Film + scanning v.s. digital: what gives the best image?

[supercobra]

Does anyone have compared a good digital camera (say 10 Megapix) to a film one

w/ scanning of the negative? Does 35mm film scanning provides as good a quality

than a Rebel XTI or Canon 5d?

 

Thanks!

Daniel

[ellis_vener_photography]

That will depend on

 

A.) The scanner ( the machine)

 

B.) The skills and patience of the person making the scans.

 

C.) The scanning software (SilverFast Ai 6.5.5 Studio is head and shoulders over other

scanning software at least with a Nikon Coolscan 5000; I've been testing it recently)

(about $500-600)

 

D.) If scanning slides, the person doing the scanning is willing to invest in an HCT IT-8

scanning target and understanding color management ansdalso Joseph Homes Chrome

1000 color space (about $100.)

 

D.) What your goal is.

 

Right now I'd say that someone who really knows what they are doing with the scanner and

understands color management is going to give any 10-12mp APS-C class DSLR a run for

its money. but that an EOS 5D or an 1Ds Mark 2 is going to be the better tool overall.

[ronald_moravec1]

I can make better pics with Leica negs and Minolta 5400 scans and CS2.

 

Digi is nice in that I can take a few pics and make prints with out getting out the chemicals and developing film or driving somewhere to have it done which usually results in a crumby job.

 

The Nikon D200 pics are very nice. Can`t complain.

 

For an exact answer, someday I will do the same subjects at the same time both ways.

 

If you have deadlines, digi is the only way.

[steve_solomon2]

Agreed...for time and convenience, digital is the way to go! Also, unless you are a "pro" at scanning, the Canon 5D (with a good "L" lens) wins hands down. (Scanning is really an art that takes time to master.)

[dave_redmann]

As with most things, it depends.<P>

 

First and foremost, you absolutely <B>cannot</B> equate 10 megapixels with "a good digital camera"--not by a long stretch are all pixels created equal. There are many important issues besides resolution (e.g., dynamic range, noise, color accuracy). But let's take the XTi because it is a good camera and there are many out there.<P>

 

Second, not by a long stretch is all film created equal, and how it is scanned also plays a big part. But assume we use a top scanner with a skilled operator (which may not be safe assumptions). And assume we are talking about 35mm film. If we switch to medium (or large!) format film, then you're giving film a considerable advantage.<P>

 

In terms of sheer resolution, I'm expect the digital to trounce some films and get trounced by others. Comparing film resolution with digital resolution is somewhat of an apples-and-oranges comparison. With film, the ability to resolve detail clearly decreases gradually as the detail gets finer. With digital, the ability to resolve detail remains good up to a point, then it rapidly falls to nothing. Still, there <I>is</I> a generally-accepted standard: resolution is defined as the point at which the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) falls to 50% at 1000:1 subject contrast. Using this standard, some 35mm film (some 400+ speed color print films, most transparency films) only has about 6-8 MP worth of real information; other 35mm film (say, T-Max 100) has maybe 24 MP worth of real information. And by the way, the typical Bayer-sensor digital camera with only has an effective resolution (by 50% MTF criteria) of about 65% of its pixel count, so that 10 MP XTi's resolution is generally comparable to 35mm film's.<P>

 

In terms of dymanic range, which is the difference between the darkest and the lightest tones that can be recorded in one picture, most print film (color or B&W) will beat the XTi, but the XTi will beat most transparency (slide) film.<P>

 

In terms of noise (grain, snow, color blotchiness), the XTi is likely to beat film by a considerable amount. However, some people prefer the look of film grain (especially B&W) over the noise from digital. I'm not one of 'em.<P>

 

In terms of the average enthusiast taking typical color pictures, and using a typical DSLR or a typical 35mm film camera and a typical scanner, IMHO ditigal will provide better results 90%+ of the time. Getting every last bit of detail and quality from the film is a lot harder than getting it from digital. And that assumes you have a great scanner, which many people don't. In terms of real-world typical performance, IMHO 35mm film is more comparable to a 6-8 MP DSLR.

