another digital vs film question - print quality

[jnorman2]

wowee - i just seem to be getting more and more confused by all

this. i have been shooting LF for many years, about to retire, and

will be going to either a MF system and scanning film, or to an all

digital system like the canon 1Ds. reviews on the net seem to

indicate that the 1Ds is capable of resolution similar to scanned MF

film, and it is generally claimed that digital even has an edge over

film due to lack of grain and superior resolving power, both of

which seem to be borne out in the test shots posted on websites like

luminous landscape.

 

then i went to an exhibit of 20x24 prints made from 1Ds image files,

and they had a definite "plastic" look and feel to them compared to

what i am used to (scanned 4x5 CTs then digitally printed - which

look magnificent). several professional architectural photographers

on the dpreview website forums have sold their LF gear and now work

exclusively with the 1Ds and 1DsmkII and prefer it, and regularly

sell work to architectural digest and other high-end magazines.

 

i wrote to a friend back east who owns a high-rent gallery and asked

his opinion about digital prints made from digital cameras vs

digital prints made from scanned film, and he said it was no

comparison - scanned film was easily better. OTOH - obviously the

prints we see in magazines these days are often made with good

digital cameras and they look just fine.

 

now, my question - dang, i dont even know quite how to phrase it -

is the problem in the consumer printing process? why do the digital

camera images look fine in a magazine, but lousy in the exhibit

prints i saw (made a a pro news guy). whatever, maybe you could

just give me some thoughts about your own experiences... thanks

[._._z]

The 'problem' is in expecting digital images to perfectly replicate film. It doesn't.

 

It has a different look, but is malleable enough to give you the look you want with effort

and experience in Photoshop.

 

Your friend may also be responding as a gallery owner who gets sales from (people who

prefer) the traditional film look (and from customers who like the idea of hand-crafted,

limited edition prints).

[john_amiet2]

Assuming other parameters to be equal, which they they are probably not, it does come down to which you prefer to llok at. Each has different look that the othe cannot replicate (esily). I have just finished printing two series of images and framing them. The first was analog, which I framed and gave to a friend. I later printed a digital series for myself which I believed had more fine detail represented in them. I have just come from the friends place, and after seeing the analog prints again, I offered to swap sweries with her!

 

The original series was shot on film and scanned on a Nikon 8000 for making the digital prints. I know your question wants to compare digital shoot with analog shoot, but my intended point is to illustrate how confusing it can be with comparisons because I don't think the differences can be 'measured.' They can only be emotive when all other parameters are equal, which they are not. For my money digital is superior for fast turnaround (high volumes excluded) and magazine and web display, and maybe prints for domestic consumption. But to go to much higher and extreme sizes, I believe and have found shooting film and scanning to beat digital shooting. Of course my analog shooting has many years of experience behind it, whereas my digital shooting is still in its reative infancy. My biggest analog print (in recent times) was 1.5mtr sqare. I scanned it and added some text before printing. It was an aerial shot fron 2000ft with a standard lens. The pic included a football field and when printed, the numbers on the players backs were clearly readable. I don't believe that would have been possible with my digital, (Nikon D100).

 

Hope that all helps a little bit. I will await other opinions, as I too am learning with hands on!

[jan_brittenson]

Here are two shots of exactly the same subject, with exactly the same lens (Leica APO-Summicron-R 90/2 at f/4); one with my Canon 1Ds (mark1) and the other with my Leica R9 loaded with Delta100. It was developed in XTOL (6min 68F). I just swapped the cameras on the tripod and moved the lens over.

<br><p>

<a href="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/S01511-11mpcrop.jpg">Crop from 35mm film scan resized to match the 1Ds image</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/CC4S7893-crop.jpg">Crop from 1Ds frame</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/CC4S7893-800.jpg">Full frame.</a>

<br><p>

The film crop obviously shows some grain. And while there's a small amount more detail in the film frame, I don't think much detail is missing from the 1Ds. The major difference though is that the 1Ds simply runs out of pixels, fine high-contrast detail looks pixellated. The film frame distinguishes relative sizes of point lights and other detail better, so despite being grainier it still prints significantly better at 16x20. But the 1Ds looks good at 11x17, which isn't half bad on its own, it's fully capable of professional 35mm quality -- good enough for just about any magazine or press work. I'd expect the mk2 to happily go a little further in print size, if no other reason than it simply has more pixels.

