most technical superb and aesthetically beautiful color images I've ever seen. Simply breathtaking with a color palette unlike anything I've seen from digital capture devices. He used Nikon 9000 scanner. I shoot with a Nikon d300 and print with an Epson 2400 for most of my work. I'm still wedded to my Leica m7 and b/w film but his work is simply exceptional.</p>

<p>OTHER FACTORS:</p>

<p>I just finished chatting with the salesmen at a local store about a digital option to use my Hasselblad lenses and we compared MF to the D3X and other options.<br>

IMHO:<br>

- lens quality for dslrs is definitely a factor. Nikon and Canon slr primes just can't compare to the MF and LF lenses like a Planar, Xenotar or Apos.<br>

- Scanning a 6 x 6 piece of film at 4000dpi produces a file at least about four times the equivalent of a 12mp dslr, so one would expect a better result.<br>

- Sensor filters: the dslr's sensor filter will always soften the image. Not an issue with film.<br>

The biggest advantage of digital is RIGHT NOW. As for cost, I'd say it is cheaper with film, especially in the long run. There is so much depreciation with digital equipment that you pay a fortune for the priviledge.<br>

The state of things is very frustrating right now. Too much crap is being produced, too easily and it is watering down our sense of good imagery.</p>

 

<p>With respect to all writing here, this digital-vs-film struggle in all its variations is simply tired and old. There is really nothing new or useful that could possibly be said about it.<br /><br />Do we have nothing better to discuss?</p>

<p>May I suggest, Michael, that you find another thread to attend to if this one is not of interest to you. I don't see how the OP is making this a film vs. digital debate. Perhaps he is really interested in how to get the best quality print. If it is a debate, it is only because you are making it one.</p>

<p>I do fine art prints and have been struggling to balance quality, cost, future technology, etc. I have not found a way to produce a larger size print with straight digital, than with medium and large format film. I have no trouble with a hybrid system. I've tried just about every level scanner. Canon and Nikon DSLR. Hasselblad H series. And I use Hasselblad V and Sinar 4x5. I have a number of Epson and Canon scanners. I send out drum scans. All I'm trying to do is find the best mix of film and digital, because I can't get the size print I need from current digital cameras.</p>

<p>My current workflow is MF and LF film -> drum scan -> PhotoShop -> Print. It is expensive, but after just 35 years of doing enlargements, I'm not good enough to do all the print dodging and burning with an enlarger, that I can do in PhotoShop.</p>

<p>That means I need digital conversion somewhere along the way. I have also tried film scan -> silver gelatin print, and not totally happy. So I'm now working with converting film -> hi-rez larger format film -> silver gelatin or color prints. This is hardly the realm of a digital vs. film debate, but a dialog about how to get the best print. This is not what the OP asked, but it IS relevant to many of us wanting to produce the highest quality fine art prints. For all those who try to make this a digital vs. film debate, all I can say is I KNOW I can't get the size prints I need, and quality, with any existing DSLR--yet. And that<em> is </em> what the OP asked.</p>

<p>Q. G. If you read what I said more carefully, you'll see that I was referring to the realm above 400 ISO where a Full-frame DSLR will easily beat MF film, and I don't think anyone will argue with that. The noise from current DSLRs in the 800 to 1600 ISO region is negligible, whereas colour film is horrendously grainy above 400 ISO and isn't even available in a true 1600 ISO sensitivity. There's also no reciprocity effect or colour-shift with a DSLR at long exposure times.</p>

<p>What I definitely didn't say was that a DSLR is better than MF film in all respects.</p>

<p><!--StartFragment-->I have compared 6X6 slides shot with a Hasselblad V system and scanned with an Imacon 848 at 3200 ppi with digital files from my Nikon D700 and, in terms of resolution, MF slides are clearly superior (in both prints and pixel-peeping at 100% magnification on screen). If you are interested, details can be found <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/nikond700/nikon_d700_resolution.shtml">here</a>.<!--EndFragment--></p>

