Wow - read this re: Film versus Digital debate!

[h._p.]

But you'll have more time to dev and print your film, Benny.

 

:-)))

[philip_sutton]

That's funny Benny - really liked that!

 

Phil

[philip_sutton]

Hi guys - may I ask a question?? I feel I can do this becuase after all I started this thread by asking the question.

 

Aren't we really splitting hairs by argueing over all the technical stuff. For the average pleb like me,most of us don't understand it. Moreover, I guarrantee that at the end of this, each of you will still be of the same opinion when you started - nothing would have changed.

 

I think what Peter Ferling said about sums up the most intelligent answer on this whole thread. He shoots both (and whether or not one is 'better' over the other after examining them on a micro level - does not matter), and it all gets down to which looks the best for each given application or desired outcome. He then goes and shoots that medium for that application. He is happy, the customer (or person looking at the finished result) is happy and neither film or digital has won or lost at the end of the day. Just two different systems - each doing what they do best.

 

Mark - you seem a really intelligent guy - would like to know what you think of this summary.

 

Cheers - Phil

[bernardwest]

Good posts Daniel.

 

I really believe there is no need to even consider what is going on at the molecular/crystal level. If at HUMAN VISIBLE realms the negative is composed of clumps of black and clear, with no grey tones visible, then this is all that really matters. What this shows unequivocally is that tones in a negative, as relating to the HUMAN VISIBLE realm, are formed by clumps of black and clear areas of the negative. Hence, meaningful resolution can only be discerned at the clumping scale. It doesn't matter what they look like under an EM. It doesn't matter what the process is of stacking across the different layers. The only thing that matters is that tones ARE created through the clumping of black and clear sections of the negative.

[vijay_nebhrajani]

Exactly Benny - but what is the scale of that clumping? Subgranular or supragranular? The answer will point to the resolution of film, and that will give us a meaningful way to compare film with digital.

 

Hence the debate. Of course every so often someone will say that such a debate doesn't matter - just go take pictures with whatever works. Sure, no problem. Some of us also feel happy (in addition to being practitioners of the elevated "art" of photography) when we develop an understanding of the processes involved.

 

Oh, and that hero of the art of photography - Ansel Adams - also dug deep into its technical and scientific aspects. Evidently he wasn't satisfied with the "just do what works and be happy" approach either.

[vijay_nebhrajani]

Sorry, my last post was addressed to Bernie West. Should read "Exactly, <b>Bernie</b>..."

[roger_smith4]

This reminds me of some discussion of inkjet printing where I have seen detailed scans of the drops on paper from the newer 1.5pl printers on (like the R1800, etc). Those printers are clearly putting down fine dots of carbon and in combination with the spaces around create a range of tones. See page five here: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf

 

Perhaps this is a simpler analogy for what is happening and doesn't require electron microscopes?

[danielleetaylor]

Bernie,

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! ;-)

[danielleetaylor]

<P>Mark,</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Quite the opposite just because we see black specks under a microscope doesn't mean the are SOLID and OPAQUE.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>If something is black when white light is shining behind it, then it is by definition opaque.</P>

<P></P>

<P>You have the right idea of how tone is formed on film, but you're insisting it occurs on a scale much smaller than it actually does. It's not the structure of silver under an electron microscope that determines tone, it's the number and size of silver spots clearly visible under optical microscopes.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Just remember that those grains are filamentary and pass light (as you've conceded)</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Wait a minute: I did not concede that they pass light in any meaningful way. What I conceded is that individual grains, which are solid black specks as viewed under any optical microscope, vary in size based on original grain size, exposure, and development parameters. The analogy would be an ink jet which can control not only dot placement, but dot size.</P>

<P></P>

<P>Unfortunately the electron microscope view of developed film in the series I posted is not labeled as to scale. But I can just about guarantee that those "holes" in between filaments are more narrow than the wavelengths of visible light. <i>You're seeing something that has to be resolved by an electron microscope because it cannot be resolved by visible light, yet insisting that it impacts viewer perception of tone at a magnification roughly 3 orders of magnitude less than that of an electron microscope.</P>

<P></i></P>

<P></P>

<P>It just doesn't work that way.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>just because a lower magnification make those LOOK like solid lumps doesn't mean they ARE.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>So you're suggesting that at even lower magnifications these black specks will magically appear gray? You're not making sense. If they're solid black at 400x, they're solid black! Again, you have the right understanding of how tone is formed and perceived in B&W film, but you're insisting it happens on a scale several orders of magnitude below where it actually occurs. </P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Look, you still haven't explained the image that shows a black grain with a hole in the middle if film is binary it must be opaque 1 (solid) or not 0 (clear) it cannot be the both at the same time!!!</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Just because you think you see a hole under an electron microscope doesn't actually mean any light can pass through that space and meaningfully impact viewer perception. (And I still say that's undeveloped film as it is labeled. See the EM view in the series I posted for developed film.)</P>

