Comparing prints from film scans of 35mm vs MF

[paul_tobin]

Greetings to Those in the Know,

 

A few months back I went digital by purchasing an Epson R2400

printer and a Nikon LS-9000 ED film scanner. I am extremely pleased

with the print quality I have been getting. For the last decade I

have been shooting medium format so I just scanned and printed my

recent efforts, but when I tried this with some 35mm slides from

over ten years ago taken with Fujichrome 50 I was thrilled to see

how good they looked even at 13x19 inches. I feel that the image

clarity approaches that of my Pentax 67. I am tempted to go back to

35mm because I shoot nature and landscapes and would love to be able

to travel lighter because of my aging (and aching) back. Do you have

any opinions about what digital processing can do for a 35mm image

compared to MF?

[neal_shields]

Making prints is a process. The prints will be no better than the weakest link. Most prints today are made on digital printers at 300 dpi. This provides a final resolution of less than 6 lp/mm. Tests have been run that show that the human eye can desern differences in side by side compairisons up to 30 lp/mm

 

A good photographer can capture up to about 80 lp/mm on film and they get over 200 in labs.

 

It is unlikely that you are going to be able to tell the difference between 35mm and medium format by scanning and printing digitally.

[mr._smith]

Printed to 11x14" on A3+ size paper, I see no great advantages of my scanned 6x45cm mf negatives over 35mm negatives. There are of course differences (tonality and details) which I can detect only if I look carefully upclose.

 

Printed to 16x20" the difference would be greater and the 35mm would show the limits of the smaller negative.

 

But the real test came when I asked some people to pick what they thought to be the best prints from a stack of scanned 35mm and mf images. There was no clear winner.

 

I've sold my mf format gear over a year ago and recently bought a Canon Powershot S80 to complement my 35mm gear. Prints to 11x14" from this little gem are simply amazing. And best of all, I always have it with me.

[mr._smith]

"Most prints today are made on digital printers at 300 dpi."

 

I'd say most prints today are sized at 300PPI and printed at 1440dpi or more.

[robert_martin5]

You need to evaluate 35mm and medium format using the same film to get the answer. The maximum size you print will have a major impact on the answer. At a small size you probably can't tell the difference, but at large sizes the medium format will win. If you never print sizes large enough to see the difference then 35mm will do the job.

 

I have a Nikon 9000 and scan both 35mm and 645 medium format. 35mm printed at 16x20 inches using a Lambda printer (Fuji Crystal Archive Paper) look great, but I can see a differenct between scanned 35mm and 645 at this size.

[jtk]

Yes. I use a Nikon V@ 4000ppi and Epson 2200....

 

Until recently when I printed that size it was mostly from 6X9 (but did scan using a flatbed, not a 9000). Nikon V 35mm looks awfully good by comparison. However, I'm not much into "nature and landscapes"...my 6X9 camera is up for sale, probably to be replaced by (sigh) the new Sony 10MP APS.

 

I remain shocked by how wonderful a recent 35mm Fuji Provia (100) project looks at 13X19.

 

Over the weekend I scanned some 35mm NPZ (800) and was even more amazed. NPZ, while not nearly as high resolution as Provia due to grain (it looks distinctly like 35mm), it looks great at that size.

 

As well, I'd scanned 25yr-old 35mm Ilford HP4 (rated 800) that I'd processed in Tetenal's Neofin Red (sharp like Rodinal, not grain dissolving) and using QTRgui and Epson OEM pigments printed a neutral-toned 13X19 environmental portrait of my deceased father that is grain-sharp. I'm very proud of it...never knew how good the negative was until this big print (I rarely printed this large in wet darkroom).

 

None of these images had much post processing other than slight color/contrast enhancements and, typically, light USM or light "smart sharpen." For each image I printed a test print on 8.5X11 and then went directly to final..I think I only wasted one full 13X19 print out of 8 images, wanting a color adjustment when I saw the image large.

 

I've recently used Moab Entrada Bright White 300gsm, but will be experimenting with the less expensive Moab Kayenta 205gsm, which looks much the same as Entrada but is an alpha-cellulose rather than cotton and is much less expensive. I'm currently using Inkjetart.com Illuminata Ultra Smooth for warm-toned portraits...much like Moab Entrada Natural, but smoother...I remain undecided, may want something more textured for portraits.