<br><p>

The difference is even more obvious when I look at scans from my Mamiya 7. The 1Ds isn't even ballpark.

[troyammons]

I think it all boils down to the amount of detail carried and tone gradation. Digital carries very clean detail with no grain, but its limited and choppy and worked processed, sharpened. IMO it looks better in print up to a certain point then it falls apart. The interpolation method has a lot to do with it too. There is a big difference between a 5,000 hardware rip and printing via an Epson driver. IMO the reason that digital has so much snap in small prints is the MTF. Sharp well defined edges. Where it falls apart is just that, those choppy edges and stark color drops that gives it that snap. Film has much smoother graduated tones.

 

Also, I don't know if you have ever seen an unprocessed digital raw file, but if you had you would wonder how the heck they do it.

 

I recently compared a digital 6mp camera to scanned 35mm film and up to 8x10 - 12x18 the digital print had more snap, but beyond that film beat it, and beat it, and kept on beating it as I went up. Digital is clean but it can carry only so much detail, plus you are interpolating to death. If you shoot 4x5 you know how much detail it carries, a ton as long as the film is flat. As far as the 1ds equals MF, its close, but I still think 690 is way ahead. In my last test run I figured clean 35mm film was worth about 7-9 mp, so you can interpolate that up. Techpan would be more. Maybe about 12-18 mp, The 1dsmkII should be almost a dead match for sharp drumscanned 645. 690 would be double that. A super sharp 690 photo drumscanned at 3000 dpi would be 6,750 x 10,000 or 67 mp. Even if you give digital a 33% edge its still over 40 mp, but the film smoothness prevails.

 

If you take a 35mm 4000 dpi film scan, that works out to 20 mp. While everybody knows a 20mp film scan is nowhere near a 20mp digital file, it does surprise me sometimes. I did a film scan the other day. 35mm film, Eos 10 MLU 50mm prime lens on a tripod, plain old Fuji 100 negative film, scanned at 2400 dpi on a fuzzy 4870 (I have a drum scanner but I have not put it on that thing yet) and i had one file that had a 2 pixel edge. Thats 2230 x 3400 or 7.5 mp and it is as sharp as a Canon 10D or 20D and a few others.

 

All in all I would say its the ability to scan at higher dpis and pull the last bit of detail out of film, that would be past the resolving power of digital combined with gradual tone shifts of film that make film look better in print.

 

Also there are always wet prints, that look better yet as long as you don't need to do any major color work.

[barry_wakelin]

My introduction to 'proper' photography was through digital using a Fuji S2 Pro which is still my digital tool. Having learnt much using the S2 Pro (digital allows you to experiment and learn very quickly), I became dissatisfied with the resolution and 'look' of my images and decided to buy a Mamiya 7II. I still enjoy using digital a lot and take more digital images than film but I would make these points:

 

The differences between the two are stark. The S2 Pro outputs images with a realistic resolution of about 8Mp from a 12Mp file. This should in theory give wonderful A4 size prints but the reality is that all of the digital SLR images I've looked at fail to resolve complex details such as blades of grass and leaves unless they are in the extreme foreground. Comparing images taken with the Mamiya and the Fuji is very interesting. Any natural object in the middle or far distance will maintain minute detail in the film images but will be a blurred approximation in the digital image. I scan my film images on a fairly old flatbed at 2400dpi. The flatbed can't cope with the dynamic range of my transparencices but even at this relatively low resolution of scan you're looking at 35Mp files from the 6x7 film and there's definitely more detail to come that a 3200 or 4000dpi scanner would no doubt pick up. The challenge for digital is that until it becomes cheaper to build physically bigger sensors then any increase in megapixels will yield little additional resolving power since any additional resolution will be lost in noise reduction. This has proven to be the case with cameras such as the Canon 20D which produces a bigger image than the 10D and thus gives more scope for cropping but arguably doesn't give much more actual resolution - leading to the blurred leaves and grasses once more - due to the need for stronger noise reduction to deal with extra noise generated by smaller photo sites. It will be interesting to see if Nikon overcome this issue with the D2X - if they can then there may be more hope than I'm portraying here. If not then we must wait for prices of cameras like the Mamiya ZD to drop significantly so that mere mortals can afford to buy them.

