Is film really superior?

<p>Scott, if you like the color palette of Kodak Gold and you plan to use a flatbed scanner for small prints, the film won't be the bottle neck. Kodak Gold is/was quite a jewel of consumer photography.</p>

<p>As far as quantity, even on a trip to Yellowstone, I never shot more than 4-5 rolls a day (120). Out of the 10 shots in each roll only a couple become prints for display or sell.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No, film is not superior unless you shoot for enjoyment. If enjoyment is what you want film is much better. </p>

<p>:) Thanks you two. I can't imagine that film would give me enjoyment, except where I might be developing the film in a dark room, and watching the prints appear on the paper. That is interesting, but I guess that bug never bit me. I never looked forward to doing that. (I had my own dark room for some time, back in the early 90's, when I was shooting with my Canon T-90.)<br>

-<br>

Hey Larry, I was just searching for info. about Ektar 100 vs. Portra 160, and I came across this:<br>

-<br>

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_resolution.htm<br>

-<br>

The fact that the test gives results from the Sony A900 that seem a little impossible has me wondering. What do you think of the information presented there, in Marco's article comparing various films and the A900? Does anyone else have any input regarding this "find" of mine?</p>

<p>Mauro, this is CRAZY!<br>

-<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Other/Ektar-TMX-Velvia/40d-film/604207632_UsG4h-O.jpg<br>

-<br>

THANK YOU for posting that. It's very very interesting. It shows me that even the Sony A65/A77 cameras, with their 24 megapixel sensors aren't even close to out-resolving a lens. I've been seeing stuff about sensors out-resolving lenses, and as far as I was concerned, only a fine-grain film might be capable of doing that, and that image makes it look like I was right. Still, I think I will still see what I can do. I think I'll get some Ektar 100 as well as the Portra 160.<br>

-<br>

For anyone reading this thread who is interested, here is a good thread that you might find helpful:<br>

-<br>

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Rfrm</p>

<p>I think that I no longer argue film and digital. There are facts and answers but there are other factors too. and then the is the human cog in it. It takes too much time to prove it that way. I will prefer to from this point on just go out and shoot my cameras and enjoy.</p>

<p>I figured that you are probably at about that point Larry.That's what I would like to do myself, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't making a mistake in chosing the path of the Sigma SD1. Now I don't think I am, after learning about the image quality that current scanners (and probably scanners in the near future) are capable of producing. One day, I believe, scans of 35mm film will be obviously superior in resolution to what the SD1 captures, but that probably won't matter, since very high quality prints can be made from the photos that I will shoot with my SD1, and the SD1 will allow me to shoot more things in more ways, which I've decided is as important as resolution, to me.<br>

-<br>

Still, now I think I will be taking a film camera with me, and when shooting something I feel is a "critical shot" I think I will shoot it with digital AND film.<br>

-<br>

Just for anyone's interest, I noticed that the Sigma SD14 images I shot of the Boca Hotel this morning actually look better at the "High" setting, rather than the interpolated "Super High" setting, so I will be shooting JPEG only at the 2640x1760 resolution, rather than 4608x3072. Given the fact that those JPEG images are much smaller in data size (2.6 MB for this image, vs. 5.92 MB), it only makes sense to use the smaller, "crisper" image setting. I can't wait to print some photos at 20x30 now.<br>

-<br>

The hotel images are in the gallery now: http://ffphotos.zenfolio.com/SigmaSD14</p>

<p>Scott, you are correct. Lenses project a lot more information than a 20MP+ sensor captures.</p>

<p>Looking at the rear projection of my Mamiya medium format lenses, they far exceed 20,000 lines per picture height (This is 500 megapixels - I think you are comfortable on a 20 megapixel sensor). This is no surprise since they resolve Techpan's limit of 16,000 lines per picture height.</p>

<p>More important than resolution, lenses do stand out from each other based on contrast, color, light fall off, aberrations, distortion, etc....</p>

