Jump to content

My test between digital capture vs scanned medium format chrome


christos_chatzoglou

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello.<br>

I made a test to see about the overal look of an image, made by a digital camera and a medium format scanned chrome.<br>

I also checked about how many details can capture each one.<br>

Both photos made at the same place, but not in the same day in late afternoon.<br>

I used the max optical resolution of the scanner (4000ppi) Nikon coolscan 9000ED.<br>

I adjusted only the local contrast due curves and levels in photoshop.<br>

For the digital capture i used the shift movement of my tilt and shift lens (Canon TS-E 24mm), to take two separeted photos that i sticked togethet via photoshop.<br>

To my eyes the digital capture has better dynamic range but also seems a little fake with a "digital look".<br>

About the details the scanned file looks far better.<br>

For big enlargements i think that scanned files from medium format chromes can deliver best prints.<br>

Which is yours opinion? </p><div>00VAnN-197825584.thumb.jpg.0bbc8d0c4ad1057dee50b397a9e65056.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>f/20 is well into diffraction territory for the 1Ds. (I don't know off hand how bad diffraction hits 617 at f/45.)</p>

<p>That said, you'll need more frames stitched if the goal is to match 617 on fine detail in a very large print. You might get away with one row, but you'll need at least 5 frames to stitch. A pano head would be in order.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"For big enlargements i think that scanned files from medium format chromes can deliver best prints."</p>

<p>I have 60" wide prints from a Technorama 617S III with a 72mm on my walls at home. No problem making them directly from the film. In my case they were through an internegative to print.<br>

Kodak used the original Linhof Technorama 617 with the 90mm to make the huge transparency displays that use to hang at Grand Central Station over the Kodak section. Again no problem making quality prints that were 10s of feet wide.<br>

One problem you might have is that a 75mm Super Angulon would not be the lens of choice for critical results on 617 as you need about 180mm of coverage just to cover the diagonal of 56x170mm. As the 75mm only has a 198mm circle at f22 @ infinity vs the 229mm circle of the 72mm XL the results will be not nearly as good at the edges and corners, especially since you need to add the center filter with the 75mm but might be able to creatively compose with the 72mm so it would not be needed, thanks to the larger circle of illumination.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I put the focus to the hyperfocal distance and i stopped down (not at f64 that is the minimum aperture of my lens), to obtain maximum depth of field.<br>

I used as always, a heavy tripod and cable release, plus mirror lock up for the canon.<br>

When i used to my schneider lense, apertures f32 and f45, i never show any differences on sharpness.<br>

I use to print 24"x72" and never show any serious difference in sharpness at this size.<br>

When i took the first photo with my 617 camera, i didn't have in my mind to make this test.<br>

I return back to the same place after a month, to shoot digital becouse, i had my eos 1dsII left out of use more than one year, using to shoot only panoramas, just to see if with the simple way to take just two digital captures throught my TS-E lenses, i could obtain same big prints with same contrast, details, colors and dynamic range as with the 617 chromes, for printing large as before (24'x72').<br>

To my eyes with close inspection after printing these cropped parts, are acetable sharp both, but the digital crops missing information. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The question that's burning in my mind is: how in the heck did you scan the film on the Coolscan? To my knowledge (and I have an 8000), 84mm or so is the max for one frame. Sorry if this is off topic, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to know as well.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dave, the color is something easy to adjust in photoshop (i made a very fast try).<br>

But one thing that none of you takes care, is about the big difference of the dynamic range.<br>

This is the only part that digital is far away the winner.<br>

And d.r. is something that someone cann't adjust in photoshop without creating high levels of noise.</p><div>00VCkc-198941584.thumb.jpg.547efab6133ccdcb92bea5e72af81f0b.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Christos, no offense, but feel free to alter the film scan image so the color balance is the same as the digital. Of course, DR in this case is far better with the DSLR. However, the balance reverses when one switches from chromes to a neg film like Fuji Pro 160. With the blocked shadows in the scan, there is no way to get the color to be the same in both.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"It's not really a film vs. digital test. It's more of a scanner vs. digital origination test."</p>

<p>I agree and have always wondered why more people don't take this point more seriously, though one should temper these remarks that good scanning *can get you close* to what is on the film. Going the other way, here's a comparison that everyone would object to:</p>

<p>1. Take a hunk of film and, using an enlarger, make an optical print using photoreactive paper. Say 16x20.<br>

2. Take a digital capture file of the same scene, using the same optics and so forth, and using digital projection, make an optical print. Say 16x20.</p>

<p>How would the two prints compare? Since current "off the shelf" digital projection is radically outclassed by optical enlarging, my guess is that the print originating from film would vastly outclass the digital one. But then, naturally, everyone would complain the comparison isn't fair, which it isn't...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting thread. I think that a part of the problem is due to the quality of the scan as well as the digital file. Post processing is the digital darkroom, so I was intrigued by people's effort to see how close the two photos are after some adjustments. Below is my effort, which I hope the OP does not mind. I think it is impossible to get them identical because the shots are from not just different days but different seasons. (Look at leaves.) My conclusion is a great deal of the difference is due to the way the film was scanned and the digital photo was processed. It would be important to eliminate these differences even before comparing the quality produced by MF film and a DSLR.</p><div>00VEan-199953584.thumb.jpg.eb7b2e70c9f77506c5240230189e3b2a.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...