scanned film vs digital

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by william brown, Feb 15, 2009.

  1. Is there a difference between scanned film and digital? whats the best way to have film scanned by a lab?
     
  2. YEs, there is a difference. try scanning a high ISO film and watch in horror how the grain is over-emphasized! The other factor is the time and skill it takes to scan film - both color and B&W. You cold outsource the scanning part, but if you want results that rival DSLRs you would have to pay quite a bit. Does this sound like I would never scan film? Fact is that I own a Nikon 9000 scanner and scan quite a number of rolls - but it is important for you to understand the issues with that approach. WIth a DSLR you download the pics to your computer and see the results right away. Tweaking the pics must be doen with both - scanned and digital capture.
    DSLR high-ISO performance is amazing - I use a 5D and I never hesitate to go up to ISO1600 or even 3200 - film would show tennis ball sized grain:)
     
  3. the simple answer is yes, scanned film looks WAY better than digital.....to me
     
  4. scanning is a complex craft. it is not impossible but requires patience and investment in good equipment. i use film and digital. i scan a lot of films, however, i do so because i get some enjoyment out of the process of scanning films, sometimes months after, they have been exposed. even with my meagre equipment, digital files tends to be sharper than my very good quality 35mm film equipment.
     
  5. I've scanned a lot of film from decades back, and have had a few digital single lens reflex cameras to date: I wouldn't even consider going back to shooting film and scanning, for anything new. There might be slight edge to fine grain film for detail in certain situations, and exposure latitude is better, and you've got a physical piece of film to fall back on, but it's just not worth the hassle, in my opinion.
     
  6. I've never understood the amount of attention scanning gets in this forum. Two of the reasons I'm drawn to film is (a) film is its own best archival medium and (b) I prefer slides and small optical prints to flickering images on a computer monitor. I suppose if I ever take a great photograph I'll have it scanned professionally and printed large digitally, and occasionally I scan at a kiosk to share pictures over the internet, but otherwise scanning seems more bother than it's worth. To me. Of course, if you enjoy scanning, then that's the best reason to do it.
     
  7. Scanned Leica negs have a presence I can`t get digitally. They show more grain than a Nikon D700 does noise so you have to deal with that. Lessor camera show noise faster. Film grain from the best low ISO films is about one stop more than APS C senors and two stops from full frame noise. 400 ISO film is like 1600 to 3200 iso on the Nikon D700. Digi has come a long way.

    So you need to develope the film, make quick scans at low rez to pick the best frames, then scan the best at higher rez. I think there is more PS work with scanned film than my Nikon D700.
    In the end, the average view will never see any difference.
     
  8. Yes, I think there is a difference. It can show up in the errors, for instance.
    How about plain old exposure problems during scanning? Scanning a film may seem like the best of both worlds, but it would require proficiency with both processes. There will be pros and cons with either method, but scanning would require that both systems would be lined up just right. For example, I can fire up a typical desktop scanner and make a decent scan of a print with little trouble. It won't be pro quality, but it'll be easily recognizable. If I attempt to use the same procedure with transparencies, I'll have a high failure rate. Failure to the point that easily observable details in the transparency will not be visible in the scan. I know that there are other people who do a great job of scanning transparencies every day; but, I think my failures show that it's just like any other applied art. It'll take some know-how in order to get things to work right.
    Many labs offer digital scan CDs along with or in lieu of prints. I have never tried this, but I think the quality might be geared more toward typical consumer use of the images. You're not going to hit the cover of Vogue or something with stuff pumped through a minilab at the big box store. But, those same images might do well with the family snapshots. If you are going to want higher quality scans, you might need to hunt around some among the various vendors to hit on the right flavor of services.
    Not impossible; but, I found when I was having some 16mm movie film digitized, that there was a lot of "bickering" between vendors over who was best; and, little industry standard telling me about what goods and services different processes would render. Ultimately, I was disappointed in commercial digital services and just ended up printing the stuff myself. It takes longer, but I didn't spend $50 at a time going through someone else's failures. The failures were with prints. And, I've never had such a pricetag come along with repeated commercial failures in anything else I've ever bought. Ever.
    I flunked college Latin repeatedly. Still, retail digital printing services failed at a faster and more expensive rate. If your failure pricetag rolls up faster and more expensive than my knuckleheadedness in college Latin class; there's no way I could send someone else, like OP, a glowing recommendation about industry standards and services. So, buyer beware.
    I've only dared to spend on one company to digitize anything for me (one short strip of movie film), and they were a pretty good small outfit out of California. Spectra Film and Video. They did okay. I'm sure there are others, but my budget ran out before I found them. Good luck. J.
     
  9. "For example, I can fire up a typical desktop scanner and make a decent scan of a print with little trouble. It won't be pro quality, but it'll be easily recognizable. If I attempt to use the same procedure with transparencies, I'll have a high failure rate. Failure to the point that easily observable details in the transparency will not be visible in the scan."
    Sounds like either an equipment or a workflow problem. You should be able to get consistently excellent results scanning transparencies.
     
  10. Scanning is an art. You have to learn to balance the time you shoot with the time you put into scanning. Not everything in life is a quick as pumping out a million digital photographs the secret is to shoot the few you thought out with film and then scan them take time life may not be forever but it still allows you time to do things right.
    To answer your Question Don't use a lab use yourself. but if you must use a lab get them to scan in RAW....
     
  11. The highest quality film scan is with a drum scanner..It is done at a professional type lab and is very expensive..You can also have film scanned at different resolution levels depending on your purpose and willingness to pay for it..You can also have your film scanned at CostCo for about $5.00 a roll give or take a bit. The scans you receive are adequate for up to 8x12 pictures. You do need to tweak them in photoshop afterwards. Scanning at home is very time consuming. You can use a flatbed scanner such as an Epson or buy a dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon model..
     
  12. Well it depends. Slides still have more resolution than even the 5dII you just have to have the right scanner. I used the plustek 7200.
    http://claytontullos.com/images/slide.jpg
    however, negatives are not very good at higher resolutions.
    http://claytontullos.com/images/negative.jpg
    Noise is an issue. Incidentally, I'm the guy in the texas tech shirt.
    Both were shot with 100 speed film... probably fuji. I don't recall much more than that.
    I am a digital man now, film was just a huge hassle and expensive.
     
  13. I should note that I have that negative picture printed at 11x14 and it looks great. Though, I did at one time have the slide picture printed at 16x20 looking flawless.
    I edited the slide pic to put the original instead of the fairly processed one as before.
    The negative picture has been processed.
     
  14. image scanned on coolscan with vuescan. no fancy settings. easy.
    00STBj-110001784.JPG
     
  15. The scan will always be even when made very carefullly by someone who knows what they are doing on the finest of scanners a second generation copy picking up artifacts of both the film and the scanning process.
    If you like the look of film, great: keep shooting it, use good labs, edit carefully, and have really high quality (read expensive) scans made of your best frames.
    But if Tom had shot with a reasonably good DSLR in raw mode he would not have lost those highlights in the boy's hair and shirt while keeping the overall luminous nature of the photo.
     
  16. The difference is that film scanning takes more work to achieve similar quality to direct digital capture. Some people think it's worth it, others do not.
    If you do not want to purchase and operate your own scanner I would recommend looking for an individual or small business that offers scanning services, someone who can show good results and that they actually care about the scan quality. They're out there, they're just harder to find. They also cost a bit more.
     
  17. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Is there a difference between scanned film and digital?​
    Yes, they often look different.
    whats the best way to have film scanned by a lab?​
    The best way is to have it drum scanned by a lab with highly skilled operators. This is the best way without a doubt, but it is not necessarily what you want, need, or indeed can afford. However you have provided absolutely no information thats going to help anyone understand what to advise for the best. Like what you're stating from, what do you want to achieve and so on. Without that information any advice you get may not be appropriate to your real question.
     
  18. I have been doing a lot of scanning lately for my Scan-A-Day project. In some ways, it's more similar to the darkroom process than digital is: You're basically making second exposure, as you would be with an enlarger. So I enjoy that.
    Bottom line, though, is that a modern DSLR will out-perform 35mm film all day long, except maybe in dynamic range. The "look" of film that everyone talks about is, in my honest opinion, a conjecture based on nostalgia. Yes, it looks different, but it doesn't necessarily look better. We old-schoolers like it because it's what we grew up with.
    These days, shooting film is about the process. I like buying film, having film, film canisters, manually cranking the film advance, loading film, developing film. I think scanning 120 film and leaving the rebate on makes the image a million times cooler. I love film cameras, and I love that I can leave a K1000 in my car, and if it gets stolen, I'm out $40 instead of a couple grand.
    But . . . none of that means "better." More fun, maybe. But if you're about the results, digital is surpassing film more every day.
    For what it's worth, I'm using a Coolscan V and Vuescan. Epson flatbed for 120.
     
  19. Haven't the other 15,677,355,456 threads on this matter already said enough?
     
  20. My daughter was looking at a C 41 print I had made, and she said to me- this picture looks different. I asked, different better or different worse- she said better. I said it was shot on film. She is too young to even spell nostalgia.
     
  21. Keith, people are constantly trying to learn more, discuss and compare experiences.
    For the past couple years, trends on film (especially on medium format) have changed. This new trend, where some people who shoot digital have discovered or even switch to film, is the result of constant information sharing. Partly from threads like this. Where inquisitive photographers have gone pass the initial years of single minded awe toward new technology, and began looking at mediums with a more objective scientific eye.
    So I'd say no. Not enough has been said for people who question things.
     
  22. I still find that people are amazed at how good 35mm, MF and LF look on print. Nothing to do with nostalgia. I find people choose the film print over the digital file quite often....not knowing it's film. With that in mind, it can't be nostalgia!
     
  23. The real experiment to perform is to take the same image on 35mm film, scan, and then print and compare it to a DSLR shot. The big question is what film to use for comparison. Dye based films will give a very different result than silver based films. I mainly have shot with Tri-X rated at 200 for B&W with Kodachrome for transparencies.
    I've been scanning all of my old B&W negatives and slides using a Nikon Coolscan and getting very good results. I have compared resulting inkjet prints to the original silver gelatin prints and they are close. Some of the digital prints do not have quite the depth relative to the traditionally printed images. From my relatively modest experience with a D300, I think the DSLR prints will be much sharper and result in greater enlargements than will film. I've been astounded at some of the digital images (pretty much the point made by Ellis above).
    Interesting topic and maybe I will do the experiment mentioned above.
     
  24. Re; the B&W traditional prints vs the scanned and then printed neg, the difference I have seen, to me, is what Alan G said, the traditional print has more depth to it, there is just more to see in the shadows and highlights.
     
  25. I would recommend finding a Good Lab (pro if you can afford the extra cost, but iv found some excellent non-pro Labs) Get good quality Prints, get a decent quality flat bed scanner and scan your Prints. I dont see the point of using film cameras just to scan the film itself, just use a DSLR instead. With film the Print is the end product and the printing/processing just as important as the photo taking stage itself. Some people dont even realise that most Labs wont print the full frame, You could take perfectly exposed/framed images, then have your efforts wasted by some crummy high street snappy snaps Lab, I know this is basic stuff, but most beginners are unaware. I prefer using film and film Cameras for many varied reasons, and the printing is half the battle. If your scanning film, why not just use a digital camera? Iv nothing against digital, if I had the spare cash I would get myself a full frame digital SLR. But doubt I would stop using my film cameras and doing my own printing.
     
  26. I have compared resulting inkjet prints to the original silver gelatin prints and they are close.​
    Compare them again in five years time. I have some inkjet prints on Epson premium paper printed with Epson inks which have turned green over time.
     
  27. I always found my scanned films are much less 'punchy' than digital or may be I don't do enough post processing
    Here's some of my scanned images, most of them are scanned by high end Nikon Coolscan series, at quite high resolution.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/somakray/
     
  28. If you like film, use film. If you like digital, use digitial. Stop worrying what others use. Think for yourself and do what you think is best. In some cases this might be both.....
     
  29. I am a die-hard film guy, but I have to admit that if your intended target is a digital file, starting with film gives you a handicap compared to dslr. Ellis is right, all the factors associated with another generation of imaging apply. You can make it up with film that starts at a higher resolution than the digital, or conceal it with very good scanning practice, or both. But it is hard. The film has a real disadvantage. Just like if your final goal was a 24x36mm transparency, it would be hard if not impossible to get something from a dslr anywhere near as good as a film slide.
    OTOH as has been said, if your target is not just a generic digital file but a digital file that shows the characteristics of a particular type of film, that changes everything.
     
  30. my 2 centavos, I prefer the prefer the look of film in black and white,
     
  31. Alan, that is right, the real answer is found completing the full workflow to print on both film and DSLR yourself.
    I do both (digital less and less since my preference has grown strongly toward film).
    It is the only way you can be comfortable with your choice.
    Sadly, not many have access to large format printers, film scanners and darkrooms to gain first hand experience so they have to rely on information shared by others before taking the $ plunge.
     
  32. Case and point:
    I've taken this picture with both TMAX film and a DSLR. By looking at a jpeg posting you'd be hard pressed to see a difference; but having two 16x20s prints in your hand side by side shows an overwhelming difference.
    00STVs-110071584.jpg
     
  33. As a leica user there is another difference an M8 digital costs a fortune for a sensor that is not even 24X36mm, so scanner is the option for digital images to me
     
  34. I'm sorry to say I think the evolution to digital capture is yet another example of bars being lowered without anybody noticing. I shoot dSLR myself and for those images that derive success from factors other than purest detail and tonal richness, they can be moving and evocative with nothing substantial lost to the qualities of film and its attendant 'fusiness'.
    But I just returned from a Walker Evants exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. Although the exhibit was actually of the postcards he collected (fabulous stuff) many of his prints were placed throughout. Black and white. Incredible. His prints were not of detail for details sake but he captured every nuance of texture, time and subject and light in a way that reveals, for all its gee-whiz gadgetry, how in its infancy digital really is.
    I'll be exploring ways to capture New York City architecture with the end game of large prints. I feel that my best option, for this narrow subject matter, will be to use at least medium format film and high quality scans.
    But what I really can't believe that nobody has included this little piece from one of photo.net's favorites, the man you love to hate, Ken Rockwell.
    He's called pompous, arrogant and grotesquely self-serving. And even if he is, he often has some great insights. And for this post, he's spent more than a little time sounding off. It's a great read and one that should keep this post alive, because it deserves it.
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
    Thanks and shoot well, and often,
    Bob
     
  35. I often hear how digital is better than film, how a DSLR is just plain quicker and gives results immediately, etc.

    I can't say that I always agree. I shot more film than digital for many reasons, but among them is the workflow. Each person must decide for him or herself, but I find film is just plain easier for me. First, let me say that I know film, mostly slide film, and I do a fair amount of Nature and Landscape work. The portrait work I do is generally of my kids.

    So, in the field, its just plain easier for me. I know how to get the shot and I know what I want. I don't have to worry about histograms, being distracted by LCD screens, etc. I don't need to take 100 shots of the same subject to get a few keepers. Film lets me focus and keeps my mind on creating the image.

    Now, I don't sell my photos. They are for me. Processing is easy. I do B&W myself. The rest is sent out, which means walking the 70 feet to my mail box. When the slides are back in a week's time, I throw them on the light table and edit away. This is way faster then using a DSLR. The keepers I file. If I want to scan them for a print I will. This does not take me long at all. In general, I can go from a slide to a finished 13X19 print in about 15-20mins.

    As for better or worse. I'd say film definitely has more character to it. It seems more dimensional while digital seems plasticy to me. Digital is much better at high ISO. Up to 1600, I can produce some good results with film, but Digital rules as ISO 5000. On the resolution and enlargement front. Well, I scan on a Coolscan 5000, and only print as large as 13X19. At that size, I get wonderful prints. I've compared some Velvia scans to my D300 and a D3. A well made Velvia emulsion, or one on EFKE 25, will out resolve both cameras. Not by a large margin, but you can see it. If I had a better scan I might be able to eek out more, but for now, I'd say I'm getting 14-16MP of resolution out of a 35MM slide. I'd love for Nikon or someone else to introduce a new line of scanners.

    So, I stick with film. I can't see going to a D3 when: I don't need the high ISO; I love the look and color of slides; film is archival (more so than digital),;Film is easier for me; I like the pride of getting it right in the camera.

    Lastly, I write with a Fountain Pen, and its way smoother and easier on my hand than any ballpoint. The ink is vibrant, and it has a certain character. The variation in line gives the writing a more personal style. Still, its a tool that takes time to learn and use, and its not as quick and easy as a ballpoint, but that does not mean it can't be good.

    Anthony
     
  36. My 35 scans are equal to my digital stuff, 6x7 are superior. The look can be different, just as different films have different looks. Not worse, but different.
    As others have said, you need a decent scanner and a little knowledge. Don't over due the corrections: as with film or digital, get it right in the camera first and your life is simple.
    Once you get your scanner dialed in, it's a consistent piece of cake. Load up the scanner, hit the button, and go shoot while it does all the work, including corrections. I like having the best of all worlds :)
     
  37. As I posted in many of my articles, 35mm film vs a top DSLR may become a matter of personal taste soon; but medium format film is a massive quantum leap.
    I could not imagine people with a good system like a Mamiya RZ67 and decent med format scanner like a Coolscan 9000 or up shooting a landscape with a DSLR as a choice. Unless they never looked at the prints side by side.
     
  38. Well, I shoot both.

    Digital is better for indoor sports - I've never seen a film that's as good as my D700 is at ISO 6400. And I shoot digital when the shots are for someone else or in high volume, such as volunteer work for our local Boys & Girls club.

    Film I shoot for myself. I like the look, and I really enjoy B&W darkroom work. I also use C-41 color film when I need to shoot high contrast scenes.

    It's great to have choices.
     
  39. People always seem to compare digital with 35. (A SUBminiature format!) 828 is bigger than 35. About the blown highlights in the picture. When I had prints made from a 6x7 neg. The local lab with their digital technology, blew half the picture to pure white. My Argyrotype, printed the photo excellent.
     
  40. I have a minolta Dimage Scan Elite which delivers up to 40MP scans from 35mm.*
    As we know, for most practical purposes that is excessive, especially at 250MB per 16 bit file.
    Is it better?
    Yes. For some reasons. 3 Primary colour pass scan rather than bayer pattern guesswork.
    Multipass (up to 16x) scan to correct anomolies between each scan.
    ICE for excellent reduction of noise and artefacts.
    DMAX of at the high end of 4. something.
    No for other reasons:
    Need to use film. Don't shout. I love film. But having instantly switchable ISO and WB is a great luxury.
    Need to get film processed first. Depending on your emulsion this could be a two week wait. Depending on your metering it may have been a waste of time.
    Not much use for the sports desk.
    Need to keep an eye on the shots. Every 36 you need to change a roll. And rolls aren;t as cheap as digital if you shoot loads.
    I am a film fan. If they still made Agfa Scala and Kodak 320T then I may even still be exclusively film.
    I'm not mainly because they don't. Digital is great for so much. It can't mimick velvia. So for those applications I will use velvia.
    It can't come close to mimicking Ilford XP2 with an orange filter. So for those applications I will use Ilford Xp2 and an orange filter.
    For everything else, digital has just about got it nailed.
    *My scanner only runs on Xp latest and it seems to run okay on OS X tiger. When I upgrade my OS it may be dead to me. Vuescan works. Just not as nicely as the Minolta software.
     
  41. Dear Forum Members:
    Photography is like what sort of coffee you prefer...the decision is very personal and its always fun to try new ways of fixin' your java.
    There is nothing like the immediacy of digital...if you want speed..go digi. If you like process...go with film.
    I am enjoying having a choice of how I want to shoot....and mixing and matching. Even when I shoot manually with film, many times I use my digital to check the exposure and layout...kind of like we used polaroid film for!
    Cheers.
    Steve W.
     
  42. I hate to rain on your parade but your scanner is only capable of 30mp and that is if you scan it at 5400x5400 which is unlikely. But your point still remains that your scanner is better than most pro slr's today.
    My scanner can do 7200 x7200 '(51mp), but only has digital ice and slides are only able to look good at that resolution.
    Here is a 41mp image done with my scanner, yes the tiff is quite large hence the conversion to jpg.
    http://claytontullos.com/images/slide.jpg
     
  43. "Is there a difference between scanned film and digital?"
    As previously mentioned, scanned film is a copy of the original and subject to artifacts, degradation, etc. Whereas, a digital camera creates a digital file directly from the scene, as if you were scanning the scene rather than the film.
    "Whats the best way to have film scanned by a lab?"
    Probably a drum scan is the best quality you can get, but for most people that is inconvenient and cost prohibitive to consider using on any substantial quantity of images. If you're interested in working mainly with digital files and images, then using a DSLR to capture the images would be the most direct, convenient, and cost effective route. If you want the occasional digital file from your film, then consider the already mentioned options for scanning. If you buy a scanner, I recommend nothing less than a Nikon Coolscan 5000, or better if you can afford it. Hope this helps and good luck in your investigations. -Clayton
     
  44. Scanner resolution is not film resolution, and today's DSLRs are a match for 35mm format.
    http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
    While the Plustek 7200 is a good deal for the money, its true, tested resolution is somewhere around 3000 ppi, not the claimed 7200.
    http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7300.html
    If you want to shoot film, shoot it. If you want to shoot digital, shoot it. But don't sit around trying to convince everyone you're superior for your equipment choices. It's as stupid as claiming you're a great driver because you drive a Chevy/Ford, while the other guys drives a Ford/Chevy. The majority of the industry has moved to digital which means it can hold its own, and this has been true for a while. Don't think for a minute that this is false, that you have higher standards than the thousands of working pros who have switched, or that you know something they do not.
     
  45. I prefer the look of scanned film, particular Kodachromes. That doesnt mean its always the most practical or always the best option. Beyond that, who cares?
     
  46. Wrong, Daniel. I'm a great driver because I drive a Saab. ;~)
     
  47. Well, Saab...I mean yeah...but the analogy holds for everything else ;-)
     
  48. " The "look" of film that everyone talks about is, in my honest opinion, a conjecture based on nostalgia."
    Glad you confined that to opinion. Really, this has all been discussed so many times before that raising it yet again is almost tantamount to trolling. Maybe the moderator should restrict this discussion to once a year, a digital vs. film thread. Maybe we can make it a national holiday!. In fact, I think the question should have been brought up in the presidential debates, right after the mac v. pc. debate. You know, 1 night for foreign policy, 1 night for the economy and 1 night each for dig/film and pc/mac. Than people would have the "answers" they've all really wanted.
     
