scanned film vs digital

[timages]

<p>I would recommend finding a Good Lab (pro if you can afford the extra cost, but iv found some excellent non-pro Labs) Get good quality Prints, get a decent quality flat bed scanner and scan your Prints. I dont see the point of using film cameras just to scan the film itself, just use a DSLR instead. With film the Print is the end product and the printing/processing just as important as the photo taking stage itself. Some people dont even realise that most Labs wont print the full frame, You could take perfectly exposed/framed images, then have your efforts wasted by some crummy high street snappy snaps Lab, I know this is basic stuff, but most beginners are unaware. I prefer using film and film Cameras for many varied reasons, and the printing is half the battle. If your scanning film, why not just use a digital camera? Iv nothing against digital, if I had the spare cash I would get myself a full frame digital SLR. But doubt I would stop using my film cameras and doing my own printing.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I have compared resulting inkjet prints to the original silver gelatin prints and they are close.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compare them again in five years time. I have some inkjet prints on Epson premium paper printed with Epson inks which have turned green over time.</p>

[somak_ray]

<p>I always found my scanned films are much less 'punchy' than digital or may be I don't do enough post processing<br>

Here's some of my scanned images, most of them are scanned by high end Nikon Coolscan series, at quite high resolution.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/somakray/</p>

[davebell]

<p>If you like film, use film. If you like digital, use digitial. Stop worrying what others use. Think for yourself and do what you think is best. In some cases this might be both.....</p>

[k5083]

<p>I am a die-hard film guy, but I have to admit that if your intended target is a digital file, starting with film gives you a handicap compared to dslr. Ellis is right, all the factors associated with another generation of imaging apply. You can make it up with film that starts at a higher resolution than the digital, or conceal it with very good scanning practice, or both. But it is hard. The film has a real disadvantage. Just like if your final goal was a 24x36mm transparency, it would be hard if not impossible to get something from a dslr anywhere near as good as a film slide.</p>

<p>OTOH as has been said, if your target is not just a generic digital file but a digital file that shows the characteristics of a particular type of film, that changes everything.</p>

 

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>my 2 centavos, I prefer the prefer the look of film in black and white,</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Alan, that is right, the real answer is found completing the full workflow to print on both film and DSLR yourself. </p>

<p>I do both (digital less and less since my preference has grown strongly toward film).<br /> It is the only way you can be comfortable with your choice.</p>

<p>Sadly, not many have access to large format printers, film scanners and darkrooms to gain first hand experience so they have to rely on information shared by others before taking the $ plunge.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Case and point:<br>

I've taken this picture with both TMAX film and a DSLR. By looking at a jpeg posting you'd be hard pressed to see a difference; but having two 16x20s prints in your hand side by side shows an overwhelming difference.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[laurentvuillard]

<p>As a leica user there is another difference an M8 digital costs a fortune for a sensor that is not even 24X36mm, so scanner is the option for digital images to me</p>

[bob_estremera]

<p>I'm sorry to say I think the evolution to digital capture is yet another example of bars being lowered without anybody noticing. I shoot dSLR myself and for those images that derive success from factors other than purest detail and tonal richness, they can be moving and evocative with nothing substantial lost to the qualities of film and its attendant 'fusiness'.<br>

But I just returned from a Walker Evants exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. Although the exhibit was actually of the postcards he collected (fabulous stuff) many of his prints were placed throughout. Black and white. Incredible. His prints were not of detail for details sake but he captured every nuance of texture, time and subject and light in a way that reveals, for all its gee-whiz gadgetry, how in its infancy digital really is.<br>

I'll be exploring ways to capture New York City architecture with the end game of large prints. I feel that my best option, for this narrow subject matter, will be to use at least medium format film and high quality scans. <br>

But what I really can't believe that nobody has included this little piece from one of photo.net's favorites, the man you love to hate, Ken Rockwell.<br /> He's called pompous, arrogant and grotesquely self-serving. And even if he is, he often has some great insights. And for this post, he's spent more than a little time sounding off. It's a great read and one that should keep this post alive, because it deserves it.<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm<br>

Thanks and shoot well, and often,<br /> Bob</p>

 

[anthony_valvo]

I often hear how digital is better than film, how a DSLR is just plain quicker and gives results immediately, etc.

 

I can't say that I always agree. I shot more film than digital for many reasons, but among them is the workflow. Each person must decide for him or herself, but I find film is just plain easier for me. First, let me say that I know film, mostly slide film, and I do a fair amount of Nature and Landscape work. The portrait work I do is generally of my kids.

 

So, in the field, its just plain easier for me. I know how to get the shot and I know what I want. I don't have to worry about histograms, being distracted by LCD screens, etc. I don't need to take 100 shots of the same subject to get a few keepers. Film lets me focus and keeps my mind on creating the image.

