Convince me to stay with film! I am not seeing the value yet!

[frank r]

I am contemplating getting a medium format camera and (eventually) an Epson

4990 scanner.

 

My question is: Should I bother? In other words: Will scanned MF film blow away

the digital pictures I take?

 

I have only had digital camera files printed by my local lab at 8x10 inches for

now. But maybe a future photo would be worth a maximum size of 16x20. I shoot

mostly buildings (including details), and landscapes. I have been quite happy

with my digital camera.

 

A little background: I was lured back into film photography a year ago by

claims of superior quality. I decided that if I was going to shoot film, I

might as well shoot large format. I bought a Crown Graphic and some black and

white film since the local professional lab only processed E6 and black and

white, no C41. Well, the whole experience has been disappointing since the lab

recently stopped printing black and white due to such low demand. By the time I

shot enough pictures to work out the few glitches I was encountering I was no

longer able to get my film printed. I never got to the point where I

said "Aha! Now I see what everyone is talking about, this looks really good!"

 

I am not wedded to black and white, I just chose that because of the exposure

latitude it afforded over slide film. I may end up developing and printing my

own film but so far I don't see a reason too.

 

Will regular size prints from a MF camera look better than ones from a digital

camera? Or will I only notice the differences when I get to 8x10 or bigger?

 

BTW: If anyone would like to send me two prints, one digital and one scanned

film, to compare I am willing to pay you for the trouble.

[doug grosjean]

I don't have the answers you seek.

 

But my MF stuff, scanned at hi-res when I have it processed, comes in around 23 Mega-pixels. How sharp it is at that point is then a question of film grain and my ability.

 

For me, the MF represents a unique bit of robust gear uniquely suited to what I ask (rugged for motorcyle travel, and cheap if it breaks). I can afford to trash a $400 Rolleiflex on the bike far easier than a Canon EOS or whatever other hot digi-SLR at $2000, and it does fine for me. I just take photos, and don't agonize over squeezing the last bit of sharpness or techno-wizardry from my gear.

 

The photo is the product.

 

Doug Grosjean

[peter_weimann1]

I will not answer your questions because only you can answer them. But for an archival reason you should take photos, which you will still be able to see in 30+ years, on film. Your digital files will not exist anymore at that time.

Just my 2 cent.

[richardw]

Hello Frank,

 

I think, that a darkroom is really affordable these days at the auction site and that processing the film and enlarging the pictures is fun on the one hand and it`s a good experience to understand how film reacts.

 

In my case the personal darkroom has improved the pictures (btw I don`t like sitting for hours in front of a screen, my eyes hurt more than when I`ve spent the same amount of time in the darkroom).

 

I scan only the 8x10 prints and get a good resolution out of it. It`s more time consuming for sure than scanning just the film or having a file directly from the camera, but for me the whole manual process from loading the camera until the final print is part of photography.

 

But this is just my point of view and as I`m not professional I have no deadlines to keep for the final print.

 

Just try the experience, it`s more fun than getting b/w pictures out of the lab.

 

regards Richard

[photography by a.f. smith]

I personally prefer film, but at 8x10 the question of quality is a bit accademic, as both Digital and Medium format are capable of creating a print of excellent quality at that size.

I'm also not sure that saying film lasts longer than digital makes any sense to me. Yeah it'll be around in 30 years, but over time the colors WILL fade, especially on slide film. even when stored properly.

Meanwhile, provided you do a good job of backing up your data, digital files aren't going anywhere. If you mean to suggests that formats such as jpeg and tiff will be obsolete in 30 years, (like the bitmap is today) that could be true, but its still possible to save a jpeg as a bitmap or vice versa.

The thing in danger of becoming obsolete with digital is the camera, so it really depends on how much shooting you do. If you shoot often enough that the lack of processing costs will pay for that digital monster before it gets left in the dust by the latest and greatest, than that question is academic too.