  49. Daniel
    Scanner resolution is not film resolution, and today's DSLRs are a match for 35mm format.
    your arguments are sound, but it is tragic that you cite one of the flawed tests which has made me grit my teeth since it was published (I did not include its link as it is bad enough that Google counts that as a vote for it in your link above).
     
  50. If you are shooting 35mm, then digital may be worthy of consideration if you can afford it. In particular, anything along the lines of a Nikon D3, D700, D300, or Canon 5D (or MKII), 50D, 40D, will provide satisfying results when compared to 35mm. I'm not going to say better because I don't shoot 35mm, but definitely comparable. Granted, negative film has a much better exposure latitude, digital is much more convenient in most respects. If you are wanting absolute finest quality for larger prints (16x20 and above), then medium format and large format film are absolutely unrivaled. I find that when I shoot film, I am much more careful when it comes to taking the time to set up the shot, whereas with digital, sometimes it's fire-and-forget when you get 700 shots on a card. That's a hard habit to break. It all depends on what you want to do with it. That's the ultimate question.
     
  51. Scanner resolution is not film resolution, absolutely. But DSLR sensor resolution is not image resolution either. It's easy to forget since image projection and A/D conversion happen simultaneously while scanned film separates the steps, but it's worth remembering.
    In other words, just because your sensor is 15mp doesn't mean you're getting 15mp worth of image data with every picture. When a kit lens or cheap zoom is a little soft; or small apertures are giving you diffraction blur; or subject or camera movement is slightly blurring the image; or you shoot at high ISO so fine detail gets lost in the noise or noise removal - that is exactly losing resolution, and your resulting image does not warrant the full resolution it's recorded in. When you scan film you tend to choose the size that best fits the frame you're scanning, so there it's completely obvious.
    As a corollary to this, most high-end high-resolution DSLR are probably hardly ever actually making full use of the resolution they have. They're shot handheld at medium to low speeds, using lenses and apertures that don't deliver the full resolution, at high ISO where fine detail is lost. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - the proof is in the image, not resolution charts - but it does make the endless discussions of film and digital resolution seem more than a little pointless. Either film or digital already deliver more detail than most of us even try to make use of already.
     
  52. On an off note my Kiev 6s is a 60MP camera with my Epson V700 and vuescan. :)
     
  53. But if Tom had shot with a reasonably good DSLR in raw mode he would not have lost those highlights in the boy's hair and shirt while keeping the overall luminous nature of the photo​
    Sure, I was shooting tranny film and it doesn't have the latitude of some digital cameras or print film, but I have found no digital camera that can make images pop with an almost three dimensional nature like I can with scanned tranny film.
     
  54. Tom I agree nothing like some E100 in a MF camera... or even in a 35mm but when it comes to B&W to me Film is the only way I just hung a roll of Efke 50 to dry and looking at the negatives in 120 they are deady to explode into my scanner.
     
  55. ...but I have found no digital camera that can make images pop with an almost three dimensional nature like I can with scanned tranny film.
    Such images can be found all day long in the top rated photos on this site.
     
  56. "John Henry is an American folk hero , famous for having raced against a steam powered hammer and won, only to die in victory. He has been the subject of numerous songs, stories, plays, and novels." Wikipedia
    Yeah, I love film. I love my Hassy V-series 6x6 cameras and even the H1 6x4.5, but, when I absolutely, positively have to get the shot, I pull out my trusty Canon 1Ds II. Maybe if I had a few more tens of thousands of dollars I would buy the latest Phase One digital back for the Hassy and get, say, 60 MP.
    In the meantime I'll keep shooting the Canon, not because it is the very best, but because it sure is a lot better than my 5MP Olympus E-20 that I bought seven years ago, and it sure is easier than scanning film.
    I can also hear that digital steam-powered hammer in the distance. Wait a minute. . . . I thought it was catching me from behind. Well, I'll be darned. It was on another track and went by me some time ago.
    Film is great. Fillm is doomed, and not even Ken Rockwell himself can bring it back to life.
    Sorry, guys. Read Daniel Lee Taylor's threads above and follow his links. Keep hammering away with that trusty old film hammer, but don't think for a minute that you are fooling anybody but yourself. The digital steam hammer is a gonna getcha, if it ain't already. . . .
    Now, if you are into wet lab stuff, please disregard all of the above, but you if you are digitizing film images and think that you are winning the great megapixel race, you are playing a fool's game.
    Sorry.
    --Lannie
     
  57. I will die a fool I guess.
     
  58. Same here Larry. I guess I better stop digitizing my silly old 4x5 sheet film and jump on the digital bandwagon cause film is dead. Hmmm.....people looking at my prints don't seem to agree with him. I wonder why that could be ;-)
     
  59. Clayton,
    What film was that in your scan?
     
  60. Can't we all just get along? :)
     
  61. Megapixel race? That is a silly comment. The two most objective characteristics that can be compared are dynamic range and resolution. Both, in just 35mm film, can surpass any DSLR available. 6x7 or 4x5 film is a different galaxy.
    I agree with people who don't want to compare and that make a personal choice for DSLR. Especially if they shoot action, or feel they need dozens of test shot before nailing a scene. Who don't have the interest, time or equipment for the film workflow. That is fine.
    You seem to forget the obvious though. People who write about film shoot with DSLRs all the time. Most people who write about DSLRs don't shoot film. Hence people who write about film are more likely to talk about true real first hand experiences and results. I would not disregard...
     
  62. " The "look" of film that everyone talks about is, in my honest opinion, a conjecture based on nostalgia."
    yeah, cause i grep up shooting with film so i want to go back to it for nostalgia's sake.... oh wait, the initial stages of anything i shot were digital since i was 8y/o... go figure.
     
  63. Digital scanning of film is, in itself, a great advance. I have a backlog of negatives that I will never have time to print in the slow processes of the darkroom. I can scan and/or computer-print those negatives quickly and get them out there to be seen. If someone wants to print them on silvered paper after I am disabled or dead, the negatives will still be there. But no one will be interested in doing that if the images exist only as negatives . Also, the internet has made it possible for any photographer to share images with as many people as high-level magazine photographers used to reach. You can't publish on that scale without digital technology, whether you begin with film or no.
    I still shoot on film because it and film cameras are now so advanced that I haven't reached the end of their possibilities. I shoot digital in the unusual circumstances where nothing beats it.
     
  64. Film is getting better even as this thread goes on.
    Kodak just announced Ektar 100 in 120:
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328
     
  65. I actually applaud (and revere) you guys who have the time, the will, and the know-how to scan film. I just can't seem to get it done and get everything else done that I absolutely must do to stay alive.
    --Lannie
     
  66. Thanks Mauro, I've got a thread on the 120 going in both the Medium Format and Film forums.
     
  67. Just saw it Dave.
     
  68. I use a Nikon Scanner to attemp to scan 35mm black and white, but I need better scanning software... the scanner is a coolscan 4... (LS-40, but I'm picking up a 5000 real soon)... The scans I get with BW are alright, but its like trying to print with a condenser head ramped up on steroids or something.. way too much grain and microscratches, etc. Takes a whole day to retouch one image. I have heard of software that makes this possible or much easier... but I need more information. Any suggestionns? Thanks!
     
  69. Get a Coolscan 9000. My B&W scans are grain free at 100% view.
    The light source has been diffused for this purpose.
    (TMAX 100 in Xtol).
    http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#278813765_H9aF6-O-LB
     
  70. So then. There is an undertow of film vs digital here and also issues to do with people's use of either and I respect those discussions but I have a dilemma that you may be able to help with. I shoot 35mm Velvia - Summicron - Minolta 5400 - Aperture on a Mac; plus a good deal of experience at everything about taking pictures except digital and scanning. I'm fine with the quality of what my Olympus 510 and kit lens gives me and print wise I'll send off to a lab when I have a transparency good enough for a big print.
    I'm appalled however by the lack of sharpness in my scanned slides. Colour, tonal range etc is great and the overall look is lovely but everything is soft. The best sharpest photograph I can take (lens wide open, high shutter speed, good exposure and correct subject yields a good sharp scan, but anything less is soft! If this is what I have to expect - a much softer image than my dslr produces routinely - so be it. I can live with it, but is there something else worth trying? I hear the word vuescan - software? Colour negative film instead of transparencies? Are there adjustments on the scanner (which I am really inexperienced with) that could be softening the edges?
     
  71. Dave L -
    Fuji Sensia 100.
     
  72. Thanks Clayton. That a pretty decent scan! I played with it a bit to see how it would stand up at 16x20 and it wasn't bad at all. It took USM really well and the grain was pretty fine.
     
  73. If you want to shoot film, fine. Same with digital. But, who said that if you have to get the shot, then use digital? Maybe those people need to learn the craft more. If film is dead, then, with Kodak bringing out Ektar in 120, it doesn't look as if the manufacturer's are listening. I guess the only ones who are, are the digital doomsayers.
    Kodak isn't brining out 120 Ektar because they had materials gathering dust. But, because they received alot of requests for it.
     
  74. I prefer scanned 120 over my 1dsmkll. A lot more work but, and this is only an opinion, I prefer the results printed mostly up to 16x20. I agree with the John Henry analogy but it is not digital chasing film it is digital chasing professional photography! I think if we can revive film we have an outside chance of keeping photography as a potential full time profession. Many of us have already become more graphic artist than photographer. I don't think digital will kill film but I do think it may well kill the profession. Again, just my opinion and probably not a particularly popular one.
     
  75. "m appalled however by the lack of sharpness in my scanned slides. Colour, tonal range etc is great and the overall look is lovely but everything is soft. The best sharpest photograph I can take (lens wide open, high shutter speed, good exposure and correct subject yields a good sharp scan, but anything less is soft! If this is what I have to expect - a much softer image than my dslr produces routinely - so be it. I can live with it, but is there something else worth trying?"
    This is normal for slide film. I highly recommend Photokit sharpener's capture sharpener (or sharpen in Lightroom) to start and then to do output sharpening for printing (with Photokit or Lightroom) to show the detail you have in your slides.
     
  76. Actually, I amazingly find myself in agreement with most of D. Taylor had to say. However the pro move to digital is less just about IQ than it is about convenience for publishers and editors. Sure, the quality has to be and is there, but it's not the whole story by any means.
     
  77. http://claytontullos.com/images/slide.tif for anyone who is interested. I would right click and save as.
    I shoot digital purely for the convience and do not use my slide scanner anymore.
     
  78. William:
    I asked a question much like this several years ago on photonet. Of the answers I got, the one I remember if that that I should stick to digital unless I was going to shoot 4X5 -- that only then would the difference be obvious. I took this advice, and was pleased with my digital images, which had remarkable clarity and sharpness--which is what is most often meant when people talk about image quality.
    Then, about a year ago, I bought a Nikon scanner (mine is the V ED) to scan some old 35 mm transparencies and negatives. These did not have the "quality" of my 5 D images as I have defined it above. They did have a richness and presence--a difference, if you will-- that in my experience is unique to film. More recently, I acquired a used Nikon 8000 and began scanning my old medium format images, and was very impressed by the results. The black and whites especially had a richness, evenness of tone, and level of detail that were missing from my digital images.
    I now have a 35 mm rangefinder and a medium format SLR--both bought used and both with lenses at the top of their class. I use the rangefinder as my carry-around camera and the MF SLF on a tripod. I enjoy exercising discipline of shot choice. I work slowly and carefully and almost never blow an exposure--in part because the film is so forgiving.
    I scan because I don't have space for a darkroom. I have no doubt that wet processing might make more satisfying images, but I am grateful to be able to scan and print digitally. I am lucky to live in San Francisco, where quality B&W and C41 processing is readily available.
    For color, I have been shooting Kodak NC negative film. This has much more latitude than the 5D sensor and has a lovely color palette right out of the camera that I am either too stupid or too lazy to be able to duplicate in Photoshop I pay $3.50 to get a roll of C41 35mm developed and $5 for 120 (no prints). I enjoy the process of scanning, and read or prowl the internet while the big 2 1/4 images are scanning
    For medium format B&W I have been shooting Tri-X, rediscovering an old friend. Is there grain? I guess, but it doesn't offend me the way digital noise does, and in these film sizes, who cares. (My printer goes to 13 inches wide, so I am not making posters.) And yes, I have done a lot digital black and white from color files, used a half dozen conversion methods and made some picture I like a lot--but they simply do not look the same as images from medium format B&W film.
    This workflow would make no sense for someone who was trying to make a living shooting pictures. As part of my job, I buy photos for a magazine, and I would never recommend that any of our contract photographers shoot film. For most purposes, digital is going to own the world. But if you shoot not for reproduction but for printing and you like the look of film, by all means give it a try.
    Hope this helps,
    Bill Poole
     
  79. First, I agree with everybody there was enough said about this issue in past. Once it get to digital versus film discussion is just endless! I shoot 120 film for passion and digital for work and both has advantages I appreciate. Regarding scanning, grain, high speed film you are all just correct in your statements. My experience scanning 6x6 at Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED is it is time consuming but you can get excellent results with low-speed color slides. B&W negatives scanning is more difficult in my experience but my Iford Deltas 100 and 400 are performing fine, 90 x 90 cm prints from Delta 100 show very little grain but not pixels at all. I agree with recommendations somebody did - scan fast at low res, choose the shot and scan at highest resolution. Scanning 35mm film bellow say 3000 dpi does not make sense, you'll be dissapointed. I'm scanning 6 x6 at 4,000 dpi and I'm happy with results, I don't think this could be beated for now by digital DSRL yet. Despite of it I will buy digital back to my Hasselblad in future anyway, it is just so slow to scan 6x6 at such a high resolution, it coudl take you 20 minutes and more according features you activated and resulting file is 200MB for color slide and 80MB B&W so consider TB storage space for your files! If you'll be using Nikon try multipass feature and fine scan feature, it is slow but it is worth of it.
     
  80. What an endless discussion.... great!, here is my part :)
    question: Is there a difference between scanned film and digital? whats the best way to have film scanned by a lab?
    1 scanned film is a digital image (call it high res photo wehn performed best) from a neg or a slide
    2 a digital photo is directly taken with the sensor by a camera.
    best way to have it scanned is where they scan with a drumscanner. (expensive yes)
    its as easy as that.....
    what you like or not just depends on your personal interest.
     
  81. Steve Hoffmann's Nature and Landscape Photography - that Daniel references, is almost as bad as the incompetent Ludicrous Lambaste digital/film testing.

    I've noticed in these silly threads that whenever a test threatens someone's sacred cow, they typically sacrifice the test and the tester rather than the cow. It's human nature, seen over and over again across all walks of life. But that doesn't make it any less annoying. The icing on the cake is when the "heathens" clearly have more expeirence and more published work than the people who attack them for stating the obvious.

    Don't like Steve Hoffmann? Try Norman Koren: "How many pixels does a digital sensor need to outperform 35mm film?" The answer is less speculative than it used to be: The 11+ megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds, EOS-1Ds Mark II, and EOS 5D clearly outperform 35mm. I can make finer prints with the 8.3 megapixel EOS 20D (razor sharp at 13x19 inches) than I ever could with 35mm— and I was fanatic about lenses and darkroom work. - http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

    Before you attack him maybe you better stop to read his resume: he is the author of Imatest, the industry standard software for testing photographic system resolution. http://www.imatest.com/home

    Need more? Roger Clark has written more on this issue than perhaps anyone, and has very detailed articles at his site - http://www.clarkvision.com/

    You may not like some of his conclusions, especially when he starts talking about Apparent Image Quality (resolution + noise) and how digital cameras compare in AIQ in real world prints. But before attacking him you better consider that he has a Ph.D. and has published over 200 scientific papers. While you're at it you might want to pause to reflect on the fact that NASA turns to him for expert advice on photographing planets in our solar system via remote probes like Cassini. If anyone has a photography resume that can top that, please post it.

    As for Michael Reichmann, he is an accomplished photographer with a fine art gallery, publications in fine art magazines, and a very successful and popular educational web site. He is so well regarded in the industry that when he plans a trip it sells out months in advance. Now I might not always agree with him, or anyone for that matter. But before making childish word plays on his business name maybe you should stop to consider the work and contributions of this man to the world of photography.

    You know, I'm not sure which device can distinguish more black bars on a USAF test chart or record a wider dynamic range on a Stouffer transmission step wedge. But I sure do like Clark's Foggy Serengeti Sunrise , as well as Reichmann's Clouds and Ice, Antarctica. I think I'll go look at more of their work.
     
  82. The funny thing with all these film digital threads is that many seem to miss the fact that ones own photographic skills and ones own vision will have far more effect upon the out come of a photograph then what medium used.
     
  83. I just like the look of film here is a shot Outdated Plus-X in a Kiev 6s
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3179430225_dd701f1ed7_o.jpg
     
  84. I don't know and to be honest I don't really care. I don't think anyone really believes that 35mm film only has 3mp of info. Could have been that the image he shot contained very little details and 3mp was enough to capture that scene so the film showed no advantage. Personaly myself I don't print above 8x10 very often and with that size print it is very difficult to see differences between a 2.75 mp D1h a 6mp D70 or 35 mm film. ISO 400 Medium format B&W prints tend to show better tonality even in 8x10 than ISO 400 35mm B&W prints but its not night and day differences. Overal though I feel that many worry way to much about mega pixels and resolution.
     
  85. I think I figured the answer out to this question. Shoot what you want process it how you want to get what you want. But remember you have to know what you want.
    Ohh wow the answer was in my head all my life..... Thanks folks I will never have to chime in again on one of these we can just say ... do what you want.
     
  86. Daniel, it has nothing to do with a sacred cow....it has everything to do with incompetent testing. I think we've all seen the Clarkvision, Koren, Luminous Landscape, Sphoto nonsense posted a million times by web-tards who can't think for themselves. I have a Canon D30. I used to own an Imacon 343. Funny, when I scanned Provia 100 and compared it to the D30 at 8x10, not a single person viewing the prints has EVER said the D30 was more detailed. It's probably incompetence of the LL scanning. As to the other sites quoted, a laughed at the "razor sharp" 20D at 13x19. I don't think manu people would find the print meets fine art works criteria of "razor sharp" with a 180dpi print. Maybe razor shapr edges with no real fine detail or texture. Or maybe the silly comparison of Kodak 200 DR vs digital. How many other tests have we seen that show a different result? If a different result can be obtained....well, then maybe these sites aren't perfect afterall.
    The main problem Daniel is that over the years, these sites have even contradicted themselves. Remember the LL review of the original 1Ds vs 6x7 Provia. Funny, my 1Ds never beat my RB67. Guess what.....a few years later Reichman himself in a new test showed that the new 1Ds Mk2 was about the same as 645. Funny how after a few years, a higher rez DSLR was now about the same a lower rez film than 6x7. Maybe he cleaned his eyeglasses.
    The question has nothing to do with the resume of the owners of the sites you quote. The question is why, so many other photographers when viewing prints can't seem to replicate what these people come up with. I'll let you in on a little secret. In case you think there's a problem with my eyes....I've seen some of the test prints that Reichman claimed proved his point.....and while he makes out like everyone was viewing them and agreeing with him.....when I saw the prints posted in Toronto, it was plain which one was better....and it hasn't been the DSLRs. Comments in the shop seemed to indicate that the decisions of viewers were anything but united against film.
    When posts show that the sites you mentions are wrong.....that about sums it up. When people post samples that show film doing far better than those sites claim possible, it proves that regardless of how much hero worship you give the authors of those sites.....they are simply human, and in this case, are simply wrong.
    Oh, and by the way....you ever notice how it's the same 3-4 sites constantly quoted by the anti-film brigade? Funny, film users point out hundreds of sites and samples available proving their point, and all digital users can come up with is the same 3-4 sites over the last 5 years.....sites that even contradict themselves. Maybe it's the anti-film brigade who are having problems with cows.
     
  87. As inconsistent as it may seem for me to chime in here, after making the joke about how we have all become John Henrys, let me say that I have not given up the ghost on film, and there is one reason--I like film, and the resolution that I get from film is enough to print at the sizes I like to print. Everyone who likes film knows, however, that it is not simply about resolution. There are those intangibles that are hard to quantify, but I think that all of us know what we mean when we say that "There is something about film," because there is, and it is very pleasing. I am sorry that I was too flippant in my remarks and came off sounding like a troll. I also know that Daniel also appreciates film, too, and so I regret seeing this thread become unnecessarily polarized, as tends to happen on this issue. (For the record, Daniel originally said that "Scanner resolution is not film resolution, and today's DSLRs are a match for 35mm format." Well, what interests me at this point is medium format.)
    That said, I do more and more digital work--it is about the time factor for me, and thus the John Henry story, since John Henry was in a race. If time were the only consideration, I would have switched completely to digital. As it is, since I bought the IDsII a bit over a year ago when the 1DsIII came out (and thus after the IDsII price collapsed), I have bought only film bodies, except for one Nikon D80 body to go with an old manual focus Nikon 600 f/4. (I had been using it with a Canon 5D but got tired of that and so decided to go with a crop sensor camera to maximize the telephoto effect.) Everything else I have bought since has been either Bronica or Hasselblad. When I shoot full-frame digital, I shoot Canon. The Nikon manual focus 600 is about the only exception, and I have no real preference, just much more Canon than Nikon glass.
    I mention all this because I have been looking for a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (being a somewhat stubborn cuss who is quite convinced that some people are getting better film scans than I am), and B&H keeps telling me that they are out of stock, Adorama says that they have a shipment on the way real soon now, and Amazon says that they have it at $1995, and that it "usually ships within one to two months."
    Well, last night I saw an ad on Amazon (but from J&R Music and Computer World), and, lo, there was the the Coolscan 9000 for "only" a couple hundred dollars more than B&H. I had entered all of my data to buy the thing, but what stopped me was one thing: not the extra $200, which should have been enough, but the fear that I would not get it right away, or that I would wind up getting the scanner but be unable to get the holders.
    So, you guys who are getting these great scan results (and I have seen your work and know that you are doing it), how on earth does acquire a Coolscan 9000 without paying a premium, and how can one be sure that one can get the necessary accessories, within a reasonable time frame?
    Right now my best scanner is the Epson 4990--not a bad machine, but I didn't come this far just to "settle" for "pretty good." My old Epson 2450 Perfection does a respectable job in truth, but I really do want to see what I can get out of film, and I am quite sure that I am not getting anything near what some of you are getting. So, short of buying an Imacon (which I really cannot do on a teacher's salary), what is out there that works as well as the Coolscan 9000?
    Please forgive my impertinence. I really am here to learn. Yes, I know that in some ways the future belongs to digital, but for what applications? I have seen shots made with the Canon 20D and I know that it is not up to snuff. The IDsII? I don't know. It is all irrelevant, finally, since, if I could get results comparable to the very best film photographers, that would surely be good enough to justify hanging in there with film for at least some of my shots.
    As for my photographic technique, it is alright (nothing spectacular), and I use a pretty stiff carbon fiber Gitzo with an Arca-Swiss ball-head, and so, no, the real problem really is the scanning step for me, not my basic skills or my mount.
    That's why I'm here: can somebody tell me what's out there in the $2000 or so price range, and how on earth does one get it within a reasonable amount of time? I have been trying to follow these thread for the longest, but I am still not sure what to buy. I have heard some recommendations here, but some of the scans that some are oohing and aahing over are not quite up to what I had in mind.
    Thanks.
    --Lannie
     
  88. Lannie,
    The Nikon 9000 is pretty much your best option for 35mm and 120. Yes, you can get decent results from an Epson V700/750 or Microtek M1....but they will require more aggressive USM to pull the detail out because of the inferior optics.
    The Epsons true resolution is about 2200ppi. The Microtek between 2400 & 2500. The Nikon 9000 is really capable of about 3800ppi, which is normally enough for most applications. Will you notice a difference? Yes....even at 16x20 from 120 film, the Nikon will be more detailed with less USM and have better shadow detail and tonality. Other options include a used Imacon like the 343 I used to own.
    For $2000, options are limited, but the Nikon is pretty much your best bet. And thanks for clarifying your intentions with this post.
     
