Digital vs. Film - comparison of final prints

[martin_patek_strutsky]

A few days ago I bought my very first digital camera (Canon 20D) and

I am still on a steep learning curve. Up to now I used primarily LF,

6x7 and only occasionally 35mm film.

 

In theory the resolution of the 20D (3504x2336) is roughly equivalent

to 35mm film scanned at 2400 dpi. Using a decent 4000dpi scanner 35mm

delivers already 50% more information. I am aware that most digital

shooters argue that this calculation makes no sense as files captured

digital are much 'cleaner' and contain only 'real' information.

 

It would be interesting to hear opinions from people making larger

prints (12x16, 16x20) regularly. How does a DSLR perform compared to

well scanned film? What kind of differences have you found in the

final print?

 

Thanks a lot.

 

 

(Sorry for my poor English. I hope you got my point.)

[jbq]

Actually many digital shooters argue that in most real-world shooting situations a number of factors significantly reduce the practical resolution that can be captured (camera shake, focusing inaccuracies, and tradeoffs of resolution vs. depth-of-field), and that the response of the capture medium within the practical limits of real-world shooting matter at least as much as the ultimate resolving power in the lab.

 

I don't do prints as big as what you mention (don't have a wide enough printer and don't bother having prints done by a lab), but in my experience DSLR pictures (those shot at low sensitivities at least) can be cropped and enlarged more aggressively than film pictures.

[beauh44]

Hi Martin, IMHO, 99% of the time, the digital prints turn out much better than 35mm film. There are a couple of caveats though: 1) Print film has much wider latitude in the shadow detail and is less likely to blow out highlights. This can be addressed by good digital camera technique, i.e. the use of neutral density filters if necessary and understanding your histogram feature. 2) Projected slides look better to me than most any print, film or digital. But that's about it. My Epson 2200 will print up to 13X19 and my 10D and 20D prints look great at that size. Also, don't forget that you can always order prints from a good lab like Mpix, many times more inexpensively than doing them yourself. Inkjet printers can get expensive to use. Best wishes . . .

[kkjuhy]

Martin,

 

Since you have (access to) LF, MF 35mm (all film) and a 20D, why don't YOU shoot the same scene (if possible same Field Of View if your lenses allow, taking into account the various form factors etc) from a tripod (use same exposure, mirror lockup etc), best film (same for all the formats) and have one enlargement printed per format(pick your size) and tell us?

 

I would be very interested in your results since I don't have (access to) all that stuff!

[christopher_bibbs]

I print big (12x18, 16x20, etc.), but I don't scan my film. Digital prints go to a lightjet and film goes through a traditional enlarger. My personal opinion is that the high resolution digital cameras I've used (Canon 20D and a Kodak DCS back on a Mamiya 645AFD) are awfully close to 35mm film. In fact, the other photographers I've shown my work to can't tell which are digital and which are traditional prints.

 

If I had to add another step of scanning the 35mm film, I would suspect the 35mm film would lose just enough to give digital the edge.

[scott_eaton]

This is a great question given the context Martin is asking. Regretfully it often degenerates into film vs digital debates which frustrates those of us trying to be objective about this important topic. Lets keep our fingers crossed.

 

A few weeks ago I attended one of those couples nights in which a popular regional studio chain had a portable backdrop set up and was shooting dSLR. While I wasn't overwhelmed by their rather bland choice of lighting ratios, I do admit they were doing a pretty good job over-all. When I saw they were shooting digital I cringed because many of these shops like to use some portable, poorly calibrated dye-sub widget that I just can't stand looking at the out-put. Fortunatley, they were using conventional RA-4 papers, which I suspect was a Frontier for the smaller stuff and a Chromira for the bigger stuff. Maybe a Chromira for everything - I dunno...I've just learned there's a subtle difference in the Chromira va the LightJet in a bigger print and I can usually spot the difference.

 

Anyways, since I've printed so much high end portraiture from MF in the past I've learned to nit-pick this stuff pretty good. To my eyes, the 8x12 and smaller stuff pretty much held it's own against 645 print film. From a tonal perspective they had their workflow nailed down, and nobody could distinguish their digital capture from portrait film in terms of color/contrast. Bigger than that and group portraits started to get soft though. At 16x20, I'd much rather shoot 6x7 (or 1ds), but it really depends on the type of shot since a single head shot is less likely to show subjective softness when enlarged than a family grouping. Considering that many of these big prints get laquered and otherwised diffused to death, I'm certain that a 16x20 from 6mp dSLR would look perfectly fine on the wall. Not my first choice though for a bigger enlargement and group shots. My only other nit with the whole affair was they were using that dreadfull Kodak Endura paper that looks flat out dead and lifeless compared to my Frontier/Fuji CA portraits.

