The future of film scanners?

[b_hall1]

Okay, within intricate points of the subject I said that I was looking for examples of 100UC, 160VC, and 160C so as to judge how an optical enlargement might look based on the web scans...

 

So now google is turning up this link of 192 photos with 160VC:

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/kodak/portra_160_vc

[van_camper]

"To repeat it for those who didn't catch it the first time: a film scanner is a digital camera that takes pictures of film while a digital camera takes pictures of the original scene"

So Scott, are you saying you would prefer to throw away $2000 on a low end dslr with 10-12mp(plus cost of lenses and accessories) for a high quality Pentax 6x7 with a far superior finder with an existing full system of lenses and accessories. The lower end cameras just don't cut it for me, and the more expensive ones are not worth paying $5-10,000 (plus lenses, etc) when you can get the same quality from your existing equipment with the addition of a $2000 Nikon 9000 scanner. Economically it makes more sense for many photographers, just not for commercial pros who see film/processing costs running $25k per year. For some of us it is a practical solution, and people in fine art have a life's work on film that is showing a healthy profit for their galleries (do they stop scanning those images, and start over). Your looking at it as a lab rat, it is fine for you to talk tall, but have you laid out $10k on a digital back for your Mamiya, or on a high end dslr knowing in fine art photography your volume of shooting is fairly low and in 2 years something better will be out. I agree with your original comment, but dslr cameras have not reached market maturity, prices are still outrageous. Also, there are many of us shooting 6x9, 6x12,6x17, 4x5,5x7,8x10. The technology is still too expensive and still does not outperform some of these formats, and scanners will be needed for all the new images to be made on these formats. There are also no specialty digital 6x17 cameras out, or features like swing/tilts for field use that is practical, so what do you do now? Of course there will be less film labs, and we will rely on mail order, but there is going to be a market for film for at least another decade. As the pros sell off their smaller formats, they are picked up by the amateur market (who although shoot less film/day will still have a need for it), and film including processing will be needed. Many amateurs will have a dslr as backup, but film for fine art cannot be beat. Thirty years from now I will have my image on film (and a flatbed scanner will be far better then today's standards), but will you have your image still usable on CD/DVD and a usable operating system to read it? Computer mfrs cannot make up their minds, operating systems change too fast. While there is a fine art market, film will have a place for a good while longer. It is the commercial market that has no need for film at all, because they have a different set of needs (the average consumer not also has their own set of needs, and film is inconvenient). As they say in marketing, identify consumer needs and fill it, so lets see what happens. There are a lot of medium to large format cameras, and large format will not be replaced very soon (with affordable and fast shooting backs). Film and processing will be needed for them, and they may as well be doing all the medium format roll film while their at it. Why invest in a high end dslr and a full range of lenses and accessories (filters, etc) when you already have it? There are too many of us in this situation, and a cheap fix is a film scanner and flatbed (and drum scanning for high end) to be in the fine art market. I don't know of anyone shooting serious landscapes for a living with a dslr, or digital back just yet. Why? Just check out Alain Briot and others. The 4x5, 6x12,6x17 roll films rule. There is no replacement for these just yet, and let me know when you decide to throw away a years salary for a digital back for one of these babies, knowing in 2 years you will need another one. Most of us have kids, bills, mortgage to pay off. Film does fine art photographers just fine. Let the commercial market keep buying them and absorb the cost of research for the rest of us until prices drop. Sure, dslr is superior only if the quality can match, but the other part of the equation is price that so far stinks!

 

[edward_karaa1]

After 24 years of film shooting, I dropped it completely and shot during 4 years exclusively digital. Now I sold my DSLR and came back to film, also exclusively. Why? I was fooled in the beginning by the instant feedback of digital and frustrated by not getting what I wanted from Pro labs. But the I found out that I spent way topo much money on yaerly camera upgrades, CF cards, laptop that I had to carry around every where. I also was shooting more photos but the general quality of my photos went down. I became obsessed with post processing. Instead of going out for dinner after a shoot, I would immediately go back to my home and spend hours downloading and processing raw files. Image quality wise, I do believe that digital is better if you scan your film, but photography is about color for me, and digital color is digital. Colors blow out quickly with digital while film has saturation right where you want it. Nothing equals the deep reds I obtain from Velvia. I don't mind the grain of scanned film as long the color I want is there.

 

I hope there would be enough demand on film and scanners to justify the development and supply.

