Suggestion for great colour 35mm prints.From slides or dslr?

[marco_landini]

Hello.

I shoot mostly during my travels, candid portraits or travel reportage. I'm

interested in great colour and contrast, a la Steve McCurry. I shoot only slide

film ,velvia 100 for enviromental, kodak e100gx for people. The reasos why I

shoot slides : 1)colour rendition. 2)possibility of projections, I love them!.

3)the laboratory work is limited to processing only, so the lab men don't

influence the final results drammaticaly.

But I love and I need some prints too. I realize I'd need about 30-40 very good

printed shots a year. Hi quality is my first issue. I think the best quality

results are achieved by ibrid solutions, i.e. analog capture (slides) and

digital scanning ,maybe whit a drum scanner, and then laser print lambda on hi

quality paper. Here are the choices i'm asking you suggestions about:

1)Buy a digital camera, as 10 Mpxls nikon d200, photoshop correction, sending

files to a good professional printer. 2)35mm Velvia slides, about equivalent of

22 Mpxls, great colour and dinamic range, tridimensional effect.Buy a good

dedicated scanner, as super coolscan 9000 or nikon 5000. Then send files to a

good professional printer. 3)As I would prefere, continue to shoot slides, and

send directly slides to a professional lab that uses drum scanner tecnology and

great printing system. This could be of course the easiest and more convenient

way to achieve the results I wish,expecialy if my needs are limited in 30-40

prints per year. The problem is that here in Italy is very difficult to find

great labs.Is printing from slides better than dslr?

What can you suggest ? Thank you very much. Best regards. Marco.

[gale]

Buy a scanner. It is the only way to continue to enjoy film. I own one you mentioned the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I love it. I've been able to archive into a digital file (different in my opinion than digital files from a DSLR) everything from old Kodachrome and kodacolor slides and negs to modern E6 and C-41 images to even handprocess B&W 100 to 3200 ASA film negs.

 

If you wish to shoot film, this is the best way. Get a good external drive where you can store your files. You will needs lots of storage space as you will have 50+mg TIFF files and compressed Jpeg files too and lots of them. Get a good software program because the scanner just can't reproduce the glorious slide image perfect from the getgo. Photoshop is no discrace to photography and with practice you can get that image pretty close to the same image you see in the slide.

 

Next, get a good printer. I am pretty much done sending files to others for prints, unless I get a call for a large print. However, most prints I enjoy in my home I can print from my old Epson 2200 printer which is old but still wonderful. I can print 4x6 to 13X19 or wider is I use roll paper. I can use different papers for different effects and I take total control or the result.

 

I get enough side business for art prints of my own to customer prints to pay for paper and ink.

 

The new Epson printers are even better I hear. Many of my photography friends do likewise, even digital shooters as most still shoot some film. To tell the truth, such new technologies are keeping film alive and simple. You will no regret the Nikon 5000 Scanner and Epson printer.

[randall_pukalo]

Yes, get a good film scanner: Minolta 5400, 5400II (used on e-bay) or a Nikon Coolscan V, 5000, or 9000. Then, you can continue to use and love slides (as I do).

[roger_smith4]

If you're only printing 30-40 high quality images a year a slide scanner would be the most economical way to go while letting you retain full control. You can pay someone else to scan and edit your pictures, but as you said good labs are hard to find.

 

If you are using 35mm film you don't need a Nikon 9000- the Coolscan V should be adequate and actually superior for that task. I doubt you'll need to drum scan reportage pics- good scanning technique should take care of Dmax issues and unless it's a scan of shot using a tripod you're not going to need more resolution.

 

If you like the look of Lambda prints I'd stick with it- the Epson inkjets can look good but there's a learning curve and they are a very different medium. I use both ink jet and Fuji Frontier prints and for color glossy far prefer the Frontier.

 

35mm Velvia's not "22 megapixels" by the way- much of the image "data" is really noise.