 

For those that are interested in seeing some of the differences between my digital and film images, I have a seven page article appearing in the 26th February edition of Amateur Photographer magazine (it hits the UK shelves on 22nd Feb) that talks about my move from digital to film and compares a number of images.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

This is the most civilized digital vs. film discussion I've seen on photo.net. Any way to lock down this thread before it turns ugly?

 

Robert

[ed_nazarko]

What you describe as "plastic" is common to almost all digital if enlarged enough - to people "of a certain age" the lack of grain disturbs something in our brains and makes us see the digital image as plastic-y. (Understanding that many, many people over-sharpen and over-treat digital noise, both of which make plastic-y look MORE plastic-y.) I say people of a certain age because my son and daughter, and many of the younger kids I've worked with - who didn't consume years of grain in photographs - don't have anywhere NEAR the same reaction as I do, and as others my age do.

 

That said, I have done shows printed 16x20 and 24x36 mixing scanned film (both 35mm and medium format) with digital (Nikon D100.) I have challenged skeptics to pick out which was which - $100 to the winner! No one has been able to get it right, even close. Handled well, digital can produce striking, non-plastic images. Incidentally, handled only OK, scanning film can produce really heinous results - grain aliasing comes to mind (I've seen an awful lot of it in prints around here) and the same plastic-y look, unconsciously added during digital manipulation.

 

I've talked with a number of high-end exhibition printers, and heard the same thing from all of them - for many of the gallery displays of big enlargement digital they've done, they ADD GRAIN to the image before printing to remove the "that surface is too smooth" triggers. How's that for missing the point and mixing things up? Incidentally, it works.

 

I really think that there's no clear "this or that" answer, but that there are situations and subjects that seem to work better with digital almost no matter what (product shots, high-gloss fashion), things that seem to work better with film (impressionistic art photography, street shooting) and other things that fall firmly in the category of "it depends."

 

All of which gives me a ripping headache on some days.

[deardorff8x10]

I got a digital back for the Hasselblad and did a quick comparison with Provia, but not really scientific. My feeling is that the digital back (hasselblad/imacon v96c) is much smoother than film, in that it seems to be able to capture finer gradations of color tones. Out of focus areas or the sky with large expanses of color are grain free, which does have a plastic look, but I like the smoothness. Many pictures look "too clean" which causes an unusual look coming from using film. It sort of looks like 8x10 film without the detail. I also find that apparent depth of field seems reduced (possibly because film grain masked a bit of a lack of focus?), so I find I need to stop down 1-2 stops more than film to get the same visual "sharpness". I am not really sure why, but guess that the in focus areas are "sharper" than film due to lack of grain.

 

On the other hand, really fine detail comes out differently. When there is a lot of contrast, you can get some color fringing or moire, which is not pretty, but I can usually fix it with some effort in photoshop. I think that this is an artifact of chip design and that there is a tradeoff between sharpness and moire (the latter can be reduced with stronger filters at the expense of the former). There was a pdf about this on the Kodak website once.

 

On the luminous-landscape website, the reviewer noted the differences between the high end canon and the MF backs. MF backs seem to have better dynamic range (mine definitely have more than Provia), but it is different -- if you have a really strong red light (as shown in the example above, you can blow out the red channel which become supersaturated looking). Also digital sensors seem to not have a curve, but are linear, so you get more shadow detail.

 

One final thought. It is easier to locate images on processed film and it may be safer in the long run than a digital image. I can easily find and scan through old films filed away, but it is a bit longer with digital than throwing a file sheet on a light table. Also, you need to make backups (I have computer, backup hard disk, and make 2 backup CDs) all the time in case the computer crashes!