  89. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    The only real interest I have in this is whether the OP comes back on to clarify why he asked the question. Is there a real photographic objective here that requires help, or was this just a bit of a laugh, to see whether the same old people coild be encouraged to trot out the same old entrenched positions yet again. Was it mischief or did he simply fail to provide sufficient detail to get useful answers apart from on a kind of random basis?
     
  90. Thanks, Dave. Your response led me off to try to find out a bit about the 343, which in turn led me to threads about the 949, and from thence to discussions of drum scanners, etc. So. . . what I am finding is that, yes, there really is something that some of us know-nothings think we can see but can't prove it, although we also know that we can't afford it. But at least it exists and is not merely a figment of the imagination of those who are simply reactionary--which is obviously not the case. The best film photographers who are trying to digitize their images are actually quite knowledgeable--an obvious fact for those who are likewise knowledgeable, but not so obvious to those of us who are not knowledgeable, and who are at times simply trying to keep up with the conversation.
    That itself is a comforting thought to me, since my forays into medium format film have been based not just on faith but on perceived differences in quality that are hard to verify and quantify, but that clearly are real and worthy of discussion. I would like to think that the Bronica and Hasselblad gear that I bought up on eBay (for next to nothing, all things considered) will finally yield the kinds of results that I was hoping for.
    I'm still wondering if I should trust J&R Music World about the Nikon Coolscan 9000, or will I give them my credit card info and then get the message that they "just sold the last one," or something similar? I am also a little worried about the prospects of ever getting the holders for the Coolscan 9000. (How long, Lord, how long?)
    I like this kind of thread and am frankly glad that these issues keep coming around again and again. Otherwise a whole generation could lose this knowledge completely, and then who would keep the tradition going?
    --Lannie
     
  91. "...but I have found no digital camera that can make images pop with an almost three dimensional nature like I can with scanned tranny film.
    Such images can be found all day long in the top rated photos on this site."
    You can't beat a 1/3-2/3MP backlit digital image for pop, true, and when my chosen output format is 700x pixel web jpegs I'll switch to digital... probably.
     
  92. Thanks, Les. I have been cruising these sites for weeks, but this time I actually got it! The FH-869G holder will be on back order, but I halfway expected that.
    So now. . . I defiinitely have passed the point of no return: I've got the cameras, got the lensess, got the scanner (or will soon), and I've got a relatively new 17" wide printer. This had darned well better work, or I'll have to start knocking off convenience stores--or sell it all back on eBay. I do intend to find out, however, whether I have what it takes to gets the scans and prints that some of the rest of you are getting.
    I'll let you know how I do, but this might take a while to get it right. . . .
    --Lannie
     
  93. Lannie,
    It will take a while. Scanning film is as much art as it is science. But, once you get that good scan of MF film, and output it to your printer (Epson 3800?) then you'll be thrilled, like most of us were.
    Best of luck and post some of your results as they become available.
     
  94. Hi William, I am sure you now know what to choose.
     
  95. On the other hand, did I ever explain how much detail you get from a polaroid? Of course it has to be properly exposed. Cosider it as a kind of medium format direct positive. The best thing is you don't even have to bother about an expensive printer! or bother about lenses!
     
  96. Everyone finds a different way to work that works best for them. I do all my BW work (well almost) on film and scan it at home. There IS a difference between a well-scanned BW negative and a converted digital image. Whether you like one or the other better is a matter of opinion.
    For color, I never ever shoot film. I don't have time to deal with getting color balance right in my scanner.
    That's the way I work. It's not necessarily the way anyone else would or should work.
     
  97. Lannie, like Dave said, the Epson 3800 and Velvet Fine Art paper will complete your workflow.
     
  98. Mauro, I just started with a couple of Velvet Fine Art sheets from a friend. My main paper for years has been HM Photorag 308.....I just love the more subtle color of matte papers. The Velvet though, looks VERY good.
     
  99. Yep, you guys were right in guessing that I have the 3800. I can hardly wait. I will have to buy some Velvet Fine Art paper, though.
    Thanks to Dave, Les, Mauro, and everybody.
    --Lannie
     
  100. Of course there's a difference ... film will be gone in 5 years, or less (unless you live in a third-world country village, whereby your film is processed next to that vat of questionable or illegal substances)
     
  101. Thanks for that highly informative post Phil. I take it you're a new DSLR user.
     
  102. "(unless you live in a third-world country village, whereby your film is processed next to that vat of questionable or illegal substances)"
    Um...you wouldn't have the name of that third world country village...?
     
  103. Dave L, One of your recent comments got my attention, and I wondered if you or anyone else with similar experience could address my concern. About the 9000 you said: "..The Nikon 9000 is really capable of about 3800ppi, which is normally enough for most applications. Will you notice a difference? Yes....even at 16x20 from 120 film, the Nikon will be more detailed with less USM and have better shadow detail and tonality.."
    Well, I have the older and lower spec'd., 35mm only, Nikon LS 40 (Coolscan IV). I love film and want to definitely stay with it, and careful technique with 35mm fulfills my individual needs. I've been making color prints from these scans for a few years now, and have sold prints made this way several times. Would the 9000 give results meaningfully better in the ways you describe (or otherwise)? It's probably important that I mention that I don't think that I have any desire to make very large prints, my absolute limit being about 14 to 15 inches on the long end from an uncropped 35mm original. I don't have access to a direct comparison, and wondered what you thought. Thanks.
     
  104. Jeff,
    In terms of resolution, you probably won't see much int eh way of difference. If you do, it would be very slight. Where you will get a difference is in Dmax and tonal smoothness. The 9000, as well as the 5000 can dig deeper into the shadows. As well, the extra bit depth reduces the chances of posterization when making large tonal adjustments. If you're sticking with 35mm, get the 5000 insetad of the 9000.
     
  105. Citing experts on film-digital comparisons can be a rather treacherous undertaking. I went to the Roger N. Clark site cited above, and a prima facie interpretation of the data would seem to indicate the superiority of digital at its present level of development. If, however, one reads closely and to the end of the following links, one finds that even with regard to resolution, digital AT BEST matches 35mm film at about 15 to 16 megapixels--and again that is only with regard to resolution.
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.6mpxl.digital.html
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
    One may make whatever one wants of the results of the tests that Clark has carried out, but it seems pretty clear to me that film not only does quite well, but increasingly pulls away on all measures as one goes beyond 35mm film. For example, at first glance one of the above links seems to indicate that Fuji Velvia 50 seems to be on the level of equivalence of a 6MP sensor, but, if one reads to the end, the results indicate that a match in resolution occurs more nearly around 15MP--and again that is only with regard to resolution.
    As one moves up to 6 cm x4.5 cm, the digital equivalence (for resolution only) is about 30MP, according to Clark, and roughly extrapolating to 6 cm x 6 cm one finds the digital equivalence to be about 40MP. At 4 x 5 inches there is, of course, no comparison.
    While it is true that digital has made great strides and will no doubt continue to do so, one does have to ask whether a full-frame (24 mm x 36 mm) sensor can ever go much beyond 35 mm film, no matter how many pixels one tries to pack onto the sensor.
    I did not casually plunk down $2K for the Nikon Coolscan 9000 today. I have been following these discussions for some years, and my own inquiries indicate to me that starting the switch to medium format over the last year was a lot more promising than continuing to watch the megapixel race unfold. I have no intention of getting rid of my 5D or the 1Ds Mark II, but for me the race ends there, at least for now. I will use digital at that level at current prices, but no further. New developments could change that, but right now the kinds of digital sensors that could match what I expect to be able to achieve with medium format film would cost me over $30,000, and I believe that to be a conservative estimate when I look at the cost of Phase One digital backs, for example.
    So, whether I am right or wrong in my own decision today, it is a decision that I have been weighing for a long time, and I feel comfortable with it.
    For me the practical corollary to all this is that, if one must win the megapixel race, one would more likely do it with scanned film. When one considers other factors besides resolution, film seems to be me to be the clear winner, except with regard to ease of use and processing time--but I know enough about time management to know that, as one becomes accustomed to anything, one can find ways to better manage the time issues.
    Thanks for bearing with me today as I have thought aloud on this forum. I think that my range of both doubts and convictions has been pretty obvious. I claim no expertise, simply patient and reasoned inquiry. I will use both technologies as appropriate, but I feel very good about this decision, even if it means that I might have to unload an EF lens or two to break even today. The first thing to go will be the EF 24-105 IS, which to me is one of the world's most useless lenses for other than walk-around "utility outfielder" purposes.
    I look forward to getting the best out of film for as long as it is there to be gotten, or until I die, whichever comes first.
    --Lannie (aka John Henry)
     
  106. Here are couples of scans made with Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED using maximum optical resolution. No unmask or sharpening applied, contrast/brightness adjustements only.
    First shot was taken with Mamiya 7 II, 80mm lens, Kodak Portra NC, hand held in pretty low light. The crop on the right is from full size original image. Original dimensions are 36.7x29.9 inchs at 300DPI printing resolution.
    00SVBJ-110477684.jpg
     
  107. Second shot is a scan of 35mm full frame with Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED at full optical resolution. Shot was taken with Nikon F6, 35mm F/2 ZF Zeiss lens on Kodak E100GX slide, hand held.Original size is 18.8x12.5 inches at 300DPI printing resolution.
    00SVBa-110479984.jpg
     
  108. Holy cow, Bogdan! Those are impressive. I'm feeling better and better as the evening progresses.
    --Lannie
     
  109. Yes, I shoot almost entirely in film, but i still support digital as being the best way to obtain digital files. Unless you shoot medium or large format, you wont see much difference between high end cameras (D3 and D3X) and film in terms of quality.
    When I want a digital file of one of my photos, I make a print, then scan that.
     
  110. Some people might argue that the scans are not sharp enough...well... they might be right but I am perfectly happy with the output I get from both 35mm and MF formats. I still need to see a good example of what a high end digi camera can do.
    From my humble experience I can say that scanning films is indeed not a easy thing at all, it's time consuming and might be a very tedious job when the volume of work is high... I can also say that shooting film and digitizing the negs is not cheap at all but somehow I found interesting that the actual costs are not coming from the consumables but rather the original upfront investment in gear, scanners and computer power required...
     
  111. Daniel, it has nothing to do with a sacred cow....it has everything to do with incompetent testing.

    The author of Imatest and a NASA planetary imaging expert have incompetent testing? I suppose that's possible. Where can I find your published, peer reviewed articles and tests on the matter? You've got your work cut out for you if you're going to demonstrate that their sites are flat out wrong. I recommend a lengthy peer review before going public with your articles and tests.

    I think we've all seen the Clarkvision, Koren, Luminous Landscape, Sphoto nonsense posted a million times by web-tards who can't think for themselves.

    And I think we've all heard web-tards defend their sacred cows with nothing but empty words a million times.

    I have a Canon D30. I used to own an Imacon 343. Funny, when I scanned Provia 100 and compared it to the D30 at 8x10, not a single person viewing the prints has EVER said the D30 was more detailed .

    Reichmann displayed his prints in his gallery. Many people publicly agreed with him after reviewing those prints. Obviously there's a difference between your experiences. Perhaps subject matter, lenses, technique, who knows. Email him and hash it out. Actually you probably won't get a response because the D30 has been out of production for...what...7 years now? And he's probably busy working on his next gallery show, planning his next expedition, or preparing his next article or portfolio for publishing. In short, I doubt he cares.

    As to the other sites quoted, a laughed at the "razor sharp" 20D at 13x19. I don't think manu people would find the print meets fine art works criteria of "razor sharp" with a 180dpi print.

    In my experience, for most subject matter a 20D is razor sharp at 13x19. Not all subject matter. If the subject has really fine detail that makes up a large portion of the image, things like trees and grass in a landscape, then it's not going to come off as razor sharp. But then neither will 35mm film quite frankly. Both will come off as perfectly acceptable to viewers, but neither will look as good as a MF scan, or a current full frame DSLR, given that kind of subject matter.

    Many other subjects will look great however. Portraits, for example, can go even larger from a 20D and still look razor sharp and detailed. Subject is huge in these kinds of comparisons.

    The main problem Daniel is that over the years, these sites have even contradicted themselves.

    I don't see any glaring contradictions at Koren's, Clark's, or Sphoto's sites. If Reichmann refined his evaluation, perhaps after shooting a wider subject range, then so be it. He is only human and entitled to refine his position from time to time. So are the other sites for that matter.

    The question has nothing to do with the resume of the owners of the sites you quote.

    I'm not implying that you must agree with them because of their resumes. But by God, show a little respect. Name calling is something children do. And if you're going to pronounce to the world that they're misguided fools, you should have something to back up the claim. Clark has mathematical formulas accurately predicting the impact of noise on perceived image quality, derived from the same theories that guide the communications industry for crying out loud. Do you honestly think that calling him incompetent, with nothing to back it up, makes him look bad and you good?

    The question is why, so many other photographers when viewing prints can't seem to replicate what these people come up with.

    Who are these other people? Where is their opinion documented? No fake statistics please. If you're going to appeal to some mass majority, please at least demonstrate that said majority exists.

    Oh, and by the way....you ever notice how it's the same 3-4 sites constantly quoted by the anti-film brigade?

    What's an anti-film brigade? I didn't know such a thing existed. Is it a Canadian thing because I've never heard of one here in the states?

    And have you ever noticed that two of the sites have some of the most well executed and well documented tests and theories on the subject? Koren and Clark could publish in journals. They're that good because, well, they publish in journals for a living. Their sites are some of the most cited and referenced web sites on imaging technology period for that reason. Once again, Koren is the creator of Imatest, and Clark is a NASA expert on planetary imaging. If that doesn't humble you and make you second guess any disagreements you have with them, then you are far too arrogant a human being. They're not perfect, they can be wrong, but I wouldn't be too sure of myself against them unless I had my tests and math well in order if I were you.

    Funny, film users point out hundreds of sites and samples available proving their point,

    Hundreds? If I Google phrases like "film vs digital", "5D vs film", "1Ds vs 35mm", etc I find articles and tests which all pretty much come to the same conclusions, give or take a few degrees of difference. It's interesting to note that far more has been written about full frame versus medium format than 35mm, which pretty much demonstrates that people think the latter debate is done, that is that digital is comparable or even better. Where are these hundreds of sites proving Clark, Koren, Sphoto, Reichmann so horribly wrong? Les is a die hard film fan, but even his maps show that around 12 MP (D2X frame) resolution comes down to nitpicking while digital exhibits better tonality and noise versus 35mm.

    To me the remaining appeal of film is the price/performance of larger formats and the unique looks or palettes of certain films. I won't go as far as some to say that those looks are impossible to replicate digitally, but they're difficult to replicate consistently unless you shoot a reference frame of the same scene on the film. And if that's the case, you don't need the digital file. If someone likes the feel of Velvia, shoot Velvia. It's a wonderful film. If someone picks up a used MF or 4x5 rig, by all means, please, load it up and shoot! They are capable of great results. There is no "anti-film brigade". Personally I just don't shoot that much color film any more, but I'm not "anti" anything.

    I said it earlier and I'll say it again: if digital didn't deliver the goods the majority of pros would not have switched to it. Film delivered the goods for years. So pick one and go shoot something.
     
  112. Landrum,

    I also know that Daniel also appreciates film, too, and so I regret seeing this thread become unnecessarily polarized, as tends to happen on this issue.

    I still shoot, develop, and print B&W at the local fine arts center...which has a killer rate on use. While I feel like my digital conversions are roughly equal now, I enjoy it and it keeps my eye calibrated, if you will, for when I do digital conversions. I also love infrared film.
    But the anti-film brigade is sending me ads with special discount rates...I don't know, I'm tempted to join. They have pitch fork and torch meetings every month, and once a year they have a film burning. It sounds like fun, don't you think? ;-)
     
  113. "To me the remaining appeal of film is the price/performance of larger formats and the unique looks or palettes of certain films. I won't go as far as some to say that those looks are impossible to replicate digitally, but they're difficult to replicate consistently unless you shoot a reference frame of the same scene on the film."
    I think that you nailed it right there, Daniel, and I have appreciated your links. I also know that you shoot both and know the strengths and limitations of both better than I.
    As for the pros, well, time is money. What else can I say? Digital is faster and sometimes better, depending on what one is trying to achieve.
    Therefore, "So pick one and go shoot something"? Nah. We can shoot both, as they are appropriate. I've been shooting both since 2002, and this step up for me to medium format is probably pretty much the demarcaction line. That is, if things go well, I will probably shoot mostly digital when I want the convenience of 35mm, and I hope that I will have the patience to shoot MF most of the rest of the time.
    What I don't need is another piece of equipment that is just gathering dust, but I hope that the challenge of good scanning will keep that from happening with my new purchase. I don't think that I will be sitting around saying, "Gosh, for only $3000, I could have had a 5D II with a battery grip." The marginal utility over my existing 5D and IDs II is simply not there.
    Thanks for putting me onto the Clark site.
    ---Lannie
     
  114. Dave,
    Thanks, that's just what I was looking for. It's funny though, it'll be hard to part with this LS-40 until I can actually visit a store and perhaps make a comparison scan on the 5000, and see for myself, as I've had such good results, and viewer feedback, and some sales:)
    I really appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. Jeff
     
  115. Daniel, I ride a 1982 Honda CB900C and I smoke Harleys, but I don't burn Harleys the way some of the "Born to Be Loud" crowd burn Japanese bikes. I just like to ride, and I do.
    As for photography, I just like to shoot, and I do. I don't join brigades. I pretty much go it alone, and I like the prospect of having two ponies.
    --Lannie
     
  116. Landrum,
    Thanks for putting me onto the Clark site.
    I noticed you actually read it and realized that he ranked film pretty high in some respects :)
    Daniel, I ride a 1982 Honda CB900C and I smoke Harleys, but I don't burn Harleys the way some of the "Born to Be Loud" crowd burn Japanese bikes. I just like to ride, and I do.
    It's human nature. I have two uncles who will endlessly debate Ford versus Chevy. Who knows why...
     
  117. I did notice one thing Les, unlike Daniel, I use my eyes. Viewing Reichman's prints myself...something Daniel hasn't done...I can say beyond a shadow of doubt that 3mp didn't match Provia. Daniel of course still quotes the site.
    One thing you'll notice, unlike those of us who have posted samples, Daniel doesn't seem to be able post any comparisons with high end scanners.....just links to long refuted sites. Oh well.
     
  118. With all due respect to The Da Vinci Code, strictly speaking, scotoma refers to a blind spot. Which, come to think of it, might actually be quite appropriate for this entire thread. ;-)
     
  119. "I said it earlier and I'll say it again: if digital didn't deliver the goods the majority of pros would not have switched to it. Film delivered the goods for years. So pick one and go shoot something."
    Daniel, at first the pros switched to digital not because it was better than film in photo quality. But, because it had a faster turn around time and their competition started using it for the same reason.It was too expensive to buy a digital back for their MF cameras. Even though the digital cameras were not as good as even a 35 film camera! When, I was buying the photo mags several years ago. They finally had articles where a $13,000 Kodak and a $8,000 Canon finally was equal to or better than 35. Big deal!What isn't?
     
  120. I'm not sure I understand the point here. I think the easiest way to think about them is as different tools, and hence different tools for different tasks.
    As for resolution, I don't think its much of a contest. My scanner scans at 7200 dpi, making a full frame negative scan at about 69mp. Obviously no 35mm DSLR is going to do that anytime in the next few years. It's well-documented that film dmax is 4-8 stops wider than digital, so that's another issue.
    The functional question is whether you can see the difference and which fits into your workflow needs. Obviously, digital gives you great instant feedback on composition and exposure. That's obviously invaluable, to the extent the results are adequate to the purpose.
    That said, getting a D90 DSLR has made me appreciate analog more, especially my Contax G1 with Zeiss lenses. It's going to be hard to convince me that a DSLR can match up with those lenses with Astia or Provia. But once again, its a matter of where you want to be in terms of trading off IQ vs. convenience.
    But as a theoretical aside, while scans are arguably a 2nd generation product, I think its incorrect to say that a DSLR image is 1st generation, simply because the DSLR sensors are digital and therefore not only subject to data depth but also Bayer interpolation, AA filters, etc., which is therefore inherently reductive when compared to any analog capture. The same issue arises with respect to any digital media, be it music, film, etc. - mp3's are worse than CDs, which are worse than vinyl. The quality of the digital copy is inherently limited by the sampling rate, so unless your sampling rate is infinite, then you are only making an approximation of the analog source.
    But of course, the question is whether you can tell and whether you care. And given the profusion of iPods, etc., its clear the market has made its decision, which is to say that it works for most people, but there will always be market segments who are willing to trade convenience for quality.
     