 

I prefer large prints hanging reasonably well-lit and behind glass, so I don't use gloss or semi-gloss, therefore I'm happy with the 2200 Vs 2400.

[ivan_dzo]

you have to remember that the work flow for your MF is different to your 35mm. Different film size, lenses, scanner as a minimum. I've recently compared TMX100 on 35mm and MF. Both with prime lenses on a tripod etc. the scanner for 35mm was a 5400 minolta whilst the mf was an epson 3200. the scans were minimally processed identically in PS then blown up to A3 size. the central area was compared on small prints. the 35mm had more detail (sic) but the tonality was considerably better in the MF. So skies looked much better in MF but the overall detail was better in 35mm. I preferred the look of the MF but it's pretty close. different workflows may produce different results. Lenses 50mmf2.8 macro minolta vs bronica sqa 80mm.

[rich815]

I am simply puzzled by those who do not see differences in 35mm vs MF for scanned and inkjet printed images. I scan my 35mm with a Nikon LS-4000 and get great results from my Contax G and Leica M negs. However, even when I scanned my 6x9 and 6x6 negs from my Fuji GW690III and Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords on a cheap Epson 1200U flatbed scanner with a trannie adapter (now I use a 4990) I could see a HUGE difference in the result and could definitely tell which prints were from MF and which from 35mm. Sharpness aside there simply is (for me anyway) a different look---more clarity, depth, detail and more sublte tonal range in the MF prints. And one funny thing is I think I can see these differences even better in smaller prints like 5x7 and such.

[steve_swinehart]

If you only want to do 13x19, 35mm will look fine. If you want to go larger, then medium format or large format is the only way to go. I won't make 35mm bigger than 13x19. I've made 6x7 images at 30x36, 6x12 at 40 inches wide, and 4x5 at 30x40. If you want the quality at larger print sizes you still have to use bigger film.

 

Regardless of what the "human eye can detect" comments, when you start making 35mm images large, they look soft because you don't have the detail available no matter how you scan them, treat them in PS, noise reduce, sharpen, or print them.

 

If you have a good scanner, you can still see the difference in film sizes by the amount of detail in larger prints. I scan using an Imacon and print on a 9800 for reference.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Hi Paul,

 

You seem to have answered your own question since your own 35mm-sourced prints pleased you, why not shoot 35mm?

 

Note that modern film is BETTER for scanning than your old 35mm film, so if you liked your old stuff, you'll LOVE the newer coated film stock, 35mm and 120/220. Did you know this about modern film?

 

Let us know what you do, Paul.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - I'm shooting 1/4 of 35mm film area as digital capture and LOVE my 19x13" direct prints - even from JPGs! The sky is the limit, so to speak!

[jtk]

Paul asked about Epson 2400 experience, not mural production.

 

If we WERE talking about murals, such as in exhibits/museums and some galleries, Fractals-style interpolation eliminates "softness" from 35mm, even up close...the image acquires a new and (to me) attractive dimension...though of course the bigger the film, the more detail, assuming camera lens comparable to that of 35 (not commonly a good assumption).

 

Richard's observations sound like 35mm scanning issues, perhaps due to the limited Ice in the 4000, or maybe the use of Nikonscan for B&W instead of the superior Vuescan.

 

Ivan's observation seems right, regarding tonality in B&W, probably not if we're discussing chromes.

 

13X19 isn't a huge enlargement from good 35mm in a wet darkroom or digitally. Grain from many traditional 35mm films is obnoxious to some, attractive to others... but it's simply not there with many modern films, many of which exceed the best lens resolution.

[david_henderson]

It is the case that the advent of digital printing has increased the size to which any sharp neg or transparency can be printed. Like others I'd support a view that you can get an excellent 19" x 13" print from a good 35mm original, though to achieve that the original, the scan, the file creation and the printing all have to be done very well.