[nickc1]

If you are going to buy an Epson 4990 it will scan your 5x4 negs and you will be able to work on and print them yourself. This will be the same process as MF, so why stop using LF? (note I have not said DON'T buy into MF - there is a place for both MF and LF) I would suggest you start to process the LF B&W if you don't already - the received wisdom is that the Jobo tank is one of the easiest to use - for an investment of about $100 plus the scanner you are in business!

 

Nick

[marbing]

I have a 7Mp digital point and shoot but I don't intend to get a dSLR...why? Because I don't see the value over my 35mm film SLRs. Even though there are adapters that will allow me to use my current lenses, I don't see any advantage to spending an excessive amount of money on a digital body. So, I have come to an accomodation. I don't HAVE to be 100% film or 100% digital. I can use what I like, when I like.

[jonathan_traupman]

<p><i>Will scanned MF film blow away the digital pictures I take?</i>

 

<p>Probably not if scanned on an Epson 4990. The scans I've done on Epson flatbeds have always been rather soft. However, on a dedicated MF film scanner, a 3200-4000dpi scan of MF film will have significantly more detail than the typical 8-10MP digital camera. With current used prices, though, the scanner will probably cost you 2-3x what the camera does.

 

<p>Also, at smaller print sizes, the differences between MF film, 35mm film, and 8+ MP digital is going to be subtle at best. Digital cameras excel at sharpness, so you probably aren't going to get a much sharper 8x10 from MF film. However, even at small sizes, the tonality from scanned MF film seems to me to be richer than from digital capture or 35mm film.

 

<p><i>I have been quite happy with my digital camera.</i>

 

<p>Then stay with the digital camera. There is ample evidence that you can get excellent prints from the current crop of digital cameras. If in the future you find your gear limiting, then consider moving to a larger format film camera. Right now, you'd probably get more bang for your buck by buying better lenses, a more solid tripod, or putting the money towards a trip somewhere interesting to photograph.

 

<p>I personally use both digital (Canon 5d) and MF (Bronica Sq), and like each of them for different purposes. Most of my MF work is B&W, which simply blows away the DSLR, particularly in terms of highlight tonality, even in small (7"x7" and 12"x12") prints. But for color, the DSLR is typically good enough, unless I'm planning to print large (16"x16" or bigger), and it's a much more convenient camera to use.

[silvergull]

Since the very best resolution of the human visual system is about 10 line-pair per mm

and usually is more like 5-6 line-pair/mm, digital cameras only become obsolete in terms

of bells and whistles. My 10D makes as good a file today as it did the day it arrived from

B&H. Those files produce prints, through PS CS2 and an Epson 2200 that rival, often

surpass, prints I made in the darkroom from Leica negatives through a Leitz Focomat IIc

enlarger.

 

My little 5 megapixel Canon A95 has started an image chain leading to very acceptable

12"x18" prints.

 

I am, in spite of those facts, shopping for a R9 Leica SLR, used; a $3,000, new, film

camera. I use a quite complete Rollei 6008AF medium format film system. I just purchased

a Rolleiflex T from KEH to feed it 120 roll film.

 

I have a Canonscan FS4000 and an Imacon 343. I am thinking of setting up a darkroom

again.

 

Film has been my experience, slide, color negative and B&W since the late 1950's. I have

the Kodachrome slides from a 1960 trip to Canada that have not changed to my eyes. I

have B&W negatives from one of the first rolls I developed 40 years ago; I can hold them

up to a light and see which image is which.

 

I like film. For some things, I like digital too. I fly, on occasion. I like to drive. I prefer to

sail. I see the value to an ATV; I'd prefer a horse.

 

Why photograph anything? Why make prints? Why project slides? Why sail? Why drive? For

me, the answer to all these questions is that they have been found to be activities that give

pleasure and meaning to my life. They help express who I am. They are ways for me to be

in the world with all the rest of you.

 

That, for me, is where the value rests. Film or digital? Either, both, neither. It does not

matter. You make one, or both, matter. What value do you place on film? If none, then, for

you, it has none. Sorry, you cannot actually borrow my values.