<p>Michael, I agree that when printed you get (to my eye) more appealing photographs from the MF scan than from the DSLR. I think the main difference is not resolution but the colour, contrast etc... of the print. The DSLR is probably a more accurate representation of events but the scanned film shows it more like you saw it. I guess that is why when we see a rainbow it can be quite dramatic but when we photograph it the colours are less stunning. I obviously had to post digital images as I cannot post prints. On the subject of colour two thing I notice are:<br>

If you scan Kodachrome (a film I have rarely use) I notice that you get discreet lines in the histogram - while the pictures look fine I wonder if this is due to it being 3 monochrome layer with filters. Has anyone else noticed this.<br>

When you look at a slide on a light table through a loupe you get a real sense of three dimensions but you can never capture this when you scan or print. Again any thoughts</p>

<p>For what it is worth I shoot both digital and film and recognize both have their strong points and weaknesses. I also agree that digital cameras (and the ubiquitous zoom) lead to lazy photographers and lots of uninspired images - I often get comments when I lug a camera (system) up a mountain and take few or no photographs as the light is poor.</p>

<p>What would be the difference? It depends on many factors.</p>

<p>(1) Lens quality. Modern DSLR lenses can be extremely sharp if you own a good sample. Most MF lens systems were designed 10, 20, or 30 years ago.<br /> (2) Image stabilization/Vibration reduction technology. Not available on MF or LF cameras.<br /> (3) The film used.<br /> (4) The scanner used.<br /> (5) Camera stability. Some MF systems kick like a mule, while others have smooth leaf shutters that create less vibration than a DSLR's shutter, even with mirror lockup. Most DSLR's also have shutter delay modes to reduce vibration even further.<br /> (6) Mounting systems. Tripod, head, and custom quick-release plates. There's enormous variation here regardless of the camera system used.<br /> (7) Exposure latitude - DSLR's have more latitude than slide film, but print film has even more. This can make or break a high-contrast shot.<br /> (8) Pixel noise and High ISO noise reduction. Either can degrade digital photo quality. But then, so can film grain, and the film world has no answer for D3/D700 high ISO performance.<br /> (9) Dust. In the real world, dust mars BOTH film and digital images.<br /> (10) Wind.<br /> (11) Exposure and focus technique. In the final analysis, the photographer's technique and experience matter a great deal.<br /> (12) Post-processing/darkroom technique.<br /> (13) Digital printer setup.<br /> (14) Quality of paper, enlargement lenses, etc.<br /> (15) Depth of field with respect to film/sensor size. (Bigger isn't always better).<br /> (16) Diffraction with respect to film/sensor/pixel size. (Then again, sometimes bigger IS better).<br /> (17) Aperture and shutter speed. (Remember them? The classics. Like Leonardo and Michelango.)<br /> (18) Lens cleanliness.<br /> (19) Sharpening. (The mysterious "voodoo" process that often gets overlooked in digital vs. film comparisons.)</p>

<p>That's a lot of factors, and I'll bet you can think of even more. No wonder this is a difficult topic.</p>

<p>This is a Medium Format forum. It's not surprising to see claims such as "645 is just as good and 6x7 would be way better." On a Canon or Nikon forum, you'd hear the opposite claim. Who's right? Probably everyone is to some degree.</p>

<p>I've seen 35mm film photos that are sharper than images taken by large format cameras. The grain is far worse, but actual lens sharpness can be much better. Stick your nose into some of Galen Rowell's best prints and prepare to be amazed.</p>

<p>I've seen DSLR photos (mostly shot on Canon, even though I'm a Nikon guy) that blow away any MF image that I've ever seen. And of course I've seen plenty of DSRL photos that don't compare to lowly 35mm film when shot and processed properly.</p>

<p>I have images that I've taken with a Pentax 67 II that rival or surpass the quality of photos that I've taken with a 4x5 camera. And I have 4x5 stuff that blows everything else away.</p>

<p>There are SO many factors that it's all but impossible to make a serious claim that "Format X beats Format Y," at least consistently. What can you do? Learn how to get the best from your equipment and use the best tool for the job. Low light? Difficult light? Hand-holding a must? Use a full frame DSLR. Bird or wildlife photography? Use a crop frame DSLR. Great light and room to set up a solid tripod? Medium format film. Need movements and not likely to be disturbed while you fine-tune your focus for up to ten minutes? Large format. Ultra-light and discrete? 35mm rangefinder. B&W contact prints? LF or ULF. Huge prints for advertising banners? MF digital backs.</p>