[silvergull]

As for new Nikon film cameras, they have the S-3 rangefinder camera. Zeiss has the Ikon

and Leica and Voightlander/Cosina are building rangefinders all using the M-mount. Leica

produces film SLR's with their top quality lenses.

 

Then, there is the large amount of wonderful Hasselblad cameras and lenses on the used

market. Rollei and Hasselblad are both producing cutting edge, new film cameras with

terrific digital capabilities.

 

I shoot a Rollei 6008AF, a Leica M3 and a Fuji GA645ZI and scan with an Imacon. I process

my own B&W and use A&I for color.

 

I have 45 years of film. I can scan any of it again. I have a digital image file from 2003

made with a Canon 10D which cannot be read. The backup is OK. But what crap that a file

cannot maintain integrity for 3 years and 40 year old Kodachrome can. The B&W negatives

are basically perfect too.

 

By-the-way, a digital camera/back can always be used as a scanner as in macro

photography; like the slide duplication methods of the last century <grin>. Someday,

when a scanning or multiple shot digital back becomes available on the used market, one

could be pressed into film digitizing service.

 

Cheers, Jim

[neil_grant]

Surely the future is fine, although choice may diminish over the years - people are still going

to want/need to access analogue collections by scanning (maybe even printing!) Look at what

happened when LP was replaced by CD: record players, arms and cartridges are still made,

as well as pre-amps with the necessary RIAA stage.

[van_camper]

I believe film and dslr will exist side by side in the market (after all the end result for both is still a digital file for PS). Film took a hit in sales, but there will be a balancing point to satisfy different needs (eg- commercial vs fine art). You would think that b/w film would have disappeared when color was introduced. Yet here we are over 50 yrs later and b/w is very strong. The market will tell the mfrs what they want, and if the mfr knows what is good for them they WILL produce. If the consumer no longer wants film, then there is no complaints, and who cares at that point. Mfrs know they have to satisfy consumer needs, they have NO CHOICE as long as we want it. There has been less sales in film with the introduction of a new product (digital) into the market, so everything related like labs,film choices will be cut back to match consumer needs. If film is a dead end, then why does Kodak still develop new RA4 papers like Endura? Obviously there is a demand, and I see in here and at the largeformat forum a quite a few people still buying enlargers rather then selling them. It appears not everyone wants digital, not that it is not good, but because they enjoy the old ways (which is why I won't sell my darkroom gear in case I want to return to it for certain techniques...eg- silkscreening). We have cd vs records, hand vs electric razor, b/w film vs color, etc. In other words some products have a very long product life cycle even though new technology has been introduced. They just don't want to die. I want my film, if I spent $5k on a photo trip I want to know I came home with my shots. Bracketing gurantees me accurate exposure, and film gurantees 99% success other then the few lost at labs or other accidents. I would hate to come home with dslr shots and suddenly a computer glitch develops in software, hardware, etc. Not a problem for the commercial guy, who reshoots on the spot and sends it out 10 mins later and problems are over. It's another issue for a fine art photographer, computers are just not as reliable.

[van_camper]

Another interesting development in the news is Imacon has dropped the 343 model and will no longer produce a similar machine for the lower end market. Yet they are keeping the 646, 848, 949 models as proof of continued support for serious pros. Apparently as amateurs leave the 35mm and medium format market for more convenience offered by dslr cameras (enough quality for them), they no longer have the need for a Imacon 343. Then there are the pros who do it for a living and dropping $15-25k on a Imacon scanner is no big deal, they want the best, and it is 50% cheaper then Phase One P45 (39mp) digital back selling for $39,995 at Vistek (Toronto). Add the new new camera plus lenses needed vs the old system of lenses,and filters you already have, then think about it hard. Digital is great for the commercial guy, time is money, archival is not important, he wants speed, and if he loses a shot he can reshoot (try that for a one of a kind sunset). This is all part of the mass stabilization in the market place until we find a balancing point for market share between digital and film camera.

 

Good luck relying on digital this and that...computers, hard drives, memory cards. If you want reliability like film, you better be backed up to 5 portable hard drives in the field in theory (though we rarely do it), unless you want to risk all your eggs in one basket and come home with nothing. If 1 of 5 hard drives fails, I have lost 20% of my images...that is a major loss considering cost of the trip ($5k), and lost sales from images you will never have again. Film is safe all around. Your losses easily make buying a Imacon 646 sound sensible, if it fails I still have my film and the scanner goes for repairs. I lost nothing in images.