 

Now, if you, instead, want an accounting of features and the pros and cons of film vis a vis

digital, there are plenty of threads on this and other sites; enough to make one sick. In the

end, you have to come to terms with yourself.

 

Cheers, Jim

[pavelp]

I'd say use what works for you and ignore the claims of superior quality unless they are accompanied with unrefutable evidence (I'm yet to see such).

[garry edwards]

Personally I'm pretty sick of 'digital v film' posts but you have raised some interesting points...

 

"Will scanned MF film blow away the digital pictures I take?" Well, I think that depends. Not if you shoot in the studio, with controlled lighting, and not if the enlargements are no larger than the digital camera can produce at 300 ppi without interpolation. Except for specialised (large format) applications digital does a better job IMO.

 

But if you're shooting in brilliant, unshaded sun then film will really prove its worth, assuming of course the use of negative stock. The type of digital cameras that you can hold in your hand have a very limited dynamic range and even time-consuming work on the computer can't match the quality of even 35mm film capture, let alone medium format.

 

You mention a move away from LF to MF. Well, it isn't just about size. A LF monorail camera is a wonderful tool in skilled hands but it isn't a MF camera on steroids - MF cameras are far closer to 35mm in terms of convenience and precision - the film alignment accuracy, lens quality, ease of focussing etc are such on, say, a 6x7cm RZ that they often compare favourably to straight shots from a 4"x5".

 

All just my opinion of course, I'm there are those who will disagree...

[wayne_crider4]

I shoot mostly MF and 35mm these days not needing the capacity to produce larger prints. In LF when I work in it I print contact alt prints, no enlarger needed. Based on my experiences, and having to make a choice between MF and LF all over again, I would stay with the LF camera if it suits your style enough, and develop your own film and scan as needed. For personal faster work, and only needing smaller prints, and as a carry camera I would probably choose a 35mm SLR. I do see a benefit in the MF neg, owning many MF systems and I love to shoot the format, but it attributes are usually beyond the scope of most people such as friends, family and even clients sometimes to discern it's abilities. In fact in conversations with a friend that shoots digital as a portrait and wedding shooter, he always jokes about his clients being frankly unaware between the differences of bad digital vs good MF. It's almost like they don't know the difference between good and bad, or maybe they have just come to expect less. MF now seems to be really more of an enthusiast format except where high end digital MF is concerned. Would I buy into based on your needs; Not really. If you want really great MF, you still have to spend money to get it and I don't see it in your case as a make or break proposition unless your needs transcend your text.

[greg_rolfe2]

Frank,

 

Lots of very good answers/opinions to your question; and of course, your's is the final judgement when you've determined what is acceptable to you.

 

Both mediums will accomplish image reproduction. My opinion/outlook; I enjoy the challenge's afforded to me via film. I believe there's a bit more to making a fine film neg/print than pressing/clicking on a button and/or icon. Of course, digital images have there advantages too and I won't discount those. However, for myself; I enjoy the setup, meter readings, aperture/speed, development/printing etc. It's a larger puzzle to play with; but I derive a great deal more pleasure with the final product and the fun that went with it!

 

I don't want to commence "battle of the mediums"; just my 2 cents.

 

Hope you find what you're looking for.

 

G

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I have a DSLR, a MF rangefinder, and I shoot 4x5. The DSLR is great for shooting my kids' soccer games and such. The MF rangefinder is perfect for travel and for shooting "faster" action B&W than I can shoot with LF. And well, the LF is just a lot of fun. But mostly I really enjoy developing my own film and working in the darkroom.

 

I'm happy with the image quality from all of my cameras. But I love the tonality of 4x5 B&W.

 

What should you do? Don't know, but shooting both film and digital has worked for me. But don't click on any threads debating the merits of film vs. digital - too many people trying to justify their own decisions and purchases.

 

Make pictures. Be happy.

[nolan_ross]

I do not have a convincing argument but possible I have some things to consider.