 

The biggest advantage a dSLR has over film is simply the variables in printing film are too over-whelming to make a quality comparison from. Optical printing from 35mm, especially commercial, is horribly erratic. Doing your own scanning of 35mm is essentially the only way to ensure you get the sharpest possible print from your film given digital printers are not subject to the immense array of printing variables that optical is.

 

Objectivity aside, I feel a quality, 4000dpi scan from slow speed 35mm films can hold up well to 6mp dSLR, but only if you stick to subject matter that film tends to do a good job with; detail oriented subjects, landscapes, etc. Even though a 6mp dSLR lacks the raw resolution of slow speed films, the lack of grain with digital sensors generally looks better when it comes to portraits.

 

I'm otherwise no blown away by really big enlargements from dSLR, which is why I stick to 10x15 and smaller. Inkjets tend to add some percepetual sharpness to a print vs the more diffuses nature or LightJet type printing, so I feel you gain some more enlargement potential from using ink-jet with digital capture.

[glenn_kroeger]

Scott:

 

What do you see as the difference between LightJet and Chromira prints. Since I have a choice of labs, one of each.

 

Glenn

[neal_shields]

Take a good 35mm camera with a prime lens; focus very carefully on a scene with diminishing detail like a shopping center parking lot from a hill; where you can see lots of license plates. Use F8 for your aperture setting.

 

Place the camera on a steady tripod and lock the mirror up, and release the shutter with a cable release.

 

Use a film like Fuji Reala.

 

Have a portion of the resulting negative scanned at 12000 dpi on a good drum scanner. It will cost about $30.

 

Shoot the same picture with a digital camera.

 

Compare results.

 

Throw digital camera in lake.

 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

[michael_darnton1]

If you can afford a $30 scan for every photo you take.

[Barry Thomas]

Neal, are there any good digital cameras?

[scott_eaton]

Anybody who drum scans Reala at 12000dpi would likely 'float' if thrown in that lake, if you know what I mean by that statement.

 

I still wonder how people like Neal even bother to post in threads like this when they have no first end experience with digital capture and can't even produce decent film images. I guess it's simply to annoy the rest of us.

[chiswick_john]

Yawn......people still bashing digital by comparing it to a totaly obtuse, time consuming and expensive film capture methods - Neal - do you actualy shoot all your pictures and have them transfered to digital like this?

[Spearhead]

Obviously film is great for shooting license plates, so let Neal spend his time doing that. I'll work on making some photos I really like and not worry about the license plates, so it's much more open.

[daniel_taylor]

"In theory the resolution of the 20D (3504x2336) is roughly equivalent to 35mm film scanned at 2400 dpi. Using a decent 4000dpi scanner 35mm delivers already 50% more information. I am aware that most digital shooters argue that this calculation makes no sense as files captured digital are much 'cleaner' and contain only 'real' information."

 

The reason digital shooters argue that the calculations (digital vs. film scanner) don't make sense is because the results from digital are clearly better than the results from desktop scanners (see samples below). Shallow thinking film fanatics (like Neal) only see the max lpmm numbers derived from 1000:1 contrast lab tests, and they can't think past that. Once you get past those and start to get into MTF curves and noise levels at real world contrast levels the theories start to match the results in print.

 

A DSLR clearly and easily out performs 35mm in larger prints. Making a good 16x20 form 35mm was difficult, but I'm very confident in my ability to make good 16x20's from my 10D. You need to go to the larger formats to pull ahead.

[daniel_taylor]

Here's a film scan that should in theory offer higher resolution and more detail than 6 MP DSLR capture (2700 ppi = 9 MP).<div></div>

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

I'm shooting a D-70 and have enlarged it to 13 by 19 with excellent results. As good as your 6 by 7? DOubt it.

[daniel_taylor]

And here's a 10D shot of a similar flower. In theory it's lower resolution, but which do you think actually looks better and would print better at 16x20? (These are pixel views equivalent to >40" enlargement.)<div></div>

[daniel_taylor]

"Take a good 35mm camera with a prime lens; focus very carefully on a scene with diminishing detail like a shopping center parking lot from a hill; where you can see lots of license plates. Use F8 for your aperture setting. Place the camera on a steady tripod and lock the mirror up, and release the shutter with a cable release. Use a film like Fuji Reala. Have a portion of the resulting negative scanned at 12000 dpi on a good drum scanner. It will cost about $30. Shoot the same picture with a digital camera. Compare results. Throw digital camera in lake. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm"

 

The first indication that Neal has never picked up a DSLR in his life, and therefore has no clue what he's talking about, is that he's proposing Reala for his little show down. While I like Reala, it simply doesn't have the MTF response to come off as sharp as DSLR capture, drum scanner or not. If you're going to try and give every advantage to 35mm in a contest (or if you're going to be using a drum scanner), you should be shooting Velvia 50, one of the highest resolution and highest MTF color films made.