[ilkka_nissila]

Daniel, show me a sequence of portraits of a small child taken with your 50/1.8 at 1/1.8 and a digital camera. The focus is on the closer eye, of course. You can use auto or manual focus. Sequence should contain all attempts, not just one out of ten.

 

Autofocus works reliably even at wide apertures if you have a 2D plane with detail on it. If your object is 3D the AF sensors on most DSLRs are too large to catch on the detail of the eye consistently unless it's a close portrait. I can do this with my F100 and manual focus much more consistently than using digital. If I use a manual focus film camera, even better. This is a case of progressive loss in control due to "improvements" in technology. I would never bother to use AF if my cameras could be used to manual focus like an F3HP or F6.

[ilkka_nissila]

So to clarify, I agree about the old fashioned screens, but having twice the viewfinder area does help immensely in manual focusing. Rapid shooting? I don't shoot rapidly, I just get a couple of shots that count. The ones where the subject had interesting expressions. With small-sensor digitals, I have to shoot 3 times as many pictures and only some of the pics come out with the focus spot on.

 

The high end Nikon film SLRs have the same focusing accuracy as the manual focus cameras did, at least in my experience. The low end are worse, but any 35 mm film SLR ever made beats any 1.5x/1.6x digital in this respect. If you can work shallow-dof people semi-candids with digital, great for you - I can't. In addition to focus concerns, the loss of >50% of the area limits the quality of the output at wide apertures quite a bit. My point is that apertures wider than f/2.8 is pretty much useless on a small-sensor DSLR (assuming that you're not covering up lack of focusing accuracy with machine-gun style shooting, which is a bit less than intelligent). That's why they don't update the fast primes - because the quality is so bad.

[Spearhead]

<i>If film is a dead end, then why does Kodak still develop new RA4 papers like Endura?</i><p>

 

Funny comment. Here is what Kodak said about Endura at the introduction:<p>

 

<i>Eastman Kodak Company today announced an innovative new addition to the KODAK ENDURA paper family optimized for color digital printing performance.</i><p>

 

I can't really see how that has anything to do with film's longevity.

[van_camper]

Jeff, what funny comment, it is you that is the funny man for lack of technical knowledge. Below you will find what kodak says. Endura is suitable for exposure by digital or optically (enlarger>>>dark---roooom). Yu know, the paper goes in the stuff you call RA4 chemistry, and it happens all in the dark place. I've done color prints for 31 years, what about you? Apparently your clueless to the technical jargon at kodaks web site.

 

From Kodak:

"State-of-the-art image stability

(100 years in home display;

200 years in dark storage;

1 to 5 years for commercial display*) Digital and optical printing capability for improved lab efficiency Superb process robustness for improved lab consistency Enhanced color gamut for rich colors and smooth flesh tones Flexibility of threeﾆ high-performance photographic papers

 

Superior process robustness offers workflow efficiencies. There's less sensitivity to Process RA-4 variations caused by image-density variations, bleach-fix contamination, and changes in product mix or processor utilization. And there's less tendency for calcium buildup."

[rconey]

Why all the fighting? digital has its advantages; IMO mainly speed of workflow. Film is still useful. I don't worry about it if the power is off. I don't think anyone is converted in these debates. Different photographers have different needs and solutions.

 

As a film user, I have been annoyed at the loss of film processors, but in my big city I hope that has stabilized. I worry about the marketing reality and cost of new, better digital models being introduced every couple of years. My mamiya 7 should work well for years to come without upgrade.

 

I just bought a dedicated film scanner because I have no rush to get out production. My film is light for backpacking trips. if a roll is ruined, I just put in a new one. Lots of brackets if the shot is good. something always seems to survive.

 

Yes, film is a pain in the behind. Airports, xrays, development. Waiting. E6 used to be 1 hour; now it is 48 hour. I hope it doesn't go away.

 

I shoot digital in town. It is fun and fast. 8MP gives me great letter sized prints. I would not use it for my camping trips, the extension cords are too long.

 

No need to argue. Take pictures. It is all good.

[ilkka]

"Why you'd rather take digital picture of stupid film dye -vs- a digital shot of the original scene defies me."

