Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

<p>"I recently had a somewhat brief online conversation (on a different photo forum) with a couple of landscape photographers who use film and who emphatically declared that most high-end/professional landscape photographers still use film "</p>

<p>If this is your only reason for looking at film cameras, A bit more research may be in order before you invest money. Some people in web fora are very good at saying things like that without any basis in fact at all. Maybe a couple of people they know use film, and there's always an element of wishful thinking in comments like that. I have to say, film users often try to talk up their preferred medium.</p>

<p>Before you look at particular cameras, investigate further. Do professional landscapers really use film cameras? A "somewhat brief" online chat with people you don't know is a rather unsatisfactory reason for investing in a new format.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<p>Horsefeathers! Film has been used for stunning prints of landscapes for a hundred years, and will likely be around and used for landscapes for at least another century. It's an amazingly advanced technology in it's own right. Battery free, huge dynamic range, couple of bucks or less for a 4x5 sheet. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have to say, film users often try to talk up their preferred medium.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not like digital users then!</p>

<p>To the guy pulling the portrait off the, um..., glorified Xerox machine: Let's be clear - that is not a photograph. One can call it a print.</p>

<p>

<p>The film versus digital thing became a non-issue for me after my very first gig with my first digital camera. The gig was a bridal portrait, which I planned to shoot with my standard rig at the time, a Pentax 6x7. I didn’t yet know or trust my shiny new Canon 10D, but thought I would make a few shots with it just for comparison purposes.<br>

The 10D files showed promise, even though only from a six-megapixel camera, so I had 16x20 prints made, one from a 10D jpeg and the other, of the same pose, printed from a professionally scanned NPH negative. I showed the resulting prints to a number of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with. Only one could tell which was which, and I later learned it was because the digital file had more depth of field.<br>

Some of you guys say you can tell the difference between film and digital. Maybe you can, but I can tell you that a bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t. And neither can I, except that digital usually looks better.<br>

I will concede one thing, though. Even though digital is better in almost every way, film was more fun. Or maybe I’m just waxing nostalgic.</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I showed the resulting prints to a number of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with. Only one could tell which was which, and I later learned it was because the digital file had more depth of field. Some of you guys say you can tell the difference between film and digital. Maybe you can, but I can tell you that a bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Dave,</p>

<p>This is indeed a remarkable piece of information -- thanks!</p>

<p>You're welcome, Kevin. But nothing beats personal experience, so try it for yourself.</p>

<p>I did have yet another follow-up question, one that pertains to printing again (since I have so very little experience in this area):<br /><br />As I have had the opportunity to peruse some of my most requested works (requested from family members and friends wanting prints) within Photoshop, I have noticed that the PPI settings on each of the 1Ds Mark III shots is 240. (This PPI setting is arrived at without any cropping or manipulation to these photographs whatsoever (as far as their size is concerned).)<br /><br />Yet I have also read that most professional photographers print at 300 PPI, with some going just a little bit less for some works.<br /><br /><em><strong>My question</strong></em> (and again, please forgive my ignorance -- this is just something I've never really investigated and never really paid attention to as a result of always working with/presenting my photos exclusively online rather than through prints): what exactly determines the PPI settings (at least as they are appearing within Photoshop)? The camera itself...?<br /><br />It was my understanding that -- based upon such calculators as <a href="http://www.mattspinelli.com/ppicalc.html">this </a>one - that based upon the resolution of the 1Ds Mark III, the PPI would be set in relation to how large I was actually making print, i.e. the larger the print, the less the PPI; and conversely, the smaller the print, the greater the PPI...?<br /><br />Or am I incorrect here...?<br /><br />Again, every time I take a shot with the 1Ds Mark III, I drop it into Photoshop and I am informed that the PPI is 240.<br /><br />Thanks again for all input! I have thoroughly enjoyed this ongoing discussion.</p>

<p>The PPI from the camera really has no meaning.</p>

<p>

<p>If you resize the photo to the intended print size, with re-sampling off, you will see what the ppi in the print will be. So as you increase the print size you will see the PPI decrease. Or you can set the ppi to 300, again without re-sampling, and see how large of a print you can make at that resolution.</p>

<p>Also note that if you are shooting raw, and I hope you are, then it is the raw converter that is setting the 240 ppi, and most raw converters allow you to set the ppi to whatever you want.</p>

</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>Screen resolution and print resolution are 2 separate specifications. Screen size (thus web size) is measured in pixels. Printer resolution is measured in dpi (dots per inch). </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Also note that if you are shooting raw, and I hope you are, then it is the raw converter that is setting the 240 ppi, and most raw converters allow you to set the ppi to whatever you want.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I am shooting in RAW mode. Thanks for this further info!</p>