[danielleetaylor]

<P>Mark,</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Hey Daniel that is my position and what I state in my blog (if you bothered to read it)</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>I did read your blog and you are insisting both there and here that individual grains can be translucent, implying the ability to represent gray tones like a pixel. They cannot. They are either there (black) or not (clear). Their size can vary in proportion to exposure and development, but they do not, individually, pass varying amounts of light. Only collectively are they able to do this and simulate tone.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>We know that that is untrue because when he states black he means OPAQUE for it to be binary it must be black or clear. We know that it is untrue because the grains are a structure that lets light through in VARYING amounts</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Mark, optical enlargements of film are clearly at odds with your theory, whether we're talking about huge prints with grain visible or microscope views.</P>

[bernardwest]

<i>Exactly Benny - but what is the scale of that clumping? Subgranular or supragranular? The answer will point to the resolution of film, and that will give us a meaningful way to compare film with digital.</i><p>

 

Well it appears to be supra granular if you believe Daniel, Adams and Daniel's pictures above. This should be really easy to solve. I'll do some rough maths, and just point out if you think I have calculated wrongly:<p>

 

figure (d) in Daniel's post is about 6x5cm. Divide by 400 means we are looking at an a scale of 150x125 microns. Clearly this is supra-granular. Do you see grey areas in the negative at this scale? Did Adam's see grey areas in the negative at similar(?) scales? This argument should be over. Tones in a negative are clearly formed through the clumping of black and clear areas in the negative.

[danielleetaylor]

<P>Vijay,</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Daniel - also its not like you have one sensitivity speck on a grain - you have many, which means that a

single grain will seem to be made of several areas of "black" silver spots and several clear areas - sort of like

a halftone shading of the grain itself.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Then we should see gray grains under a microscope. We don't. At the scale you are talking about it's not

possible for the filament structure you and Mark speak of to

appear as anything under the visible wavelengths. That's why we don't see any gray grains, but we do see larger

and smaller grains based on how much silver deposited. It's also why there are no optical microscope views of

these filaments. They cannot be resolved at visible wavelengths.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Like I said before, nobody denies that the state of metallic silver can either be present or absent - i.e,

one of two states at the end, but the grain itself is not a binary entity. It doesn't transition rapidly from

state to state, and it can and does have intermediate, continuous, stable values of silver in it, proportional to

exposure.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Amount of silver affecting perceived size of the grain? Yes. Translucence which enables it to be seen as

anything other than black? No.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>As for resolution, if a grain can have continuous values, then why - the largest of these grains would

determine the smallest resolvable feature size, not a clump of 40-60 grains;</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>They do not have continuous values of tone. They are black. Understand this and you'll also understand another

seemingly non-intuitive difference between digital capture and film capture. On a B&W line chart a frame of film

might easily out resolve a particular digital camera system. On a scene with shades of gray and color, not so

much, if at all. To resolve a black line you need a "column" of grains only a few grains wide (because grains are

not neatly organized in a grid it's more than 1). To resolve a light gray line on a medium gray background, you

need a wider "column" of grain because a single grain <i>cannot be gray.</i> On digital you need the same columns

of pixels to resolve a line pair whether it's black on white or 60% gray on 40% gray.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>I am also aware that grains don't line up precisely in rows, so it may take 2-5 median grain widths to

resolve the thinnest line, not the one grain I've been saying for the sake of argument. But Reichmann takes the

approach that a 10 micron grain is entirely black or entirely clear - that would give single digit resolution

numbers; and that is not borne out by practical experience.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Fuji Neopan Acros 100 resolves 200 lpmm at 1000:1 contrast.</P>

<P></P>

<P>So a line pair on Acros, at a contrast level where there is only black and white, and only film grain size

should matter in regard to resolution, needs a width of roughly 5 microns, 2.5 microns for the black "column" and

2.5 for the white "column". I have a reference which states that general B&W grain sizes are 0.2-2 microns. That

seems to mesh if we're talking about pure black/white lines. Your thinnest line is going to be a bit wider than

your largest grain. At 1.6:1 the resolution is only 60 lpmm on a B&W test chart, and demonstrably lower than a

full frame camera with 60 lpmm resolution on anything less than pure black on pure white lines. Heck, I can't

pull any more detail out of Acros on a real scene than I can out of APS DSLRs in the 8-10 MP range. Maybe with a

high contrast developer and an Imacon it would barely show more detail. That's consistent with Reichmann's

theory, not yours.</P>

[photo_smith]

DLT

I did read your blog and you are insisting both there and here that individual grains can be translucent, implying the

ability to represent gray tones like a pixel. They cannot. They are either there (black) or not (clear). Their size can vary in

proportion to exposure and development, but they do not, individually, pass varying amounts of light. Only collectively

are they able to do this and simulate tone.