[JDMvW]

Do pay attention to the scanning speed. This is critical if you are going to be doing lots of scanning.

 

The catch in scanning film is that you will have to do a lot of "spotting" because film comes back from the processor, already with dust specks. Cleaning helps, but in my experience, none of the automatic programs are worth much unless you are willing to accept real loss of quality in the final product.

[Ed_Ingold]

A Nikon film scanner will extract nearly as much information from a slide or negative as an expensive drum scan. If you like shooting film, this is an excellent direction to go (I have an LS-4000 and an LS-8000). A good inkjet printer, like an Epson R2400, 3800 or 4800, would complement your scanner well.

 

I am not alone in finding little incentive to use 35mm or even 120 film in comparison to a high-quality DSLR (e.g., a D2x). A modern DSLR has a much greater dynamic range than slide film - 7 to 8 f/stops, compared to 3-1/2 stops for Velvia and 5 stops for Provia. The sharpness (perceived resolution) of a 12MP DSLR (or higher) is also greater than for 35mm film, even Velvia. While you can get a sharp 11x14 inch print from 35mm film, a 16x20 inch print from a 12MP camera rivals medium format quality (at that size). If you decide to get a DSLR, I would suggest a D300, which has much better resolution and image quality than a D200, especially at high ISO values.

[benny_spinoza]

You may not need to get a printer. Here in the US, we have many online printers. I upload my jpegs from scanned film to an online printer, and have it printed on Kodak metallic paper. I suspect you also have that available in Italy?

 

If you do get a scanner, I recommend SilverFast. But you don't need to buy the full version of Photoshop. There are less expensive alternatives that don't do as much, but probably are good enough for most purposes, such as lightzone. In fact SilverFast is so good, you may not need anything else.

 

If you buy a scanner and get familiar with scanning slides and having them printed, then please try negative color film. Kodak Portra scans very well. You just may like prints from negative color film more than from slides!

 

But there is a learning curve. You will need a monitor that can be calibrated, software/hardware to create an icc profile for your monitor, and you will need the icc profile for the printer to do softproofing, whether a home printer or an online printer. I have a Vista machine...but Mac is probably better. (But some software isn't yet available for the new Mac operating system, such as SilverFast. So be careful.)

 

By the way...I use the Nikon 9000 scanner. It has digital ICE for Kodachrome. But if you use Ektachrome, then you don't need it, and the less expensive Nikon scanners should be good enough...unless you also plan to shoot medium format. Microtek just came out with a new scanner...but it doesn't have digital ICE for film. Epson V750 does have ICE, but its lens is a fixed-focus lens, so you have to use shims to adjust the film holder. Nikon is the best.

 

Have fun.

[gale]

Edward, At first, I didn't want to respond to your comments that 35mm film can print 11X14 photos while DLSR's can go bigger but I must. I have had printed many 24x36 prints from my 50+mg Tiff files scanned from 35mm slides or negs from my Nikon Coolscan 5000. It has more to do with lens, exposure, scanner and printer than film or Digital mediums. Some TIFF files I have I beleive would print just nice 30X40 and turn out wonderful. Some file I have I wouldn't take bigger than 11x16. It had more to do with things other than because it was from film.

 

Sorry. Let's not put things in a box.

[marco_landini]

Ok.It's a first step...The question is to choose the best compromise in quality,praticity and costs.Since I love definition in landscapes and buildings,for these subjects I shoot 6x6 velvia in a 6006 rollei camera and I project them. Because I need only very few of these ones to have printed (5 per year), for this matter I will send my dias to professional lab to have scanned and printed using the best professional equipment. When I need only prints (and no interst to project the same pic), I use to shoot 6x6 b&w. I'm very satified about these 2 situations. The problem is about candid portraits and reportage during my trips, and I want PRINTS from these subjects. The alternatives in this case are 35mm film (slide), or dslr, and this is the argument of our discussion.

