Film vs Digital - Color Rendition

<p>Wish photonet would let us do 1000px wide image uploads.</p>

<p>The 105 kens is great, I also prefer aprox 100mm for portraits than 85mm.</p>

<p>Larger pics would be great... I posted them larger for you here if you want to check them out:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Only-TMAX/15377450_94phW#1229610285_Uzc2H-O-LB<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Only-TMAX/15377450_94phW#1229538150_cBaiL-O-LB<br>

Used Xtol 1:1 pushed. It was overcast so I was able to push it to get the drama you only get with pushed TMAX 400 without fearing to blow the high density areas.</p>

<p>I like how TMAX 400 looks pushed a couple stops. Xtol itself is awesome in my opinion and it is somewhat like a superhero with TMAX.</p>

<p>Look at how the palm leaves on top where the sun was hitting turned almost metalic looking:</p><div></div>

<p>And the bottom that had clouds and shade over it look harmonious:</p><div></div>

<p>It's quite dramatic the metalic effect of the leaves. Like the larger versions they have more impact on the viewer.</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

<p>The only thing I find dramatic about it is how badly it performed in the dynamic range, you have substantial and severe blocking with zero detail in the shadow and the highlights, this is not due to jpeg compression either as that can be set to just block up tonality whilst preserving the highs and lows. Similarly the grain and focus are so detrimental it is difficult to work out which is which in many areas.</p>

<p>I know i am not welcome on these threads, but the more I look at them the more I realise we are talking about two completely different things.</p>

<div></div>

<p>You are welcome if you have honest questions you are looking to answer.</p>

<p>Dynamic range is actually great. I did some clipping intentionally for my printing. The sky was a featureless white cloud in real life. If you want to check the DR prior clipping use a flat file.</p>

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

<p>Looks normal to me. You do expect some shadow loss when pushing, but I thought it was pretty clear that the high contrast version was done that way deliberately in post.</p>

<p>Thanks Andy.</p>

<p>Scott, also current B&W films are so smooth that actually trying to get an intentional hint of grain on a print even with just 35mm requires tons of work and lots of pushing. </p>

 

<p>Scott, here is a crop from a similar vantage point I too with my Mamiya 7II and TMAX 100. You can see the difference. I deliberately chose the 35mm TMAX 400 pushed for the print because that look would be impossible to get from 6x7.<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Mamiya-7II-Pushed-TMAX-400/11732163_tSzxF#1230172751_hC9zr-O-LB</p>

<p>(large file)</p>

<p>Here is some Tmax 400 in HC110. It is the latest Tmax400..</p><div></div>

<p>Wow, Mauro, your MF scans seriously make me want to buy a MF system. Looks like that's a 30MP scan -- you can get up to 60MP using the LS-9000 @4000dpi, no? That scan is just gorgeous. 30MP of gorgeous. With a little bit of unsharp mask, it's tack sharp. Nice DR also. Funny that people report the 5D MII beating MF...</p>

<p>Again, I'm surprised at how good focus you get across the frame (only a small fall-off at edges) without wet-mounting on your LS-9000!</p>

<p>I just can't get around the entry price for MF. Plus you have to add the price of the scanner & the film. It just seems like a rich hobbyist's tool to me at this point... let me know if you know of cheaper entry options. I have to say tho that I like AF & the SLR style where I see the actual image (w/ DOF preview, etc.).</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

<p>Rishi,</p>

<p>Which bit of which scan are you seeing as tack sharp? Seriously, I think we are looking at different things here.</p>

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>Mauro's TMAX 100 shot, linked <a href="http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Mamiya-7II-Pushed-TMAX-400/11732163_tSzxF#1230172751_hC9zr-O-LB">here</a>.</p>

<p>That's a gorgeous scan. And he hasn't even started to resolve the film grain so there's likely a lot more information in there that could be extracted from a 4000dpi scan.</p>

<p>With some unsharp mask, it's even better (given that it's clean to begin with). Have you seen unsharpened data from a dSLR? It's certainly not any better than Mauro's scan above &, most of the time, worse. Though I don't know if Mauro's already applied sharpening or not.</p>

<p>Not that this is at all surprising. A 69mm x 70mm piece of Velvia 50 film should give ~125MP of information for high contrast subjects. </p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

