a recent comparison between 35mm film, large format film & digital

<p>Something has just happened which made me re-evaluate the photo mediums that I am using. I need a self portrait for tomorrow. First I grabbed a d700 with an 85mm Zeiss f1.4. and got a good picture. But my printer failed to work, so I got a friend/student to shoot me with the same lens on a Nikon film body. She also used an Ebony 57SU with a Schneider 210 XL. I printed the 35mm last night. It was T Max 100 and I liked the picture. It had what was, 20 years ago, a contemporary quality, but now is an old time look. Contemporary has become old time in 20 years. I simultaneously printed some other negatives shot with the 5x7 Ebony and 210 Schneider. After I finished in the darkroom I turned on the computer and all of a sudden the printer spat out the print it had refused to deliver a few days ago. So now I have a 35mm film picture, a d700 digital picture and a 5x7 contact print, all b&w. The digital print was done on bond paper with a $65. document printer. The digital print easily beat the 35mm film print in quality. The film print was made on Ilford Galerie paper. Moreover I am a lifetime printer of traditional b&w. I have no digital printing skills more advanced than clicking on print.The d700 pictures were very close in quality to what I would get from a Hasselblad. The best part, is that the large format contact prints, compared to both of the others, were really beautiful. They have a richness that is almost a glow. It really is richness, not sharpness, that makes LF so special. Thought you might be interested. The d700 picture is on my bio on this site.</p><div></div>

<p>"The d700 picture is on my bio on this site"<br>

===============<br>

First of all Bruce, excuse me, but you are not very easy on the eyes. Now the picture you show here has the caption "sp with d700". The picture on your Bio is much duller and lacks the 3D dimension(richness) as the picture shown here. I'm not sure which one is which ? I would like to start taking pictures with my 4X5 that look like the picture shown here, but so far I have not been able to. What type of lighting did you use to get this shot ? </p>

<p>It is the same picture. The one on the bio is smaller, maybe that is why it doesn't look as good. I do not have a scanner yet (new to digital) so I can't post the other pictures. This was done with the d700. What you get from 4x5 will be way ahead of this, as long as you use the right film and don't blow it up too much. I suggest tri-X sheet film. I used Bergger for many years, but tri-X shot at 125 or 160 is both faster and of better quality. The light was one 100 watt household bulb only, with a reflector opposite the light.. It is my favorite artificial light. I have used it with cameras up to 16x20. Obviously the shutter speed is very low. Probably 1/8 sec here, often as slow as 2 secs with a view camera.</p>

<p>Kinda looks like George Carlin masquerading as a Smith Brother. Just kidding, Bruce. In June, I traded in my last film camera, an Ebony 4x5 SV45TE, and a couple of lenses, for a D700 and a lens. I travel for my work, and film is just impractical for me these days, especially now that digital has really arrived. Your post is a bit of vindication against any lingering self-doubts I had about getting out of film cameras completely.</p>

<p>D. B. : Yeah but an Ebony is not a Nikon film camera. What you can get from an Ebony (or Lotus, Linhof, Sinar, etc) is on a much higher level than what you can get from a d700. I have 4 Ebonys right now. When I do a shoot I use the d700 to warm up the model and get it going, but I stop to make an 8x10 or 5x7 negative of those shots that I really like. BTW when I had a photo portrait studio a lot of the customers said I reminded them of George Carlin. Sneaky of him to exit this mess called life so early. </p>

Bruce I'm curious, what is it you like about the digital over what a 35mm gives you in a darkroom? Detail? Better tonal range? I shoot a wide variety of subjects and the shoot often dictates the format. Publication means digital as does any hurry-up job. Personal projects usually are done on 35 and 4x5 B&W and if I ever have to do another wedding it will be with an RB67. I have been interested for a while now in doing LF portraits in B&W and producing only high quality prints. Maybe I can find a high end market for that. Digital has been something I've been forced to live with but if Nikon has something out that can give more of those difficult (for me) to define qualities maybe I should look more closely. Photography for me is a process both mental and physical and as youth moves to the next generation I am less interested in how fast I can get it out the door and more in how much I can master this process and make something of more intrinsic value.

 

Rick H.

<p>Rick: The print was better. Sharper, better tonal range, far more detailed. Then my wife fixed the printer, and I made a print of the same file on a cheap, glossy photo paper. It was not nearly as good as the print on Staples multipurpose [copy] paper. It was also more contrasty. Next year I will get into digital printing with a good photo printer, if I have time. I have seen a glimpse of the potential with digital prints, but a glimpse only. I should reiterate that though the d700 picture on xerox type paper was better than the Nikon negative picture on premium photo paper, neither was even close in quality to a LF contact print. Not close at all. It is like comparing a doll to a real woman.</p>

<p>Turn around, do not stop, and go back in the darkroom. Forget that this little event ever happened. It was probably a fluke. You have NO idea what you are about to get into. Gawd, I wish someone had told me that years ago.</p>

<p>First thing you'll need a bigger/better/more expensive computer. Then a bigger/better/more expensive printer. Then a bigger/better/more expensive camera. See a trend here? Then every single different type of paper will give you a different print, but some printers will do better and some worse. You won't know unless you try them. Then there's the inks. And the scanner if you decide to digitize film (wow, talk about expensive). Did I mention the new monitor? And the $400 software to calibrate it? It goes on and on, and trust me, I know, I spent many years inkjet printing B&W scanned film, it won't look as good as a darkroom print on fiber. Nothing will.</p>

<p>Well, no one told me all this. I had to find it out the hard way. So I sold all that stuff, which was not fun at all to use, and I'm learning wet printing. At least I finally got it right.</p>

<p>I have thought about this picture Bruce posted. On and off all day, this occurred to me. I drew two conclusions: <br>

1. Absolutely correct. He is not easy on the eyes. Bruce, you've got one ugly mug!<br>

2. <strong>But,</strong> that ugly mug has got to be one of the best available test patterns I've seen in a while. </p>

<p>I think it's a @#$%^& stroke of genius that he decided to use his ugly mug as a test pattern! Brilliant! </p>

<p>Look at the range of tones in there. Bruce nailed it. Every one of those beard whiskers: if there aren't going to be at least five tones in there, I don't know where you would find them. Highlight, bright mid-tone, mid-tone, and dark midtone on every whisker. Then, shadow, and, possibly, half-shadow cast from individual whiskers. </p>

<p>Eyes. Dark black from the pupils. Highlight variations from the sclera. Midtone converging stripes in the iris. Glass and metal in the eyeglasses; with their respective tonal variation problems. </p>

<p>I think his use of his face for the tests was one of the best test patterns I've seen in a long while. He's no Shirley, but that one photo made his case a lot better than montages of many pictures made under stepped conditions. </p>

<p>Bravo on the test pattern, Bruce. I know I will remember this. I learned more about what you had to say in that one photo than I would have absorbed if you had posted 96 pictures of mannequins. Good work. </p>

<p>Now, if I can only convince you to use a K1000.</p>