Memories of detail

<p>Today with my daughter and I finished a 120 roll of Tech Pan and seized some goofy faces for the memory box. It was a moment of realization that few photographic memories would carry forward from our time with this level of detail since most pictures are now taken with DSLRs.</p>

<p>Tech Pan is obviously completely grainless to my Coolscan 9000, has plenty of detail to outresolve it many times over, and yet, with its mere 4000 dpi, the results of the scans are second to none. In the right light -as opposed to popular belief- Tech Pan has enough DR and pleasing curve to produce harmonic pictorial results.</p>

<p>I only hope Kodak finds the resources to launch TMAX 25 one day. In the meantime I will continue to stockpile TP and Technidol every opportunity I get.</p><div></div>

<p>Oh with the right developer and TP even shot at ISO 80 and a stand in Rodinal 1-200 or 300 and even modified Diafine to an E.I of 100 is great Dynamic range is there and a scanner can pull it out better than an enlarger....</p>

<p> I have about 100 feet left in 35mm and you know I may just have to start selling it by the roll..... as the other 150 feet in the freezer is for retirement.</p>

<p>Stop rubbing it.</p>

<p>If I only had an 8,000 dpi scanner...</p>

<p>Heck you don't need it as the scanner lens can not even come close to what is on that film.....</p>

<p> it is one thing that Digital will never beat even if it has a Leica lens on or in it.</p>

<p>Les, this is from the same roll. A comparison of the contrast curve of TP next to TMAX 400. I took both pictures from almost identical POV.</p><div></div>

<p>I shot the TMAX 400 with my Mamiya 7II +80mm</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>TP with my RZ + 110mm.</p>

<p>For the sake of comparison, here's an eyeball from a casual headshot of a friend. This crop is less than 2 percent of the entire frame.</p>

<p>5D Mark II<br /> 24-105 f/4L IS lens<br /> ISO 200 (the base is 100)<br /> Handheld outdoors</p>

<p>By the way, if you guys can convince Nikon to start making the Coolscan 9000 again, I still have a boatload of slides to scan.</p><div></div>

<p>Ouch - Obviously not comparable. (is that the point?).</p>

<p>On the 5D2, even with 2%, all that artifacting around the hairs and in the eye are visible, and the overall impression is fussy.</p>

<p>On the film, with just 0.04% of the frame the results are without compromise. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Grain? What grain? </p>

<p>Great eye detail. What camera, lens and exposure/F:stop did you use to get it?</p>

<p>Art, I used my RZ67 with the 110mm lens. F11 1/250 sec. Tech Pan 25.</p>

<p>Dan, the Coolscan 9000 shows in stock (I just checked Amazon). So no excuse to delay scanning those slides.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Super-CoolScan-9000-Scanner/dp/B0001DYUDE/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1284945192&sr=8-1</p>

 

<p>Well, I must admit that I have no idea what "fussy" means in visual terms.</p>

<p>The point is that the discussion now has a full frame digital example to compare with the MF film example. Both photos have plenty of detail, and you could make a large, sharp, and very detailed print out of either one. And if the film had been drum scanned, it might have yielded even more detail.</p>

<p>The readers can make an A/B comparison and draw their own conclusions. Judging by what I see on my monitor, I don't think we'll have to worry about the extinction of detail anytime soon, but thanks for thinking about us nevertheless. ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I must admit that I have no idea what "fussy" means in visual terms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry for the harshness, but that's a problem you have to address :-)<br /> Jokes apart, I'm absolutely sure you can get a wonderful print from your digital file. This is the important point.<br /> However, if we're really up to some pointless, picky comparison, I'm sorry to admit, Dan, that the dslr crop is nowhere near the OP's one. That is NOT to say that the 5D2 is inferior or anything: shooting conditions were different and thousands other variables may be involved. But still, as it is, the digital crop has a very unpleasant array of artifacts, plasticky textures and burned highlights which make the quality really not comparable.<br /> So let's state clearly that THIS IS NOT A TEST nor it's closely designed like one; but at the same time, let's try not to stick our heads in the sand.<br /> Friendly yours<br /> Marco</p>

