Jump to content

My test between digital capture vs scanned medium format chrome


christos_chatzoglou

Recommended Posts

<p>Paul you made a perfect work to the color balance,<br>

This thread is about my dilema about, the easier way to shoot panoramic for take large prints (24''x72'') and with the maximum quality.<br>

Shooting 617 means a lot of time for scanning, but easier to shoot (no problem with moving objects or need to leveling perfectly the camera), while the digital capture, using a panoramic head (like panosaurus or other), plus ts-e lenses, needs more time durind the capture (to set up tripod, mount the pano head, leveling and take a lot of photos), but you avoid the 1.chromes cost 2.developing cost and time 3.scanning time.<br>

About the quality, i think that sticking five or more digital photos, from a 16.6 Mpixel camera we can take the same or even better quality for 24''x72'' prints than a scanned 617 chrome.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Christos,<br>

No question that stitched photos from a DSLR is easier than LF film. As for quality, everyone seems to have a legitimate opinion. I think both formats have their strengths and weaknesses, so it is a matter of what one values. I do agree with others that if your final objective is a print (rather than web posting) from film, then it is better to go directly from negative to print, skipping digital scanning, which can introduce many more difficulties and challenges related to color, tonality, etc.<br>

For me, one of the challenges of multiple DSLR photos is alignment. From what I understand, the ideal situation is to move the sensor but keep the lens still. This requires a lens with large coverage, such as one of Canon's T/S lenses or Nikons PC-E lenses. Even then, you need a special lens/camera tripod mount to ensure that the lens remains in the same place while the body moves about.<br>

I have been experimenting with an alternative, that is attaching a DSLR to the back of a LF camera, which allows me to move the back standard while keeping the front standard still. Still trying to refine a hybrid design, and you can see what had been done so far at<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9476880@N02/sets/72157621949266496/<br>

I emailed you via photo.net, but I am not sure if you got my message. I asked if I can post your original examples on another web site as a retouching challenge. I want to see what others can do to color correct the two photos as a way of improving my post processing skills. Let me know if that is ok.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Christos,<br>

Thanks for allowing me to post you photos elsewhere. I will probably do it early next year because I am preparing for a family trip to Hong Kong for the holidays. We do one major trip every so many years, and my nephew is studying there.<br>

As for the adjustments, the answer is layers and masks. It is impossible to do a single adjustment for both the sky and the ground. So, separate adjustments for each part.<br>

Have a happy holiday.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The truth is always in the print. Forget what we see on our monitors.</p>

<p>What I believe is that the FF digital bodies with great glass can probably hang with MF capture of the same scene or light conditons.</p>

<p>How ever, for 2 main reasons, the immense capture area and movements of a view camera, 4x5 or larger sheet film in the hands of a good photographer will out class image quality and the resulting print of digital capture by many miles. No need to compare.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My wish is that finally someone would perform a direct comparison under **identical** conditions:<br>

A. One DSLR full frame at 100 ISO with a 20mm wide angle lens or a 100mm short tele on one tripod<br>

B. One 6x9 with a Fuji Provia 100F or Astia 100 and a Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/47mm or a Rodenstock 5.6/45mm or a Rodenstock 5.6/180mm on a tripod<br>

C. Both tripods are centered on a line 90° to the shooting direction, max distance 50 cm<br>

D. The light will be metered with an external lightmeter like a Sekonic L-608 or similar<br>

E. Both cameras and lenses will have the same exposure time and aperture<br>

F. Both cameras will be triggered with a cable / remote release at the same moment<br>

G. The Fuji Film has to be developed by a professional E6 lab<br>

H. A savvy scanner operator with a Nikon LS 9000 and VueScan to digitize the slide at the highest resolution (4.000 ppi) and 48 bit<br>

I. A savvy operator to 'develop' the digital file at 48 bit<br>

Then - and only then - it would be a viable comparison for me.<br>

Of course you could use a drum scanner, but because this should be a fair comparison I would insist on the Nikon LS 9000. The use of a drum scanner would always make film a winner hands down, even with 35mm.<br>

So if Christos or anybody else would perform this sort of comparison by following my specifications I really would appreciate it.<br>

Unfortunately I can't perform such a test because I've never had a digital camera and I guess I never will.</p>

------------------------------------------

Worry is like a rocking chair.