<p>Regarding the test from Marco you posted, to use a resolution chart to evaluate mediums, the density of the chart needs to be picked so it comfortably outresolves all mediums. I would disregard this test.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I started photographing people in the 19 50's using my Mom's Kodak Brownie camera that used, as I remember either 120 or 620 film. That's a long time ago, someone else may be able to provide exact info as to which film used. Here's a page to check out:<br /> <br /> http://www.brownie-camera.com/</p>

<p>It's the camera with the flash attached that I started with.<br /> I still have a darkroom set up but rarely use it anymore. <br /> For my business and most of my personal photography I use digital capture cameras. <br /> I've got a long list of advantages but I won't bore you with the deatils here.<br /> Just finished my last wedding in '11 and it was beautiful. Ran my cameras manually so I didn't have blown out backgrounds while making images of the people outdoors. I like it when I can process the files rather quickly when properly captured in camera. <br /> I have a bunch if film cameras and I plan to use them a little more because I still enjoy using film because that's where I started. <br /> Maybe I'm just weird but I kind of enjoy developing & printing as it gets me away from the telephone!<br /> Either capture method works. <br /> The camera doesn't make the picture, your eyes do.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey William I still have one of those just like yours. It takes 620 film but I just reroll 120 on to a 620 reel and take it out every now and then.</p>

<p>Shoot the messenger.</p>

<p>Enjoy your projected images (with Ektar??).</p>

<p>That camera is a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye. It takes 620 film but actually you only need a 620 take up spool. You can load a regular 120 roll on the supply side. As I do my own developing I always keep the 620 spools but if you send it out you can just request they return the used spool with you film. I actually used mine less then 2 weeks ago with FLASH BULBS. It was at a party and I find that using flashbulbs and an old camera can really get your subject interested in having their picture taken. A lot less forced smiles and a lot more blinded people after the shot. They kind of dare each other to sit for the intense flash. The look down finder also helps in that they are not used to it and don't realize that you are ready to shoot.</p>

<p>A #25 clear will knock out your night vision and day vision for a time. LOL The #25b not so much.... :-) Many 620 cameras will work that way with 120 on the supply side and 620 on the take up side. I have also modified some to take 120 on both sides by removing springs and replacing it with foam...</p>

<p>Brownie Hawkeye Flash. I have one too from 1951. Cool little camera. Very simple yet it takes beautiful pictures.</p>

<p>Another 60 years and they will still be working. My sister has a 100+ year old Brownie and we took pictures with it last summer. They look great and you get huge negatives too.</p>

<p>Brownies can always be loaded with homemade film, or even paper if necessary, and still take photos!</p>

 

<p>I love using many box cameras for fun. I do believe I have a few sets of them here... Maybe it is time to start loading all our stuff here and not external. You never know it may make Pnet a place to go again.</p>

<p>Given my budget, the results I get from frozen outdated $.75 roll of Kodak 400 shot in used 35mm Canon hardware, developed for $3 at PJ's, and scanned on a low end Plustek Opticfilm with an occasionally $3 12x16 print at Sam's... film it is.</p>

<p>Just from my experiences, my Minolta Scan Speed produces a 10mp image at 2820 DPI. When scanning with Vuescan, I use the multi-exposure option, and this helps in reducing the scanner's CCD noise.<br>

When I compare scans from this methods to similar shots with my Canon A720IS, there is no comparison. The film shots from my Minolta scanner out resolve my small P&S. Granted, my P&S is no APS based DSLR. <br />But, when I scan the same film with a flatbed, the small canon A720 easily out resolves the my V500 flatbed scanner.<br>

I also shoot medium format. By the number of how I scan, I should have a 12-15MP image. <br />I decided to do a test of comparing a decent 35mm scan from a dedicated scanner to a medium format slide scanned with a flatbed. The results weren't very surprising. The MF scans still had more detail.<br>

<p> </p>

<p>I love my V700. I have no problems with it even from 35mm. It does what I want a scanner to do ... Yes Curtis the D-MAX on it is just fine.</p>