 

But none of this says that a well-made print of that size from 35mm is going to be quite as good as that from a MF original. First there's more detail to be got from a MF scan . Second its not just a question of sharpness , or clarity or whatever, its a question of look as well. The print from the MF original will, again if well made in all respects, simply be smoother and more natural looking. I think this is apparent at 12" x 8" and gets more noticeable the bigger you go.

 

So I'm not surprised when you say the image approoaches that from the Pentax 67. But I'd be very surpised if you'd said it was better.

[steve_swinehart]

"Fractals-style interpolation eliminates "softness" from 35mm, even up close...the image acquires a new and (to me) attractive dimension..."

 

 

You mean that wonderful "pixel paste" look where texture is destroyed and filled in with flat meaningless color areas instead? Yep, that's a nifty effect alrighty.

 

"...though of course the bigger the film the more detail, assuming camera lens comparable to that of 35 (not commonly a good assumption)."

 

 

Ahhh...yes. The inferior: Zeiss / Hasselblad, Mamiya 7 lenses, Nikon / Makina lenses, or Rodenstock / Schneider on large format to name only a few. I can see where your coming from.

[jtk]

Steve, don't panic. You're half right:

 

Some, particularly Hassleblad, do rival top 35mm. And I've seen astounding giant INTERPOLATED murals done from recently-belated Mamiya 7 ... the fractals looked like brilliant, hard edged Arabic tiles up close, smoothing beautifully at a distance.

 

The super lenses you mentioned are modern exceptions: MF film has mostly been shot with optics that are mediocre by comparison, and you do know that: consider the oceans of merely-OK-or-worse MF lenses such as for old RB67s, Pentax 67, Horseman, Linhoff etc.

 

Typical 4X5 with decent optics will beat 35, hands down, but the nearterm demise of 120 (IMO)has some bearing. Only Mamiya & Hass still pretend there's a serious MF film future...they're both hoping somebody will buy their boxes, dreaming of cheaper digital backs in their lifetimes.

 

"You mean that wonderful "pixel paste" look where texture is destroyed and filled in with flat meaningless color areas instead? Yep, that's a nifty effect alrighty."

 

Perhaps you have not seen sharp-looking interpolations, or you may simply prefer traditional looking enlargements and have a distaste for sharp elements such as interpolation figures, grain, or printer dots. Those are simply your personal issues.

[mr._smith]

Les,

 

Of course there will a a huge difference between MF and 35mm negatives when a flatbed is used for scanning. For higher quality 35mm scans, a dedicated film scanner is preferred.

 

However, the original poster used a Nikon 9000, dedicated film scanner. The difference between the two films format scans is greatly reduced.

[robert goldstein]

Astia 100f scanned at 5400dpi and printed at 12x18" is extremely close to MF quality. If you never print larger than this, then it is questionable whether MF would be worth the trouble. In fact, you even answer your own question when you say that the prints you are getting from 35mm scans approach those from Pentax 67 scans.

[bobmichaels]

yep, I see the difference between 35mm & 120 at smaller print sizes. Same films, same developer, same scanner, same printer. 35mm is good but MF tonality is better.

 

I scan Neopan 400 and Astia shot 35mm in a ContaxG as well as the same films shot in a Mamiya 7 and in a 6x6 Bronica with a 110mm macro. These are some of the sharpest lenses out there. All film is scanned in a Minolta MultiPro, get the same treatment in PS and outputted to the same Epson.

 

The 35mm is very good, no question. Then you see the MF and realize there is a difference even at 8x10 and 11x14 sizes. It's not in the absolute resolution. It's in the smoothness of the tones.

 

Now I still shoot 35mm because it has some advantages in the field. I'm a street shooter. And prints are good enough. But there is no doubt in my mind that the MF prints are even better.

[rich815]

john kelly, no, I use Vuescan most of the time and mostly shoot traditional B&W and scan w/o ice (I dislike NikonScan with a vengence). Many others share my view. Not saying 35mm is bad by any means. I shoot some of the sharpest glass out there in my Contax G Zeiss lenses and Leica M lenses, and really like my results. However, they simply do not have a MF look, at least most of the time. Some claim that a 35mm neg scanned on something like a LS-4000 will beat out a MF scan scanned on an Epson flatbed. I simply do not agree at all.