<p>By the way, I think that "extinction of detail" is a secondary problem. The real, more worrying trend is the extinction of judgement.</p>

<p><em>Ouch - Obviously not comparable. (is that the point?).</em></p>

<p>The 5D2 crop looks like it was over sharpened for nit picking at actual pixel size. (It was most likely prepared for print with Dan never imagining it would be involved in an eyeball resolution test.) That said, it shows more skin surface detail and texture than the MF crop. Hairs in the MF crop are more smoothly formed.</p>

<p>One must keep in mind that magnification is not equalized between the two. At equal scale the MF crop would show less grain with even smoother resolution of the hair. But, surprising as it may seem given the format differences, the 5D2 simply has more low contrast skin texture. (I'm not sure how much this has to do with lighting or other factors, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on it.)</p>

<p>I would expect 6x7 to out resolve 35mm digital. Never the less the 5D2 puts in a better performance than it is being credited with here. No ISO 200 35mm film ever came that close to 6x7 Tech Pan! And you would not start to see any significant advantage to a 6x7 print with this subject matter until well past 30".</p>

<p><em>It was a moment of realization that few photographic memories would carry forward from our time with this level of detail since most pictures are now taken with DSLRs.</em></p>

<p>This is a silly statement. Few photographic memories ever had any where near such detail to begin with. There aren't a lot of family scrapbooks in the world filled with prints and negatives from carefully shot, processed, and printed 6x7 Tech Pan.</p>

<p>The whole detail argument is a dead horse any way unless you actually happen to need really large prints. The tonality of the Tech Pan shot is much more interesting to me. Straight B&W conversions of digital are flat and muddy by comparison, and need some work by a trained eye to match classic B&W.</p>

<p>Hey I have some Rollei TP1.1 and some Kodak TP I will try and shoot them and see what we get... As the Rollei is still made and sold in 120 and 35mm I have some 120 that I may try in the Rolleicord tomorrow....</p>

<p>Daniel, in this example you are comparing the 5D2 to just 35mm film (not MF). Remember the 5D2 crop is 2% of the frame and the film is just 0.4% of the frame. To compare it to the MF scan I posted you would have to upsize it from 20MP to 100MP.</p>

<p>That aside, Dan's point I believe was just to present a comparison not a challenge. And his crop was probably sharpened for print.</p>

<p>Daniel, this would be the 5D2 upsized to compare it to the MF scan:</p><div></div>

<p>As I pointed out, what you saw in the first comparison equals comparing the 5D2 crop to the same crop of 35mm film scanned.</p>

<p>The thread should not go that way since it makes no sense to waste time thinking that a 20MP DSLR can compare in detail to 6x7 Tech Pan. Printed or on the screen.</p>

<p>The goal of the thread actually to step back and reflect of what we give up in detail in this generation when using digital. Past generations used film and kept the detail, future generations will have better digital technology. This generation was stuck in the middle.</p>

<p>To see what the generation that is stuck in the middle is really losing, move from a little girl's eye to a photo that contains the sun, and then start talking not about detail but rather tonal transitions. It will make this discussion seem trivial.</p>

<p>Stephen, the picture of the tree and clouds is fantastic.</p>

<p>Not to deny an point about detail or not, but I think I like the picture better when I see the whole thing instead of just 0.4% of it...</p>

<p>Thank you Marshall.</p>

Regarding Mauro's enlargement of my Jpeg file, I would prefer to submit a crop taken from the original raw file. The jpeg

file that Mauro started with has nowhere near the resolution of the original file. It might take me a couple of days to get

back to this, but I am confident that my even closer crop will look a lot better than Mauro's freakish interpretation.