Let's say you buy a Nikon D2X which is 12.4mp camera. This will generate a file size of approximately 37.2MB. A 16x20 in picture printed out at 300dpi requires about about 86.4MB of file size. Of course you can print at 200dpi and that gets you in the ball park without interpolating pixels on your digital camera. But 200dpi is not 300dpi. A 6x4.5 MF negative scanned at 4000dpi (expensive scanner) is about 200MB in file size. That can go much larger than 16x20. Of course with either camera if you have "crap in then you get crap out".

Ok the MF can produce a big file size, the digital camera is very versatile and produces excellent images within it's limitations.

I guess what I am saying is they are very different camera's. Both excellent in what they are designed for. Look at what you want to shoot and what the end product is going to be....Nolan

[paul ron]

I don't think it makes any difference in your digital output, both are digital infact the scanned MF will look worse because of the scanned size of the original.

 

BUT enlarge a MF negative to 16x20 or larger then compare that analog print to a digital camera file printed the same size, you will be disappointed in your digital image.

[josphy]

This isn't a film versus digital debate. The real issue is, on an Epson 4990, will scanned MF blow away digital? I don't think so. Basically, the flatbed scanners dumb down your quality so much, that in my experience, you're not any better off than a 6mp DLSR, but with the added hassle now of having to develop and scan film.

 

I would only stick with MF and film if you just happen to really like it for other reasons, are planning to set up your own b&w darkroom OR you plan to get a much better scanner like a Nikon 8000ED.

[doc_w]

There are a number of issues here. First, if you have not been developing your own black and white, you are never going to get the "Aha!" moment, regardless of format. Ever. Black and white requires much more involvement than sending negs to a lab, and to be honest, it sounds to me like this is not for you. Second, MF film scanned on a flatbed scanner will not "blow away" digital, although I am not entirely clear what you mean by that. In fact, I am not exactly sure what it is you are after, but it sounds like you want a magic formula for photographic success. Unfortunately, there aren't any. My advice to you is to use your digital camera and get a decent printer. I think film is not for you, but it doesn't mean you can't make good photographs with another technology. Good photographs, whether from film or digital, require knowledge of materials and techniques, practise, patience, desire, and creativity.

 

Just for the record, I shoot mainly black and, white in medium and large format, and develop and print it myself, in a darkroom. I don't think there is anything better. I also shoot colour neg and colour reversal in medium and large format. I don't develop it, but I do scan and print it (up to 8x10). If I want serious prints done, I get them drum scanned and printed by a lab.

[davecollopy]

What Don said. It sounds like you're happy with your digital system so stay with that. Film is for us folks who are disappointed with digital results.

 

The full potential of b&w is only realized in the darkroom. If you're still curious as to what kind of results you can get with b&w then start with a mf camera. An older folder or tlr won't cost you anything and you can do it all in your spare time.

 

Since you are scanning, one thng to consider is that as digital camera technology improves so will scanning technology. The images you capture today on film will look scan much better years down the road wereas the digital images you capture today, well, you're stuck with what you got.

[runkel]

If you are still looking for an "Aha!" moment, why not shoot some E-6 in your Crown Graphic and examine the results under a loupe? Then compare to a similar shot from your digicam. Aha!

[troyammons]

> I am contemplating getting a medium format camera and (eventually) an Epson 4990 scanner.

My question is: Should I bother?

 

Only if you buy a better scanner like a Nikon. The 4990 is too soft IMO for top work.

 

Actually both have a place. Digital when you want to rip off 300 shots or shoot telephoto and 6x7 or 6x9 when you want more quality ot for B+W film. MF is hampered for telephoto.

 

> In other words: Will scanned MF film blow away the digital pictures I take?

 

A top scan will with a sharp camera, depending on the D camera of course. If you are talking 1dsmkII film will still beat it, but not not by a mile. Both have benefits.

 

> I have only had digital camera files printed by my local lab at 8x10 inches for now. But maybe a future photo would be worth a maximum size of 16x20. I shoot mostly buildings (including details), and landscapes. I have been quite happy with my digital camera.

