A question about LF photographers' digital experiences

[User_503771]

Hello,

 

At first glance, this question might be thought to be more appropriately

addressed to another forum, but I would like to know specifically what LF

photographers think.

 

Here's the scoop: I've had an older Nikon Coolpix (2.1 mpixel) for a few years,

and I've been very happy with it. I use it for the odd snapshot, and to make

"test" shots for composition ideas. Finally the other week I went out and got an

Olympus SP320. 7.1 mpixels, ability to shoot RAW -- pretty nice camera for the

price. I thought maybe I could finally do some serious photography with a

digital camera.

 

Anyway, I've been running some tests, nailing the thing to the tripod and using

the 12-second self-timer to pause before exposure, to make sure vibration is gone.

 

When I bring these images (RAW or JPEG) into Photoshop and view them at 200%,

the edges of things in the pictures go soft.

 

I've made a few prints on my printer and the prints look great. And at 100% on

the screen the pictures look terrific.

 

But, is this the best I can expect these pictures to get? Kind of muddy in the

detail department?

 

By contrast, I lay a roll film negative down on a flat bed scanner with a light

lid and do a 600x1200 scan, those pictures look sharper on the screen.

 

Since I got the camera, I've done a little reading, and have started to conclude

that digital, while pretty nice, just doesn't cut it in the detail department --

yet! Especially not at a price that I can afford (or care to spend for what, for

me, is a sideline compared to film photography).

 

Anyway, have you had the same experiences? 7 mpixels, soft at the edges at 200%

on screen? Or should I take the camera back to the store and exchange for

something else....?

[justinblack]

Hi Michael,

 

I wouldn't expect too much from a 7MP zoom point-and-shoot. Even the DSLRs don't

truly compete with a well executed 35mm frame until you get up around 10MP+. The

latest generation of 12MP+ cameras certainly exceed 35mm in terms of absolute

resolution, but Canon is expected to up the ante at Photokina with the release of a 22MP

DSLR, and I have heard rumors from people close to Nikon that they may finally be going

to a 24x36mm sensor in order to get their pixel count up in the same range as Canon. So,

let me get this straight, Nikon is increasing format size to improve resolution? That

sounds familiar!!!

 

You asked what LF photographers think... For the kind of work I do (landscape), any day of

the week I will take my rugged and water-tolerant $300.00, 100-megapixel digital back

(that is, a Fuji Quickload holder, plus a back-up, and a box of film plus 350MB drum scans

of the frames I wish to print), over a $5,000+ DSLR or $30,000 Phaseone P45 digital

capture back that will soon be surpassed anyway. Ever tried dropping your digital capture

device in a creek? For landscape work geared toward fine prints in the 24"x30" and larger

range, a 4x5 still blows away digital capture in terms of absolute quality, perspective and

focus control, and (for most photographers) cost effectiveness. When there is a 100

megapixel medium format back that costs $2,000 (reasonable replacement cost if

catastrophe strikes) and can be mounted on a view camera, then sign me up! Until then, I'll

stick with the film thanks!

[erlend sæteren]

I guess your digitalcam is ok. Small formats is ok for small pictures. I consider digital as

an alternative high res film type available only in formats smaller than 36x48mm, i use a

ca. 20x30mm canon. Ok for press. When you use a wideangle zoom focallenght around

10mm, It is ok that it delivers sharp in 100 prosent. My experience with canon when

making pictures is that when the size of the motiv is about 1 meter it will be ok, but when

its 2meter and larger I have a detailresolutionproblem(the goal was printing 21x 30 cm or

smaller in offset). When my canon is to lowres, I pick up my 4x5 or Mamiya 645 with film

or sharpen up the best I can and try to live with it. When it comes to photo for fun, digital

is great for playing and sketches, and 4x5 gives me the artistic kick

[brian_ellis16]

"Since I got the camera, I've done a little reading, and have started to conclude that digital, while pretty nice, just doesn't cut it in the detail department -- yet!"

 

That's a pretty broad statement and if you mean it literally - that digital in no way, shape, or form cuts it in the detail department - then that's wrong. If you mean that digital as you're using it - i.e. with your camera and peripherals and with your knowledge and talent - doesn't cut it then that's right if you think it's right.

 

The problem with "digital" is that there's so much to learn in order to get excellent digital prints from a digital camera. Obviously you need to know how to use the camera (which involves more than just applying what you learned about film cameras to a digital camera), then you need Photoshop or a comparable editing program and plenty of time and effort to learn it, you need to understand color management, unsharp masking, curves, paper and equipment profiles, monitor calibration, RIPs, RAW conversions, the list could go on and on.