 

Les, I can email you some links to some shots I particularly think show a more MF look that I could not duplicate even if I had shot 35mm at the same time. Or if you want I can mail you a small print or two.

[madro]

I print from 35mm, 6x9cm and 4x5". Prints from 6x9cm look much better than from 35mm, prints from 4x5cm look much better than from 6x9cm. There is a huge difference in detail and tonality. Two examples: <a href="http://members.chello.sk/m.drozda/san_francisco_ca.html">photo scanned from 6x9cm</a> and <a href="http://members.chello.sk/m.drozda/trafalgar_sq.html">a photo scanned from 4x5"</a>. The lenses in both cases are new, designed by Fuji and Nikon, respectively. They were scanned on a top drum scanner. I think the uppermost detail on the 4x5" photo is about 35mm frame, in this case it was downsized in order to make it viewable on screen. The fourth detail is already hard to find on the jpeg below showing the complete photo. Regarding weigth, my heaviest outfit was 35mm becase I had a need to carry with me 2kg of filters and 5kg of various lenses and other nonsenses (1kg ~ 2 pounds). My least heavy was my Fuji GW690. My 4x5" outfit is comparable to the Fuji, but I need to carry with me a heavier tripod.

[mike_r.1]

35mm on my Minolta 5400 does not look as good as 6x6 scanned on Epson 4990. 8x10; printed on Epson R200. Considering your far superior (to mine) MF scanner, you should get better prints with MF than 35mm with the same film, exposure, skill etc.

 

Not everyone can actually see the difference; which is why people say they can do 16x20 with 3MP digicams.

[philippartridge]

What a curious thread! Two clear camps here: (i) why shoot larger than small format, and (ii) MF/LF is so much better. Like most larger format shooters I cannot believe people who think that 13x enlargements of film (13x19 prints) will look as good, as or almost as good as 4x or 8x enlargements. This conclusion assumes similar or same workflow, as it should. There are a few posters I will be paying less attention to in future on quality issues ;-) There are reasons many LF shooters print no larger than 16x20 (or even 11x14), they want to retain the life-like quality! Small format images look like smears on paper, by comparison...Not many clients/photographers want very large prints so why do you suppose many have gone the larger format route - ego?

 

Some distractions to the issue: the reason there are many less than sublime MF lenses is simply because you do not need the last word in res with the film real estate available. But most MF lens and modern LF lenses are just wonderful; especially for LF other issues may degrade image quality - film flatness, registration, wind, tripod stability, etc.

 

I have the same scanner as Bob, Minolta's MultiPro, and get his results; but really, you see the MF advantage in minilab proofs - fine detail rendition (res, which you cannot manufacture in post, much to the chagrin of APS digicam shooters), tonal separation (more tones in a given density range), smoother tonal gradation (which gives that lifelike quality to images), colour clarity and authenticity (from the above points), low grain intrusion (grain is kinda like better looking noise to the recent arrivals). If it sounds like the definition of a better image, that's because it is.

 

"There are of course differences (tonality and details) which I can detect only if I look carefully upclose." That's right, 35mm looks better the further away you get from the print...

 

Having said all that, if your subject matter is not detail-dependent, you may be able to get away with 35mm or APS DSLRs. Just don't expect to turn out credible landscape or detail-rich work. At the end of the day (to recycle that dreadful expression) each must decide how little quality they are prepared to live with for the work they do, hours, weeks and years of it.

 

Les, from your posts you are methodical and analytical, so you would appreciate MF, I am sure. Mr Tobin's back could get a break if he used one of the many light MF cameras available, minus the giant lenses 35mm guys seem to have to haul around.

[robert goldstein]

"There are a few posters I will be paying less attention to in future on quality issues"

 

Perhaps this includes me, but I stand by my contention that 35mm Astia 100f scanned a 5400dpi and printed at 12x18" is very close to MF quality. I have shown such prints to an experienced MF and LF photographer who was quite amazed. (I use Carl Zeiss Contax lenses, which may have something to do with it, as well.) Of course, MF is better, but not by as much as one might think.

[ilkka_nissila]

It's obvious at any size print larger than 4x6 to me if the scan quality is decent.