  121. Well below is the the same 35mm Fuji RVP map . . . but this time scanned at 8,000dpi on an Imacon 949.
    8000dpi of Fuji RVP 35mm - > Nikon D2X - > Click thumbnail for full res


    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my point. Attached is the Velvia scan next to the D2X crop resized. The D2X crop is sharper, has better tonality, and is cleaner. It's rougher on the edges, but then the Velvia is rather blurred on the edges. Neither out resolved the other, it's just blur versus a certain roughness that comes from scaling up. At 50% Velvia still looks blurred, but the D2X crop looks crisp and very well defined.

    I know it goes without saying but just to point out a couple of particularly obvious differences, please look at Libreville and the formation of the star symbols. Do you believe the difference between these two are "nitpicking "?

    Yes. A fight between a group of PC and Linux nerds would involve less nitpicking.
    00SVPf-110551584.jpg
     
  122. Viewing Reichman's prints myself...something Daniel hasn't done...I can say beyond a shadow of doubt that 3mp didn't match Provia.
    I spent the majority of my post defending Clark and Koren, and Reichmann's site and work in overall terms. I don't think much either way of Reichmann's 7 year old article on a 7 year old camera, and I didn't really address it as a point other than to tell you to hash it out with him. Yet you're stuck on it.
    You claim to have gone to his gallery and viewed the prints directly. I'm asking honestly: did you have a fight with him over it? Is there some bad blood between you two? There's too much personal obsession from you over this one article from this one man. I wrote pretty much about other people and other things, and yet you're stuck on this. There's something more to the story and it is coloring your ability to discuss this issue in a rational, adult manner. I'm curious to know the source of the obsession.
     
  123. One thing you'll notice, unlike those of us who have posted samples, Daniel doesn't seem to be able post any comparisons with high end scanners
    You've posted no samples or comparisons, and there's no link in your profile to any site. So this was a pretty stupid dig on your part.
    But if you have work comparable to Clark or Koren, I would love to read it. Seriously, post a link, I'll read every paper and look at every scan.
     
  124. Daniel, you really need to learn to read. I have NEVER said I went to Reichman's gallery. What I said was with the original D30 test prints vs Provia he made, I viewed the prints at a photolab where he had them displayed. On his website, he made out like everyone was ooing and ahhing over the digital being better.....well guess what, they weren't. And neither was I. The digital print was soft and artificial looking...but with good color and no grain. Some people preferred it....many did not.
    As to posting tests, comparisons, and samples, I've done so probably 2 dozen times at DPReview when people requested it. This includes scans of 35mm Velvia vs the Nikon D200 (the film won), shots showing how film maintains highlight details better than DSLRs, MF 6x7 vs 17mp DSLR, samples showing film images interpolating up in large prints in a more natural manner....the list goes on.
    The fact is, all you can do is post links to refuted sites. I burst out laughing when you defend MR @ the LL site by saying he updated his test opinions. LOL. He was wrong, doesn't change his findings, and posts new tests that contradict his old. Does the D30 outresolve Provia on an Imacon? No. Does the 1Ds outresolve 6x7 Provia? No. I won't even bother going into the problems with the other sites you've mentioned as they've been hashed out to death many times over the years.
    You see Daniel, many photographers over the years have posted samples that show that the sites you've mentioned have incorrect information. Digital users ignore those. Many tests even here have shown 35mm resolves way beyond the 3, 6, 10, or 12mp a lot of people claimed. Because comparisons now show it....posting those links like you have simply makes those of us who know better laugh. Sorry, you didn't make any point at all. Now to avoid having to explain the same things over and over when they've been said a hundred tmes, I'll avoid the grief ann simply ignore your future posts.
     
  125. The perceived "sharpness" you point out is because the D2X reaches extinction much sooner. I believe you digiheads claim the lack of fine detail characteristic as clean . Notice the blue river veins going to Port Harcourt? The forming of all the letters? That you would question the difference in how the word Libreville and the star symbols are more fully formed - clearly indicating considerable resolution advantage of Fuji Velvia, fits the the aforementioned term scotoma as used in the movie.​
    Les, maybe you should do some USM on the filmscan to bring up the acutance. I know you wanted to keep post processing to a minimum, but when I do USM on the film image, the detail difference becomes even more staggering. The D2X version doesn't benefit much at all from any USM. After I ran USm on the film shot, it's pretty amazing how the details pop out that only appear as jagged mush on the digital shot.
    Of course, because you haven't posted a bunch of charts, graphs, and test sheets, nor do you hold a PhD, even though we can see with our eyes that 35mm beats a 12mp DSLR (hmmm, what happened to 3 or 6mp that was just being paraded as fact a moment ago? ;-).....then I guess we can't trust what we see and have to have blind faith that the charts are correct and that we cannot use our eyes to evaluate samples. ;-)
    As always Les, thanks for posting your samples. Like Mauro (who didn't post a chart or graph and does not hold a PhD) it becomes clear that some web-experts refuse to believe what thy see, and continue to post silly links.
     
  126. D2X up - 35mm film down:
    00SVSU-110569784.jpg
     
  127. 40D left - 35mm film right
    00SVT6-110570484.jpg
     
  128. Daniel, you really need to learn to read. I have NEVER said I went to Reichman's gallery. What I said was with the original D30 test prints vs Provia he made, I viewed the prints at a photolab where he had them displayed.

    Distinction without difference, but it gave you a chance to shout and act important so I guess it's all good.

    As to posting tests, comparisons, and samples, I've done so probably 2 dozen times at DPReview when people requested it.

    I can't recall you doing it once, and I'm not about to back track through your many posts on multiple forums. Open a flickr account and post the files. I'll gladly look them over.

    The fact is, all you can do is post links to refuted sites.

    To this point you have not posted one link to any site, nor one sample of anything, nor one valid rebuttal to anything said on the sites linked. Do you realize how silly you look attempting these digs given that fact?

    I burst out laughing when you defend MR @ the LL site by saying he updated his test opinions.

    I burst out laughing at the chip you have on your shoulder. Reichmann obviously snubbed you at some point. I'm convinced of that. Whatever personal issue you have with him, be a man and take it to him and resolve it. Or get over it and move on.

    LOL. He was wrong, doesn't change his findings, and posts new tests that contradict his old.

    Posting something new is changing his finding. What do you want the man to do, find you and kiss your butt every time he refines his position?

    You see Daniel, many photographers over the years have posted samples that show that the sites you've mentioned have incorrect information.

    Ah, the mythical many photographers again.

    I'll avoid the grief ann simply ignore your future posts.

    Oh...promise?!? Thanks man! I really appreciate that! :)
     
  129. 6x7 scan b
    00SVTc-110572084.jpg
     
  130. Daniel, based on my examples (since you don't have your own), what conclusions do you reach?
     
  131. I think we should take all our film and burn it, it burns quite well. Then we should take little wire brushes and rub our sensors with them. Then we should all log off photo.net and disable our accounts.
     
  132. Thanks Mauro....but without a PhD, I'm not able to notice any difference.....LOL!
     
  133. Mauro,
    Daniel, based on my examples (since you don't have your own), what conclusions do you reach?
    The clips you selected from the Velvia/D2X shots show exactly what I said: blur on one hand, aliasing (what I referred to as roughness) on the other. I wouldn't have posted the full resize if I had felt otherwise. With this comparison blurred letters look better at 200% in Photoshop, aliased but sharp letters look better at 50%, it's personal preference at 100%. Note that at this scale we're talking about prints larger than the original map in all cases. We are severely nitpicking. These side by side crops clearly show that for all practical purposes one is as good as the other.
    If you disagree, fine, but I'm not going to sit here zooming back and forth in Photoshop all day long. I call it as I see it, your mileage may vary.
    As to your personal tests I don't see any point in comparing a 40D to 6x7 film. Unless you're stitching shots from the 40D to compare the workflow and results between a panoramic tripod head and a medium format outfit, it's just silly. Why don't we compare 35mm film to a 60 megapixel PhaseOne P65+ back? The only possible purpose of the comparison is to make one look much worse than it actually is when used appropriately. Which for 35mm anything means a certain print size range.
     
  134. Daniel,
    10MP DSLR compared to 6x7 film:
    I'm, glad the comparison of medium format film vs 10MP DSLR seems absurd to you. Because it is. That is the point.
    10MP DSLR compared to 35mm film:
    The difference 40D against 35mm is massive. I can't even read "Favorite Receipies" on the can shot with the 40D.
    If you don't mind me asking, what cameras do you have (DSLR and film)?
     
  135. Mauro, with the 40D having only 4% less horizontal resolution than the original 1Ds, isn't it odd how well the 6x7 scan you did does compared with what the DSLR got....despite what some popular, often quoted websites have spouted in the past. Odd how so many of us get far different results than the oft quoted experts.
     
  136. Daniel,
    Also keep in mind the Luminous Landscape states:
    - the 40D is better than the 5D,
    - the 5D is better than the 1Ds
    - 1Ds is better than 6x7.
    Hence: they state the 40D is better than 6x7.
    ha ha (you gotta love it. Do you still feel ok posting links to the luminous landscape?):
    LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE:
    " I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO"
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-40D-handson.shtml
     
  137. Mauro, you almost had coffee coming out my nose. Thanks for the great laugh!
     
  138. Mauro, is there any way you can compare the 1Ds II at 16.7 mp to 35mm film? My own very subjective sense is that digital achieves parity at about that level, if not slightly below--say, about fifteen megapixels.
    This is also one of the figures that Roger N. Clark also trots out, if properly read (and I have to admit that he invites misreading, at best, and at worst cannot quite seem to see the implications of his own data).
    I am assuming low sensitivity film here, about ISO 50.
    --Lannie
     
  139. WOW. ... So many NERDS in one place, its better then watching 'the Big Bang Theory' LOL.
     
  140. This is an entertaining thread. I want to see Michael Reichmann and Ken Rockwell debate this issue. I'm all for more entertainment in thses hard times.
    As Shemp said in Sing A Song of Six Pants "I'm too young to worry and get wrinkles on my pretty little face. What we need is some music to cheer us up!"
     
  141. "Mauro, is there any way you can compare the 1Ds II at 16.7 mp to 35mm film? My own very subjective sense is that digital achieves parity at about that level, if not slightly below--say, about fifteen megapixels".
    I don't have a 1DsII to test. I can tell you that detail of 35mm film (Ektar, TMX, Velvia) is superior to the 5DII so is dynamic range. Those are the facts.
    Is that what you are asking?
     
  142. If anybody cares, watch 'Antonio Gaudi' by Teshigahara Hiroshi and 'Annie Hall' by Woody Allen to see how crafty masters utilise the advantages as well as limitations of the media. Part of the creative process. Impossible to replicate in digital. At least for now.
    Happy shooting, Y
     
  143. One can not take these "tests" that state that digital is better then film much serious. It is obviously about money. There is a czech saying "whose bread you eat, his song you will sing". In Czech Republic there is a company which is an exclusive sale representative of Sinar. He stated on his website (picture that was suppose to prove his point: http://www.profifoto.cz/okno_por19_8.html) in 2004 that according tests made in 2000 the Sinar back with resolution 4.2 MPx is better then film 4x5. Can you trump this?
     
  144. 10MP DSLR compared to 35mm film:
    The difference 40D against 35mm is massive. I can't even read "Favorite Receipies" on the can shot with the 40D.


    I didn't notice that you had labeled that as a 35mm comparison. There's something wrong with that shot. A 40D is not substantially different from a D2X in IQ (look at dpreview's test shots), yet the D2X map crop compares favorably on that test while the 40D did horribly in your test. What settings and post processing did you use? Specifically if you resized, how did you resize?

    If you don't mind me asking, what cameras do you have (DSLR and film)?

    Email me off list.

    I can tell you that detail of 35mm film (Ektar, TMX, Velvia) is superior to the 5DII so is dynamic range. Those are the facts.

    Velvia is most certainly not superior to the 5D mkII in dynamic range. And you better define detail because a 5D mkII will out perform any of those films at the MTF50 point. At the MTF10 point it will arguably be a wash, with just a hair more detail on the film. This is assuming perfect shots and drum scanning. BTW, if you understand MTF curves and what is most important in terms of viewer perception, you will understand why someone like Norman Koren will say 35mm film has more resolution but his 20D prints are sharper than anything he ever printed in the darkroom. Some of what other people would call contradictions are not contradictions, they're evaluations of different aspects of image quality. Image quality is not just a MTF10 lpmm measurement.

    I'm getting pretty exhausted with this, but I am curious to know the details of your 40D shot. It is an outlier.
     
  145. "I don't have a 1DsII to test. I can tell you that detail of 35mm film (Ektar, TMX, Velvia) is superior to the 5DII so is dynamic range. Those are the facts." --Mauro Franic
    That is interesting, Mauro. When I first asked this question about the digital equivalence of 35mm film back in 2002, someone (I know not who, nor the methodology employed) said that it was about 22 MP.
    For some reason that number has stuck with me, although it probably means absolutely nothing. I can't believe that it would be too far off, though. I can't tell a whole lot of difference between the comparison shots of the 1Ds III and the 1Ds II. (The forrmer is, of course, virtually the same as the 5D II in terms of its "guts.")
    So, who really knows? I think that it safe to say that high end DSLRs have caught up to film in resolution. As for medium format? My guess is that that will never happen with the 24 x 36 digital sensor, unless there is some kind of unforeseeable breakthrough over the horizon somewhere.
    --Lannie
     
  146. So I'd say no. Not enough has been said for people who question things.​
    Please...point out 1 bit of information in this thread that hasn't already been beaten to death in one of the other FILM vs DIGITAL threads.
    The entire thing seems like nothing but a troll to me.
     
  147. Lannie, your statement is very sensible. With current technology and lenses there is not a path for DSLRs to catch up with medium format.
     
  148. Daniel, it was linearly resized. Shot with 60mm macro (sharpest lens available) at f8 iso 100.
    This is at 100% so you can resize with bicubic or fractals:
    00SVql-110669584.jpg
     
  149. Let me know if you want me to send you the raw file.
     
  150. This is getting old. If you have discovered your magic bullet be it film or digital then go shoot and be happy. I like 35mm B&W film along side my digtal because I like the look, the control and the craft of developing and printing. I doubt you can get more than say 8-10mp worth of detail out of the sharpest 35mm B&W films but so what? That's enough for a fine 8x10 which is plenty big enough for me.
     
  151. "I doubt you can get more than say 8-10mp worth of detail out of the sharpest 35mm B&W films but so what?"
    That's odd. I get 20mp scans from a Nikon V.
     
  152. I'm not talking file size I'm talking detail. The two are not related.
     
  153. "I doubt you can get more than say 8-10mp worth of detail out of the sharpest 35mm B&W films but so what?"
    The equivalent of eight to ten mega-pixels goes a long way in black and white. Color yields a great deal more--just how much is the question.
    --Lannie
     
  154. There was, of course, Tech Pan. . . .
    --Lannie
     
  155. "I'm not talking file size I'm talking detail. The two are not related."
    How then is detail quantified? What do you mean by "8-10mp worth of detail"?
    Also, it is not file size. It is the number of pixels of the file, its dimensions.
     
  156. Let me know if you want me to send you the raw file.
    I would love to see it. Thanks!
     
  157. "Michael Ferron , Feb 20, 2009; 01:10 a.m.
    I'm not talking file size I'm talking detail. The two are not related."
    Correct. A 10MP DSLR has only about 6MP of true resolution. A good 20MP scan of Velvia has about 20MP of resolution (and a lot detail left on the slide to recover).
    This is how much the Coolscan can't capture from Velvia vs an imacon (copyright of Rishi Sanyal):
    http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/35mm_Scanners/NikonLS-5000_vs_Imacon848.jpg
     
  158. Michael, I find your post and odd one. There are sample links posted in this thread that show 35mm exceeding a 12mp DSLR. Interesting that with that evidence, you still claim 35mm is topped out at 8-10. We've even had samples posted that show for fine grained color film, even the 24mp Sony wasn't that far ahead of 35mm and a 6300ppi Imacon scan.
    Maybe you'd like to view those before you post and opinion based upon....well...who knows what.
     
  159. "Correct. A 10MP DSLR has only about 6MP of true resolution."
    What is "true resolution" and how is it related to megapixels? Are the other 4MP chopped liver? What happened to them?
     
  160. "that show 35mm exceeding a 12mp DSLR."
    So, when Michael says the best b&w 35mm film has only "8-10" megapixels of "detail", he means the detail in a scanned 35mm film that he's seen looks pretty much like whatever he thinks an 8-10 megapixel dslr would show.
    Do lenses, among other things, have anything to do with "detail" or "true resolution" of whatever it is you're comparing? Will my 20MP scan have no more detail than any shot from my old 8mp p&s will?
    How are megapixels a measure of detail? I get the feeling there's no metric for all this megapixel/detail talk.
     
  161. What about a "control" in these tests or at least another comparison, say using a film recorder to capture a dslr file onto Velvia and comparing it to a 35mm Velvia frame under a loupe on a light table?
     
  162. Don, true resolution is the product of the maximum number of line-pairs recorded in each direction multiplied by 4.
    Any yes, the rest is chopped liver.
     
  163. "We've even had samples posted that show for fine grained color film, even the 24mp Sony wasn't that far ahead of 35mm and a 6300ppi Imacon scan." --Dave Luttmann
    Dave, can you give us a link to that thread? Thanks.
    --Lannie
     
  164. Lannie, here's the link. The film was pretty close in rez, albeit with more noise. The 6300ppi scan translates into a a 300dpi print at 20x30. The scan was downsampled to the same size as the digital file (6048 wide). This is a good sample of 35mm really topping out around the 15-17mp for most color use. Of course, some people still post links to sites that claim 3mp surpassed film, and that 11mp digital beats 6x7.....both which are proven vastly incorrect based upon the scan samples below.
    On print, you would see the grain from the film file. A film like Ektar would appear about 1/3 less grainy with less substrate issues in the scan. I'd say Ektar couple with good glass and a decent scan will give results at 16x24 that will rival or surpass any 10-12mp DSLR. Not based upon opinion....but based upon a print I made from a drum scan sample taken with Leica glass.
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29704253
     
  165. If it is so cut and dry, Mauro, why all the argument? Even those on the same side of the digital/film divide don't come up with the same numbers quite often. What will I prove setting up such a test? And with what kit? Aren't there other factors besides one being "digital" and the other being "film", like for example, the sensor size and pixel density, or the film emulsion, and for both, the lens?
    And why not record a dslr file to Velvia, and compare it to Velvia in its 'native' format? Why must the comparison be run on dslr's 'native' turf? Just because images can be posted to a forum or blog?
    I can't believe engineers take these digital vs film threads seriously.
     
  166. Lannie,
    this is Ektar with a Coolscan (3700 lines pph):
    http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6616619_YJEwK#429860538_sAEAm-O-LB
    this is the 24MP Sony A900 from Dpreview (3300 lines pph as a big stretch):
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD700/samples/comparedto/res/A900_Res_f7.1.JPG
     
  167. For comparison,
    the 40D resolves aprox 2000 lines pph.
    the D2X resolves aprox 2200 lines pph.
    Velvia 6x7 (just what the Coolscan delivers) is aprox 9000 lines pph.
     
  168. All the above is for high contrast detail areas in the picture. For low contrast areas in the picture, Ektar 35mm should resolve somewhere in between the D2X and the A900.
    Both levels of contrast coexist in pictures in most cases in real life.
     
  169. In true megapixels, these are the top resolutions:
    40D= aprox 6MP
    D2X= aprox 7MP
    Ektar 35mm + Coolscan= aprox 19MP
    Velvia 6x7 + Coolscan= 90+ MP
     
  170. Mauro,
    A few things. First, a big part of the reason why the 40D looks so bad in your crop is because you had sharpening shoved up on the camera, then enlarged linearly. If you enlarge Bicubic Smoother, THEN sharpen, it looks better. No, it's not resolving the small text, but at least it's not horribly pixelated giving a false impression of relative performance. Sharpening is always the last step.

    Second, I still question the 40D's performance in this test, but I'm not sure yet what else might be wrong. You should have shot that particular lens at f/4 which would have improved things a little bit. Other than that nothing stands out at me right now. It's not that I expect a 40D to out perform a 35mm frame on maximum resolution at ISO 100, it's that this still looks like the lowest performance I've seen a 40D turn in. But I don't know why.
    Third, something you should be frank about when posting this: if the full image were resized then printed at this scale, we would be talking about a 40x60 inch print. I don't think I have to point out that 60 inches is, from a technical perspective, beyond the ability of small format when the subject matter has fine detail and is larger than most people ever print anything. I printed this crop on my printer at a size equivalent to a 16x24 and at that scale in print there's just nothing to see between the film crop and my version of the 40D crop. You've done a good job of amplifying the differences to seem important, but most people would not expect to make a decent 60 inch print from a 40D or 35mm. At least not of a subject with fine detail intended for close up inspection. Film might look good at this size versus a Nyquist limited 10 megapixel APS sensor, but it's going to look bad compared to anything medium format or better. And it's not going to look better than a 35mm sensor as it does against the 40D here.
    I can't (or can't easily) reproduce this test exactly as you did, so I don't know if I can determine if any other changes, besides aperture, would improve the 40D's showing. I do hope you correct your presentation with improved enlargements however because proper handling produces a noticeable difference.
    00SWJV-110789684.jpg
     
  171. Here it is inline. The linked version has all three.
    00SWJi-110791584.jpg
     
  172. Thanks, Dave and Mauro.
    Dave, I can see from your drum scan just how close you got to a 24 megapixel DSLR using 35mm film, but I appreciate your modesty in saying that " This is a good sample of 35mm really topping out around the 15-17mp for most color use."
    Likewise in your case, Mauro, I appreciate your saying that "Ektar 35mm should resolve somewhere in between the D2X and the A900."
    I'm impressed, all the way around.
    Well, now, boys and girls, what does that imply about Ektar 220?!! I would say that it would be up there at about the reolution equivalence of a 60 MP digital sensor--or better. Anyone want to buy the Phase One P65 digital back, or will a used film 6x6 or 6x7 camera suffice? I get happier and happier everyday about buying up the Hassy 6x6 stuff, but I think that I will sell the H1. I think that de Bakker is right: better to stay with one system and master that system. Mamiya or Pentax would have been fine, too, of course.
    Thank you, guys, for the solid results. Your results are not hyperbole, are not speculation but are based on hard evidence, are not the work of zealots but of true craftsmen, and show what the choices really are.
    Thanks again. This thread has certainly been worth my while. Those who get tired of these threads can always go read something else, as far as I am concerned. There is always a new crop of potential converts (and reconverts) to film coming along who simply want to know the facts.
    --Lannie
     
  173. Sharpened, this that and the other operation and filtering, format conversions, compression, resizing, resampling...by the time these images, digitized film and digital camera images, reach this forum, none of the captured pixels exist in the image. That's not considering the circumstances of the original capture yet: platform, lighting, sensor quality, emulsion quality, lenses, aperture, shutter, iso, and the method of massaging some equivalence out of them. The absence of controls, too.
    What conclusions can be reached through all that?
     