I have to decide: 1) buy a Nikon d80 or d200, photoshop, buy a good epson printer. Which one ? -2) continue to shoot slides, buy a scanner, buy an epson printer. Which one of these 2 alternatives is in your opinion the best compromise in quality (definition, colour rendition and dinamic, natural depth, not the tipical digital flatness), praticity and price ? Thank you por your patience.

[benny_spinoza]

If you are looking for a good value, then just buy a scanner and have an online printer make prints. But whether you go with a DLSR or scan film, you will still want a good monitor, unless you have the online printer do the color balancing and just rely upon their judgement for contrast adjustment, color balancing, etc. If you go with a Nikon scanner, the included Nikon Scan software works good with slides. (If you want to scan negative film, I recommend something better, like SilverFast.) Then just buy lightzone from www.lightcrafts.com for post-scan processing. It is intuitive, and is much less money than the full version of photoshop. The entire cost for scanner and ligthzone will be about $700 USD.

 

But if you only shoot slides, the only advantage I see with that over a DSLR is that slides are easily archived, you can project them, and you can continue to use your film cameras.

[roger_smith4]

Okay, for your reportage digital capture is cheaper over the long-run (no film or processign costs) and way less time intensive.

 

Quality depends on how much time you invest in learning how to scan and properly prep your film for scanning (remove dust, flatten, keep from gettign scratched). Digital should beat out slides for dynamic range. Film should have a resolution edge at the price of "grain." Natural depth and color rendition sound like someone who has only seen poor quality digital work.

 

It's easier to to a good job with digital than slides in my experience, but with experience both are viable workflows. I also find that the ability to review digital in the field and redo shots (or get new ideas as you review the LCD) makes me a better photographer.

 

I'd wait on the printer as you'll have enough to worry about with a new camera or scanner.

[benny_spinoza]

Roger has some good points. But on the other hand...Personally, I find the finders in most DSLR terrible. I like the bright, large finders one can get with a good old fashion SLR. When I've used other's DSLR, I found it hard to compose. Of course, the D3 Nikon and high end Canon are full frame with full sized finders, but they cost alot. To me, one of the joys of film is also the film camera itself. If you are thinking about a DSLR, I would try them out first before buying. Particularly if you have alot of experience with 35mm film cameras and enjoy using them. I don't think I would ever buy a DSLR unless it was at least full frame.

[Ed_Ingold]

David,

 

You may print 30x40 inches from a 35mm slide if you wish. It's a matter of taste, the subject and application. In my experience, 35mm grain becomes quite visible at 11x14 inches in a stand-alone print, and the sharpness becomes questionable. Even medium format is barely adequate at 30x40 inches.

[jeff_z.]

Edward,

 

While I don't have any need to go over about 10 by 15, in my experience, grain has never

been an issue. I wondered how long ago you last did this? Perhaps we're sharpening

differently? Even with Kodachrome 64 derived prints, I don't see it, and definitely not on

the later emulsions that were engineered for scanning.

 

I generally print on Cotton Rag paper as I don't like reflections, but just looked at prints

done over a year ago of this size, and they are quite sharp and no objectionable grain. In

fact, in probably my most extreme example, a semi-panoramic (cropped), which is much

more enlarged than the others, grain is still not an issue.

[tim_huggins]

Scroll down to the thread "how to develop slide to paper ?" in this forum. There are three labs listed there that will make optical prints from slides. By all means, buy a DSLR for your throw away snap shots. You probably won't find yourself carrying it much if you care about the quality of your images, though

[gary_hagan1]

Marco:

I just (today) finished shooting my first film in eight years. I pulled out my Contax G2 and a couple of Mamiya 7/7II and Astia 100. I also shot some of the same material earlier in the day with my DSLR. I missed the DSLR's histogram and immediate feedback and cost per shot. I loved the whole rangefinder way of seeing/shooting. I originally purchased the G2 and the Mamiya for travel. Anyway, dropped off the film at Walmart(outsource to Fuji). That was one extra step that I didn't have with the DSLR. I pulled out and installed an old Nikon LS-2000 35mm scanner and will use this for the slides.