 

Well, I just finished a job where I needed to deliver a high resolution image of a factory (to make a 1m wide print). I used a Pentax 67 and 55 mm lens. Less than USD 1000. I used Fuji Provia. About USD 10 with processing. Took me two days to collect the slides. Would have got them same day but there was no rush. Took me half an hour to scan two selected images on Minolta Multi Pro (about USD 2000). 40 megapixels each and I can count the tiles in the end of the building. I am sure I could get the same quality with one of these new 39 Mp digital backs that cost closer to USD 30k. For that, I would need another body and lens as well, costing another USD 5k at least. I just do not believe an 8-16MP DSLR can deliver the same level of detail. And even that would cost more than what I used.

[daniel_taylor]

"Why all the fighting?"

 

Maybe it's because any time any topic comes up even remotely related to digital vs film or film's presence in the marketplace, fanatics have to come out and make hyperbole claims about film or against digital.

 

Let's see...we have one person arguing that fast primes are useless on digital *after* it has been pointed out that people use them all the time. We have another claiming that to match film security in the field, one must have 5 mobile HD backups. (Funny, I've lost film to labs and accidents, but never once lost an image on a CF card. Or HD. Or CD-R for that matter, including 7+ year old CD-R's of film scans.)

 

Then there's the guy claiming that simple motion blur effects are impossible to do digitally without hours in front of Photoshop and "plastic" results. (Hint: try something a bit higher up the food chain than your kid's Barbie-digicam.)

 

Then we have Les, a man who spends an unhealthy amount of time alone in a room with a world map. He thinks ISO 1600 color film is superior to DSLR capture...*at ISO 200.* Looking over his history, I'm scared to argue with him any more because I just don't know what I would say to a cop asking the following: "We believe he started the rampage after seeing a couple images you posted on a site called 'photo.net'. Sir, didn't you realize that a man taking hundreds of pictures of a map might be unstable?" "Uh...well...gee officer, had I known he would ram his car into a Best Buy and start shooting up the digital camera section while screaming 'why won't they just use film?!', I guess I wouldn't have pushed...."

 

All because Scott points out the obvious: that a scanner *is* a digital camera, and that high technical quality with film requires a heck of a lot more screwing around than it does with digital. Or surrending your control to a lab at a time when lab quality in general is sinking like the Titanic.

 

I'll agree that cropped viewfinders suck. And I'll agree that MF equipment at current prices offers excellent price/performance vs. equivalent digital capture if you don't shoot a large amount of film. Heck, privately I've even been known to tell people on a budget to just pick up some old 35mm equipment and *gasp* shoot film. But I still can't figure out how a thread about whether or not Sony would continue KM scanners turned into yet another "digital sux, film rulz" fest.

 

For the record, I don't have any problem with the hobbyist who likes to shoot 35mm and scan at home. I've always said that good technical quality was achievable via that route. But I don't care to take the time to screw around with that route any longer.

 

And to bring it all back to topic: I am seriously considering picking up what will probably be my last 35mm scanner now fearing that they either won't be available, or will only be available at absurd prices, in the future. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the masses couldn't care less what a map looks like on drugstore color film, and if 35mm scanners don't sell at a certain rate each year.... Let's just say I don't want to be stuck paying a lab or scanning old 35mm film on a flatbed.

[van_camper]

Daniel, none of us enlarge images to extreme sizes for either technology where the weaknesses begin to show (grain, or pixels). Also, there are plenty of software for reducing grain. Your example photo is not a good choice. The tonality is constant, and very little detail. Throw in a forest scene and see what digital will do with limited pixels. Photograph a grey wall (about what those petals represent) and with digital you see a clean wall, while with film the wall is grainy, that does not mean digital is better. Don't confuse grain with less detail. I enlarged a 6x7 negative from a Pentax 6x7 film to 42.5inches.....and quality and detail is still amazing. Try that with a 10mp camera (equiv cost of a Nikon 9000 scanner, and keep the equipment I have) and see what you get.