It will give you something to do,

but it won't get you anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rob, it will not be for me or my ego, I just would like to end this endless discussion. Just recently a popular German online magazine ran a comparison between a Nikon F6, a Nikon D3x, a Canon Mark 1DIII and a Sony alpha. Guess what the've put into the Nikon F6: a Fuji Sensia negative film with 400 ASA! To be honest, I hate these biased comparisons. The new generation doesn't have any brains anymore to be **fair**. <br>

To me it's not a question to go digital, because I know that no plastic stuff can beat my fine tuned 6x9 systems. One slide with the Fuji GW 690 III or my Arca Swiss and Rodenstock lenses and everybody knows how f*cking expensive and lousy digital is :-)</p>

------------------------------------------

Worry is like a rocking chair.

It will give you something to do,

but it won't get you anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jens, the comparison here is between, digital files from scanned chrome (with a nikon scanner and not from drum scanner) and digital capture.<br>

These two files has a big difference in size (a 6x9 chrome, scanned at 4000 ppi, gives about 650MB while the digital capture from 16.6Mp camera gives only 95MB, at the same bit depth).<br>

BUT, when you change the image size to both, to take the same image size for a print 24''x36'' at 300dpi, the differences are not as much as you wait to see from original files so differents in size.<br>

Scanned files includes a lot of grain, while digital captures are very clean and you can upsize them to this print size, without serious deterioration.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>My wish is that finally someone would perform a direct comparison under **identical** conditions:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From your text that followed, it seems like you what you want is a comparison very different from **identical**, unless that was what the asterisks were supposed to signify?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Of course you could use a drum scanner, but because this should be a fair comparison I would insist on the Nikon LS 9000. The use of a drum scanner would always make film a winner hands down, even with 35mm.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds like you are saying the film is better <em>until you add the scanner</em> in which case it might be a fair comparison except in the case of drum scanners, which merely reveals the fact the film was better all along. Why go through the comparison exercise when the conclusion is already built in?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@ Bravin:<br>

the asterisks were meant to emphasize or signify my statement</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why go through the comparison exercise when the conclusion is already built in?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as nobody will perform this comparison there won't be any conclusion.</p>

------------------------------------------

Worry is like a rocking chair.

It will give you something to do,

but it won't get you anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>As long as nobody will perform this comparison there won't be any conclusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have stated that if one uses a drum scanner, even with 35mm, the film will be the winner hands down.</p>

<p>In other words, you have already established a conclusion.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have followed this and other "comparison" threads with great interest. I don't think they are a waste of time or effort. I am less concern with which is best (digital vs MF vs LF, etc.).</p>

<p>Instead, my interest is in understanding the potentials and limitations of each tool since I use multiple platforms. What are trade offs regarding the quality of the images (not just sharpness, but also color, tonality, global and micro contrast, feel), as well as easy and challenges of using photographic equipment and processing the products (e.g., the difficulties of scanning and developing/printing).</p>

<p>By knowing these things, I hope that I can be better able to select the right tool for the type of images I struggle to capture.</p>

<p>So, I do appreciate the helpful and insightful information that many have provided, and at the same time respect those who have strong opinions.</p>

<p>Happy holidays to all.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Keep in mind that the premise of this thread relates to outcomes via one output medium - and not, necessarily, to the idea of "best possible results." However, although I have in my possession a dye-transfer print of an image captured on velvia by a 6X9 Fuji...and to my eyes nothing in the realm of digital output has yet come close...I'll admit that this is all very subjective. Happy Holidays!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>You have stated that if one uses a drum scanner, even with 35mm, the film will be the winner hands down.<br>

In other words, you have already established a conclusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Saves all the hassle of doing the experiment and coming to a conclusion which people will disagree about.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John, is the second time that someone asks about what is this thread doing, on the LF forum.<br>

The test is made betwwen 617 camera, that like all 617s uses 5''x7'' format lenses, vs digital capture.<br>

So, apart that this camera uses roll film, we have large format lens, plus that the exposed film area is too close to 4''x5''.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>An article I wrote about a year and a half ago on this subject is available here:</p>

<p><a href="http://home.uid.onemain.com/~jg1001986/extreme/nosee.htm">http://home.uid.onemain.com/~jg1001986/extreme/nosee.htm</a></p>

<p>It discusses some things not mentioned in the replies above, but the aforementioned replies also raise some other issues, so I will revise the article in a week or two to address these new issues (color variations, etc.)</p>

<p>Remember, at the end of the day, what is important is how the photo looks hanging on your wall; there are many paths to getting that wall-worthy print ... but some paths are less rocky than others!</p>

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...