 

Net of this is that I really like the digital back and really would only use film in harsh environments or in high contrast situations where negative film will work.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> My feeling is that the digital back (hasselblad/imacon v96c) is much

smoother than film, in that it seems to be able to capture finer gradations of color

tones. Out of focus areas or the sky with large expanses of color are grain free, which

does have a plastic look, but I like the smoothness. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Plus you can always add-in noise or grain if you want. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> It is easier to locate images on processed film

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Not with a simple photo database with tags and auto-generated thumbnails so the

originals can be kept offline. Try keeping track of and searching through thousands of

negs taken over a period of years compared with, say, <u><A href =

http://www.iview-multimedia.com/products/mediapro/tour.php

>iView</a></u>

[j.baxendell]

People often go crazy when you suggest that digital has a plastic look. What is interesting is that people have a similar problem with video as you can tell from this extract from a review of the Canon XL2 on Dirck Halstead's excellent www.digitaljournalist.org

 

"Once the aspect ratio was taken care of, the next step to a "filmic" look was to offer 24fps. To understand the significance of this step, you have to understand that most video cameras record to tape at 29.97 frames per second; the industry standard. Also, the 29.97 frames are "interlaced," meaning that each frame is made up two fields even and odd. This results in the smooth pictures that we are used to seeing on our TV sets.

 

Movies, on the other hand, since the 1930s, were shot at a rate of 24 frames per second. This slower speed actually causes a jitter in the picture that we filter out of the brain in the movie theatre. Nevertheless, we have gotten accustomed to that, and that is why we can so easily detect the difference between tape and film. So, if you really want to make a movie, you either use film (which costs a fortune), or monkey around in post creating artificial jerkiness and grain.

[johnmarkpainter]

I just reconfirmed this again....

 

I did a portrait shoot a few days ago. I used a Nikon D100 and a Hasselblad 500cm

(Kodak 160NC & TriX).

 

I worked on and printed a few Digi Files right after the shoot. Quality looks

great...sharp...nice colors....no grain (so I added some). The next day I scanned the Color

Film and printed a few. I HIGHLY prefer the Film shots. I can tweek the Digi shots to look

a bit more like the Film does, but it still isn't the same.

 

Bottom line....you can be productive and have high quality with BOTH. Shoot what you

have and Shoot what you like.

 

jmp

[johnmarkpainter]

I should add...

 

My scanning was done on an Epson 4370 flatbed and printed on an Epson 2200.

 

A 1200 dpi scan of a 6x6 neg gives you roughly a 9 inch square print @ 300dpi.

 

jmp

[Dave Luttmann]

Ed,

 

I've got prints at 24x30 from a 6x7 Mamiya RB67 and my 6MP Canon 10D. You'd have to be legally visually impaired to not see the difference. I've got some people in my office as I write who have read this thread and they can't understand how you'd think a 6MP image equals a MF one at that size. (the prints are on my wall....right here)

 

Sorry, but I don't buy it for 1 second. And based on every comparison I've seen or heard of, your the first person I've seen to even make such a claim. I say, Nonsense!

[troyammons]

Besides the tone graduation, it still should go back to the old standard enlargement rules based on lp/mm in print.

 

Everybody seems to be forgetting this when it comes to digital. These tiny digital chips are still only good for so much enlargement before they give up and its not that much better than drum scanned film IMO. At least not by a mile or anything especially when enlarging big. Its almost like comparing aps film to 35mm.

 

You just cant capture detail smaller than a pixel.

 

 

If on average both are resolving 50lp/mm that allows you a 12.5x enlargement to print at 4lp/mm. Thats 12 x a huge negative or 12 x a tiny chip. Take a 10D chip for example. It has a 15x23mm chip. That buys you roughly a 8" x 12" print compared to 20" x 30" for a 645 scan. Blowing these 10D and such prints up to 20x30 equals roughly a 33x enlargement !!! Way too big. That is somewhat less than 2 lp/mm, so its not wonder they look so plastic and water colored.

 

If you go the modern dpi enlargement method, a 3000 dpi 645 scan would be good for a 10x enlargement to print at a native rez and 300 dpi.

That would be 18x24.

 

A 10 D printed at 300 dpi at its native rez would be roughly 6.66x10

[rob_landry]

Bravo to everyone who responded by keeping this civilized. Let's try to keep it this way.

 

As of now, this thread stands to serve as an educational reference to those with similar questions, both now and in the future. It's nice to see folks offer opinions backed with experience and not simple "one is better than the other" nonsense. I think we can all agree that both mediums have their usefulness and that many shooters are coming to realize that there is no "digital vs. film", it's "digital AND film".