<p>Rishi,</p>

<p><em>"Have you seen unsharpened data from a dSLR?"</em></p>

<p>Yes, countless times, and if it wasn't considerably better than that scan then I wouldn't have moved almost exclusively to digital! There is nothing in that scan that makes me miss film one iota. All looking at it does is remind me why I only wet printed from film.</p>

<p>yes Rishi, a MF scan has more detail that I can print on my Epson 7880 at 24x32.</p>

<p>Cost wise I thought of the scanner like a one time DSLR purchase many years ago that never needs upgrading. Not too bad.</p>

 

<p>Seriously Scott, if you don't like this discussion, just don't read it. You've already said you don't shoot film and aren't interested in it, so I'm not sure why you're reading this at all considering where it's posted - all I ever see of you on this board is when you pop up to disagree with something Mauro said. Mauro's just been very generous with the prizes and I find it terribly inappropriate to troll his thread. Don't you have some raw files you could be writing about on the Canon board or something?</p>

Yes, your normal version Mauro clearly shows the range & latitude of the B&W film. Scott, might I suggest a digital forum for you? It would be welcome if the mods blocked you access to the film forums. Your posts have become repetative, tired & whiny. If you don't like the look of film, don't use it, and save yourself the aggrivation in posting about it. You obviously find it a horrendous inaccurate medium. Lucky for you, digital capture is available.

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>Interesting. I've looked at countless 5D shots w/ L-series lenses at apertures of f/11-f/16 to ensure good DOF but not so small as to introduce diffraction-induced softness. With a setting of 0 in ACR for sharpness (not the default 25), they don't look any sharper than Mauro's scan above at 100%. They still look good & clean, yes, but certainly not sharper than that scan of MF film.</p>

<p>I guess I could post a 100% side-by-side crop here, but it wouldn't be objective enough to convince anyone of anything.</p>

<p>Besides, there's no objective reason that one should be sharper than the other b/c Mauro's scan is at 50% of the scanner's resolution capability, & at a 30MP scan, only at 24% of the film's capable resolution (160 lines per mm, as per Fuji's own rating which Mauro & I determined years ago to be rather conservative). So with the proper downsizing algorithm, there should be virtually no softness in this scan; with image data, not film grain, dominating the information at this resolution.</p>

<p>And since it's clean (read: no film grain), it's just as amenable to sharpening as digital. So based on how you sharpen, one could be made to look just as sharp as, or sharper than, the other.</p>

<p>So arguments about sharpness at this point are <em>subjective</em>.</p>

<p>What's <em>not subjective</em>, however, is the simple fact that 6x7 film will out-resolve today's 35mm digital sensor by a large margin (Mauro shot resolution test charts & I myself looked at one of his pieces of film under a light microscope & 35mm Velvia resolved up to 24MP). I sincerely hope that changes in the future, b/c I find film far too cumbersome & moody (I shoot slides alongside digital). But that doesn't mean I fail to recognize its potential...</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Rishi</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just can't get around the entry price for MF. Plus you have to add the price of the scanner & the film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the scanner that's the killer ain't it, and it's really too bad. The camera and optics is cheap; the film (if you do B&W) is maybe $0.50/frame of 6x7.</p>

<p>I bought my Nikon 9000 just prior to discontinuation. I'm glad that I bought it then, but it doesn't make sense at current prices. <em>That</em> will be the the end of film.</p>

<p>With no good replacement for the Coolscan the quality of photographs newcomers will be able to produce will be crippled. Sad.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's <em>not subjective</em>, however, is the simple fact that 6x7 film will out-resolve today's 35mm digital sensor by a large margin (Mauro shot resolution test charts & I myself looked at one of his pieces of film under a light microscope & 35mm Velvia resolved up to 24MP).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would love to see these claims verified by someone with no axe to grind in either camp. I've seen prints from 8 MP cameras that out-resolve any of the tens of thousands of 35 mm slides I've taken over the years, or the hundreds that I've had scanned and printed professionally. Are my anecdotal tests inferior to yours? And how exactly does one measure MP with a microscope?</p>

<p>I still have boxes of Velvia in 135. I keep looking for a reason not to toss it into the trash. I take a roll out from time to time in order to run some exposure exercises, but beyond that, I haven't much use for the stuff anymore. 6x7, yes, that gives decent results, although I have demonstrated in this very forum that a 21 MP camera provides equal resolution in a more convenient package. 4x5 is still a delight to shoot and view on the lightbox (but killer expensive to scan properly); I plan to shoot boxes of it when the flowers start popping out. But 135 film has little utility in today's world.</p>