 

So if your thought is to just buy a digital camera, read the manual, and make excellent large digital prints from your desktop printer then no, that won't work. You can get decent snapshot that way, things suitable for the family album, but not exhibition quality prints. But if you're willing to devote a few hundred hours to learning everything you need to know and can afford to buy excellent lenses for your camera plus Photoshop or a compable editing program and a good printer, then IMHO from a technical standpoint you can make better prints from a 7mp digital camera than you could from 35mm and you can make prints at least equivalent to medium format from a technical standpoint in sizes up to about 11x14. With enough time and money you probably can make technically equivalent or better prints from a camera with a digital back than you can make from scans of 4x5 film but that's getting into the stratosphere in terms of money.

 

I disagree with the person who said you need at least 10mps to make an excellent print. There's not much difference between a 7mp and a 10mp camera as long as your prints are in the 11x14 or smaller range. I made some very nice 9x12 or so prints from a Nikon D100 camera that had similar mps to your camera. The lenses are very important just as they were with film cameras, the printer is important, the software is important. But in the final analysis it's not the equipment that's critical once a certain minimum has been reached, it's the knowledge and talent of the person using it just as it was with film photography.

[bruce_watson1]

<i>When I bring these images (RAW or JPEG) into Photoshop and view them at 200%, the edges of things in the pictures go soft.

<p>

I've made a few prints on my printer and the prints look great. And at 100% on the screen the pictures look terrific.

<p>

But, is this the best I can expect these pictures to get? Kind of muddy in the detail department?</i>

<p>

Don't be daft man. Think about what you are doing. When you are looking at an image in Photoshop at 100% pixels, you are adding an additional 4-5x enlargement to what you'd see in a print. This is because the display resolution is significantly lower than printer resolution (360dpi / 72 dpi = 5x). If things did <b>not</b> look "kind of muddy in the detail department" something would be wrong.

<p>

The more you enlarge the image, the softer it becomes. Digital won't let you violate or ignore the laws of physics.

[ellis jordan bojar]

Scanned film currently has more "sharpness" than digital capture, but that sharpness

comes at a cost of more noise and less-smooth gradations. It's a matter of opinion how

much of that sharpness holds detail. I'm sure you'll herar plenty of those opinions. Just

about every book on digital photography that I've seen has insisted that adding

"sharpening" in Photoshop is a necessary part of the printing process. With digital, there's

no question that you have to do the job of the processing lab and the printer, and if you

don't your results suffer.

 

I no longer shoot 35mm film because my 5D seems to do the job so much better than

small-format negatives. I still shoot 120 and 4x5 film because they appear (in features

and fidelity )to outperform the 5D handily (at 6x6 and above). At the moment, I suspect

you won't find a digicam that does the job of a film SLR for less about $1500 (probably

beginning at the 30D or D200) and to exceed film they start at around $2500 and go

steeply up from there. These prices will have plummeted in the next year or two, but

beating film is currently an expensive proposition.

[User_503771]

Well, I think I've unleashed a tempest in a teapot.

 

Simply put: I thought that I should be getting better edges out of a 7mp image. I thought maybe something's wrong with the camera, particularly the lens.

 

For a "point and shoot", it does have a wide range of controls, including the option to do aperture or shutter priority, or completely manual settings, as well as manual focus. It stops down to f/8, which makes sense because with anything smaller at this short focal length, one would probably get serious diffraction.

 

One poster above mentioned unsharp masking. It doesn't make sense to me that one must sharpen up an image if it's sharp already. But I've been thinking also that I probably should look rather more deeply than I have, into this particular feature.

 

Anyway, I would guess that I really do have enough information to proceed. I've been working with scans for quite awhile, so digital capture from a camera really isn't that much different. And I have worked quite a bit with the pictures from my earlier camera.

 

The principles here are all the same, no matter the media: The receiving medium (film, paper, or sensors) has a certain resolving power, usually exceeded by that of the lens. One works with what one has in order to get the best possible product.

 

I can study composition -- especially in color -- very nicely with this equipment, and even make some prints that will "measure up" if they aren't too large. And my experiments with panoramics can proceed this way too, which is a big plus! (Not having to spring for a 7x17 and holders and film at this particular moment is *real* good!)

 

One thing I've found just since I wrote the first post: I went back and examined a bunch of the stuff I've shot, and the old rule still applies, perhaps more than ever:

 

NAIL THAT CAMERA TO A TRIPOD!

 

Thanks everybody for your thoughts.

[pvp]

<I><B>One poster above mentioned unsharp masking. It doesn't make sense to me that one must sharpen up an image if it's sharp already.</B></I><P>

The problem is, digital captures are not sharp already. There are always pixels -- lots of them -- that are on the boundary between different values, and the sensor can do no better than to average the light it sees. Also, any time you make a change to the image it creates artifacts and can further soften the edges within the image. Result is that digital captures of any kind (that I know of <B>*</B> ) generally need some sharpening to reach their potential.

 

<B>*</B><I>There's probably someone out there who's ready to further my education.</I>

[bruce_watson1]

Alan is of course correct. Any time you try to take a deterministic sampling of a stochastic scene, sharpness must suffer, at least a little. Unsharp masking is your friend. If used sparingly.