[admiralblur]

I find pixels to be jarring in comparison to graininess. Our eyes don't see in terms of squares. Both might contain the same amount of "data" but in my experience the digital image has to be much higher "resolution" to match an analog print.

 

My 2 cents.

[troyammons]

Yeah

 

I don't know why so many people get so worked up over this topic and actually I like to shoot both. Whats the big deal. They both have their merits. Digital is clean, great for computers, fast, cheap after initial purchase (as long as your camera holds together. Mine just died after 12000 shots. If you work that out its about the same as shooting 35mm film).

 

Digital is great for work flow, but Film makes me a more deliberate photographer, even with 35mm film. For me film is more for artistic work, landscapes or anytime you dont need to rip off 500 photos a day. I also use it for photographing paintings just because it has better color. I will say that if I was a high volume working pro, I would be shooting 95% digital. Also I just have not seen that many beautiful B+W digital shots.

 

Also I did a pixel to pixel comparison of drumscanned E100G to a sd9 a while back, which is the sharpest digital camera made. Not necessarily carries the most detail as it does not have enough pixels, just the best edge sharpness of the D bunch. It is really a +- 2800 ppi scanner. Pixel to pixel, IE a 2800 dpi film scan cropped to SD9 size and the SD9 beat it. That would be similar to comparing a drumscanned APS neg to the SD9. Then I compared a full 35mm frame to a SD9 frame and the film scan won, but not by a mile or anything, until you started enlarging really big. At about 20-30x ++ the SD9 just falls apart compared to film.

 

A thread like this on dpreview would go nuts, but I always jump in on those anyway. Lots of hostile people over there. Its much friendlier here.

[andre_napier]

I shoot proffessionally both digital and film. At the digital end I use Hasselblad

H1 with Sinar 54M 22Mp and in film Astia on mostly RZ proII body. Sinar back

is a multiplatform back allowing the use of the back with diffrent bodies. I have

done test on both Rz and H1 with film and digital. The diffrences are huge

esthetically and the results are nowhere to be closed to each other. Which

one you preffer is simply a matter of taste. Both offer high end quality which

can eassily be process to a photo quality poster size. Thouse of us who still

remember the sound of vinyl on turn table needed time to accept the

cleanness of today's music CD's. It is the same with photo digital. I always

remember my friend who was a DJ claiming in early 80's that CD are just for

new bands and that real artist will only record on Vinyl. Well if you are an artst

in 2005 you can choose your medium but if you are pro photographer than

you have to go digital because the number of commercial clients and art

directors that will work with film and polaroid proofs is drasticly shrinking

every day .

PS There is a huge gap in image quality as compare between digital from MF

digital back vs Canon's newest products but this is yet another topic .

[ed_nazarko]

I've spent over six months working with the digital folks at several of the NY digital labs as a free intern, and learned a lot of tricks from them. The way most folks handle digital files (and a scanned negative is just a digital file) you're right, you'd need to be legally, visually impaired not to tell. But just as with highly skilled wet printing, where you can see prints on the wall from 35mm and 2 1/4 square and until you put nose grease on them you can't tell the difference, the same is true in working with 6mp files scaled up to large sizes. Duggal has done 40x60 glossy prints from D1x for shows that were mixed in with 40x60 prints from film for several shows recently.

 

For a real lesson in this, drop by Jay Maisel's studio and look at four floors of digital prints from a plain old D1 - way less than 6mp - next to dye transfer and wet prints from film at the same size. Most of his prints are 20x30 and larger. You can't pick them out - I've watched guys who are Canon Masters and Nikon Masters walk through and get over half of them wrong. Output skill matters, and Jay has the money and reputation to pay for it.

 

Not every picture can be scaled up effectively, either. That's the other key skill in making it so that people can't tell digital camera prints from film scan prints. Probably less than a third of what I shoot digital will scale up well - certain kinds of detail won't scale, certain types of reflections, certain color ranges. I pick my images carefully, and I also add grain when processing them, although as a fairly transparent layer, to let peoples' eyes relax when viewing large smooth surfaces.

 

Sorry, Dave, but I grew up in a tradition that says categorical statements always carry falsehoods in them. The world is shades of grey. I've learned a ton by taking that approach.