<p>Dave, there is something seriously wrong with the scans you're getting if you can't tell the difference between a 6mp DSLR and a 6x7 neg. I use a Mamiya RB67, and with film scanned on my humble Epson V700, the film destroys my old canon 10D. The flatbed outdoes my old 40D and my Pentax K20D....a 15mp sensor. It wasn't until I started comparing my 7D to the flatbed that the resolution was about the same. The neg easily holds more DR, but in terms of resolving power, the 10D looks like soft mush compared to a MF scan...even on a flatbed. When I get scans from the local Imacon 848, the difference even grows wider.</p>

<p>If your Pentax 67 can't beat a 10D....it's time to review either technique, or find a lab that knows how to scan. I don't mean to be harsh....but claiming people can't tell the difference bewteen a 10D and 6x7 film either means the participants are blind, or the scans are horrible garbage!</p>

<p><em>"If your Pentax 67 can't beat a 10D....it's time to review either technique, or find a lab that knows how to scan. I don't mean to be harsh....but claiming people can't tell the difference bewteen a 10D and 6x7 film either means the participants are blind, or the scans are horrible garbage!"</em></p>

<p>Indeed!</p>

<p>With all respect, stories like Dave Jenkins' do not border on the ridiculous, they are way, way beyond that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, May 18, 2010; 06:26 p.m.If your Pentax 67 can't beat a 10D....it's time to review either technique, or find a lab that knows how to scan. I don't mean to be harsh....but claiming people can't tell the difference bewteen a 10D and 6x7 film either means the participants are blind, or the scans are horrible garbage!</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Or people are looking at the print for things other then what the maximum detail in it is. I have noticed that when most people view a large print then don't tend to view it closely. I made a number of 12x18 inch prints, some from a single exposure from my old F828 and some form stitched images that has many times the resolution. To my eye the prints made from the stitched images were far sharper, but most people simply did not view them close enough to be able to tell any difference.</p>

<p>And the bigger then print the less likely that people will view it close. I have made a number of 20x30 inch prints that have come from 54 MP stitched images, but in most cases people view far enough back that an 6 mp would have been enough.</p>

<p>But also note that Dave talked about the MF having a narrower DOF, which means he was taking a real portrait with the lens opened up enough to limit the DOF, not stopped down to get max resolution off of some flat high contrast test target. I don't know aht f/number he was shooting at but it seems this could limit the detail in the 6x7 image.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

 

<p>Dave Jenkins said:<br>

"The gig was a bridal portrait, which I planned to shoot with my standard rig at the time, a Pentax 6x7. I didn’t yet know or trust my shiny new Canon 10D, but thought I would make a few shots with it just for comparison purposes...The 10D files showed promise, even though only from a six-megapixel camera, so I had 16x20 prints made, one from a 10D jpeg and the other, of the same pose, printed from a professionally scanned NPH negative."<br>

Whatever the subjective result, Dave's comparison doesn't address the OP's question on any number of points. Foremost is that the OP is shooting landscape, he's already got a 12MP digital and knows the limitations to large prints. He's also doing this in AK where the subject brightness ratio get's pretty extreme with glaciers and snow.<br>

As far as ditching film for a wedding photographer, I can almost see why he'd rationalize ditching film at the earliest opportunity but for the dynamic range issue of brides & grooms in June at noon. Black tux and white lace didn't work well with early sensors like the 10D. One can easily imagine a medium speed color negative film saving the day here, compared to an early CCD sensor.<br>

As to the 16x20 from a 6x7 scan not looking any better? Possibly, but the scenario he describes could hardly be conclusive, particularly since it involved an outsourced scan using a discontinued film, Fujicolor NPH (a 400 ISO neg emulsion that hardly anyone would ever use for landscape, let alone huge landscape prints from scans). From what I recall of the Fuji neg films, with a certain pixel-pitch CCD scan (~2000 dpi) the grain tended to alias badly, didn't it?</p>

<p>Pan my post if you like, guys, but I saw what I saw. I've been a full-time working commercial photographer for 32 years (My web site is at www.davidbjenkins.com.). The neg scan was done by NorthLight Imaging of Chattanooga, an excellent pro lab. One of the commercial photographers who saw my prints was an RZ67 shooter who immediately told me he was going to cancel his plans to travel to Europe and instead use the money to buy a digital camera.</p>

<p>Well Dave, I've got scans from a humble Epson V700 the spank the 10D. Therefore, either the viewers are blind, or your lab's scans blow. I'm sorry, but if you're going to try and convince people (I've been shooting professionally for 20 years and I'm not blind) that a 128dpi print can match a 6x7 film scan at from a pro lab.....I'd say you'd better not brag about your eyesight. I've got prints from both that show individual grass blades from the RB....and green mush from the 10D....easily viewable from 2 feet on a 16x20.</p>