The real argument should be is it worth it to you to upgrade. For commercial shooters it is, time is money, lots of film goes through the camera per day and the savings in film/processing a year is easily $25k. On the other hand, there are a lot of amateurs, a lot of serious as well as pros making a living doing landscapes, and the only thing they are using is film. Why spend money when the existing equipment can do the job? Why not wait till better and lower priced digital backs are out? If the quality is there, why change? Landscape shooters shoot less film, so the advantages of digital are not even there in film/processing savings, and we prefer reliability, and a archival media. This is why film and scanners will still be needed for a good long time, and I have nothing to lose by keeping my equipment another 5 years (I just saved myself $50 grand or more for a P45 Phase one back plus camera,lenses, filters, etc). I would rather put this money towards a 22ft Lund boat with 225hp for the same $50k which has far more value then a tiny little 4 inch P45 digital box with a very short lifespan. Considering there is still nothing to replace the 6x17, 6x12, 4x5, why should landscape photographers switch from roll to digital?The real issue is the 2 technologies will have to find a balance point, just like electric vs manual razors. That simple, or at least until the huge stock of film cameras start dying of age (film cameras have long lifespans).

It is really silly to use as an argument...." why take a digital picture of film when you can take a digital picture of the actual scene". Except for commercial studios (where a need does exist), how many of us bought a $10-40k digital back for our medium/large format cameras? I bet most bought something like a cheapy Nikon 200, which will not match the quality of the cameras I listed above. Even a $10k camera is cheap in comparison to the high end digital backs that now exist, and still will not meet standards that serious landscape photographers expect. Yes, I would rather buy a Imacon 848, for half the money of a P45, and then continue to take digital pictures of film. It is the cheapest way, and it does an incredible job. If I break my P45 in the field, it will hurt my pocket real bad, while my film camera (and all the lenses) I already have is far cheaper (and paid for). The very expensive gear (Imacon) can sit at home away from dust, rain, and outdoor theft. Film is my preferred choice for outdoors, those high end digital backs which I would need are not as suitable (at least for me). I can come home with the same pictures bracketed on film (guaranteeing my shot), which is the only benefit digital has in the field (preview window). If I run out of film, it is easily available, if the camera breaks I have an affordable backup "film" camera replacement (not likely if your using a P45 $39,999 back...CDN). To me high end digital backs belong in the studio.

[van_camper]

"ISO 1600 film vs ISO 200 DSLR"..... what an example for a photo, talk about mismatch!

[van_camper]

"'m currently using a Canon Rebel XT 8 megapixel and am completely unsatisfied with my 24x36 poster prints. I'm going large format!, and would like to know exactly what I need to do to make a stunning color poster of this size. Go large format 4x5? Then print optically? Or drum scan it at what resolution?, and print on what printer? I've read through the FAQ and can't find what I'm looking for. Just a short reply would be very helpful to me! Thanks in advance. Jay"

 

--Jay 2006-05-09 21:57 PDT (Large Format Photography forum)

 

This is why anything in the 8-12mp range won't cut it for landscapes, and to go to the next level is going to cost you 5-10x more. You need to be a high volume specialty commercial studio to warrant shooting these high end digital backs, with no quality benefit over larger format films, only speed.

[daniel_taylor]

"Daniel, none of us enlarge images to extreme sizes for either technology where the weaknesses begin to show (grain, or pixels)."

 

...snip...

 

""ISO 1600 film vs ISO 200 DSLR"..... what an example for a photo, talk about mismatch!"

 

I agree with you on both points. But try explaining those points to Les Nessman. If you look at his chart, he thinks it's a fair comparison, ranking Superia 1600 above an ist D. He shoots maps all day long then studies them at extreme enlargement. *That's* why I posted the comparison.

 

I don't believe I argued with you regarding the quality of MF or LF, or the price/performance they offer. So why rant at me? If you think it's silly to enlarge small format film and digital to extreme sizes and compare ISO 1600 film to ISO 200 digital...rant at Les Nessman.

[daniel_taylor]

"The reason it would do better with a map are as follows:"

 

Les, it wouldn't do better with a map. I was being sarcastic. You're an idiot for ranking an ist D @ ISO 200 below Superia 1600 (among other things you've done), in case that isn't plainly obvious from the crops above.

 

"However, stupid people may not know how to use it, afterall, "Stupid is as stupid does"."

 

Stupid is spending a hundred hours alone in a room shooting a map over and over again, then scanning and post-processing the film 15x trying to exceed the quality level a child could achieve with a couple minutes practice using a DSLR and the Fuji Frontier at Walmart.

 

That same child, within about 15 minutes, would start to exhibit greater artistic sense than that exhibited by the shots in your Fototime gallery. I'm not saying you couldn't be a good photographer, I'm just saying it's a little hard to develop an artistic skill when you spend 20 hours a week alone in a room stroking a film scanner.