  174. Lannie....just to be clear....that was an Imacon scan, not a drum scan. It is possible a drum could pull more out, but I'd say it's a matter of diminishing returns.
    And yes, there have been many converts I've noticed even locally. I'm amazed how many people I meet locally with a new interest in film....prompting them to buy up used MF and LF gear. I've done a few basic film scanning workshops for locals here showing them how to profile film, fluid mount, etc, etc. The results are always the same. When they compare it to the DSLRs they're using, they always say something like "holy cow....I never thought film would be so much better." It's always fun!
     
  175. Thanks, Dave. I'm suitably impressed.
    Don: "What conclusions can be reached through all that?"
    Don, I think that, when one presents a link such as that which Dave has provided, along with 100% crops, and then backed off from high end claims about what the absolute resolution is, one can show quite a bit--enough to make believers of some of us.
    In addition, one doesn't have to mortgage the house to make the leap into MF these days. If one doesn't like it, one has not laid out that much at the prices I am seeing on eBay these days--and, if one absolutely must decide that one made the wrong choice, one won't lose much on resale.
    I'll keep shooting digital, of course, when the situation calls for it. I'm no fool, and I can shoot it now without a lot of trouble. I'm used to it. I just want something better, hopefully without bankrupting myself. MF sounds good to me right now.
    --Lannie
     
  176. Don E, "by the time these images, digitized film and digital camera images, reach this forum, none of the captured pixels exist in the image"
    you have the raws posted for you to use.
    The 40D shots are pin sharp to the point moire is perfectly defined. This shot is as good as it gets with the 40D. f8 is not the bottle neck of detail and you should not see any additional detail at f5.6.
     
  177. I had the same question and I have concluded for myself that neither is better then the other just different. It all depends on what your trying to achieve. That being said here is a little video were they test film vs digital by blowing 2 of the same pictures up to something like 22 meters or 72 ft tall. Check it out its really intresting http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3
    as always take with a grain of salt.
     
  178. You are welcome Lannie.
    It is all about sharing test and examples abd debating together (based on facts).
    Regarding the print size at which film gives you a visible advantage over the 40D, that to me is about 11x14. Some people can print 20"x30" without seeing the difference.
     
  179. You are welcome Lannie.
    It is all about sharing test and examples abd debating together (based on facts).​
    Very true indeed!!!
     
  180. The 40D shots are pin sharp to the point moire is perfectly defined. This shot is as good as it gets with the 40D. f8 is not the bottle neck of detail and you should not see any additional detail at f5.6.
    Mauro the lens you used peaks in center resolution at f/4. It has dropped by a small but, for something like your test, significant amount by f/8.
    What is your opinion on the post processing?
     
  181. Daniel Lee Taylor quoted Normen Koren as evidence for the superiority of digital image quality. But, working as a scientist myself, I have to say Mr Koren made a lot of mistakes in his most quoted article:
    1. All his conclusions are based on the thesis, that a 4000 dpi scan of Fuji Provia 100F represents nearly the best image quality you can achieve with film. A 4000 dpi scan is aquivalent to a resolution of only 80 Lp/mm. But fact is that this is only the resolution limit of an amateur scanner like the Coolscans (to be more precise their effective resolution is about 3600 dpi in real life, aquivalent of about 70 lp/mm). But it is definitely not the resolution limit of slide film.
    I've achieved 130 Lp/mm with Fuji Velvia 100F, 120 Lp/mm with Fuji Sensia, and 110 Lp/mm with Fuji Provia 400X. I have used my older Zeiss 50 mm lens for the tests. A friend of mine achieved even a higher values with the new Zeiss ZF Makro-Planar 2/50. Zeiss published resolution tests of many different films. For example they have got 160-170 Lp/mm with Fuji Velvia (look at the "camera lens news" publication on the Zeiss Homepage). And Zeiss is definitely not biased to film: They sell more than 99% of their lenses for digital cameras.
    If you use a very good prime lens, you can achieve much higher resolution with film, especially slide film and BW negative film.
    2. He is mainly referring to the 4000 dpi scan, not to drum scans, and not to enlarging in the wet darkroom or slide projection. He is ignoring these means for best quality printing (or projecting).
    With my Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N I can transfer this extremely fine resolution I get with film onto paper, no problem at all. The same with slide projection with my Leica projector and Leica Super-Colorplan P2 projection lens: The resolution figures of 130 Lp/mm are clearly visible on the projection screen. Such high resolution is absolutely impossible even with high end beamers. They can only achieve about 25-30 Lp/mm on screen, and the color is much worse (I have tested that as well).
    The physical resolution limit of a 24 megapixel 24x36 sensor is 85 Lp/mm. More is not possible, with finer structures you will only get aliasing artefacts (e.g. look at the tests at dpreview).
    3. Like all other digital doom sayers he ignored the progress in film technology. He said there will be no more R&D in film, film will become much more expensive over the years and in some years no more film will be produced. He said that in 2002 and was completely wrong. More than 35 new films hit the market since 2002, we have significantly better films today, and with regard to inflation film is cheaper now than in 2002.
    I don't trust any internet guru. I don't know whether someone is paying them for biased writing. Some of them make a living by hidden marketing. I make my own tests. And because of the results of these tests I prefer film.
     
  182. "So, when Michael says the best b&w 35mm film has only "8-10" megapixels of "detail", he means the detail in a scanned 35mm film that he's seen looks pretty much like whatever he thinks an 8-10 megapixel dslr would show."
    Exactly. And side by side comparisons with a D200 and an F100 both bolted to a sturdy tripod gave me this conclusion. 100% crops had similar detail with the digital looking much cleaner as we see in other comparisons. Now don't forget I said 35mm B&W film and not Velvia which can pull in a bit more detail then say Tmax100 and has finer grain. My findings btw are based on my experience with a Konica/Minolta scan dual 4 at 3200 dpi. Yeah it's not an Imacon but it gets right down to where grain starts fogging detail. At that point it's tough to get more detail, just a bigger file. BTW It's tough to match the tonality and feel of B&W film with digital.
     
  183. Interesting Michael. A couple of years ago I posted a test at DPReview comparing the D200 with Velvia scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual IV. We had no problem seeing that fine details like grass and trigs on the ground were much better resolved by the film. This showed up in 12x18 prints quite easily.
    The digital files were processed in Capture One. The film scan was done at 3200ppi with 16x multisampling enabled, and manual focus utilized.
     
  184. Daniel, "Mauro the lens you used peaks in center resolution at f/4. It has dropped by a small but, for something like your test, significant amount by f/8.
    What is your opinion on the post processing?"
    That lens at f8 far outresolves the 40d (as you can see by the very well defined moire). You can verify with the resolution chart next to the can.
    Processing doesn't change resolution either. Upsampling cannot invent detail. Now you can upsample two eyes with a straight line and make them sharp on a 30x40 print; the nose will not be printed though.
    Flat areas without detail will look nice but detail will not be there. Some apparent detail may even be created as a guess by the upsampling algorithm hence linear upsampling is better for comparison than bicubic. For example, if you look at the can upsampled by Lannie, it appears you can read the "Favorite Recipies" label but the letters have been deformed into somethin else that was not in the scene.
    If you compare the two "Favorite Receipies" labels, that difference is massive and not the result of just a 10% difference in resolution.
     
  185. Michael, "B&W film and not Velvia which can pull in a bit more detail then say Tmax100 and has finer grain"
    My 35mm tmx have 40+MP of tru resolution. About 10 times of my 40D. I have no clue of what you are talking about. Outresolving TMAX with a 3200dpi scanner? Gee wee.
     
  186. We are all pulling hairs now.
    No one, or very few, disagree that the 35mm film can provide better resolution and better dynamic range (negative film) than a top DSLR in 2009.
    Arguing by how much is a silly exercise unless you perform your own tests to know/convince yourself.
     
  187. Mauro, you'll find the most vocal naysayers here have never done any testing at all. Those of us who have and posted our results over the years know better. Let the rest find out for themselves as 1000 samples from others proving them wrong will not convince them.
    Regards,
     
  188. Mauro I'm not debating film vs digital. I like my B&W film and these orange/apple comparisons are a waste of time. You can scan that B&W film till you have a 100mp image but you are not going to create detail that is not there. My darkroom prints are no more detailed than my 3200 scans though i prefer my silver prints to digital.
    Dave I do find film does better when you do include things like grass and leaves. The randomness of silver film grains seem more suited to the irregular shapes while digital holds it's own just fine when shooting subjects like cityscapes where there's a lot of straight lines.
     
  189. You bring up a valid point Michael. The reason I prefer film for landscapes is that I find it renders ultrafine details like leaves and grass far better than digital can. I've seen enough landscapes shot digitally (and done many myself) over the years that people were bragging up the quality...only to fine they looked artificial and lacking in texture.
    I use digital capture for a fair bit of street work as with handheld shooting, high rez isn't that important. After I run the file through Silver Efex, the extra detail would fade away anyway. Of course, nothing beats the huge range of B&W films for that work though. I can tell you one thing though....the 3200ppi scans from the Minota do not pull all the detail from TMax when coupled with good glass. I see more detail from the Nikon 9000 @ 4000ppi and from the Imacon 949 @ 6300ppi. A 3200ppi scan cannot even resolve 70lp/mm....and Tmax is quite capable of going beyond 100.
     
  190. Dave I'll have to have a few of my better frames scanned with some quality equipment and see how that works out. I know with medium format B&W things like grasses just screamed for attention. I never saw that even with the 5D I owned for a short time. And that film was scanned on a lowly V700. I think one of the reasons M.R's 1ds vs pentax 67comparisons over on LL looked so close in detail was the subject was a distant cityscape with lines that favored digital.
     
  191. True Michael. The funny things is that even on the building sample where he said the digital beat the 6x7....you can clearly see more detail from the film than the DSLR. The funny part is he makes an excuse that it appears that way because the digital file needed more uprezzing than the film file.....well duh!!!
    I agree that MF is the way to go....unless you're crazy like me and cart around the 4x5 gear as well.
     
  192. Shall we stop looking at carefully constructed, manipulated, and protected tests, and look at some real world samples? So that I am not accused of poor scans or fixing samples I'm going to present 4 crops from Les Sarile's high resolution scans, and 4 crops from random DPReview sample shots.
    Set 1
    00SWf8-110869584.jpg
     
  193. These are what film scans typically look like. And this is how they typically compare to digital camera files. I'm sorry, but all these tests and all this talk about film being proven better than any digital camera is bunk. It's nothing but sleight of hand and misdirection by people purposely manipulating tests to get the results they want. 35mm film cannot live up to the claims being thrown around here. And anyone who believes otherwise will be very disappointed when they get their first rolls back.
    Oh, in case you're wondering, I dumped my 35mm scanner and all my film gear for Nikon digital because this is what I saw shooting in the real world. Film apparently performs much better in fantasy test land. So if one of my assignments ever takes me there, I'll be sure to stock up.
     
  194. Good for you Todd. Unfortunately, the other samples here prove your incorrect.....just because you can't scan film correctly....don't blame us.
    And where are YOUR tests? I thought so.
     
  195. Todd, at this point 35mm film does well to hold up to high end digital, which has reached a state of maturity of sorts by giving us sensors now in the 20+ mega-pixel range. On the other hand, without your identifying what was shot with what, you have given us nothing that we can use to make a valid comparison.
    If you go beyond 35mm to medium format, on the other hand, it is still absolutely no contest.
    I've been shooting digital seriously now for seven years, starting with the Olympus E-20, then going on to the Kodak 14n (14MP, Nikon lenses), and finally on to the Canon 5D and 1Ds Mark II. I could sell some stuff and go to the next step in digital, but it is pretty clear that it has taken this long for digital to get to the level of virtual parity with 35mm, and it is equally clear that, if I want to keep fiddling with digital until it achieves parity with medium format, I might well be waiting many more years. The future is today for me. I don't have the luxury of youth. I can't wait for digital to catch up, as your generation can. I want the best that I can get now without having to pay for huge digital backs. Since I don't like to fool with large format (though I am in awe of it and have the equipment), Ihave chosen medium format.
    Trot out something from Nikon or Canon that comes remotely close to medium format film. We'll give it an honest look. We're not deliberately manipulating anything. We don't have to. We may be getting older, but we've still got eyes.
    --Lannie
     
  196. Todd, in addition, please notice these quotes from the long thread above:
    "Many tests even here have shown 35mm resolves way beyond the 3, 6, 10, or 12mp a lot of people claimed ." --Dave Luttmann
    "Ektar 35mm should resolve somewhere in between the D2X [12MP] and the A900 [24 MP] ." --Mauro Franic
    "If one reads to the end [of Clark's analysis], the results indicate that a match in resolution occurs more nearly around 15MP --and again that is only with regard to resolution." --Lannie Kelly
    Dave and Mauro give quite a range of possible values because there is some uncertainty, and this is spite of their extensive testing and attention to the tests of others. I was addressing claims made on the site of Roger N. Clark, but I was also eyeballing it based on my own work with both 35mm film and the Canon 1Ds Mark II at 16.7 MP.
    So, I hope that you can see that none of us is the dogmatist or reactionary that you think that we are. We give digital its due (for it has come a long way), and we all use both film and digital. In all of the above, we were talking about the resolution (and only the resolution) of 35mm film, and the reason for our not nailing it down a bit tighter is that it depends on the film. Test results are also sometimes quite difficult to interpret. People who simply eye-ball things, such as myself, often miss the mark by quite a bit.
    I hope that this helps you put our claims in perspective. Digital is fast and convenient and really quite remarkable. It simply does not always give us the results that we want and are willing to work to achieve, and that is why we often (or at least sometime, in my case) shoot film, in spite of the time and trouble that it can take. We think that it is worth it.
    --Lannie
     
  197. Why does film have to be scanned, anyway? Maybe there are people who would use the wet darkroom, if they knew that it was still an option? At, least for B&W. And, there are always a slide projector for chromes. I know this is a scanned film vs digital thread. But, surprising as it may seem. the wet darkroom is still possible this days.
     
  198. Todd those samples seem to reflect my own experience somewhat. The only shot there where I don't like the digital is the last shot of a face where it looks oversharpened but film shot is too soft also. Those shots are a good example as to why many prefere digital to film not everyone thinks that photography is all about max resolution not everyone wants to shoot velvia on a tripod or Tmax100. Those cleaner looking images from the digital files are as just as important for many photographers as the resolution of velvia is for landscape photographers. It's just comes down to personal choice as to which one you prefere. For me it does not really matter what I use the results will be somewhat the same at the images sizes I print.
     
  199. I agree with Jack, yes I make scans of my slides, mainly for internet and e-mail purposes, but this is a secondary use to me, I look at my slides either on the light box with a 8X loupe or on the wall projected with my Leica slide projector. This is the way I enjoy them, the other one is that I enjoy the fact that film is physical, inherently archival and slides do not require post-processing in front of a computer. I have always been told that a chain is as strong as its weakest ring, hence if we compare scanned film with digital, we need to ask ourselves if the weak ring is the film or the scanning process.
     
  200. "Todd those samples seem to reflect my own experience somewhat. The only shot there where I don't like the digital is the last shot of a face where it looks oversharpened but film shot is too soft also."
    So, you guys grandly declare that digital is sharp and film is soft, even though YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE FILES IN QUESTION? Even worse, you give an opinion BEFORE YOU EVEN ASK ANYTHING ABOUT THE FILES. I get the sense that we are trying to talk to people who have never thought seriously about the relation of file size to final outcome, whether viewed on the screen or in print, what was the ISO, how strong was the AA filter in front of the sensor, etc.--and there are a lot of questions that one ought to be asking before making any judgment of any kind, much less any sweeping pronouncement about one medium versus another.
    In addition, resolution is not sharpness. The reason this kind of thread can become pointless is that some of these guys have never actually tried to carry both kinds of shots of the same subject all the way to print. If you would subject yourself to that kind of self-disciplined activity just once, you would begin to have an inkling as to what is being discussed here. At present you have no clue. You see one file sharp and the other soft, and you don't even bother to ask anything else about the file, one of which is size. You just offer the great (but utterly worthless) generalization that digital is sharp and film is soft, and you have no idea what you just said, or even which files you are talking about except that someone has sized them to appear beside each other on the screen.
    In a case like this, I really don't think that it much matters what you shoot. You won't see the difference until someone like Todd juxtaposes two completely unrelated files, and then you will not ask even one question about the files or shooting conditions before pronouncing which is better--which you will always interpret as "sharper."
    Get a P&S and just start snapping. Set it on "P" and then just sit back and admire the "quality" that pops up on your screen. If you don't understand the questions, then you surely will not begin to understand the highly nuanced answers that will be forthcoming from those who are experienced in both realms.
    --Lannie
     
  201. My limited experience with scans.
    I am interested in buying a scanner. But i have alot of 35mm slides and some negatives (b&w), and 120 and 4x5 in b&w and color (transparency). For me it is a hard pick, since i cannot currently afford the Cool Scan route (which appears best for the 35mm), and comparisons I have seen re the better flatbeds are not encouraging.
    I have had mail-order scanning done, specifically the place Ken Rockwell likes (cannot remember name (35mm Velvia, and 120 b&w), and Cooper's Imaging (120 B&W) . Neither were drum, but both offer different file size options, and (i think) both offer scans in JPEG and TIFF.
    The files i have recieved back are in the 15-20 mb range (if jpeg). My experiece is to get 'em back in TIFF. I was not impressed by the Rockwell favored place, exspecially the Velvia scans.
    The 120 B&W, exspecially the ones from Cooper's are very nice. As far as detail and tonality, they are noticably better than my B&W from my DX cameras. In a 8x10ish print of the same scene by the two cameras (D200 & Yashica-mat 124g), the quality difference is noticable to a "non-photographer" viewing them (at least in my experience with other people). Higher accutance, higher detail, smoother tonality, etc.
    I regularily carry one of my TLR's (the Yashicamat or a Rolleiflex) with me for formalist B&W landscape, along with a D200 (mostly for color), if out to "do" landscape.
    One caveat re scans. When i get it into Lightroom, the first thing i do is review the entire image at 100% to check/remove dust, micro threads, etc. I have yet to pick am image to work on, then print, that did not need some spotting, to use the old term.
     
  202. Todd, welcome. I see you have 1 day of experience in the forum.
    Please use only DSLRs or pocket digicams. They resolve more than film (both 35mm and 6x7). Take them along once-in-a-life-time trips and shoot many pictures. We have known that even a 2 or 3MP digicam outresolves slide film for years. Good luck.
     
  203. Todd, did you ever think it might be a user issue? With film cameras don't forget the body, was just a metal box and lenses were what mainly counted for clarity. On a day to day level I deal with people who never shot a roll of film in their lives. They do tend to be students, and when they do have to deal with film they get huffy because most of them aren't photographers as such but more digital artists. Its all so funny. I'm glad I use both.
     
  204. Todd, I was just kidding. You have a journey of discovery ahead.
    Not one post in the web (this covers the world) shows a single example of a digital camera (as of 2009) outresolving even my 35mm scans posted showing around 4000 lpph.
    Michael R. and the Luminous Landscape can't even resolve 1100 lpph (resolution of the Canon D30) using slide film and an Imacon scanner. But that is not my problem. And you should pursue your own test if you are to question things. He doesn't seem to be competent. I can double the resolution of his Imacon scans using just my flatbed scanner.
     
  205. Mauro if you want to make a point it would be best to not insult others by criticizing the length of time they've spent on the forum. And quite frankly your credibility went out the window when you claimed 35mm Tmax to be worth about 40 MP in true resolution. That statement is absurd and I would love to see your scan of 35mm Tmax compared to a Hassy H2 and the latest 40mp medium format back.
     
  206. Heck, I'll scan 35mm film again.
    I mean you'll have to pay me, but I will! :)
    It's like someone insisting on bringing his turntable and collection of remastered vinyl to a party, and boring everyone to tears with long discussions of the superiority of this media over CD-ROM's, and MP3's, when everyone just wants to dance.
    Can you extract more detail out of certain 35mm film types with painstaking technique and very expensive film scanners, than you could obtain with modern dSLR's? Probably. I'm sure a very few people can. But why? For all that pain, why not medium format, where the quantifiable difference is much more apparent and useful? And s anyone going to notice? Probably not. It's a different question, but go back to those crops of the map of the East coast of Africa -- show those two images to 10 people off the street, with no comments, and 9 out of 10 will like the D2X shot better, and the 10th person is just lying 'cause he's contentious pr*ck.
     
  207. digital camera do NOT sample each color at the same spatial frequency. they are limited by the Bayer effect. RGB are sampled differently.
    only a true 3-chip full frame camera would come close to scanning film then digitally you would have to process ~135MB@16-bit for each frame, yeah right.
    i shot 30,000 feet for my VistaVision short film on high-res, Rollei stock and am scanning it automatically on a modified Nikon LS-5000. i scan about 800 feet or 3200 frames a day. i got the SDK and modified it for my own use.
    digital doesn't come close to scanning film. i scan uncompressed, 4000dpi, no corrections and they are magnificent frames. my film frame is actually bigger than SLR frame. SLR frame is 24.1mm x 35mm, the VistaVision frame is 24.7 x 38mm.
    my files are 45MB each, of course i script photoshop to grind through any processing on a super quad cpu, 1GB video card, 4GB ram monster computer.
    my suggestion, SHOOT FILM -> scan... unbeatable.
     
  208. plustek 7200 is NOT a true 7200dpi scanner, that's crap. i had it and tried, complete garbage scanner. true resolution is around 3600dpi. it pads the files to make you think it is giving you 7200dpi files, that's BS. so far the only fast, true 4000dpi 16-bit scanner is Nikon.
    these guys did tests on plustek as well
    www.filmscanner .info
     
  209. if you have a decent amount of 35mm a couple of hundred feet in big rolls, not curled, not spliced, i''ll scan it for $2/foot.
     