<p>Here's the GREAT news! We have CHOICES! More than ever before!</p>

<p>"I've seen 35mm film photos that are sharper than images taken by large format cameras. The grain is far worse, but actual lens sharpness can be much better. Stick your nose into some of Galen Rowell's best prints and prepare to be amazed."</p>

<p>Galen only shot with the same nikon lenses and bodies as everyone else. His shots with his 24mm on a manual focus body on a tripod at f/16, correctly focussed, will be no sharper than anyone else using correct technique. The difference is that all his prints are produced from drumscans, and then all worked on in photoshop by professionals to do things like smoothing out the film grain in areas of sky etc (you can read about this in his Inner Game book) and worked on to produce the best prints, by trained professionals on professional kit rather than hobbyists at home. Most of us don't have recource to these kind of facilities so our 35mm work won't look at good. I'm sure Galen's 35mm prints will still knock most DSLRs out of the water for this very reason. If you apply the same crumscaning and workflow to MR of LF film shots, then you'd need a hell of a lot of digital pixels to compete.</p>

<p>Comparing a high-end 12 mpix full frame DSLR (Nikon D3) and a Hasselblad with a good ISO 100 film and a Coolscan 9000, I found that the MF film had better detail in a 16x20" print.<br>

But this is sort of an intellectual exercise. What matters is what do you want to accomplish with a camera and how you visualize the end result to be. A 8x10" from the said 12 mpix DSLR is easily good enough for 99% of people. Both 16x20" prints looked, without a side by side comparison, the DSLR would almost certainly have passed as a remarkable print. Still I often end up using a Hasselblad since it does what I want. A 35 mm doesn't provide the same look in close ups as a 6x6.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The difference is that all his prints are produced from drumscans, and then all worked on in photoshop by professionals. Most of us don't have recource to these kind of facilities so our 35mm work won't look at good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Toward the end of his career, that's true. I've seen his traditional prints, too. But this same technology is available to anyone today at top labs around the country.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure Galen's 35mm prints will still knock most DSLRs out of the water for this very reason.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone's 35mm prints compare to 20 megapixel digital images in terms of detail, but film has a magic all its own. When the right film meets the right light in the right amount, it's difficult to replicate the effect with any amount of digital technology, resolution and bicubic algorithms, notwithstanding.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you apply the same drumscaning and workflow to MR of LF film shots, then you'd need a hell of a lot of digital pixels to compete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, it depends on many factors. For instance, optics can be a limiting factor. How many MF and LF lenses can compare to the optical quality of the best modern DSLR lenses? There's a reason why Schneider and Rodenstock have developed new lenses specifically for use with digital backs. The old ones that we use for film photography don't provide enough resolution.</p>

 

<p><em>"How many MF and LF lenses can compare to the optical quality of the best modern DSLR lenses? There's a reason why Schneider and Rodenstock have developed new lenses specifically for use with digital backs. The old ones that we use for film photography don't provide enough resolution." </em></p>

<p>Digido Myth # 237 rears its head again.</p>

<p>The answer to the first bit is "All of them".</p>

<p>The reason behind the second bit is money. Your money. They wanted it.<br />And you probably gave it to them, even though there is nothing wrong with the lenses you already had.<br />The old ones provide more than enough resolution. In fact too much.</p>

<p>Why is it that digifolk forget about dumbing down filters found in all but the most expensive (think MF digiback) digital capture devices? And about the Bayer (or other) pattern as well?<br>

<br />'Old' lenses are too good for digital. Even the not so good ones.</p>

<p>What's more, there is nothing special about the new lenses.<br />The only thing we have seen change lately is that brute force computer power has led to more intricate IF designs, making AF a bit easier and faster.<br />And though the correction of these variable lenses can be quite good, very many have problems keeping up with the old fashioned ones. Luckily, many old designs have made the transition to the Digido without problem too.</p>

<p>The "specially made for digital" thing is a marketing ploy. Just like "light" on food. Or the "turbo" thingy that everything once was said to be, even chewing gum.<br />It never fails to work.</p>