 

Well you didn't understand, then grain is filamentary and CAN pass varying amounts of light that is FACT.

Where you are confused is you are implying if a filamentary structure can pass light i must have tone -it doesn't the

tones is created OPTICALLY within the STACKED emulsion.

I am NOT saying

Grain is of varying tone, what I am saying is it passes varying amount of light to create tone.

I'm still waiting if grain is black or clear how a grain can be black and clear at the same time?

Binary can only have 2 states!!!!

 

Bernie tones are not formed by the clumping of black and clear but light passing through filamentary structures many

layers deep.

[danielleetaylor]

<P>Ron,</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Therefore, in that dye solution, a single molecule of dye represents one bit and each bit has an epsilon value (molar absorbance) associated with it which represents 6.023 x 10^23 "bits" possible in a molar solution of dye.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>That would maybe be true if we could perceive differences at that level when looking at a normal sized enlargement. We can't. If I could precisely control the exposure of spots on film such that there was a line of "spots" which were, say, 5 dye molecules high by 5 dye molecules wide, where each "spot" had a different number of dye molecules within, then theoretically I would have a line of 32 spots each a slightly different shade. And do you know what you would see in a 16x24 print? Not a gosh darn thing.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>That is pretty huge compared to digital and is what is going on in color film and B&W film. Chips cannot achieve that resoluton.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>That resolution is theoretical nonesense that is not in any way supported by observation. In science, theory follows observation, no matter what your resume is.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>The grain does not have to develop completely. Therefore it is not on/off,</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Nobody said it was on/off. But it is only black as confirmed by microscope views published by your company and observable by anyone with some B&W frames and access to a microscope.</P>

[hugh_templin]

Rishi,

I'm just back on line on the East Coast. Since you raised the point of sharpening, I looked back at the original TIFF scan and there is the same definition but with more gradation in the shading between pixels. So the resolution is the same. I had applied some sharpening for the final image. I'll try to attach it here but I am new to this editor.

As for the rest of this thread, Reichmann's reason for saying that grain is digital was to highlight his point that film only shows more resolution in high contrast situations. My enlargement of this 23 megapixel equivalent slide shows individual pixels of different shades so the resolution is not only in the high contrast borders. With the right film and technique, film can show very high resolution but with a different overall look, which I personally prefer.

 

Hugh<div></div>

[jorge_a]

Please somebody start the debate of Nikon vs Canon. This debate went from a guy asking about film to the Vijay and Rishi

show, fighting over film at a molecular level.

[danielleetaylor]

<P><i>Well you didn't understand, then grain is filamentary and CAN pass varying amounts of light that is

FACT.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>A fact (in this context) is something which can be reliably observed by more than one person. If you wish to

call gray grains a fact, show a microscope view where there are gray grains (in focus of course).</P>

<P></P>

<P>Ansel Adams and Michael Reichmann apparently see the same thing under a microscope that I do. Kodak

photographed the behavior that we're seeing so that anyone can see it without access to film and a microscope.

They even made a nice little series of images to clearly illustrate the behavior, and described it in text below

the images. I'm not sure what more I could do to add to Kodak's published work. I've posted it twice to this

forum. What more can I do or say?</P>

<P></P>

<P><i> Where you are confused is you are implying if a filamentary structure can pass light i must have tone</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>If something passes less light than is being shined onto it from behind, then by definition it is going to

have a tone between black and white.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>I am NOT saying Grain is of varying tone, what I am saying is it passes varying amount of light to create

tone.</P>

<P></i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Distinction without difference: to pass a varying amount of light is to vary in tone. If individual grains

passed varying levels of light, then they would appear as gray.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>I'm still waiting if grain is black or clear how a grain can be black and clear at the same time?</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Nobody said it could. If it's present, it's black. If it's washed away by fixer, there's nothing there, so

clear.</P>

[danielleetaylor]