[Dave Luttmann]

Ed, if you're viewing them at a distance of 20 feet, you probably can't tell the difference. But I print these things for a living as well as attend many viewings. Most people like to get within 3 to 5 feet of a 20x30 in print. And at that distance, NOBODY can make a 6MP image equal a MF 6x7 chrome. To state otherwise is simply not using your eyes and spouting the tired old "digital is better" propaganda. So yes, I can deny this as I've got the prints in the studio, and have had for over 3 years. The shot from the D60 was printed on a lightjet. The film image was scanned on my Imacon at 3200DPI. For fine detail, the film image slaughters the D60.....although it is showing a bit of grain whereas the D60 is smooth.

 

So I'm sorry, but I've seen this comparison hundreds of times over the years and it's always the same. I go within 3 to 5 feet and the "digital lover" starts to get nervous and tells me to step back. But the reality is, people like to be at that distance when viewing.....and the digital has lost EVERY time in comparisons I've attended. Now the shots I've done the the 1DS MKII are virtually tied with the 6x7 at 16x20 and 24x30....but not on a 6MP cam.

 

Sometimes things are absolute when it's simple.

[jan_brittenson]

<i>certain kinds of detail won't scale</i><br><p>

That's the whole point... There's is no more detail in a 20x30 print from a DSLR than an 11x17, if printed at 360 ppi with a good RIP like ImagePrint 6. It doesn't matter _how_ you scale it. If you put the 20x30 next to the 11x17 the difference is obvious. You don't even need the 11x17 as a reference, once you've done this on a daily basis you can recognize what's what with just a quick glance, purely from the detail level. Detail _rendition_ is a matter of interpolation technique, and is immensely important to the final result of course, but this is different from detail level.

<br><p>

Just like shapes, tones, lines, hues, and other visual components create the visual impression, so does texture. Things like bricks on buildings, grass on a field, people in the stands, trees on a forested slope, etc. Texture to a landscape print is what hue is to a portrait -- I can tell bad skin tone in a portrait in a moment, just like I can tell lack of texture in a landscape in a moment. Texture doesn't have to be smoothly hued, of good tone, or perfect, that's what separates it from fine detail; texture just needs to be there to begin with. <br><p>

The other important function for detail is to allow a subject to be smaller in the frame. If I photograph, say, a guard at the city gates of Jodpur, closely cropped I might make a fine 11x17 print of it, with the guard about 8" tall. But if I *also* want the huge gate he's actually guarding, for a 20x30 print, with the same guard still showing at 8", with exactly the same quality he was rendered with in the 11x17 print, then I can't merely scale the image. I need more image, and I need it at the same quality level. If I shot it with a DSLR I'd be scaling, if I shot it with 35mm film he would be grainy and look distorted and slightly noisy even from TMX. Since he's the #1 subject (the larger gate being #2) I have no choice other than to load the Mamiya 7. (4x5 would be even better, but alas would likely be home in San Francisco, not in my daypack at the gates of Jodpur.) The print I have in mind standing there is not going to happen any other way. (Except, perhaps shifting and stitching the DSLR, but then I'm basically using it as a MF camera. A grossly impractical one at that.) So, the smaller the subject is in the frame, the less will scaling work. (As an aside, if the gate is finely ornate I want that as texture...) Also, when I show the 24x32 print, guess what determines the viewing distance? The 8" subject -- people will walk right up until the subject can be clearly seen. The gate will then provide context by filling their peripheral vision. It also adds depth by giving them more to explore visually by looking around, just like they would if they actually stood there in person.

[Dave Luttmann]

That is exactly correct Jan. For landscape work, detail is king. The 6mp DSLR just doesn't have it. That's not to say it doesn't have it's place.....but it's place is certainly not in 16x20 and 24x30 landscape or fine art prints. Anything else is simply wishful thinking.

[._._z]

Exactly who was suggesting large print landscape photos with a 6MP camera? If you

look above, the question was about the Canon 1Ds.

 

sheesh.

[chiswick_john]

"The 6mp DSLR just doesn't have it" - neither does traditional 35mm film - all you get when you blow this up big is grain and not actual image detail although grain may look nicer to.