[conrad_hoffman]

This may be hard to believe, but I can pretty much equal b&w quality from my Panasonic FZ-20 (sensor the size of your little fingernail), as my Mamiya C330, up to an 8x8" print size. Not sure what happens above that, but looking at the detail on the negs and the files, I could certainly go somewhat larger if I had a larger printer. Obviously you have to know how to process a digital image without introducing artifacts and such. The ability to correct and manipulate color using digital makes wet color prints a non-starter, though I think the color rendition of the FZ leaves something to be desired. For landscapes, it just isn't satisfying to me. IMO, 4x5 only makes sense for larger prints or where swings and tilts are necessary, or where limited DOF is needed (and I do shoot 4x5 now and then). I just got a dSLR, so I'll soon see how that stacks up. Remember that any digital sensor has an anti-aliasing filter in front of it to introduce some blur. It's essentially a soft focus filter. Sharpening always has to be applied to get the edges back to normal.

[jimdesu]

The really nice thing about LF instead of digital, from my perspective: no purple fringing. Everything they said above is correct, assuming you don't crop as much as I do, but w/ digital you've always got to watch out for fringing in uber-high-contrast situations. It's a royal pain in the posterior.

[noah]

I'm far from being a fan of digital capture, but it sounds like you're being a bit harsh on

your camera.

 

I'm not that familiar with the camera you mentioned, but it is a consumer camera. Most

point and shoot cameras have ccd's that are quite small. The number of pixels is not the

only part of the equation that matters. I'm talking about physical size of the sensor, not

the number of pixels. With these small image sensors, any size print represents quite a big

enlargement. Besides leading to more digital noise and artifacts, this also requires that the

lens be of very high quality. But even a good lens will show it's weaknesses when you

enlarge the amount you're talking about.

 

Digital is not like film. Film is an analog medium. If you take a 35mm negative, you can

enlarge it as much as you want. Your print quality will gradually get worse the bigger you

print, it will get more grainy and less sharp.

 

Digital files aren't really intended to be viewed or printed at bigger than 100%. At larger

sizes, you can see each pixel that makes up the image, and so of course the image will

appear soft and it will lack detail. It would be kind of like looking at your film with a high

powered microscope. At some point you will only see clumps of silver, which is kind of like

what you see with digital at 200%, clumps of pixels.

 

Digital files must be used within their limits. If you want to print them bigger than the

camera's native resolution allows, you would generally make the file bigger by

interpolation either in photoshop or some other dedicated interpolation software. This will

allow the picture to be printed bigger, but it will not be as sharp or detailed as the original

file printed within its limits. How big you can print depends on the resolution of the

original file and of the output device.

 

How do your film scans look at 200%? They might be bigger files than the digicam gives

you, but if you blow them up to more than 100%, you'll still see pixels and a lack of detail.

But that's kind of a moot point, since like someone else mentioned, looking at a file at

100% on screen is equal to a pretty big enlargement.

 

I shoot 8x10 and don't really like digital, though I have to shoot it for work. But it's not fair

to compare a point and shoot digital camera, even if it is a good one, to large format film.

 

Here's what I would do. Take one of your digital files that you like, size it to 240dpi at

whatever size you would like to print it, and make a print. (Better yet, take it to a good lab

(not wal-mart) that has a digital c-print machine, like a poli laserlab, lightjet or similar,

and get a print made.) If it's good enough, enjoy the camera. If not, take it back and get a

mamiya 7, or possibly a dslr with a bigger chip and better lenses.

[User_503771]

My thanks to all for your responses!

 

I think I'll be working more on various of my large format projects -- but partly as a result of being able to go out at a moment's notice and just shoot-shoot-shoot with a little digital!

 

I dunno -- SURE it doesn't compare with large format, and YES it's not as sharp!

 

From your posts I can see that I didn't get a defective camera -- also, keeping the thing on a tripod and exposing with the delay of self-timer certainly has helped lately....

 

But the punch line: For me, anymore, the composition of the shot is the thing. I don't even want to pull a dark slide if I can't see a composition on the ground glass that'll really work.

 

Well, this takes a little more practice than I sometimes have time for.

 

The 7mpx is a great leap from what I was using before; the color's great; the controls are super ---- for the price, I think I got a great deal.

 

And what a tool! I can compose all kinds of stuff as much as I want and check 'em out while sitting on my ass with a cuppa coffee, right after I shoot!

 

Maybe one day I'll get real serious about digital as a tool for serious art work -- but wait, I already have, haven't I?

 

Any tool that'll get me up off my butt and out with a pack full of 5x7 (or bigger or smaller) and lenses, at my age and with my back, is a good tool to have in the hand.

 

Thanks again, folks. Keep up the great work, all that great shooting, "electric" or not, small negs/sensors or big....