<p>What Myth is next?<br />;-)</p>

<p><em>"I don't think anyone's 35mm prints compare to 20 megapixel digital images in terms of detail"</em></p>

<p>Oh, silly me! There is the next Myth already!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"How many MF and LF lenses can compare to the optical quality of the best modern DSLR lenses?"<br>

The differences are pretty negligable at the type of apertures frequently used for landscape shots, i.e. f/11-f/22. Certainly by f/22 almost all lenses are operating at or near diffraction limited results, generally around 60lpm regardless of the format. On top of that, i'm sure lenses like for the mamiya rangefinders can give any 35mm/digital lens a run for their money even wide open.</p>

<p>I think it is laughably absurd that 'we' are comparing 6x6 to 2.4x3.6, and rejoicing that MF is better... :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"How many MF and LF lenses can compare to the optical quality of the best modern DSLR lenses? There's a reason why Schneider and Rodenstock have developed new lenses specifically for use with digital backs. The old ones that we use for film photography don't provide enough resolution." </em><br>

Digido Myth # 237 rears its head again.<br>

The answer to the first bit is "All of them".<br>

The reason behind the second bit is money. Your money. They wanted it.<br />And you probably gave it to them, even though there is nothing wrong with the lenses you already had.<br />The old ones provide more than enough resolution. In fact too much.<br>

Why is it that digifolk forget about dumbing down filters found in all but the most expensive (think MF digiback) digital capture devices? And about the Bayer (or other) pattern as well?<br /><br />'Old' lenses are too good for digital. Even the not so good ones.<br>

What's more, there is nothing special about the new lenses.<br />The only thing we have seen change lately is that brute force computer power has led to more intricate IF designs, making AF a bit easier and faster.<br />And though the correction of these variable lenses can be quite good, very many have problems keeping up with the old fashioned ones. Luckily, many old designs have made the transition to the Digido without problem too.<br>

The "specially made for digital" thing is a marketing ploy. Just like "light" on food. Or the "turbo" thingy that everything once was said to be, even chewing gum.<br />It never fails to work.<br>

What Myth is next?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, that's quite the analysis there, Q. G.! :-)</p>

<p>For the record, I'm only part "digifolk." I shoot MF and LF film - Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 mostly, sensitive, high contrast, notoriously difficult to expose emulsions. I even know how to meter for film without the benefit of a histogram or an LCD screen. ;-) But I shoot with a D700, too, so an admitted digihead I am! Every tool has its strengths and weaknesses.</p>

<p>Since I have a foot fimly planted on both sides of the digital/film fence, I think I'm in a good position to be objective. If you'd prefer to think of my comments as "myths," that's fine, but maybe you can explain what benefit I derive from perpetuating "myths" about the quality of digital gear since I've invested more in FILM gear over the years than digital gizmos.</p>

<p>No, I haven't spend my money on Schneider or Rodenstock digital lenses. (Sorry, German engineers!) I can't afford a D3x, let alone a P65+. Not that I wouldn't love to HAVE one of EACH!</p>

<p><em>"'Old' lenses are too good for digital. Even the not so good ones."</em></p>

<p>And I'm too good for Jennifer Aniston. Please tell her to stop calling me. :-D</p>

<p>Do you OWN any of the new lenses? Have you used them? Were your results disappointing?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am hanging my head in shame since I won't "upgrade" from my Hasselblad 500 C/M and my CF lenses. I can't even fathom "upgrading" my Omega D-2V and cold light head and Schneider 80mm elarging lens. Since my equipment is so far down in quality from the new schnazzy Degutul "full frame" cameras. Gosh, maybe I will just order some film, paper and chemisty from Freestyle on Monday. </p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>That would make you perhaps <em>the</em> person to explain to us why it would not be a myth.<br>

So give it a shot!</p>

<p>It also raises eyebrows about how discerning you might be. ;-)</p>

<p>But yes, digital does not put demands on lenses.<br>

There is that thingy about sensor pit wells being too deep, so the exit pupil of a lens must not be too close, to avoid 'shading'.<br>

But apart from that, none at all.<br>

In fact (and that is the 'objective truth'), most 'old' lenses, even the not so good ones, are too good.</p>