<p>You don't need to shoot film just buy a Canon D30 and get large format 5x4 kind of quality :)</p>

<p>Stuart, I am guessing, by your port and photos, that you are joking. For those of you who actually think this sort of thing, here is a little enlightenment: a 4x5 large format camera has 13 times the area of a 35mm frame. A large format 8x10 camera captures 4 times that (or 52 times the area of a 35mm frame). This means that if a 35mm film frame is only about equal to a 20 megapixel digital camera (and it's not - from what I can tell, it's actually probably more like a 30 or 40 megapixel x3 Foveon sensor . . . no, not the sensor in the SD1, which is about 15 megapixels x3), then a 4x5 film camera can capture about the equivalent of a 260 megapixel digital camera and an 8x10 camera can capture about the equivalent of a 1 gigapixel digital camera. Of course, you have to take into account the limits of lenses and how they affect format size. (i.e. a medium format digital camera that shoots at 22 megapixels actually captures finer detail than a 24 megapixel Nikon D3x). And of course, you have to take film grain into account also. I believe that large format films are not made with such fine grain as modern Ektar 100 or Portra 160. Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe all the film, whatever format, is made from the same rolls of treated plastics, by cutting it down into the various sizes we photographers use.<br>

-<br>

Take a look at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/qtluong/example.html<br>

-<br>

I believe the closest thing in the digital realm to large format film (as far as ultimate "resolution" or capability of capturing fine detail) is actually a Betterlight scanning back. http://www.betterlight.com<br>

-<br>

Of course, the Hasselblad H4D60 is nice, and a much better performer than a "Canon D30" - I don't think it compares to 4x5 film though, if one uses Schneider Super-Angulon XL series lenses (or some equivalent), the best of the latest film, and the finest scanning techniques (better than an Epson V700 flatbed scanner). Here's a recent review of a Sigma SD1 (which has the best APS-C size sensor), and it is compared against the new 40 megapixel Pentax 645D medium format camera (as well as other digital cameras, but not against film).<br>

-<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma_sd1_review.shtml<br>

-<br>

Here is another interesting article by the same people that shows digital and film backs compared with large format and even a large format scanning back from Betterlight.<br>

-<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml<br>

-<br>

Curtis, I don't think anyone around here thinks the Epson V700 actually gives a real 4,800 dpi. In fact, I don't believe your Coolscan gives a true 4,000 dpi either, right? I believe the V700 gets closer to the equivalent of a true 2,400 dpi scan and the Coolscans get more like 3,000 dpi, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think anyone here will argue that the V700 can scan 35mm film as well as a Coolscan. Let's hope Epson makes a new scanner (maybe a V900) that can actually capture a true 4,800 dpi scan from film. Maybe it will be rated at 9,600 dpi optical resolution.</p>

<p>Don't worry Scott I was joking. I do believe though that many get better results from their 6-10 plus mp DSLRs than they usually got from 35mm film. It's not hard to see why, poor quality grainy scans or poor lab work soon make a DSLR look rather attractive. Most likely compared typical scans 3000x2000 pixels that they had made at the time of developing to similar sample images on DSLR review sites. Myself I have some pretty nasty looking scans that were made at the time of processing thats the reason I got a DSLR in the first place. I still process and print my B&W films but color I am not so interested in.</p>

<p>The only Color film I do these days is E6. 99% of my other photography is B&W. I did shoot one roll of C-41 for a couple then gave them the film and said. "Here it is yours do what you want with it."</p>

<p>Scott, after reading your comments and getting an idea of what you mean by image quality, I think your esthetic leans towards digital imaging. As Mauro demonstrates, fine image quality, as you mean it, can be gotten with film, even color film. If you foresee decades of active photography ahead for you, the odds are against an improvment in the color film workflow, even in the digitization of such film.</p>

 

<p>For those who prefer b&w (as I do), film is the standard and unlike color, the workflow is in our hands. Some image quality esthetics (b&w or color) might be a better match for film, its current state, and what is likely to be its state in the future.<br>

<br>

</p>