 

The DSLR is definitely the more versatile and provides you with the greatest feedback. Considering costs.. you could purchase a great DSLR for the price of the film camera/scanner. If I were to go for the absolute best combination of size/performance, I would either take the Mamiya 7(6x7)/Nikon Coolscan 9000, or the Canon 1Ds MKIII.

[d_s31]

I print 35mm up to 8x10 and I see fuzziness even with KODAK's T-grain Tech. I'm all analog. I guess if I used a scanner, things would look better with the help of the computers.

[photography by a.f. smith]

Edward,

I agree that medium format is pushing it at 30x40. That is if by medium format we mean 645 or 6x6, you can obviously get more from 6x9 (I realize some would consider that large format but I'd call anything 120 medium)

I cannot agree that a 12mp DSLR can rival that though. My friend's band recently had a session with a pro shooting with a 5D. They printed 15x20 posters from the full resolution files he gave them and though most areas looked fine, there was significant "stairstepping" visible in the 1/4 inch cables (Cable that connects guitar/bass to amp) when viewed from anything less than a foot.

If you care to dispute this by blaming the photographer or his workflow consider this:

 

A healthy, young eye can distinguish around 300dpi. An older, less healthy but still good eye around 250dpi. At 300 dpi a 12mp camera (4368 x 2912 as specified by cannon for the 5D) can print 15x10 inches. At 250 you can get a 18x12. Even a 2800dpi (relatively low) scan of a 6x6 frame will yield a file 6300x6300, suitable for a 21x21 print even at 300dpi. Of course a better scan will allow for even larger prints.

[Ed_Ingold]

Adam,

 

You must resample the digital image to 300 ppi in the final print, then apply USM sharpening. The amount of sharpening is similar to that required for a 6x6 scan (e.g., 8500x8500 pixels) at that print size (16x20 inches). That will eliminate the "staircasing" effect you describe.

 

The practical resolution of a 6x6 scan is about twice that of the D2x, limited by the properties of the film (diffusion) and lens. However, at 16x20 inches that difference is not visible. 6x7 or 6x9 film has more resolution than 6x4.5, but it does not matter until the print size is much larger. For that I have an Hasselblad or 4x5 Sinar.

 

Marco,

 

In general, you get better prints from negative film than from slides. In either case, most labs will scan the film and print from the digital file. While this averts the use of reversal paper (always a disappointment), the dynamic range of slide film is limited, which leads to poor shadow detail and excessive contrast in prints. Slides are great when projected, but who uses a projector these days?

[photography by a.f. smith]

Edward,

 

This file WAS resampled and sharpened. Thats why MOST of the image looked fine. Problem was, the fine detail of the cable was recorded as a staircase and was upsampled to a bigger staircase.

 

All upsampling does is tell photoshop to take a group of pixels and restructure their image to fit a larger block of pixels. When it detects an edge, it preserves it, when it detects a gradation in tone or colour, it extends it by adding pixels of intermediate tone/colour in between the recorded pixes.

 

Usually this all works out great. Sometimes it doesn't. In the case of my friends cable, it was a small black cable twisting and turning through a sea of relatively bright floor. (No sweat for edge detection) And, as cables occasionally do, it arranged itself so that in several sections it edges landed exaclty wrong in relationship to the camera's sensor and at those sections was not faithfully rendered. It looked like a staircase.

 

Now photoshop is great at interpreting pixels, but not at interpreting objects. It doesn't know that staircase pattern was originally a round, twising cable, it assumes the picture is of something that looks like a staircase so it preserves that pattern when you upsample.

 

Like I said, most of the time it works out great. But you can't expect a set of algorithms to "Fill in the gaps" and get it right EVERY time.

 

Furthermore, if upsampling and USM was a magic bullet we could all upsample to 70ftx70ft. Why would you pay more for more megapixels if you can just upsample to any printsize you want?