<p>What can we do? That's just how it is.<br>

A pain, isn't it? ;-)</p>

<p>No problem! Just post a couple of the images that you've captured with Rodenstock digital lenses and/or Phase One backs and tell us why you think they're crappy. We'll be happy to critique them for you!</p>

<p>:-D</p>

 

<p>Sure there is a problem.<br>

You seem to be rather confused about the issue.</p>

<p>Now tell us what special demands digital puts on lenses and their performance, and why that should be.</p>

<p>If you like posting things, post a few of your images shot with "digital" and non-"digital" lenses, and point out why you think the non-"digital" lenses are not good.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My answer is a little more low tech, but it is the reason I still use film: processing. When I run my pictures through film processing, I get effects quickly that I understand in a reasonable amount of time. Then, once scanned, whether slide or print, I also have the next layer of digital editing options available to me.</p>

<p>I suppose I could find a way to edit the pictures in digital so that they could mimic my film processing; but, it is just easier for me to do, to understand, and to edit the final image if I just change the chemistry along the way to meet my needs for that subject.</p>

<p>I don't know much about the engineering specs; but, I haven't seen a good way around developer changes with digital-only processing. This is kind of a lowball answer, but it's what I do. I use the digital processes to share a copy of what the film has done. Or, use digital only to make a digital only picture. My process methods look different, and are not a perfect match. The contrast adjustment between developer changes and the contrast slider on the digital image file is not quite the same for me. There is a difference in the exclusions.</p>

<p>Many of the comparisons I have seen are based on the idea of trying to match what is included. The methods for recording are a different set of logic processes, so I don't quite buy it; it's apples and oranges; with, "by degrees cutting into film" on one side and "collections of pass or fail" on the other. A lot of my pictures are based on exclusion. Unifying by tone can help. The technology that tries to present many different tones may not match; I find myself putting traditional contrast filters before the lens still for this reason, when I make a black and white photo in digital. At least then the optical filter works in a way that I better understand; I believe the intensity of the filter unifies the picture a little more, and knocks down the over-sensitivity or width of the range per tone. I suspect that a big part of this lies with how I work with the equipment, and may not have a scientific result.</p>

<p>A full range and many tones are not always helping me. Many times, I find I need to simplify. With film at hand, I have a method for that which I readily understand. The digital monochromes look like different pictures to me, when done all-digital.</p>

<p>I understand in my mind the difference between D-23, D-76, and my homemade developers, and their combinations through papers and VC filtration against Dektol and homemade developers. I can work the sliders some, but they go left to right. Exposure, film, developer, exposure, developer, and then scan if I want. I understand this. Digital only, all the way through, is good, but it yields a different set of editing answers in the final image.</p>

<p>Editing controls. It's a lowball answer, but that's what I do. I prefer the film-based exposures first. The digital files are helpful because of computers; not because of the picture quality. I feel the film has a superior picture quality for the way I use it. If there are no exclusions, if everything is sharp, if every aspect is done to maximum perfection, you won't be able to tell what's in the picture. It will be like a photo of a squirrel in a tree made from 50 feet away with a normal lens. Too crowded with details to see what it is a picture of. I made many of these errors when I was younger. Exclusion, editing and simplicity in the final image, and picture structural qualities like durability, drive my preference for film.</p>

<p>You can always scan it in and get what everyone else uses.</p>

<p>Film is like a detailed form of illustration by hand, with greater accuracy to shape, greater control over tone and greater speed to final printing. Digital technologies are driving to meet the eyeball; the world doesn't look that good to begin with.</p>

<p>Editing, exclusion, simplicity, unification to present the idea are all easier with the film as the base for initial recording. Other people can work another way, and that's fine with me; but, this how I respond to it.</p>

<p>Hi?</p>

<p>I recently had a 6 by 17 slide (Velvia) printed to 7 ft long. It was scanned with an Imacon and then printed on a Lambda printer.</p>

<p>The amount of detail is stunning.</p>

<p>Here's a JPEG:</p>

<div></div>

<p>Color rendition is another consideration. Under certain conditions, negative film clearly trumps digital. Take a look at exhibit 1 <a href="http://www.doeringphoto.com/projects/powerplant/info2.html">here</a> .</p>