<P>Benny,</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>I carefully read every single post, and considered all of the arguments. As a result, I lost my job, my wife has left me, and my car just broke down. Oh, and I still can't make heads or tails out of this thread.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>LOL! My car is being repaired and I have a nasty cold. So arguing over binary grains is all I have to do at the moment ;-)</P>

<P></P>

<P>I don't recommend this level of discussion to anyone who is healthy and has transportation available. Go photograph something, whether you use binary film grans or analog sensor wells ;-)</P>

[danielleetaylor]

<P>jorge,</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Please somebody start the debate of Nikon vs Canon. This debate went from a guy asking about film to the Vijay and Rishi show, fighting over film at a molecular level.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>Everyone knows that film molecules are arranged in a more pleasing way when you shoot Canon ;-)</P>

[photo_smith]

DLT

If you think that light cant pass through a filamentary grain (most grain are filamentary) because light cant pas though something that

small?

Are you kidding?

The filaments are made up of silver that photons have hit the holes are bigger than the filaments, the grain structures are

sometimes 10µm wide and gaps can be seen but light can't pass through a gap that could be say 0.2µm?

LOL

 

 

Grains are filamentary structures they let light through so that tone can form if you reduce magnification they look like

black specks, but that doesn't change their physical state!

Look at a lower magnification you can't see grain at all-they are still there.

If you look at a tree you can see leaves, move back several hundred yards and you see a green blob-but the leaves are

still there!!!

Grain passes light, simple fact- you don't like it.

Look at the last image you posted the one with the filaments (from the Kodak H1 data sheet) :

 

"When at low magnification filaments APPEAR as a single particle" - that doesn't mean they are! and light easily passes

through the structures.

[photo_smith]

DLT

A fact (in this context) is something which can be reliably observed by more than one person. If you wish to call gray grains

a fact, show a microscope view where there are gray grains (in focus of course).

 

I have NEVER said grains are grey, that is a misrepresentation of my argument- you know it, and it does you no credit to

carry on with your STRAWMAN.

 

Grain is filamentary and passes VARYING amounts of light- much to your chagrin- ergo film is analogue.

[photo_smith]

DLT

If something passes less light than is being shined onto it from behind, then by definition it is going to have a tone between

black and white.

 

yep the penny is dropping.

 

The more denser the filamentary structure the less light it passes- a description of the analogue transmissive quality of

filamentary grain.

[bernardwest]

<i>Grains are filamentary structures they let light through so that tone can form if you reduce magnification they look

like black specks, but that doesn't change their physical state!</i><p>

 

Yes, but their OBSERVABLE state in respect to negatives and printed images, is binary (i.e. Black or Clear). This

is how tone is formed in an image. Not what is going on at the sub-microscopic level.<p>

 

Your example of the tree... The green tree at a distance is a TONE. If your analogy was accurate in respect to the

leaves being equivalent to the grains, then the tree should be either black or white when view with less magnification

(which is what happens with film grains).

[photo_smith]

DLT

Distinction without difference: to pass a varying amount of light is to vary in tone. If individual grains passed varying levels

of light, then they would appear as gray

 

No not true:

You are confusing reflectance, with transmission.

 

Try this put a load of wire wool in varying depths onto a light-box some loosely packed some denser.

The wire wool will always be silver/black even when you shine a light through it, but look my do we have a lot of different tones when we

turn the light box on- many more than the single tone we see with the reflected light.

[danielleetaylor]

<P>Mark,</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>The filaments are made up of silver that photons have hit the holes are bigger than the filaments, the

grain structures are sometimes 10µm wide and gaps can be seen but light can't pass through a gap that could be

say 0.2µm? LOL</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>You're describing the sizes in D, not in E. Again, you have the right idea about how tone is formed in B&W

film, you just think it occurs at the wrong scale. If you had never seen an electron microscope view, you would

be fine.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i></P>

<P>Grains are filamentary structures they let light through so that tone can form if you reduce magnification

they look like black specks,</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>If at reduced magnification they are black specks, then they convey no tonal information.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Grain passes light, simple fact- you don't like it. Look at the last image you posted the one with the

filaments (from the Kodak H1 data sheet) :</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>The last image was resolved using electrons because the filaments cannot be resolved with visible light.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>"When at low magnification filaments APPEAR as a single particle" - that doesn't mean they are! and light

easily passes through the structures</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>If that were the case they would not be black.</P>

<P></P>

<P>It is really, truly perplexing to me that you believe a single grain can be pure black at 400x but something

less than pure black at, say, 8x. Really think about what you're saying for a moment. It doesn't make any sense.</P>