 

The answer is that the law of diminishing returns applies . You can only upsample so far (To my taste about 20-30% depending on image content) before you don't get anything more out of it. So yes, you CAN upsample a 4368 x 2912 file and 98% of the time it will stand up to the 2800dpi of 6x6 scan from my example, but what's stoping you from upsampling the scan?

 

"The practical resolution of a 6x6 scan is about twice that of the D2x, limited by the properties of the film (diffusion) and lens. However, at 16x20 inches that difference is not visible. "

 

I do agree however that it doens't often matter at that print size, in most cases both look great.

 

I do have to disagree with this though:

 

"In general, you get better prints from negative film than from slides."

 

I don't think this the case, especially if you're offended by grain. I haven't found a negative film that can compete with reversal film in identical ISOs, even giving the negative film a 1-stop head start bonus I'd usually prefer most reversal emulsions.

 

Negative DOES have a big advantage in dynamic range, but thats not much good at the printing stage, it only makes it easier (or sometimes simply possible) to capture the scene at the shooting stage.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have tons of neg for a scenes that I can't squeeze into velvia, but if you've got a scene that will fit into a slide's dynamic range, the final print will, in my opinion, be far superior to anything you could get from a negative, even one developed specificly for the low contrast range of the scene.

[StuartMoxham]

You can get great color prints from either. Your skills as a photographer/post proccessor will be far more important than the choice of 35mm film or DSLR. With two identical images you could pick out differences between digital and film with two different images it would be much harder.

[obakesan]

Marco

<P>

I find myself in agreement with Stuart, both pathways are capable and both have advantages and disadvantages. I've gone down a similar path and placed my thoughts on this at

my <A HREF="http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/CP20D10D/10Dvs35mm.html">web page here</A>:

<P>

as you point out:

<UL>

<LI> Buy a digital camera, as 10 Mpxls nikon d200,

photoshop correction,

<LI> 35mm Velvia slides -> Buy a good dedicated scanner, as super coolscan 9000 or nikon 5000.

, about equivalent of 22 Mpxls,

great colour and dinamic range,

</UL>

<P>

Then send files to a good professional printer.

<P>

so it essentially comes down to how to get the digital file to

send to the printer.

<P>

I'd point out that there are some important points in you

your statment: "<I>35mm Velvia slides,

about equivalent of 22 Mpxls,

great colour and dinamic range, tridimensional effect.</I>"

<P>

Something often confused in the comparison between slides and negatives is

the density range the films <B>VS</B> the scene contrast range captureable by

the films

<P>

Some searching on this forum will yeild much debate and some conclusions

about this, but I'm sure you'll find that slide will not capture anywhere

near as much of the dynamic range of the scene compared to negatives.

Slides look "punchier" because they have a greater density range. So while

they capture less, they present it better to your eye on the lighbox.

<P>

<B>The result of this is you'll <U>need</U> a scanner such as the LS-5000 you mention

to get at this detail.</B>

<P>

I think you'll find it hard to argue the economics of using a camera such

as the D200 or the Canon 5D over slides, in either monetary or time

based views. If the final destination is to be prints (not admiring the

beauty of the projected slides) then I can't see many sound arguments

that you'll get substantial advantages of any film in comparison with

a full frame DSLR such as a 5D. Many die hard film users are gradually

converting and selling their Nikon 9000's for just this reason. I know

some personally who have even ditched their use of 645 format in favour of

a 5D. If you want slides, then I think its not out of the posibility to

get film made from the digital. I have access to a film writer, which

produces film from digital files. I've even found (in the past) that slides

made from negatives (using Kodak duplication film) have projected nicer than

slides exposed on the same tripod just a moment later. <U>I guess that this

contrast control is the reason that the motion picture industry shoots

negative too</U>.

<P>

However you say"<I>

As I would prefere, continue to shoot slides, and send

directly slides to a professional lab that uses drum

scanner tecnology and great printing system. </I>"

<P>

which pretty much is the last word. If you prefer that, then do it.