 

"BTW, what's with the halo around the edges of that image? Is that self inflicted or due to poor PS skills."

 

I may have used a touch too much USM on that one, though the target was an 8x10 print where no halo is visible.

 

I could crank USM up triple that and the halo would still be thinner than the blue edge around your flower. Not sure if that's the film, the scanner, or the post processing, but I guess it doesn't matter since nobody looking at an 8x10 print would notice it. They would be too overwhelmed by the muddy grain and thinking to themselves "gosh, my digicam does a lot better than this!"

 

BTW, where the heck are the 1Ds mkII images you promised? Or are you still unable to shoot the machine well enough to produce an image sharper than what a real photographer could get from a Holga?

[StuartMoxham]

Well I personaly think it is a tough call when comparing the superia 1600 to the pentax. The text is certainly more readable in the superia 1600 scan but the map grid lines, rivers and other lower contrast details are missing but are rendered by the Pentax. If we look at the canon, minolta they seem to compare rather well with the fuji reala scans. Again the black text is a little better in the reala scan but the lower contrast details are not not as clear. There is also the grain issue may people will view the images at 100% as is shown here and often prefer the smoother image from the digital.

 

Lets be honest though this is really nitpicking at best. You could take any of the DSLRs or any of the films you have tested and make make great looking images. It is up to each person to choose what works for them.

[madwand]

For comparison, let's consider 35mm format using a 4000 dpi scanner. Scanning 24mm x 36mm film at 4000 dpi, I get around 21.4 MP. This is particularly interesting, because it's very close to the resolution of the Canon 20D if you consider just the center crop (a full frame 20D would be 21.0 MP).

 

You can try to argue that the film + 4000 dpi scanner somehow has greater resolution than a 4000 dpi sensor's center crop, but as a matter of experience to many people, this is not true. It's not true for me. The 100% detail of a 20D is more usable than the 100% detail of a 4000 dpi scan of 100 ISO film, due to the relative lack of noise / grain. It's also a matter of experience to many people that they get better results from their DSLR than 35mm film scanned at 4000 dpi.

 

However, full frame 35mm digital at the resolution of the 20D doesn't exist anywhere near affordably, so you could argue that scanned full frame 35mm film still has technical superiority to affordable DSLR's. I don't happen to believe it, but since my simple argument doesn't have the necessary detail or ability to extrapolate, I'll simply argue that this is an indication of things to come -- where full frame is someday as affordable and as high resolution as scanners+film these days.

 

I do not consider scanners to be the limiting factor at this point because they scan into the limitations of film itself. The lack of further advances in film itself in contrast to the ongoing well-funded development of digital sensors give the clear answer as to where the technical superiority lies if not affordably now, in the probable near future.

 

What about scanned MF film? Some would argue that it's technically superior to cropped DSLR's at least. I wouldn't disagree. However MF film is clearly in decline and is not relevant to the vast majority of users, and has issues of its own in terms of handling, etc.

 

I personally like working with film cameras, and would have continued doing so exclusively had I not seen superior results in digital small format. I think that the basic resolution argument holds, and that film has an advantage only when you enlarge the sensor well beyond the affordable digital sensor sizes. While this is a valid technique, and something to take advantage of at present, it's not a sustainable one, assuming that digital sensor resolution continues to improve while film doesn't.

 

I further argue that the vast majority of people can get acceptable performance in whatever technology they choose. The availability of digital doesn't somehow invalidate the film techniques that have been developed and used for so long.

 

I still say however, that film and its scanning days are numbered, because the resolution has been matched and exceeded at the small format, and the larger formats are irrelevant to the vast majority. I think 35mm is the most important format, and it's been lost. The digicam format is mostly irrelevant from a technical / resolution argument standpoint, because most of those users don't act in manners consistent with caring about resolution, or even if they do, then the large scale migration to digital in that format is a good enough answer.

 

I would love to see film make significant advances. I would love to see scanners do the same alongside digital sensors. I don't believe the latter will happen, or matter without the former, and I don't believe that the former will happen.

[leon chang]

Since photography is a print- medium, why compare uploaded stuff on a computer screen? It's quite easy: a 20x30 cm print from both digital-slr and film will look great when printed on quality paper and viewed at viewing distance!