<p>Andy, Dave,</p>

<p>Remember the title of the thread? Film vs Digital, so this is a "discussion" only open to film users? Of which I am one anyway! I shoot 135 digital <strong>and 6x9 film.</strong> If you don't like the tone of film <strong>vs</strong> digital threads then you are also free to not involve yourself in them.</p>

<p>Rishi,</p>

<p>As Dave says, your opinion on resolution is very far from indisputable fact, I, and Dave, and many other film and digital users have not found that to be the case. I am being vilified for questioning Mauro's methodology and results and the comments he puts next to them. However on detailed examination on occasions his methodology and comments have been questionable. For instance, what possible positive could you take from that sunlight image from the Ektar 100 image? I would say none, but he cheerfully proclaims the tonality is more accurate! His 40D resolution images are always far from the results others can get with the same camera, or more importantly, more recent, larger sensored, higher resolution digital cameras.</p>

<p>This is not a personal attack on Mauro, it is just a simple questioning of <strong>his</strong> opinions of <strong>his results</strong> from his various film <strong>vs</strong> digital threads.</p>

<p>How is that wrong or inappropriate?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, countless times, and if it wasn't considerably better than that scan then I wouldn't have moved almost exclusively to digital! There is nothing in that scan that makes me miss film one iota. All looking at it does is remind me why I only wet printed from film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds past tense to me. It doesn't address my point that all you ever do on this board is argue with Mauro, or the fact that you're the only one still making this a "film vs. digital" thing while the rest have moved on. You're going beyond simple debate by arguing with Mauro <em>every time he posts anything about film that makes the stuff seem desirable</em>.</p>

<p>The rest of us read the film board because we are interested in discussing shooting film. You read it because you are interested in arguing about film vs. digital. Prove that you can be constructive by doing something other than argue, or go process your raw files and stitch your panos on another board.</p>

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>If I find my need to use film more infrequent nowadays than previously, is that not relevant in a film vs digital thread? If I find inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the results being proclaimed as facts am I not entitled to point that out? I post in the film <strong>vs</strong> digital threads, whatever forum, why do you think only pure film users should be allowed to air their opinions in such threads? If I find the results from one camera match the results from a 6x7 camera am I not entitled to point that out? Why is it that when questioned about methodology and results you guys repeatedly try to get me banned?</p>

<p>I use film, I have used huge quantities of it over the last 34 years that I have been paid to take images, occasionally I still use it. There is no excuse or reason needed to use either film or digital other than "I want to", or "I like it better" and to those posters I never take issue. Anybody that can't remember the buzz from their first B&W print coming onto the paper in the developer tray, or the utter excitement of seeing their first MF chromes on a light table has missed out on a huge chunk of what I feel from photography. What I do take issue with however is people so entrenched in their opinions that say "you can't do this with this medium", or "this is better than that at doing this", invariably they are wrong. Can you get clean grain free images from film use? Absolutely, yes. Can you get film "like" images from digital cameras? Again, absolutely you can. Can you print high quality 12x18+ images from a 135 format digital camera? Of course you can.</p>

<p>You feel I have picked on Mauro? Yet he is the one who repeatedly makes film vs digital threads. The main issue I have with his work is that whilst he is obviously very skilled at scanning MF film, he has proven on many threads to be far from as competent in his digital camera work, and often, when offering "comparisons", they have been in unequal situations that strongly favour the film images. These are points for <strong>discussion</strong>, not vilification or banning!</p>

<p>You say the thread has moved on, I moved with it. A B&W image was posted that was used as an example of superlative film tonality, why was I wrong to point out that it was a blocked up mess? This is a forum!</p>

<p>When Sebastião Salgado switched from MF film to a Canon 1Ds MkIII and then a 5D MkII, during his Genesis project, he was very particular that the digital work replicated "the look" of the MF film images he already had. Even to the most discerning of his highly critical team, they were matched. If scrupulous examination by such successful imaging professionals can't tell the difference between MF film images and images from a high resolution 135 format digital camera, am I wrong to point that out?</p>

<p>If you want to use film, because you want to, great, same for digital, just don't try and hold either up on a pedestal.</p>