<P>

[jeff_z.]

Hi Marco,

 

 

"Is printing from slides better than dslr? What can you suggest ?" For my purposes, slide

film is an elegant solution. It sounds like you're similar to me in that you'd like to print a

relatively small number of your very best exposures. Naturally, you only scan the best, so

the time involved is not nearly as great as some seem to believe. I purchase archival

quality sleeves from Print File. That way you have nice, stable originals, without the need

for extra hard drive storage.

 

You will need to become skilled in P.S. or another image processing program, and this

takes experience, but I suspect there is a similar learning curve with original digital

capture?

 

As for the economics of this, the only way I can see original digital capture having any

edge at all, is if you were shooting sufficiently large numbers of individual exposures to

make it worth the literally thousands of dollars one needs to spend in order to obtain a

high resolution digital body and the often requisite new lenses, and other hardware.

Given that you already own 35mm equipment and are an experienced photographer, for

the type of photography you describe, I would imagine you concentrate on capturing the

"decisive moment" and don't need to make huge numbers of exposures to obtain your

photographic goals.

 

 

Adam Smith makes an interesting point that has also been my experience: "Negative

DOES have a big advantage in dynamic range, but that's not much good at the printing

stage, it only makes it easier (or sometimes simply possible) to capture the scene at the

shooting stage. Don't get me wrong, I have tons of neg for scenes that I can't squeeze

into velvia, but if you've got a scene that will fit into a slide's dynamic range, the final

print will, in my opinion, be far superior to anything you could get from a negative, even

one developed specificly for the low contrast range of the scene." While I'm not knocking

the potential of negative films at all, especially for higher contrast situations, I think he

could well be correct in terms of the final prints.

[obakesan]

Jeff is definately right for low volume work.

<P>

a quick economic view

<P>

New LS-5000 ~ $1200

New Canon 5D ~ $2200

<P>

definitely cheaper up front for the LS-5000.

<P>

at about $200 for 20 rolls of Velvia and processing you get a few shots, if that's a year or a holiday I can't answer.

<P>

But equally:

<P>

New LS-50 ~ $800

New Nikon D80 ~ $800

<P>

The kit lens might be 'good enough', so then you're out of pocket every picture.

<P>

So I guess that it depends. Me? I have a 35mm outfit and a DSLR (which I bought a used 10D in good condition for $200). I'd have personally thought film was better for low volume photography until my friend (not a photographer) told me I was nuts recommending film as he spent $400 on film and developing when he and his wife went to India for 2 weeks travel. (BTW he has a 400D).

<P>

Since I put my neck out I thought I'd add some of the reasons behind my statements.

<P>

:-)

[jeff_z.]

Hi Chris,

 

I feel compelled to respond to your post because I think that too often people feel they

"have to" switch to digital capture for reasoning like this, which when thoroughly

examined seems at least partially specious- sorry.

 

First of all, the LS-50 would almost certainly be more than adequate, and a good one

could be had used, for even less. I have a 6 year old Coolscan IV which produces files of

high enough quality to print and sell exhibition prints from, at up to 10 by 15 inches.

Many would never be satisfied with a kit lens, therefore this necessitates the purchase of

additional expensive lenses, while they may already possess a selection of high quality

lenses for their film bodies. And, from what I often hear, there are many additional

concerns and issues.

 

 

If your friend who went to India spent $400.00 for film and development, at B&H prices,

that's 1,140 exposures! Please. Perhaps, and for his purposes, this was necessary, but for

someone experienced, and who wants to concentrate on getting a few quality images that

are print worthy, this would not be remotely the case.

 

 

 

I definitely think that as long as you don't need to shoot large-to-huge numbers of

exposures, for the purposes stated, you are getting a stable, proven, economical system

by shooting film and scanning, that is largely underrated. But, I much prefer Kodak's

emulsions rather than Fuji's:)!