 

> A little background: I was lured back into film photography a year ago by claims of superior quality. I decided that if I was going to shoot film, I might as well shoot large format. I bought a Crown Graphic and some black and white film since the local professional lab only processed E6 and black and white, no C41. Well, the whole experience has been disappointing since the lab recently stopped printing black and white due to such low demand.

 

Buy a jobo pro drum and a uniroller. B+W is easy

 

> By the time I shot enough pictures to work out the few glitches I was encountering I was no longer able to get my film printed. I never got to the point where I said "Aha! Now I see what everyone is talking about, this looks really good!"

 

Get a top LF lens, and shoot some slide film like E100G and put it on a light table. Then you will see.

 

> I am not wedded to black and white, I just chose that because of the exposure latitude it afforded over slide film. I may end up developing and printing my own film but so far I don't see a reason too.

 

> Will regular size prints from a MF camera look better than ones from a digital camera?

 

You would probably never notice much difference up to 8x10.

 

> Or will I only notice the differences when I get to 8x10 or bigger?

 

Yep. IMO with sharp scans the break point where you start noticing a difference is around 8-10x enlargement for film and over interpolation for digital.

 

With 6mp you can print slightly over 8x10 at the native rez at 204 dpi on a lightjet. 140% interpolation is about where the image starts to look plastic.

 

For film 4x5 x 10x works out to be huge.

 

6x7 mf x 10x equals 20"x24" but thats with a good film scanner not an epson. An epson scanner works best at around 6x and that would equal around 12 x 16 or a tad more. If I were going to buy an epson scanner I would probably buy one of the latest ones like the V700 or V750.

[jerry_kirkwood]

> I am contemplating getting a medium format camera and (eventually) an Epson 4990 scanner.

 

My question is: Should I bother? In other words: Will scanned MF film blow away the digital pictures I take? <

 

Several of my pals are scan wizzards and unless you are too lazy or befuddled to learn how to get the most from a scanner you really have no need to buy an $1800 Nikon scanner or take a chance on a used one for $1200. Some people claim the native scans are sharper and that might be true but it's like deciding which cake is best by tasting the uncooked batter. I'd definitely go with a V700 today because of the adjustable height of the film holders that seems to have a dramatic effect on scan sharpness. The price difference between it and a 4990 isn't that much. If you do ever want to make 20x30 prints, get a professional drum scan done.

 

That said, being a chemical darkroom guy myself I don't see any point in buying a scanner unless I decide to go digital and then I'd use the scanner to digitize my old negs but all new shooting would be digital.

 

One thing you didn't mention that I noticed was which digital camera you were comparing to MF film. If you are using a pocket camera or a Canon 1DS/2 makes a huge difference, obviously.

[lee_shively]

"I may end up developing and printing my own film but so far I don't see a reason too."

 

That statement pretty much sums it up. If you don't see the merit in crafting a photograph as opposed to just taking a photograph, there's no reason you should shoot film.

[large_formater]

If you don't have or don't plan on having your own darkroom or at least reel and tanks with intensioin to develop your own film - then you're not up for the fututure of shoting film.

[frank r]

Thanks for all your answers. They cleared up a few things. I mentioned the Epson 4990 since the LF guys find it adequate for their scanning. I normally hang out in the LF forum but I posted here since I was contemplating moving down to MF so my local lab could still develop the slide film.

 

I think I will stick with digital for color. For BW I am warming to the idea of printing my own. I think I will start with some simple tray developing of prints like I did back in high school. I'll probably experiment with large format contact printing negatives and maybe scanning paper negatives. I have wanted to experiment with a Petzval lens I have too. Yes, I will hang on to my LF gear, especially the 8x10 camera I just picked up for $50 including film holders (I already have a lens that will cover). It would be a shame not to have contact printed an 8x10 negative at least once. And darkroom equipment is so cheap these days, hmmmm...

 

It turns out a local guy who is a regular on APUG lives within a mile of me. My local camera shop just put me in touch with him. Old dark room/wet print guy. We'll see how that develops.(Ha!)

 

Sounds like stuff to putter around with during the dark winter months. For now I think I will go out and take some pictures.

 

Thanks again!