 

The 6 MP DSLR vs. Velvia test has been done, and the DSLR did exceptionally well considering it was at a two stop disadvantage (ISO 200 vs. ISO 50), which is a two stop advantage for the photographer. In fact, if you drop the D100 images into Photoshop and apply a slight unsharp mask, they look identical to the Velvia drum scans. (I think the author missed some inherent sharpening in the drum scanner software.)

http://www.borutfurlan.com/test_results.html

 

Do Neal's test. Compare results. Compare the cost necessary to pull 35mm even with a DSLR ($30+ per shot). Throw Neal in lake while he's holding the 35mm camera and the bill for the drum scan.

 

The second indication that Neal is seriously lacking in clues is that he continues to quote a factually flawed FBI "field manual" written by a tech writer who didn't understand Nyquist, never performed any tests, and didn't even know enough about photography to cite actual manufacturer resolution ratings for real films. Instead he just threw out some estimates for "generic" film types and then multiplied them by the wrong number to get absurdly high MP equivalents. But for people like Neal who have never touched a digital camera, the numbers sound good.

[roger_smith4]

I like Neal's Holga shot:

http://www.photo.net/photo/1306605

 

Seriously, I do like it and think it shows why the resolution argument is moot. If the image has character, who cares how much detail there is?

[ccrevasse]

"If the image has character, who cares how much detail there is?" This question gets back to one of Martin's original questions, which was: "What kind of differences have you found in the final print?" Setting aside resolution, are there certain inherent differences in the appearance of a print/enlargement from digital capture versus a print/enlargement from film? Assuming the film is printed digitally, does that negate any differences?

[michael_darnton1]

I'm finding, just as Daniel says, that in the work I do my 8mp digital is delivering better quality than ever I got printing silver 35mm. I didn't realize it until I was going through my portfolio the other day and realized how much higher my standards have become since I started using digital. I'm comparing Leica gear run through Componon-S lenses, and I was a professional [silver] printer at one point, so it's definitely not equipment/operator failure on the 35mm end. I used to believe, because I'd done the calculations, that I wasn't going to be satisfied until I got a 15mp camera, but turns out it ain't so in real life.

[christopher_bibbs]

<p>Daniel</p>

<p>I'm curious about this statement:</p>

<p><i>Making a good 16x20 form 35mm was difficult</i></p>

<p>The biggest limitations on my print sizes tend to be the quality of the exposure. My studio shots are always good for large sizes, regardless if they are digital or film. My street photography is usually compromised by poor exposure, camera shake, or other error. Have you really found a much greater success/failure ratio with digital than you have film?</p>

[christopher_herman]

Martin,

 

I have just had to do a series of prints at A0 size from a D60 6mp and the results are fantastic. I went to a lab and used an Epson large format printer that uses its own rip software to upsize the image. I compared it to some 35mm velvia scans that were done in the same way and they are equal in my eyes. Oh, and the clients can't tell the difference...!

[dean_erger]

If you get a chance, take a look at the book "Photoshop CS Artistry" for the opinion of a very experienced and respected professional photographer. The bottom line is that for close-ups, a camera like the Digital Rebel is about equal to, but with better shadow detail than, 35mm film scanned on a home scanner. For detailed landscapes, film is a little better when making large prints. Caution, read the book. I'm just giving a brief summary of the book.

[daniel_taylor]

"In theory, you're 2700dpi scan maybe the equivalent of a 9MP cam, but the obvious fact is your reference scan is an abomination of Velvia if I've ever seen one. So in fact, your scanner/film/lens or all of the above are grossly inadequate to represent this."

 

Spare me the chest thumbing. When viewed at equivalent magnification, your samples are better, which is to be expected given the scanner difference. But they're not that much better. At equivalent magnification they show the same grain, noise, and loss of fine detail that any desktop 35mm film scan shows. No desktop 35mm scan is going to hold a candle to a DSLR.

 

'With the finest slide films, you'll see JPEG artifacting before you see any grain"

 

Hate to tell you this, but I can see grain in every one of your samples.

 

"Now keep in mind that since scanning, even by my Coolscan 5000, is a lossy process so it would be easy to interpolate that that the actual information is even higher."

 

The end of the line is a drum scanner. Please see the test link I posted above.