  210. Michael, it's not absurd. In fact, Sandy King, a well known and respected photographer and writer has posted samples at the Large Format forum as well as written articles shows what the true rez limits for film with good glass is. TMax is indeed capable of achieving between 30 and 40mp equivalency in the 35mm format. In fact, films like Adox 20 achieve even more with decent glass. No offense, but whether or not you believe it is not relevant. The comparisons have beenposted and published in the past....all you need to do is read them. The fact that you haven't doesn't make your opinion correct.
    I don't mean to be harsh, but quite frankly I'm sick and tired of people who haven't tested, compared, view samples, or seen the work of others....just to come to threads like this posting an uninformed opinion. If I see another troll post the LL Provia vs the D30 garbage, I'm gonna chunder.
     
  211. Glen, last time I checked, Mauro, Dave, and the others are shooting and scanning medium format film. In other words, they are showing us that the best DSLRs are just now getting into a real contest with 35mm film. At medium format and above, it remains no contest.
    --Lannie
     
  212. Sorry, Glen. My remark was directed to Steve King.
    --Lannie
     
  213. Landrum: "People who simply eye-ball things, such as myself, often miss the mark by quite a bit."
    In a thread here awhile back clips from two files -- not part of any test -- of cats were compared by the posters, one from a digital camera, the other from a film camera. I think Les might have contributed the film exposure. It was not quite unanimous, but the posters expressed their preference for the digtal capture as "better". Looking closely at the images, I saw the digital file had green aberration along the whiskers thicker than a whisker. I posted to that damning bit of evidence, without any response. Those who thought the digital file was "better" continued to post that opinion. Maybe they all own cats with green whiskers.
    Last time we went through this there were hundreds of posts arguing whether silver grains are binary. How did that come out?
     
  214. Lannie,
    No worries, I'm going to check what's up with Velvia vs. Kodachrome
     
  215. Last time we went through this there were hundreds of posts arguing whether silver grains are binary. How did that come out?​
    Someone found a 2.
     
  216. I see Les has posted the cat pics. The green isn't as thick as I recall, but it is there. What Landrum wrote is important to remember: Eyeballing resolution or detail (and recalling it, it seems) is not proof. Refusing to see, is another matter, though.
     
  217. ... scanning it automatically on a modified Nikon LS-5000. i scan about 800 feet or 3200 frames a day ... i scan uncompressed, 4000dpi, no corrections and they are magnificent frames.​
    Now, this is interesting. Are you bypassing the AF and AE stages in order to get the scanning speed up?
    God, it's got to be glorious to look at on 4k digital projection (or are you printing back to film?)
     
  218. People seem to get stuck on small differences in resolution, but resolution is only a small part of what makes a photograph good. As for images shown in this thread, I have not seen one that I would call close to high resolution.
    In truth is resolution is all you want then it is pretty cheap and easy to get, see the photo in the link below. The photo was taken with a camera that cost less then $300.
    Note the image is somewhat large at around 135MP, so you will most likely need to download it to view it, i.e. it will view in most browsers.
    http://sewcon.com/frontloader/bw.jpg
    But the fact is you rarely need that kind of resolution, other factors in the photo count for far more.
     
  219. Good for you Todd. Unfortunately, the other samples here prove your incorrect

    The other samples are carefully manipulated illusions proven by the fact that high resolution scans of normal shots can't compare with digital. And further proven by the fact that people like you respond to this challenge with words and not scans.

    .....just because you can't scan film correctly....

    They're Les Sarile's scans. His scans look good to me. The scans aren't the problem. Amateurs like you who believe trolls and their tests are the problem. I notice you have no scans to contribute to the thread nor any digital files. Put up or shut up.

    Here's a comparison of a 5500x3600 film scan versus a 5616x3744 5D II file. Dave, if you think the scan is faulty post a crop from a 35mm film scan of a head and shoulders portrait which you have done.
    00SX2e-110979584.jpg
     
  220. Here's some foliage for you Dave. Which do you think would produce the better landscape print, the 4000 dpi Velvia scan (left) or the 5D II file (right)? Take your time there, don't want to rush judgment on this. LOL!
    00SX2i-110979784.jpg
     
  221. Todd, in addition, please notice these quotes from the long thread above:

    You want me to notice quotes? In a thread about photographs? The OP asked about scanned film versus digital. Not about quotes about scanned film versus digital.

    I could quote Mauro that 10 MP cameras are really 6 MP cameras while 35mm film scans are really 20-30 MP. But that's so ignorant and absurd I don't know where to begin!

    Yes I do! Here's a crop from a 4000 dpi Ektar 100 scan versus a crop from my wife's digital camera which I shot this morning just for this thread. I resized the digital file to match the Ektar scan dimensions. Even with a smaller sensor, even at a severe size disadvantage, even after resizing, the digital file is still sharper. Plus it outresolves the Ektar scan! Guess which camera and how many MP. Go ahead. If you knew which camera and how many (few) MP I had to deal with for this comparison, the handicap I put on myself, you would swear off 35mm film and never believe a stupid test like Mauro's again. His claims are ridiculous in the face of reality. How many samples do you need to see before you realize that the tests aren't worth the electrons required to post them?
    00SX36-110980184.jpg
     
  222. Todd,
    It's just a waste of time and precious space to post these useless images unless you shoot the same scene (subject) both with digital and film camera. You are not going to convince anybody, period.
    Richard
     
  223. If you can look through the scans at Les Sarile's site (no offense Les, they're actually good scans) and look through your own files or the many samples available at digital camera review sites on the web, and still believe Mauro's manipulated test or Sarile's manipulated maps, then you are blind.
    Keep shooting 35mm and telling yourself that you are out resolving digital while the rest of the world moves on.
     
  224. Richard I looked for a film scan, both at Sarile's site and in my old archives, where the film would look better or even half as good as average digital shots. I can't find any. Do you know a web site which has some? Can any of the film guys here post any?
    Digital files are so consistently better than film scans that producing crops for this thread is like shooting fish in a barrel. Ektar is supposed to be better than digital cameras with over 20 MP yet I am able to take a stroll with my wife's D40, shoot some leaves hand held, and embarrass a 5kx3k Ektar scan. You people need to get out in the real world. Which is what I'm going to do. It's a beautiful day for some hiking. Now that I know a little Nikon D40 has more true MP than a 20 MP Ektar scan I think I'll leave the D300 at home.
     
  225. Your methodology is even worse than that of MR. Reichman from LL. At least, he shot the same subject although he was biased. You will not do anything good to promoting digital because you compare apple to orange.
    Richard
     
  226. I think it's obvious Todd is just a troll. If he thinks his wife's D40 can outdo a 5K scan from Ektar, I think we know how little experience this fellow really has. Any posts respnding to him are a smiple waste of time. Once he gains a little experience, and actually uses the gear he's talking about, then he'll be rather embarassed at how foolish his posts look to those of us who know better.
     
  227. Mauro,
    If the 60mm macro outresolves the 40D at f/8 then photozone should not be able to detect a resolution difference on that lens between f/4, f/5.6/ and f/8, with a lesser 8 megapixel Canon camera. But they can: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/162-canon-ef-s-60mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1
    Maybe it wouldn't make much difference but you should identify and use the very sharpest aperture in the future.
    Your post processing caused a loss of resolution and detail in the 40D image. Why don't you acknowledge that and update the presentation? It doesn't change the end conclusion of that test but it is more accurate and honest.
     
  228. Todd,
    I'm not sure what to make of your posts. Ideally a comparison should be done using the same subject, lens, etc. Could you at least provide links to the images used so that we can review the full files?
     
  229. Les,
    Mauro should change it because otherwise it looks like he purposely manipulated the test to make things look worse. If he cares about the integrity of his test, he should care about the post processing differences.
    Could you try to act like an adult and not turn every post into an opportunity to throw insults around and irritate people? Thank you.
     
  230. I marked this thread for posts to be sent to me email. But it is beginning to read like the film vs digital junk at DPReview. Does anyone know how to "unmark" a thread? Thanks
     
  231. Les, I don't think you'll be seeing any samples from Daniel. He's never posted anything here or at DPReview. Typical web-expert.
     
  232. Les,
    It does change it because the gap is not so large when properly post processed. And my post was addressed to Mauro, not you.
     
  233. Todd, as I understand your methodology, it goes something like this:
    "Here are some pairs of pictures having absolutely nothing to do with each other, since the subjects are not the same and the shooting conditions are not the same. Nonetheless, I have chosen pairs in which the digital file is sharper than the scanned film file."
    Todd, what on earth are we supposed to do with such an approach?
    Some thiink that you are a troll. My own view is that you have no earthly idea what you are doing.
    Please give us some pairs of photos of the same subjects made under the same conditions, and then we will have some basis for evaluating your claims. At present your claims are neither true nor false, simply meaningless. No one quite knows what to do with them in any kind of systematic or scientific manner.
    --Lannie
     
  234. All this scanning stuff is new to me. Do not know anything about it at all, so if you guys could refrain from any rock throwing my way, it would be appreciated.
    I have a few decades of old negatives stored away in boxes. My woman bought me a CanoScan 4400F for x-mas. Some of these negatives hold dear sentimental value to me. Do I bother with this new scanner, or go to a lab? I have no fancy photo software and limited computer knowledge.
    P.S. I joined this site to learn, not start any fights. Input is appreciated.
    Trev.
     
  235. Les....with people like that it goes like this:
    Whatever sample test you post, you've done it wrong, you're biased, you're not telling the truth....even if you show the other Holy sites to be incorrect.....even when they agree it's incorrect. No matter what you do.....you're wrong.
    Now, let's get back to the 3mp vs Provia or the 1Ds vs 6x7.....both which must be correct because they are constantly quoted....but have been proven wrong.....by the sites authors themselves. Hmmm.....when it's put that way.....sounds like the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
    How could we ever dount them.....one whos just joined the forum , and both, who can't seem to post a single image of their own. Yes, it must be all of us who are crazy ;-)
     
  236. Trev, take them to a lab. The learning curve for scanning film is large. You be better of spending your time enjoying your images than having to spend the time figuring out what works best. If you're not really a film user now, I wouldn't both.
    That said, the Canon scanner is fine. With some basic compter skills, you can still obtain your scans....but a lab will do a much better job!
     
  237. Thank you, Dave.
    I do shoot film, as my first choice. That is just what I understand, right now. My digital expierience is just progressing slower than most. After 30 plus years of shooting film, I just get a bit confused with all the technical jargon with my digital stuff. I'll get there. Thank you again.
     
  238. Ok I have a suggestion. Since I only have a 3200 dpi scanner I'll take identical photos with digital and 35mm Tmax 100 and post the 100% crops from each. I'll use my little Canon G10 for the digital shot and a Nikon slr body with a 50 1.8 for film. I'll use mid range aperture (f8) for the film. Both cameras will be tripod mounted and every effort will be made to assure the sharpest shot possible. Then I'll mail the negative off to anyone here that has a scanner that can improve the film scan and is willing to put the little sensor to shame. This should be easy considering above film has 10 times more resolution than 10mp digital as Mauro claims. Now this is coming from someone who shoots both film and digital and does not have an ax to grind either way. Takers please sign up below.
     
  239. Lannie why do you chose to insult people when they don't agree with you. I said I did not like the last digital shot because it was over sharpened I did not care for the last film shot because it too was soft. I never said film is soft or digital is sharp. For the other shots Todd posted I prefere the digital version due to the cleaner look I said that these are good examples as to why some prefere the cleaner digital files over scaned film I assume we are looking at 100% crops.
    I spent 6 years thats 5 days a week 8 hours a day working making wide format prints, prints ranging from a couple of feet wide to several feet wide some work for artists some were work was comercial advertising. I had to deal with both excelent and crappy input files both film and digtal and I am well aware of file sizes and viewing distances for larger print sizes. In all these stupid film digital arguments both parties pick the subject matter to show their chosen mediums strong points. Film user tend to show subject that have fine details and like to show how well film will capture a resolutions chart. Digital user like to show how clean digital is and like to concentrate on clean areas of color. None of it really matters if the images are not worth printing in the first place. And nobdy cares about film or digital if the images are great. Use what you want and be happy.
     
  240. I've been away from photo.net for some time, but obviously not long enough. People still insist on beating dead horses and discuss things having nothing to do with getting good and interesting pictures. It has everything to do with artistic vision and hardly anything to do with technical nitpicking, film or digital, density ranges, or - dare I speak the word: resolution charts.
    I'll be back in a few years, perhaps.
     
  241. Stuart, the shots were not comparable. You seem to have walked in during the middle of the conversation and failed to understand what Todd was trying to do. No disrespect was intended.
    --Lannie
     
  242. At the risk of being labeled a 'digihead', I would like to point a couple of things out. Nikons raw files are known to be not exactly 'raw'. There is known to be some level of noise reduction being performed on the real raw data before this data is presented as 'raw'. This is in reference to Les' map shot. I'm not sure if this pre-'raw' noise reduction is performed on the D2 (or whatever it was), or whether this would even account for the difference, but it is worth perhaps investigating further. On the point of the map shots Les, can you post a raw of the dslr shot?

    In relation to Mauro's 40D vs film shots of the containers of food, there are a few issues here. One clearly is the pixelated 40D image. This problem has been pointed out in other threads with this image, and Mauro continues to trot out this image as some sort of conclusive proof. This is the most disingenuous comparison I have ever seen. Factually, you might be correct Mauro, but these images certainly don't show it. As Daniel (and many others in the other threads) said, your method for upsampling was flawed. The other serious problem with this image is that it isn't a shot of the same thing! The can in the second image is not the same as the first image. What's going on? Now, like I said, you may be factually right, but this image doesn't show it. In fact, all it appears to show is that you have some kind of agenda in pushing film over digital. Your 'tests' that you keep trotting out as conclusive proof have had flaws pointed out many times in other threads. When this happens, the response from you or other film fanatics is usually along the lines of 'this is just a simple test as best as one man could do, and you should do your own tests to make up your mind'. While that is good advice, the problem is that these 'results' appear in other threads and get promulgated as the highest truth.

    And on a related point, and one that is a reflection on comments higher in the thread about poor scanning methodology being the reason for poor film results against digital results, the same goes for raw processing. Unless you are a skilled raw processor and actually understand what goes on behind the scenes, then you have about as much credibility as someone who is a poor film scanner. Be careful when you want to claim the higher ground.
     
  243. "I would like to point a couple of things out. Nikons raw files are known to be not exactly 'raw'."
    I recall a thread here in which the op was a forensic photographer shooting fingerprint files with complaints about Nikon raws.
    As for the "tests", describing a bit about the criteria and showing a 1/4mp jpeg as 'proof' will convince no one but the already convinced.
    And for the claims of engineer-for-decades-this-and-that, it is irrelevant if your testing criteria implies otherwise.
    Folks, this is not a difficult test to set up. I suggest the film and digital sides get together and each pop 20 bucks into the kitty, agree to critria, and run the test.
    I also recommend not merely comparing scanned film to digital camera file, but record the digital file to the same film used in the test and compare that, too.
    I think Todd complained about the "tests" not having natural subjects. He may want to browse Ken Rockwell's site for hover-over comparisons of snaps taken with various film and digital cameras. He won't like the results, though. But, if real world tests convince you, you're in luck, because good film cameras are still inexpensive.
     
  244. Returning to the original question, as a film shooter who is very aware of the results from digital RAW (in general) yes there is a difference.
    I'm not going to go into this grain and resolution discussion but the difference I find varies depending on what you've shot with regard to film. Is it print or slide film? If it's print, I can't really describe the difference except that the colours have a slightly more earthy appearance and the shadows seem to have a little more detail which at first appearance makes the scan look rather dark, even underexposed! With slide, I find the colours just pop out in the area of focus, there's a very 3D look to them. Slides (K14 or E6) scan best, C41 next and I would honestly say that B&W scans are just not as good as wet prints. The scans on B+W seem to emphasise the grain compared to a wet print.
    The best way? Well I don't know. Send it somewhere reputable, e.g. here in the UK I'd use Peak Imaging if I needed a crucial shot digitised, I often don't bother with mini labs as they save in JPEG rather than TIFF. Also I find minilabs don't always look after their scanners and I have had cases where consistency just isn't there.
    Overall your result is going to depend a lot on the film originally used.
    In any instance, I still use 35mm and 120 (for 6x6) film, C41, B&W and E6 and when scanned, it can look very good. I still maintain the best way to view a photo is projected or printed (be that digitally or traditionally.)
    I'm not even going to get into the megapixels and resolution, sharpness and whateverness as really, day to day, if you're a good photographer you'll get the results you want if you have a half decent digital or film camera.
     
  245. Michael Ferron ,
    Do you want me to send you a piece of tmax with a resolution chart, do you have a microscope to see how much your scanner is leaving behind? Just let me know.
    This is a comment from Rishi Sanyal who I sent strips of different films with resolution charts:
    "With the TMX & the Imacon, I can see past 5. Maybe even 5.5. Meaning ~34 megapixels for the entire frame. Ridiculous."
     
  246. Les.... did you see my post? Any comments on the nikon raw issue? More specifically, do you have the raw file that we could have a play with?

    After my last post I realised I forgot to mention something else strange about Les' map shots. The D2 shot is missing Lake Chad! I don't know what is going on there, but this definitely needs to be investigated further.
     
  247. Daniel, "If the 60mm macro outresolves the 40D at f/8 then photozone should not be able to detect a resolution difference on that lens between f/4, f/5.6/ and f/8, with a lesser 8 megapixel Canon camera. But they can: (link) "
    Daniel, once again, you have good intentions put can't pick up the camera to test yourself. The Rebel used in that test resolves only 1850 lpph, how they came up with 2166 beats me. It is probably their not understanding the true resolution of the camera and making guesses.
    It also seems like you missed my study of impact on diffraction:
    Here is the extract pertaining to the 40 + 60mm macro (as usual shot by me):
    Link:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6302153_PLzKe#397750363_uGbHQ-O-LB
    00SXnP-111161684.jpg
     
  248. Bernie, "In relation to Mauro's 40D vs film shots of the containers of food, there are a few issues here. One clearly is the pixelated 40D image."
    Yes, that is a problem with digital. They are pixelated ha ha.
    Scroll up and pick the raws I made public to everyone if you have a question about the quality of the shot. You can verify it extinguished the resolution of the camera by the chart placed next to it.
    About the cans being different flavors, blame that the fetuccini from the day before.
     
  249. Michael Ferron ,
    Please clarify something to me, for the record, because I am confused.
    Two direct questions,
    "1- Do you think your 3200 dpi scanner extract all the info from TMX?"
    "2- Do you think there is a digital camera out there that outresolves TMX 100 35mm?"
     
  250. Daniel, "Mauro should change it because otherwise it looks like he purposely manipulated the test to make things look worse. If he cares about the integrity of his test, he should care about the post processing differences."
    I gave you all the raws for every single test, you are welcome to post your comparisons and your conclusions about resolution. Give it your best shot at making detail appear in the digital file.
     
  251. Michael, how do you develop your tmax? do you mind posting an example of your resolution test also?
     
  252. Bernie, "In relation to Mauro's 40D vs film shots of the containers of food, there are a few issues here. One clearly is the pixelated 40D image."
    Yes, that is a problem with digital. They are pixelated ha ha.​
    No, not ha ha. Show me anywhere where any half competent digital shooter presents images that pixelated. You can't because, this isn't how digital works.
    About the cans being different flavors, blame that the fetuccini from the day before.​
    The problem is that the label you are trying to read isn't the same size on your digi shot. Now I doubt very much that that would account for the worse digital results, but it does show that you have a poor testing methodology and shouldn't use these sort of results as some sort of conclusive proof like you and your worshipers do.
     
  253. Bernie, give it the best shot at making up more detail using my raw and post it.
    The reason I upsample linerly and not bicubic is because I am comparing detail. Bicubic makes up information. With bicubic, you could end up with a good looking word saying "TARDPES" when in real life it said "RECIPIES". See example above.
     
  254. Here is the example from Daniel at working with my raw.
    I see a better defined label now (vs my linear resample) but I read "Panqetz Tardpes" not "Favorite Recipies" ha ha.
    Do you understand the point?
    00SXog-111164884.jpg
     
  255. "Bernie, give it the best shot at making up more detail using my raw and post it."

    This is the problem Mauro. This has been done by myself and others in other threads, and it gets ignored by you and yours anyway. I'm not saying that you aren't right, I'm just saying that you have no credibility claiming one way or the other, because your methodology is so weak.

    "The reason I upsample linerly and not bicubic is because I am comparing detail. Bicubic makes up information."

    Sure, but upsampling linearly you get NO detail because it gets mashed up with pixels. Do the comparison properly by upsampling how everyone upsamples in the real world, and let 'recipies' (sic) become 'tardpes'. It won't hurt your comparison, and it will give you far more credibility.
     
  256. " Do you think your 3200 dpi scanner extract all the info from TMX"
    No but I doubt 4000dpi is an earth shattering jump either.
    "
    Do you think there is a digital camera out there that outresolves TMX 100 35mm"
    I believe any of the top end dslr's will out resolve 35mm tmax. And no where have I ever seen anyone prove different. If you have a link proving otherwise please let me know so I can stand corrected. Personally I shoot B&W film because I like the texture, look and tones.
     
  257. Bernie, can you please state what your understanding is regarding the resolution of TMX, Velvia and Ektar, Canon 40D, Nikon D2X, Sony A900 and Canon 5DII?
    If you don't know on a lines per pph basis, what is your relative understanding?
    Please do this for me if you would. It seems like many people argue but no one disagrees and I want to see clearly what you think.
     
  258. Bernie, I think I understand. You are saying that your results agree with mine, but linear upsampling make digital looks worse than it really is.
     