[hugh_sakols]

"D.) If scanning slides, the person doing the scanning is willing to invest in an HCT IT-8 scanning target and understanding color management ansdalso Joseph Homes Chrome 1000 color space (about $100.)"

 

Ellis how is Joseph Homes Chrome 1000 color space different than his Ekta space?

 

Bill Atkinson told me that he thought the built in profiles of nikon scanners are pretty acurate.

 

At some point I would like to profile my Minolta Multi Pro but question if it will make that much difference if speed of my post processing is not an issue. When scanning I manually focus and make sure my histogram is at an optimal setting.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Hugh,

 

I meant Chrome Space 100. For the exact differences between EktaSpace and Chrome 100

it is probably best to read what Holmes' himself has to say at :

 

http://www.josephholmes.com/propages/SpacesandSets.html

 

"At some point I would like to profile my Minolta Multi Pro but question if it will make that

much difference if speed of my post processing is not an issue. When scanning I manually

focus and make sure my histogram is at an optimal setting."

 

I agree and always do this. It adds a minute or two to the overall scan time but really

makes a difference.

[robert lee]

"Does 35mm film scanning provides as good a quality than a Rebel XTI..."

 

Yes. They're roughly comparable.

[emre]

35mm is supposed to be convenient. Scanning most certainly is not. If you are going to scan why not shoot MF?

[ben_ballard]

Scanning MF is even less convenient.

[lahuasteca]

Like Ellis & others have state, it depends how much you want to invest, time and

equipment in scanning. For me, I get better results with ISO 100 slide film, Coolscan V,

and F100/FE2 and prime lenses than my D70s. I lent a Coolscan 4000 to a colleague who

did everything on default and got Instamatic level crap IQ.

 

Me, I keep on scanning, 'cause I like my film equipment accumulated over the years, think

I know what I'm doing, and am willing to put the time and effort into it.

 

But, make a long story short - if you don't have a Coolscan V or 5000 at present, don't

waste your time and money on getting one. Get a D200 or 5D. I may follow my own

advice if a liitle windfall comes my way.

[anthony johns]

It really depends on alot of things. Alot of film, proceesed right and scanned right, can really give high resoultion. If you've been working with film and get good results with it; stay with it. If you've been working with digital and get good results with it; stay with it. I hope this doesn't turn into a format war. I personally like the look of film better and find it has more charcter "engraved in it" but that's only my opinion. Besides resolution, there's alot of other things that contribute to the whole piece. Print film generally has more dynamic range and color tonal range that digital. Resolution wise, I've heard film rated at around 20mp. So yes, scanning film can give good results that can surpass digital, but it can also give poor results.

[danielleetaylor]

The most extensive research and answers are provided by:

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html

 

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

 

There are a lot of variables to consider in terms of image capture, workflow, and definition of "quality". What film vs. what digital camera? What scanner, RAW converter, post processing? Are you measuring edge sharpness, extinction resolution, tonality, noise, dynamic range...or all of the above and more?

 

Personally I gave up 35mm when 6mp capture became affordable. Too few films and too much work to get the same print quality out of 35mm, IMHO.

[mr._smith]

"Agreed...for time and convenience, digital is the way to go!"

 

Could not have said it better.

[natures-pencil]

Depends on what you mean by "quality"

 

In terms of resolution, tonal range, gradation, a Canon 5D beats scanned 35mm film, and

an EOS 1Ds trounces both 35mm and 645 and runs 6x6 and 6x7 formats close. Nothing

comes close to 5"x4" sheet film.

 

But more resolution beyond what is good enough isn't that important. For most subjects

scanned 35mm film has more than enough technical quality. What makes a great image is

the skill of the photographer. It is about finding a way to show your subject that will

interest other people.

 

The photographer should work with the medium and tools that they understand, that they

know will deliver the results they want. It is a personal choice.

 

For all kinds of reasons I get better images when I use 35mm film than when I use digital

equipment or larger film formats. So after two years of exclusive use of digital image

capture, and experimenting with larger film formats 35mm is once again what I use for all

my attempts at creating photographic art works.