<p>Sorry....not buying it for a moment. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"One of the commercial photographers who saw my prints was an RZ67 shooter who immediately told me he was going to cancel his plans to travel to Europe and instead use the money to buy a digital camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But what would he take pictures of with his new digital camera if he had just blown his travel budget?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, May 20, 2010; 02:40 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well Dave, I've got scans from a humble Epson V700 the spank the 10D. Therefore, either the viewers are blind, or your lab's scans blow. I'm sorry, but if you're going to try and convince people (I've been shooting professionally for 20 years and I'm not blind) that a 128dpi print can match a 6x7 film scan at from a pro lab.....I'd say you'd better not brag about your eyesight. I've got prints from both that show individual grass blades from the RB....and green mush from the 10D....easily viewable from 2 feet on a 16x20.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I have to question your being able to see a large difference at 2 feet. A 16x20 inch print from a 10D when viewed at 2 feet will give pixels spaced at 1/3 milliradian which is right at the limit of what someone with 20/20 vision can see. If the image from the 10D is sharp then it has about all the resolution you would need for a 16x20 inch print viewed at 2 feet.</p>

<p>This would be the same apparent resolution as viewing a 300ppi print at 10 inches, which again is right at about the limit of what a person can see.</p>

<p>I have to think you were viewing the 16x20 inch print a lot closer then 2 feet.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>For me no sensor image at least in the relatively affordable digital medium format or the high pixel count full frame Nikons and Canons can be compared to a medium format transparency or B&W negative scanned at 4000 dpi and printed let' s say on an EPSON 7900 or equivalent on a prime baryta paper.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't the "and printed let' s say on an EPSON 7900 or equivalent on a prime baryta paper" bit completely redundant? What's stopping you from also printing a <em>digital camera</em>'s image "on an EPSON 7900 or equivalent on a prime baryta paper"? </p>

<p>Anyway, to the OP. It's easy to polarize these debates by setting the gear under question as complete opposites to each other. In the blue corner, we have a Canikon digital-only battery-eating-monster FF DSLR with compact, large-DOF lenses. In the red corner, an antique mechanical medium format film-only camera with bulky, selective-DOF lenses. Brothers, please, I beseech you - can we find no common ground?</p>

<p>Ah, but...what if the blue corner had a Mamiya/Contax/Hasselblad 645 digital-backed battery-eating monster with nice lenses, and the red corner had...the exact same camera, the exact same lenses, the exact same behaviour...and the only difference is that we've now mounted a film back?</p>

<p>And peace shall reign!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's be clear - that is not a photograph</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Andre, for setting everyone straight. My images captured on film from my vintage film cameras are indeed photographs in the truest meaning of the word. The output from these negatives is called, as it always has been, a print. That's why the title "Pulling a Print..."</p>

<p>Okay, help me understand something about one of the highlighted aspects of the Nikon 9000 Coolscan -- at least as it relates to going to a film-based 6 x 7 cm setup:<br /><br />According to the "Tech Specs" <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Film-Scanners/9237/Super-COOLSCAN-9000-ED.html">section</a> of the Nikon website, the Nikon 9000 Coolscan has an "Optical resolution: Up to 4,000 pixels per inch."<br /><br />Yet according to <a href="http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13554">this</a> webpage, a 6 x 7 cm scanned image consists of 8964 x 11,016 pixels, which according to <a href="http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/1_calculators.htm#Print">this</a> webpage (bottom) would produce a print size of 2.24" x 2.75" if printed at 4000 ppi.<br /><br />So my question is: why is Nikon advertising 4000 ppi when, seemingly, it would never be advantageous to print at such a resolution...?<br /><br />Or do I obviously have a something wrong here in my understanding of the whole situation...?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So my question is: why is Nikon advertising 4000 ppi when, seemingly, it would never be advantageous to print at such a resolution...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You wouldn't.</p>

<p>The resolving limit of unaided human vision is around 300ppi on print - this is with your nose almost right up against the paper. In the limit, printing at above 300ppi isn't particularly worthwhile because you wouldn't be able to see the additional detail anyways.</p>

<p>However, what this does mean is the opportunity to enlarge. A 4000dpi scan of 6x7 can be enlarged about 10x and still give more than 300ppi on the paper; a 10x enlargement is a 20in by 30in print.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, what this does mean is the opportunity to enlarge. A 4000dpi scan of 6x7 can be enlarged about 10x and still give more than 300ppi on the paper; a 10x enlargement is a 20in by 30in print.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the info, Robert.</p>