  259. Michael, "I believe any of the top end dslr's will out resolve 35mm tmax. And no where have I ever seen anyone prove different. If you have a link proving otherwise please let me know so I can stand corrected."
    Of course I have a link (from my own test as usual.
    This is a scan of 35mm TMX with a Coolscan, the conversion from the chart to LPPH is 890. It resolves 4.4-4.5 which corresponds to 3900+ lpph (because this is the limiting resolution of the Coolscan). Under the microscope I can see 5500-6000 lpph.
    For comparison, the Canon 5DII and the Sony A900 only resolve about 3000 lpph.
    Michael, email me your address and I'll send you the film if you want to. I mailed a strip of the film to Rishi Sanyal and he quoted "With the TMX & the Imacon, I can see past 5. Maybe even 5.5. Meaning ~34 megapixels for the entire frame. Ridiculous.".
    00SXpj-111168084.jpg
     
  260. Bernie, can you please state what your understanding is regarding the resolution of TMX, Velvia and Ektar, Canon 40D, Nikon D2X, Sony A900 and Canon 5DII?
    If you don't know on a lines per pph basis, what is your relative understanding?
    Please do this for me if you would. It seems like many people argue but no one disagrees and I want to see clearly what you think.​
    Mauro, the funny thing is I actually don't care. Resolution at ridiculous scales as Daniel has highlighted, is so unrelated to the real world that only a zealot could possibly care. You and Les seem to be on some sort of religious crusade to defeat the evil digital doers. For all I know, and care, you may be right that film out resolves digital. But with your flawed methodologies and unanswered inconsistancies, you have no credibility. I haven't looked into the claims of Koren and Clark et al (remember, I don't actually care), but I know of their reputations and I would rather trust them with their internationally peer reviewed and acknowledged excellence than a couple of religious zealots with shakey methodologies. You asked me if I understood what the point is. I understand well, and you two would do well to understand that trying to deceive to get your point across can only back fire. If the case against digital is so overwhelmingly strong, as you indicate, then you should be able to prove it simply without resorting to shonky testing.
     
  261. Les, I don't know what your problem is, but I only tried to ask you some simple questions relating to your methodology. You obviously didn't have a clue about Nikon's raw data, and you haven't answered why Lake Chad is in one image and not in the other. The only thing I can conclude from this is 1. You have no idea about raw processing, and 2. You possibly used two different maps for your comparison.

    By the way, I went to your links, but see no details about your testing methodology. All I can assume is that you didn't use raw, but in-camera jpgs. If that is the case, what were the settings?
     
  262. "Is there a difference between scanned film and digital?" Simple question, but actually too simple. "Film" can mean anything from Minox to 8x10 format. Digital can mean anything from 3mp to 4x5 digital back. Sure, you can compare drum scanned 4x5 with a 10 mp DSLR and there is no comparison. IMO it all boils down to what you need: what you like to work with, what you can afford, and what gives you the results you are happy with when the other conditions are met. Furthermore, resolution charts and MFT ratings are science, but we are all quite subjective when it comes to what we like when looking at a photo hanging on the wall.
    Unfortunately this is what happens in this type of thread: we all have different subjective opinions, and then start to equate these with the tools and methods used to create the images we favor, and then assume that these are the best tools to use to create images for everybody. Well, sorry; we are all different in our tastes, and there is no universally perfect technology that will make "better" images than the other technologies, since "better" is totally subjective when it comes to art, as long as we are talking about art, and not about photographing circuit boards or arial photography of the surface of mars or something like that.
     
  263. Bernie West [​IMG] , Feb 22, 2009; 07:03 p.m.
    "Bernie, give it the best shot at making up more detail using my raw and post it."
    This is the problem Mauro. This has been done by myself and others in other threads, and it gets ignored by you and yours anyway. I'm not saying that you aren't right, I'm just saying that you have no credibility claiming one way or the other, because your methodology is so weak.
    "The reason I upsample linerly and not bicubic is because I am comparing detail. Bicubic makes up information."
    Sure, but upsampling linearly you get NO detail because it gets mashed up with pixels. Do the comparison properly by upsampling how everyone upsamples in the real world, and let 'recipies' (sic) become 'tardpes'. It won't hurt your comparison, and it will give you far more credibility.​
    Actually Bernie, I've never seen your comparisons. Actually, I've never seen anything from you. The rest of us have been posting tests and comparisons for years.....from you I only see opinion pieces. Feel free to post some samples proving Mauro incorrect. If you can't, I'd appreciate your moving on as your contribution to this thread has been nothing (just like Michael) but vacuous opinions.
     
  264. Dave, actually you've missed the point. I'm not contenting that Mauro is wrong. Would you like to post a quote where I said this? I'm contending that he and Les have shonky testing methodologies, and both appear to have purposely manipulated their results (I can only assume this, as particularly in the case of Les, he hasn't commented on why Lake Chad is mysteriously missing in one of his images). So the point is you can't make a meaningful decision on the subject one way or the other going by these two flawed tests. If you've got some evidence, I'd be happy to look at it and give you my thoughts. If not, like I said, I don't care either way.
     
  265. Bernie, if you don't care, you will never find answers.
    The reason why I ask you what your understanding was about the resolving powers of fim is because it is clear you don't know.
    Your idea that me or someone else would try to cheat you with information is foolish. First why would I want to do that. Also you have my raw files as well as open access to all my film that is at your disposal.
    Lastly, and the main point, is that I always find out that people that argue, in general, don't know. And the last of the arguments always is "Ok, film outresolves digital, but I don't care" or "OK, Dynamic Range of negative film is better but I don't care". So what is the point in arguing?
     
  266. Steve Murry for the record some folks are saying 35mm tmax 100 is worth 40 mp in actual resolution. 10x that of a 10mp digital slr. No one has proved that or provided an independent link proving such a claim but I'll continue to shoot my 35mm B&W film just because I like it.
     
  267. Bernie, it is a serious question, not ill intended or sarcastic, what is the point in arguing?
     
  268. Michael, my 10MP 40D resolves 6MP, not 4. It is not 10X.
    My TMAX 35mm developed in Xtol 1:1 resolves between 35 and 40MP.
    My Tmax 35mm (on high contrast) outresolves (total detail captured) my 40D by 5x or 6x (not 10x). Actually only 3x to 4x when using my Coolscan 9000.
    This is MY TMX and MY 40D. Someone else may get better (or worse) results than me with either medium. So these particular ratios are only meaningful to me.
    Also I shoot 6x7 90% of the time. 35mm only out of convenience. and digital out of even more convenience.
     
  269. Bernie, if you don't care, you will never find answers. The reason why I ask you what your understanding was about the resolving powers of fim is because it is clear you don't know. Your idea that me or someone else would try to cheat you with information is foolish. First why would I want to do that. Also you have my raw files as well as open access to all my film that is at your disposal. Lastly, and the main point, is that I always find out that people that argue, in general, don't know. And the last of the arguments always is "Ok, film outresolves digital, but I don't care" or "OK, Dynamic Range of negative film is better but I don't care". So what is the point in arguing?​
    Mauro, if you take a look at any thread concerning resolution where I could even be bothered commenting on this inane topic, you will see that I have stated that I don't care about absolute measures of resolution. This isn't a feeling I have just manufactured now. What I care about is image QUALITY. Resolution is undoubtedly part of that, but it's not the be all and end all. If your film print at 30 by 20 inches has more resolution when looked at from a distance of 10 centimetres, then more power to yer I say. But I don't care about these qualities (other than from an academic interest viewpoint; which is how I find the tiny bit of care factor to comment on these crap methodologies). What I have a problem with is when obviously flawed results that have been pointed out to you on numerous occasions keep reappearing in new threads with a big sign like 'L@@K HERE!!!! FILM SLAUGHTERS DIGITAL!!!!!'. Why you keep posting that pixelated 40D image is beyond me. Below I have run my own tests on your data. It looks pretty conclusive to me. Perhaps I should spread it around the internet and help promulgate some more crap.
    00SXw4-111187584.jpg
     
  270. "Actually, I did expect that you would find contributing anything useful to be problematic. BTW, the setup is in the link I provided, but if I have to hold your hand for that too, then obviously conducting the test may prove to be more challenging."

    Nice condescension. Are you going to offer an explanation on the noise reduction or the fact that Lake Chad mysteriously disappears? LOL!
     
  271. Bernie, I spend time answering your questions, I give you all my raw files and access to all my film. And this is the best you can produce? Why don't you try to optimize the raw processing instead of ruining the film results?
    The forum is to contribute and share experiences with a community. I am dissapointed and I will not respond to you unless you show true interest.
     
  272. First Mauro says "My 35mm tmx have 40+MP of tru resolution. About 10 times of my 40D"​
    Then Maura says "My Tmax 35mm (on high contrast) outresolves (total detail captured) my 40D by 5x or 6x (not 10x)."
    You contradict yourself and then wonder why folks don't think you are credible?? Sorry Mauro I don't trust your tests either. And like others don't care what has more resolution. I just don't like exaggerations.
     
  273. Michael, I was being specific to my workflow. Do you want me to send you the film? Do you have a microscope to look at it?
    Once again. The ok but I don't care. Don't understand.
     
  274. TMX 400 TEST.
    On a more interesting note, I just run a roll of the new TMX 400. I will develop and scan tonight.
    Look for samples in the film forum.
     
  275. Here it is. NEW TMX 400. FANTASTIC.
    First run:
    Love the tonality, resolution and grain (almost none).
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479056402_r5kS4-X3-LB
    00SXz4-111201584.jpg
     
  276. The forum is to contribute and share experiences with a community​
    And that's exactly what I am doing. The defensiveness you and Les show when I point out legitimate concerns with your test images, hints at the raw nerve I have touched. But hey, it's a good laugh for intelligent people like Michael, Daniel and myself. I'll stick around for the laugh factor!
     
  277. Lannie, I didn't choose the pairs where digital was sharper and had higher resolution. There simply weren't any where the film did. If film was better wouldn't we find many pairs were film was better? I can't find one. Go ahead and look yourself. The film geeks can only make film look better by manipulating shots for so called tests. But their normal shots of normal things without manipulation cannot cash the checks their tests are writing.
     
  278. Hey Dave, should you be calling other people web experts and whining like a little girl that they don't post anything when as far as I can see in this thread, you haven't posted anything Mr. Web E. X. Pert?
     
  279. I find myself wondering why all the words? Aren't photographs better? They say a picture is worth a thousand words after all. I'm going to leave you with four thousand words worth of more randomly selected comparisons of scans and digital files, this time new and improved with hyperlinks for the DPReview files. There's even one comparison with a Dave Luttmann 35mm film scan! But before those let me leave you with a question to ponder: if film is so great, why didn't anyone who says so simply respond to my posts with real shots that show its greatness?
    Test 1
    Left Les Sarile 35mm film scan
    Right dpreview D3x test: http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/nikond3x_samples/originals/dsc_0122.jpg
    00SY3E-111215584.jpg
     
  280. Test 2
    Left Les Sarile 35mm film scan.
    Right dpreview Rebel XSi test (ISO 1600!): http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_samples/originals/img_7608.jpg
    00SY3H-111215684.jpg
     
  281. Test 3
    Left Les Sarile 35mm film scan.
    Right dpreview 50D test: http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos50d_preview_samples/originals/img_0146.jpg
    00SY3I-111215784.jpg
     
  282. Test 4
    Left Dave Luttmann 35mm film scan.
    Right dpreview Sony Alpha 900 test: http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/sonya900_samples/originals/dsc03327-acr.jpg
    00SY3K-111215884.jpg
     
  283. Bernie's mockery of Mauro's test is sadly as accurate as anything Mauro is posting. We won't see Mauro or Dave post any real scans that can match a 5D II or D3x, or heck, even the wifes D40! The foliage crop I posted earlier was from a 5D II. If film is so great why don't one of these two grand masters match the detail we see in that crop with a 35mm film scan?
    At least Les posts his scans. They undermine his point, but at least he posts them.
     
  284. I've scanned a few thousand slides probably and its not something I care to EVER do again. Even four on a loader, and paid to do it on my own time at my own place, its not that bad, but its also not that great either. Of course, sorting through hundreds of digital photos, versus the selectively taken film shots, is labor-intensive on its own, but there really isnt any comparison.
    I still shoot medium format film, but my 35mm gear wasn't anything to write home about, so its been replaced by a Nikon dSLR which leaves my film camera so far behind in functinality and lighter weight and ease of use its ludicrous. It can make you lazy, but sorting through dreck will make you sharpen up again. I do remember getting 36 Fuji Velvia slides back, and most being exciting, so I'm pretty sure something has been lost, but its really hard to quantify. Its certainly not sharpness, but it is drama. Then again, I shot a lot of my slides in dramatic light, and certain films had their bugaboos, as well. I really miss Scotch 1000 though, and its Pisarro-style impressoinist grain. Other films tried to match it and failed, and the film was discountinued for being FAULTY. What's lacking in digital is this kind of chance to throw in a roll for a different style.
    Unfortunately, medium format is not cheap to get scanned, and the Nikon 2k scanner you can buy to do it home is about 4ooo x 6000 dpi, equalled by hi-end dSLRs. I do like the slide as an object. In the future, every slide of any worth may actually be considered a piece of mini-art on its own, especially as more and more hit the landfills over the years.
    Having fretted about this a lot, there are other considerations. Photos are getting harder and harder to sell outside of being hired to shoot, so your shot setup matters more than which medium its on. There is a quality to digital that looks flat and dried-out to me, but when the lighting is really good, digital gets a whole lot better, just like film. That said, I remember some slide film rescuing average shots, and making them BETTER than reality. Maybe this was me being a tighter shooter...tough to say. Its also a color thing to me. I know B&W purists may shudder, but I've been pretty happy with the B&W setting on my DSLR. Often times more so than the color side.
    Catching great outdoor light, or creating pro light indoors prob matters more than shooting on digital or film at this point. Of course, shooting into sunsets or foglight with digital really doesnt look good, but who wants anymore sunset pics? I've seen where digital definitely has less latitude. Otherwise, with the right filters, which I see tons of people not using, the results are really pretty good. Its just the great light, shot, and non-trite subjects or excellent creative models that elude us, not the materials we're using. I've looked at the Sigma SD14 and it does seem to recapture some of that lost zest. I looked at Nikon D3X samples and I didnt get the same feeling, but the pictures were seriously average examples.
     
  285. if film is so great, why didn't anyone who says so simply respond to my posts with real shots that show its greatness?​
    Possibly because some of us prefer to see actual prints in our hands and don't care for the inferior facsimilie of an image on a monitor.
     
  286. Todd, you cannot simply say "Here is a photo of a cat made wtih film, and here is a photo of a cat made with digital. Compare them!" You must have side-by-side comparisons of THE SAME CAT shot UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS with the two cameras your wish to compare.
    In addition, if you are going to try to show anything on a monitor, you are going to have to learn what a "100% crop" is. (Hint: It is NOT a "100% full-sized file"!)
    You have now posted seventeen posts to Photo.net in your entire history since joining three days ago, and they have all been to this forum. In every case, your methodology has been along the lines of what you offered above: "Here is a great shot of a cat made with digital. See how it stacks up against your shot of a cat made with film?!" Then, by way of clubbing us over the head with your logic, you will offer us a shot of an eye (or a headlight) made with film, and then another shot of another entirely different eye (or headlight) made with digital--and then you ask again us to compare. We cannot do so. We have no basis for doing so.
    --Lannie
     
  287. Todd, "Bernie's mockery of Mauro's test is sadly as accurate as anything Mauro is posting."
    If you don't want to learn, either through your own experience, or through what people with experience try to share with you; and you also have nothing to share, what is the reason why you post?
    Let me ask the same question I asked Bernie:
    "Bernie, can you please state what your understanding is regarding the resolution of TMX, Velvia and Ektar, Canon 40D, Nikon D2X, Sony A900 and Canon 5DII?
    If you don't know on a lines per pph basis, what is your relative resolution understanding?
    Please do this for me if you would. It seems like many people argue but no one disagrees and I want to see clearly what you think."
    D=So Todd, would you mind stating what your understanding is? In a direct way - Regarding the resolution of the mediums above?
     
  288. Mark,
    you state
    "Unfortunately, medium format is not cheap to get scanned, and the Nikon 2k scanner you can buy to do it home is about 4ooo x 6000 dpi, equalled by hi-end dSLRs."
    Obviously you have never tried it.
     
  289. Bernie, Daniel and Todd;
    what did you think of the first run of TMAX 400 I posted?
     
  290. Another scan:
    (of the new Kodak TMAX 400)
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479095536_oEbxN-X3-LB
    00SY79-111229584.jpg
     
  291. Also, Daniel and Todd;
    Do you mind sharing your soup for B&W development? and also what scanner do you have?
    The problem may be in your workflow. I can help if you want me to.
     
  292. Todd Carson , Feb 23, 2009; 04:23 a.m.
    Hey Dave, should you be calling other people web experts and whining like a little girl that they don't post anything when as far as I can see in this thread, you haven't posted anything Mr. Web E. X. Pert?​
    Todd, I've produced tests at DPReview over the last 5 years showing how film can interpolate to larger sizes more gracefully, how the 1Ds is beaten by 35 and MF, how the D200 is beaten by 35mm, how the dynamic range of film (in one case Acros) beats that of DSLRs, how 4x5 on a cheap flatbed trounces any DSLR from Canon, Nikn, etc. I've never seen anything from you other than acusitory posts and unsubstantiated opinion. So yes, I find you a blowhard web-expert. And before you acuse others of the same, do your homework. It'll save you from once again coming to an uniformed opinion.
     
  293. "Unfortunately, medium format is not cheap to get scanned, and the Nikon $2k scanner you can buy to do it home is about 4ooo x 6000 dpi, equalled by hi-end dSLRs." --Mark Onat
    Uh, Mark, are you saying that high end DSLRs are giving you better results than medium format film? Perhaps that is not what you meant, but it is perilously close to what you actually said.
    Most of the discussions on this thread have revolved around comparing 35mm film versus full-frame digital, i.e., the same size "sensor" (36mm x 24mm). Regardless of what one concludes on that issue for a given 35mm film and a given ISO, nothing in the realm of full-frame digital is coming close to scanned MF film. A frame of 6cm x6 cm film (actually about 5.5cm x5.5cm in terms of what is usable) gives a negative that is about 3.5 times larger than the corresponding 35mm negative. Of course, that is 3.5 times as great in terms of surface area. Since resolution is a linear measure, not a square measure, the actual increase in resolution is actually less than twice as great (whatever the square root of 3.5 is, about 1.9 or so, I guess).
    Even with medium format film, that is, many persons are going to accept the quality of high end digital. It is a personal choice, and there are, of course, many other issues besides mere resolution to consider if one decides to return to film, even at the high end.
    On the other hand, consider how much better a 20 megapixel digital camera is compared to a 5 megapixel camera--four times the surface area, but only twice as high in terms of resolution, which again is a linear measure.
    There a lot of things to consider in making the decision to go back to film, and they hardly all about mere resolution, but digital still has that commanding advantage in one area: it sure is a lot faster to shoot and process. I don't personally see that as a disadvantage, since I am not sure why making a process slower makes one a better photographer, as is often claimed.
    What that means for me is that available film is still much better than available digital, especially if one is not restrained by the same format size (and I am not even considering large format here). Is it enough better to make the switch back? That will continue to be a personal choice, but, if quality is the over-riding consideration, then film still has the overwhelming advantage, especially if one chooses to go up to medium format or above.
    Having said that, I do not doubt that many persons will say, "Hmm, 20 to 25 megapixel digital. Surely that is good enough for my printing needs."
    --Lannie
     
  294. Todd Carson , Feb 23, 2009; 04:43 a.m.
    Bernie's mockery of Mauro's test is sadly as accurate as anything Mauro is posting. We won't see Mauro or Dave post any real scans that can match a 5D II or D3x, or heck, even the wifes D40! The foliage crop I posted earlier was from a 5D II. If film is so great why don't one of these two grand masters match the detail we see in that crop with a 35mm film scan?
    At least Les posts his scans. They undermine his point, but at least he posts them.​
    Actually Todd, a link was posted here by me showing a comparsion scan between Fuji Pro 160S and the Sony A900. It shows exactly what I've been saying....for color, and that film, 35mm nearly matches a 24mp sensor.....probably around 20mp. Kind of a lot more than a D40.....and that's just 35mm. Now take 6x7 and figure it out.
    Once again, please do your homework first. What's really funny is that you throw around cameras that you obviously have never used. I bet you've you've never used a 5D2 like some of us have....yet you blather on about it.
    Pretty good run you've made for a new member to the forum. Unfortunately, those of us with a bit of experience...and eyes....can see through all your fluff.
     
  295. Bernie, Todd or Daniel,
    Also how you ever done a single side by side comparison (just one) of 35mm film next to a DSLR that made you believe the things you are saying? (you may have - I am not being sarcastic) You care for posting it? Of the same subject and composition that is.
     
  296. Bernie, Todd or Daniel,
    I think it may be a matter of personal preference.
    I shoot 6x7 TMAX and Velvia most of the time. So assuming that you shoot with a DSLR, the stock of my pictures are more detailed thant the once you take, but you gain in convenience (I don't think you have a debate here). Your preference then may be slanted towards convinience or other features of a DSLR that matter more to you more than additional detail. In the end, it is probably just a matter of personal preference.
     
  297. My experience has been, based on a recent one month trip shooting with a rented SONY a900, that a single full frame from the SONY, processed from RAW, just starts to rival the quality/sharpness I was achieving with my Pentax 645 and is still no match for my older Pentax 6x7 much less the larger formats. But when I stitch several frames from the SONY to create a larger file, it's a different story. I'm able to create very large gallery size print. While an experienced photographer could look at the large stitched image vs one from film and argue the subtleties that pixel peepers delight in, the public generally doesn't give a damn. The film vs digital arguments don't influence their buying decision.
    00SYDO-111250484.jpg
     
  298. The A900 is a sweet machine. For prints up to 30" it's superb. While I hear people mention that if the DSLR isn't high enough rez, they can always stitch to improve it....the same can be said for film. I remember stitching four 6x7 frames from Reala in an attempt to get close to 4x5....and it worked well.
    Nice photo!!!
     
  299. Todd, what did you think of the real world comparisons on Ken Rockwell's site?
     
  300. Nice picture Charles. The light looks fantastic.
     
  301. Todd, because the way I practice photography, I can probably provide more real world with no testing criteria comparisons of film and digital capture than most. In some instances I may have a score of images taken with whatever cameras I might have with me of the same subject in different light, seasons, and weather.
    Here's one. I had both cameras with me and the shots were taken moments apart.
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=888460
    And what does this prove? Nothing. It is not a test, just a comparison, only not of random images like yours.
     
  302. Don what conclusions did you draw from your comparisons. A few years ago I used to carry a small compact digital and an SLR loaded with B&W film. I often took the same shot with both cameras but I was more interested in the B&W film images for myself the digicam was just for emails and 6x4 color album prints for my wife.
     
  303. "Don what conclusions did you draw from your comparisons."
    Stuart, I hadn't looked at them from the perspective of digital or 35mm film. If I decide to make a print it means I'm going back to shoot with serious kit, not my walkabout cameras. If the shots I linked to were all I had and wanted to print, I'd have a new scan made of the film. I could do better with my Nikon V, or I could buy a pro scan. The digital file will always be what it is, no matter what post-process I do with it. I'll say I've gotten nice 8x10s from the FZ30.
    I don't have a full frame dslr with topnotch lens and am not willing to pay the price since I've got mf and lf cameras. I'm a hobbiest, so have no obligations to produce product.
     