 

Did we ever use microscopes (like we use computers now) in the past to judge the density of the silver particles??? (like we do with megapixels??) No we didn't. It's just that it is in our nature that if technology advances, we want bigger better faster and more. Even if it has no advantage over the older stuff, when examined under normal conditions. Therefore film will survive.

[leon chang]

Let's judge photographs after they are printed! Like in the good ol'days when we were happy with our prints returning from the lab. As I said, photography is a print medium and has nothing to do with viewing on a screen. Use a digital camera to actually print your photographs! That seems to be the problem. If you leave the ridiculous on screen comparisons out, you'll see that digital and film are quite similar. In a small print, I see no difference. In a larger print: film has more grain (it's up to you if like it or not..), digital tends to bend and blow out some highlights (it's up to you if that's ok or not). So please let's judge our prints on paper! Not our pixels on a pc screen. Some like the grain of TRi-X and some like the clean digital files. Judge them when printed on quality paper, watch them at viewing distance and conclude that there is no such thing as "film vs. digital". It's more about velocity and ease of use.

[david_henderson]

Leon Chang. Your own preoccupation with prints doesn't reflect everyone's choices. Three members of my family have digital cameras. Two view their efforts entirely on screen and print next to nothing. They share via laptops and e-mail. The third prints everything. Probably less than 2% of my colour work ever gets printed. That doesn't mean that I don't want the rest to look good when projected or on a light table. Prints are but one output and I don't accept that only comparisons at the print level should carry weight. It depends what your intentions are. I'd accept that comparisons should be made at the level of desired output rather than at stepping points along the way.

[kelly_flanigan1]

When copying maps, the size of the text and font style, and map size determine what device we use. We farted around with silly dinky whussy 35mm fine films and a 4000dpi film scanner, and found out that it only works with dinky maps. Customers dont like grain, non sharp text, or maps that are hard to read. Folks want use to duplicate the map so it is a readable as the original. Normally before we got our 35 and 50 Mpixel 4x5 Phase One backs, we used 4x5 trany materials as a minimum to reproduce maps. With the old Process camera, the smallest negative we used was a dinky 12x18" size, sometimes we used 24x36 or 18x24 too. <BR><BR>Normally when maps are copied or ccreated, scale is very important, and also having real low disortion. Regular 35mm film camera lenses have alot of distortion for mapping, and basically are jokes when compared to a low distortion process lens. Since process lenses are not the worlds sharpest lenses, one uses larger film sizes and smaller enlargements when reproducing maps.<BR><BR>Today many folks just use a 36" wide or wider color scanner, that usually is a 400 dpi device where original goes thru rollers. These output a 8bit RBG color image that is 400x36 =14,400 pixel wide or more. These have been around for over a decade now.<BR><BR>When 4000dpi 35mm film scanners came out, we did some smaller work with slow locally processed iso 100 color print films and in house 4000 dpi scanning. For a 20x30 map; using the dumb color copiers 11x17" 400 dpi scanner with four scans stiched together would yield a radically better 8000x12000 pixel image with no grain, unlike a 35mm<BR><BR>Using a Phase one scan back and a process lens works with map mid sized maps. There is no grain, or make believe zillion dpi meaningless crap. In real life on cannot use best case design, one has to have some design margin, something the zillion dpi film scan crowd doesnt have in their DNA.<BR><BR>Here is a direct "digital" scan, using a WW2 4x5 speed graphic with spring back, and a barrel mount 150mm F9 Apo Ronar, a dumb process lens. You get fairly fine detail, even with a lens not tagged for general photography, not tagged as being a digital lens. A settup like this 35Mp scan back works well for shooting maps, it has low distortion and some margin in capturing detail. One also is not held hostage to a labs goofs, labs color shifts, labs scratching of the originals.<BR><BR>Direct capture today with a "35mm" dslr works for smaller maps. There is no farting around with film grain. At some point you really need to use a larger digital capture device to gather more info. <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmFull.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmDOG.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmWWVCLOCK.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmStones.jpg"><BR><BR>Scanning of film is a time sink hole, I have owned over 20 scanners. There is always somebody new buying their first scanner, then discovering that scanning takes time. The question of how much info can be stored on film goes back to the first film scanners. Folks always want to place a number in megabytes, with no criteria as to real quality. Once it was considered a newbie to think one really captures alot more past 2000dpi in scans. The general lay public says 4000dpi gives 4x the info; 6000dpi gives 9x the info. Some folks don't consider grain as info, more like BS info.