  304. Just curious whether you had compared the two or if you had drawn any conculusions as to which you prefere in a given situation.
     
  305. Charles, that is an awesome picture of the Torres del Paine. I would love to see that printed.
    Someone else who has done some awesome digital work with stitching on this site is Tony Dummett. I think that he is among the top ten photographers on the site (in terms of popularity), and he has gotten there without posting a single nude.
    --Lannie
     
  306. Geez, more than a week and still in the top 5. What is it with you people? Film is not dead*, but this debate is. Stop whining about which is better, or being angry about what other people think is better, and just shoot what you like.
    *it's lifeless
     
  307. Bernie, Todd or Daniel,
    Also how you ever done a single side by side comparison (just one) of 35mm film next to a DSLR that made you believe the things you are saying?​
    What exactly IS it you think I am saying? You zealots are all the same. It doesn't matter what we say, you only hear what you want to hear.
    As for Dave L.... with all respect, you are a blowhard. You can't on one hand dismiss reputation like Clark and Koren, and then on the other hand expect us to take your '5 year reputation' without any questions. SO WHAT if you've posted comparisons over at DPReview. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't dpreview. If you want us to comment on some of your evidence, post it here, with details of how you performed the test (not like the other two boobs) so we can. About all we can comment on at the moment is your big fat ego.
     
  308. "Just curious whether you had compared the two or if you had drawn any conculusions as to which you prefere in a given situation."
    If by the two you mean digital and 35mm cameras, my preference for film has less to do with resolution or image quality than with the style of the camera. I prefer older mechanical cameras over electronic cameras whether they are digital or film. It's a physical bias related to handiness, not a sensing medium bias. For tripod work, I use larger format film. But as I wrote, I don't have experience with top-of-the-line digital cameras and lenses.
     
  309. Bernie, I know you are saying that you don't disagree with my conclusion but you think the methodology could be better. I was just asking for clarification.
    What I was asking was:
    a) what exactly you think the relative resolving powers are (35mm Velvia, TMX, Ektar, vs the popular DSLRs like the 5D, 40D, 5DII, etc? (e.g. Velvia 35mm outresolves the 5D by 2 or 3 times... etc)
    b) if you could post side by side exammples supporting it.
    I would like to clearly understand what you think.
     
  310. Mauro, thank you. I don't disagree, nor do I agree, with your conclusion. I can't do either. Same with Les' test.

    I just followed Dave's link and found 2 things. 1 - it isn't even his test, which makes him even more of a blowhard; and 2 - the images weren't showing for some reason (and I can't blame IE as I am using firefox).

    As for my experiences - I know very little about scanning film (and even if I did I don't have a good scanner anyway). But like I said further up in the thread, there are two sides to this story. One side is the film scanning side, and the other is the digital development side. I know a lot about the digital side, but little about the film side. And I put it to most of the zealots in this thread that they know very little about the digital side and a lot about the film side. So you see? We are mostly all in the same position. Now if a proper test was conducted with proper methodologies, then we could all combine our strengths and work on a solution. But as it is, I haven't seen a proper test conducted in this thread, so I can't comment any further on that. I am also sceptical of some of the contributors motives, for the reasons pointed out earlier.

    Anyway, I'll just hang about to debunk any more wild claims, as much as that will annoy Dave and Les.
     
  311. Yes Mauro, I'd like to see his tests as well. Apparently Bernie doesn't seem to grasp that if Koren or Clarke say that Velvia = X Resolution....and one of us posts samples to show it incorrect, then it's incorrect. Period. I posted enough over the years....I'm not going to bother diggin up old files again.
    I posted a link to a test at DPReview that clearly shows Fuji Pro160S on an Imacon is nearly at the rez levels of a 24mp sensor. But of course, Koren and Clark must be correct and I'm just a blowhard. I thought that a sample proving it wrong was good enough.
    I wouldn't waste any time on this fellow Mauro. Even if he agreed with your methods, and saw the samples side by side.....he'd still argue. This is why I no longer bother posting tests. It's gets tiring having to defend the obvious to a bunch of web-experts whos only real experience is quoting the LL et al. The funny thing is he even admits he knows little about scanning film.....but he's free to argue about it with people who do that as part of their living. Odd having newbies arguing with working pros.
    And Bernie, your posts don't annoy me. Eventually you'll figure things out. As I do this professionally, I've got a pretty good grasp of what works best.
     
  312. Thank you for being honest Bernie. I shoot digital and film all the time. If you have a test in mind let me know and I will run it for you.
    Like David said, experience tells you what works best. I don't know a single film shooter who doesn't own a DSLR. Sometimes a DSLR fits the purpose of the task better. Even if film offers more in pure resolution or dynamic range.
    e.g. For portrait jobs in studio I use my 40D more than film; but I never bring the 40D if I am to shoot a landscape that I intend to hang on the wall. It is not because I am pro-film, but because I get better results with it.
    Arguments on measurable qualities like resolution and dynamic range, acknowledgeably isolated qualities, is where people who know first hand get frustrated at unfunfunded discussions. This does not mean that people who understand film don't shoot and understand DSLRs and processing.
     
  313. The funny thing is he even admits he knows little about scanning film.....but he's free to argue about it with people who do that as part of their living. Odd having newbies arguing with working pros.​
    Dave, once again you missed the point (this is becoming an all too frequent occurrence). While you may be a pro at film, I have yet to see you prove that you are a pro at digital post-processing (let alone yet to see you prove so with film either!). Mauro and Les clearly aren't, as they have proved by ignoring obvious deficiencies in their digital processing. And by the way, pro doesn't mean proficiency, it means professional, and that relates mostly to business acumen. There are plenty of amateurs around who blow pro work right out of the water.
    So (once again..) the point was: There are TWO sides to this story. It's not just a one sided film story. Until you prove that you have digital proficiency, and post some of your own results to back up you claims (please note, before you miss the point again, that I have made no claims as to the relative resolution of film vs digital, therefore there is no onus on me to back up said claims) your words are just as much opinion as anyone elses that you have disrespected on this thread so far.
     
  314. Could we drop the ad hominem remarks of calling persons "blowhards" and get back to the topic at hand?
    If someone has some photographic comparisons to post, post them. I have seen some posts by Dave. I thought that they were quite useful. These assaults on Dave I do not find useful--or civil.
    Thank you.
    --Lannie
     
  315. Agree.
    It'd be so nice if every post were either a contribution or an honest question looking for an answer.
    On a different topic, I hope people saw my post on TMAX 400. Just fantastic. I am now shooting a 2nd roll at ISO 3200 hoping to push some visible grain texture.
     
  316. Lannie, perhaps you should look at the assaults coming from Dave as well, before asking us to lay off.
    Dave is amongst the few here who are trying to proclaim that there is NO contention that film outresolves digital, and that people who offer an opinion should put up or shut up. The problem is that Dave himself hasn't put up. The link he provides wasn't even his test! The three main film zealots, Mauro, Les and Dave, have provided no credible evidence. They don't like having their flaws pointed out to them, and it was them who engaged in ad hominen well before any one else got into it.
    Les is off on his own planet. Until he addresses the questions of noise reduction and NO Lake Chad (WTF !?!), he has absolutely ZERO credibility.
    Honestly, this is one of the most farcical attempts to prove one's argument I have ever seen on the internet. Like I said, I'm sticking around for the laugh factor.
     
  317. Bernie....just because the comparison image wasn't mine....doesn't mean it's wrong. It was a straightforward comparison. I've already said I've posted a number of tests at DPReview. I'm not wasting my time looking them up again for someone who refuses to acknowledge a comparison just because someone else made it.
    Bernie, we've provided the only comparisons....you've just posted a bunch of silly challenges. You acknowledge you know little about scanning. I'm done wasting time responding.
    You havn't pointed out any flaws....in fact, you've written much about nothing. And for you to insult Les and Mauro....the two that have posted comparisons here....we'll that's simply ridiculous. You are in fact, the typical anti-film troll.
     
  318. Bernie....just because the comparison image wasn't mine....doesn't mean it's wrong.​
    Did I say it was wrong?
    I'm not wasting my time looking them up again for someone who refuses to acknowledge a comparison just because someone else made it.​
    Where did I say I refuse to acknowledge the comparison? I wasn't making a point about the comparison, Dave. I was making a point about you. And that point is, that you have been mouthing off at everyone else saying 'where's your tests', when you haven't even provided anything yourself. Like I said, your opinion is just as valid or invalid as any one elses, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
    You are in fact, the typical anti-film troll​
    Where have I made any anti-film statements? I shoot both film and digital, and neither professionally (so I don't care for one anymore than the other). You really should work on your reading comprehension Dave. I'm glad you are through responding to me as it will save me from constantly having to point out where you missed the point again, and where you have just patently made stuff up!
     
  319. Bernie,
    you can find the answers to resolution yourself. Just shoot a resolution chart yourself and compare the resolution to mine.
    Note the resolution yourself, in lines pph, from your digital camera. Then compare to the film scans I posted from Rishi using an Imacon on my film, where Velvia clearly shows over 4000 lines pph; or 3900pph using my Coolscan 9000.
    It takes a minute and you can find out yourself.
    Here is the link to the resolution chart for your convenience:
    http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf
    It will take you a minute, and then you can post how many lines pph your camera resolves.
    Then you know! and can post your experience and test! And your argument will be instantly over.
     
  320. My argument regards resolution isn't anything! I DON'T CARE! Is that plain enough for you all to see? What I care about is debunking some of the nonsense that has been posted in this thread. It doesn't serve photo.net well to have this sort of rubbish posted as useful information.

    Look, if you guys care enough about this, then it is a relatively simple task. Set up a test subject(s), a tripod and cable release, and take one photo with film and then straight away take one image with digital (using the same lens). Don't wait till the next day, don't use a different test subject, don't put much faith in black and white lines for god's sake (unless you photograph a lot of zebras!), and don't do anything strange with the post processing. If you want someone with digital raw experience to do the digi image I'll happily oblige. And finally, don't try and deceive people with your results. Post the results simply and clearly and provide a detailed description of how the test was done. If these results show film is the winner, then everyone wins, because we wouldn't have to go through the frustration of more and more of these types of threads.
     
  321. Bernie, what camera do you have? Let me know and I'll try to find it locally and I'll run the test for you.
    I'll post exactly what your camera can capture next to 35mm film.
     
  322. I've got a 5D. Why do you care though? I don't. But hey, knock yourself out if you want.
     
  323. If it doesn't matter to you I'll just use my 40D then. The results should be similar.
     
  324. "Clayton Tullos , Feb 16, 2009; 09:38 p.m.
    I hate to rain on your parade but your scanner is only capable of 30mp and that is if you scan it at 5400x5400 which is unlikely. But your point still remains that your scanner is better than most pro slr's today.
    My scanner can do 7200 x7200 '(51mp), but only has digital ice and slides are only able to look good at that resolution.
    Here is a 41mp image done with my scanner, yes the tiff is quite large hence the conversion to jpg.
    http://claytontullos.com/images/slide.jpg"
    Rain away old chap. Just be sure to get your forecast right first though. My max scanner resolution is 5400dpi. The scanned resolution is 5400 x 7200 (135mm format isn't square) which makes, ahem 40MP. As I said in the forst place. I thank you.
     
  325. Clayton Tullos: hate to rain on your parade, but Paul's Minolta (well, mine too) at 5400ppi will outresolve your Plustek at 7200ppi anyday.
    Here's your Plustek:
    [​IMG]
    And here's the Minolta (v. II):
    [​IMG]
    Further evidence that your Plustek scan is nowhere near extracting all the information on the film is the fact that I don't see any grain. Short of you having some incredible diffusing element in the Plustek, I think that simply means that its performance is sub-par... far worse than desktop scanners like the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite or Nikons would've provided even 6 years ago.
    The unfortunate truth of film scanners is that they've gone down the tubes in recent years (save for Imacon), which is why so many people try to find used ones at above-new prices on eBay.
    With the proper technique (holding film flat, completely... not an easy task), an Imacon @8000ppi (~80MP scan) can pull 25-26MP worth of true information off Velvia 50, the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 @5400ppi (~44MP scan) can pull 19MP worth of true info of same frame of film, & Nikons @4000ppi (~22MP scan) can only pull 11-13MP off of said film frame. Those are my conclusions from my scans of Mauro's excellent resolution test chart shots... blog post still pending, Mauro :)
    Good to see everyone else here.
    Rishi
     
  326. Good to hear from you Rishi.
    I can't wait to see all the test on all the films and scanner sets. Also if you want to, feel free to grab the Coolscan 9000 scans from my website for all those films.
     
  327. Rishi,
    It sounds like you are getting under 2500-3000 dpi across the 35mm with the Coolscan. I would double check that particular scanner.
    The Coolscan should be resolving 4000 dpi along the 35mm and 3600dpi along the 24mm of the frame. And it should give you about 4000*35/24.5 * 3600*24/24.5 = aprox 20 MP.
    It may be the custom AN glass you are using. Try scanning the Velvia film without the AN glass.
    00SYoU-111403584.jpg
     
  328. Rishi, what were your resolution results with the Imacon and the TMX 100 strip?
     
  329. Mauro,
    That's right, those are my results with a LS-4000, LS-5000, & LS-9000, so I doubt it's the particular scanner I was working with.
    I'm going to have to chalk up this difference to a difference in technique between you and I. On the bright side, though (for me anyway, since I favor the Minolta), I use the same technique between the Nikon scanners and the Minolta, and you've seen the considerably higher resolution capability of the Minolta...
    When I say we have 'different techniques', I mean the following:
    1. I am using a Scanhancer light diffuser + AN glass to flatten the film
    2. I do not sharpen any of my images for these comparisons
    I'm fairly certain you sharpen your images, as your initial estimate of the Ektar 100 resolution was from an overly sharpened scan of the resolution test chart (my opinion, no offense Mauro!).
    With considerable sharpening, perhaps my estimates of both the Nikon & Minolta scanners would go up.
    Re: scanning without the glass -- I don't find that the LS-4000 or LS-5000 have any respectable depth of focus, and so I consider scanning without glass on these scanners inane. I have done it with your film, and after 5-10 different scans using different focus points, I gave up. At best, they pretty fairly matched the results with Scanhancer + AN glass. At worst, the resolution was way off b/c the focus was off.
    I can't recall right now what the scan without the Scanhancer looked like... I will have to try again, but after my thesis proposal (next Thursday).
    Do you agree, Mauro, that your sharpening might be what is leading to this resolution estimate difference? Or is that too far-fetched?
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  330. Good luck in your thesis. Shut off photo.net until you are done.
    I am positive that sharpening won't increase the resolution of a scan. You can try. (after the thesis).
    You can also try this, select the focus point of the area of the chart you and I have been testing (around the [4] mark - don't worry about film flatness for such a small area), don't use your AN glass or ICE.
    Compare the results with the AN glass results.
     
  331. I am positive that sharpening won't increase the resolution of a scan.​
    I think that sharpening does affect the subjective impression of the extinction resolution, b/c it affects what you subjectively identify as the point at which 'lines are no longer distinguishable'. Even you & I differed in opinion on the extinction resolution using the same JPEG/TIFF image for evaluation! Sharpening (excessive, especially) will tend to bring out lines from areas one would otherwise consider to be gray.
    I did try focusing on just that area of the chart; it just didn't look any better (high resolution) than when I scanned with the glass flattening the film. I did, however, typically use the Scanhancer. But I used the Scanhancer with the Minolta too, so, fair comparison :)
    But anyway, to put this matter to rest, I will re-perform the scanners without Scanhancer and without glass and without ICE, to be objective! Yes, after next Thursday :)
    And then perhaps I shall accost you, Mauro, for those DR frames of film... you know there's a world of information in the Dmax regions of slide film...
    Rishi
     
  332. Looking forward to the thesis Rishi. I agree with Mauro....turn off Phot.net til you're done.
     
  333. I'll send you the Dynamic range files after you passed your thesis.
     
  334. Hahaha! How caring! You guys are awesome. See you on the flip side (hopefully)
    :)
     
  335. Photos of test charts don’t really interest me much, since I don’t tent to find myself photographing anything that looks like a test chart often. With a test chart you don’t have any subtle textures or low contrast detail, like a real scene has. So for me I want to see some good sharp looking photos where the textures in the photo are coming from the objects in the scene and not from film grain. It is hard to tell looking at a photo of a test chart how well a camera will do at this, but very easy looking at a few photographers.
    For those how want to see sample from everyone here are a few of mine, and what I am looking for in a good clean sharp photo.
    http://sewcon.com/samples/
    In the end it really comes down to shooting with what makes you happy, I am happy with what I am shooting with and from the sounds of it so is just about everyone else. So just be happy with what you have, don’t worry about what the other guy has and go out and shoot some photographs.
     
  336. There is no need to choose ('versus') between what a photographer may want in the way of image quality for an exposure, and a test of resolution between variuous lenses or sensing media. There's no "vs" or either/or. One involves subjective or personal choice or desire, the other is an objective measure (when the test is properly constructed).
     
  337. After reading these posts I decided to throw my gear away and start drawing!
     
  338. Scott, did you apply noise reduction to your images? Detail and texture seems a bit smeared. Was the camera NR on?
     
  339. Look closely at the detail in the trees or the boat name:
    http://sewcon.com/samples/Ship%2005-21-06.jpg
     
  340. Ford is better than Chevy.
     
  341. Most definetly.
     
  342. I noticed the same NR effects on the trees, Scott--before the other guys posted. Even so, you get a clean, crisp image, and that may be what you want, but you are losing some detail, most obviously on the trees for me.
    The worst problem I ever had with that was with the Kodak 14n. In good light it gave extraordinarly sharp files, but the noise reduction was a lot more intrusive than in your case. They finally issued a firmware upgrade that allowed one to change the noise reduction setting to "weak," but one never had the option of turning it off entirely. It was very frustrating, since certin types of bushes or cedar trees always looked like they were water-colored.
    What did you shoot that with, by the way?
    --Lannie
     
  343. someone should put together a gallery show containing images from film vs. digital threads!
    nah, on second thought if i had to look at those images all day i'd probably punch my own teeth out.
     
  344. Heck with the camera....just put me on the ship with a G&T in hand!!!!
     
  345. indeed dave! i'll need three or four after all the photo's of crayons and cats at the big DIGITAL VS FILM gallery opening.
     
  346. My portfolio is brimming with images from a variety of equipment:
    Pentax digital SLR,
    Canon digital p & s,
    Kodak digital p & s,
    Canon 35 mm SLR,
    Pentax 35 mm SLR
    Epson V500 scanner (and one other Epson scanner that was about the same quality.)
    I am happy with all of my equipment. They are like my babies. I like each for different reasons. My only complaint is the quality I do or do not get in low light conditions. I prefer to do my own negative scanning. It's cheaper. For the novice who doesn't know much, there is the auto mode scan setting.
     
  347. Much better Scott. What was the problem?
     
  348. I put up the wrong photo, an out of focus shot I took
    I did not look carefully at what I was uploading untill you said it was soft, then I knew I must have gotten the wrong one, ah well. Ah well these things happen
     
  349. It looked very strange not out of focus. Looks excellent now.
     
  350. Looks like it was either taken with a different camera, or Scott tried to fix the out of focus problem with the sharpening setting in Canon's DPP. That's the smeared effect I normally see from the atrocious sharpening algo in DPP.
    The second shot has detail in the folioage that didn't look like focus, but instead appeared as an image processing issue. I would say that it appeared one was shot on a point and shoot like a Canon G9, and the other was shot with a DSLR....at least that's how it looked to me.
    And I still want to be on the ship with a good stiff drink.
     
  351. I want to be on the climbing wall with a drink on my harness.
     
  352. Scott,
    Amazing resolution & 'cleanliness' on those photos... did you take them using one of those machines that stitches together many photos? And if that were the case, the setup didn't cost you less than $300... :)
    Rishi
     
  353. Wow, Scott, that is an awesome shot now. It was good before. Now it blows me away.
    By the way, I went to your folder: loved your shot of the dophin playing in the bow wave of the ship!
    --Lannie
     
  354. Thanks Landrum,
    The dophin shot is one that I both like and hate. It was a lucky shot but taken with a Nikon 995, I really wish I had a camera with me with a much longer lens. What you see is a crop and about all the resolution that is in the shot. I now have a Canon 300mm IS L lens with a 1.4 converter, that should could have been great with that lens, ah well.
     
  355. ... one of those machines that stitches together many photos?​
    You mean a Gigapan robotic mount? It was $250 when I got mine, probably cheaper now. Just go to gigapan.org.
    It's a great way to get 300MP and 16 stops out of Canon compact digicam, and a great way to relieve oneself of peni..., ur, ummm, megapixel envy.
     
  356. I do have a Gigapan device, but those shots were all done before I got it.
    The gigapan thingy really is great, but I mostly use it for high resolution shots, over 300MP or so.
    Like this shot
    http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=8849
     
  357. So then if you don't mind me asking, how are you getting 135MP shots from a sub-$300 camera? Just curious :)
     
  358. mwr

    mwr

    Scott, maybe I missed it, but what was your equipment and process for that great shot of the ship at http://sewcon.com/samples/Ship2%2005-21-06.jpg?
     
  359. Here are SOME COMPARISONS, thanks to a link that Scott Wilson posted to a related thread:
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
    Draw your own conclusions, as they say.
    --Lannie
     
  360. THE CAT PHOTOS REVISITED: Here is the the Sony v. Sensia thread that Les Sarile posted back in the fall. Methodological questions aside, I find it quite incredible that 35mm film is quite obviously holding its own (at least) against the 24.6 MP digital sensor of the Sony A900:
    http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Qq4v
    Now imagine how the cat would have looked if shot with medium format film, giving a file about 3.5 times larger than that of the 35mm film.
    I know that there are those who say that we are beating a dead horse on this issue, but the question remains: whose horse is holding up the best from the beating?
    MORE MEDIUM FORMAT IMPLICATIONS: Along the same lines, Michael Reichmann (whether you like him or not) has offered some provocative comparisons on this thread which is ostensibly about megapixels, but which winds up offering some good comparisons between scanned film and digital files from DSLRs, not to mention medium format film and digital backs:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
    Here the question again for me is what happens when one moves up to scanned
    medium format film.
    --Lannie