 

Now, I don't sell my photos. They are for me. Processing is easy. I do B&W myself. The rest is sent out, which means walking the 70 feet to my mail box. When the slides are back in a week's time, I throw them on the light table and edit away. This is way faster then using a DSLR. The keepers I file. If I want to scan them for a print I will. This does not take me long at all. In general, I can go from a slide to a finished 13X19 print in about 15-20mins.

 

As for better or worse. I'd say film definitely has more character to it. It seems more dimensional while digital seems plasticy to me. Digital is much better at high ISO. Up to 1600, I can produce some good results with film, but Digital rules as ISO 5000. On the resolution and enlargement front. Well, I scan on a Coolscan 5000, and only print as large as 13X19. At that size, I get wonderful prints. I've compared some Velvia scans to my D300 and a D3. A well made Velvia emulsion, or one on EFKE 25, will out resolve both cameras. Not by a large margin, but you can see it. If I had a better scan I might be able to eek out more, but for now, I'd say I'm getting 14-16MP of resolution out of a 35MM slide. I'd love for Nikon or someone else to introduce a new line of scanners.

 

So, I stick with film. I can't see going to a D3 when: I don't need the high ISO; I love the look and color of slides; film is archival (more so than digital),;Film is easier for me; I like the pride of getting it right in the camera.

 

Lastly, I write with a Fountain Pen, and its way smoother and easier on my hand than any ballpoint. The ink is vibrant, and it has a certain character. The variation in line gives the writing a more personal style. Still, its a tool that takes time to learn and use, and its not as quick and easy as a ballpoint, but that does not mean it can't be good.

 

Anthony

[steve_larese1]

<p>My 35 scans are equal to my digital stuff, 6x7 are superior. The look can be different, just as different films have different looks. Not worse, but different.</p>

<p>As others have said, you need a decent scanner and a little knowledge. Don't over due the corrections: as with film or digital, get it right in the camera first and your life is simple.</p>

<p>Once you get your scanner dialed in, it's a consistent piece of cake. Load up the scanner, hit the button, and go shoot while it does all the work, including corrections. I like having the best of all worlds :)</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>As I posted in many of my articles, 35mm film vs a top DSLR may become a matter of personal taste soon; but medium format film is a massive quantum leap. </p>

<p>I could not imagine people with a good system like a Mamiya RZ67 and decent med format scanner like a Coolscan 9000 or up shooting a landscape with a DSLR as a choice. Unless they never looked at the prints side by side.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Well, I shoot both.<br>

<br /> Digital is better for indoor sports - I've never seen a film that's as good as my D700 is at ISO 6400. And I shoot digital when the shots are for someone else or in high volume, such as volunteer work for our local Boys & Girls club.<br>

<br /> Film I shoot for myself. I like the look, and I really enjoy B&W darkroom work. I also use C-41 color film when I need to shoot high contrast scenes.<br>

<br /> It's great to have choices.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>People always seem to compare digital with 35. (A SUBminiature format!) 828 is bigger than 35. About the blown highlights in the picture. When I had prints made from a 6x7 neg. The local lab with their digital technology, blew half the picture to pure white. My Argyrotype, printed the photo excellent.</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>I have a minolta Dimage Scan Elite which delivers up to 40MP scans from 35mm.*<br>

As we know, for most practical purposes that is excessive, especially at 250MB per 16 bit file.<br>

Is it better?<br>

Yes. For some reasons. 3 Primary colour pass scan rather than bayer pattern guesswork.<br>

Multipass (up to 16x) scan to correct anomolies between each scan.<br>

ICE for excellent reduction of noise and artefacts.<br>

DMAX of at the high end of 4. something.<br>

No for other reasons:<br>

Need to use film. Don't shout. I love film. But having instantly switchable ISO and WB is a great luxury. <br>

Need to get film processed first. Depending on your emulsion this could be a two week wait. Depending on your metering it may have been a waste of time.<br>

Not much use for the sports desk.<br>

Need to keep an eye on the shots. Every 36 you need to change a roll. And rolls aren;t as cheap as digital if you shoot loads.</p>

<p>I am a film fan. If they still made Agfa Scala and Kodak 320T then I may even still be exclusively film.<br>

I'm not mainly because they don't. Digital is great for so much. It can't mimick velvia. So for those applications I will use velvia.<br>

It can't come close to mimicking Ilford XP2 with an orange filter. So for those applications I will use Ilford Xp2 and an orange filter.<br>

For everything else, digital has just about got it nailed.<br>

*My scanner only runs on Xp latest and it seems to run okay on OS X tiger. When I upgrade my OS it may be dead to me. Vuescan works. Just not as nicely as the Minolta software.</p>

<p> </p>

[fdi studio]

<p>Dear Forum Members:<br>

Photography is like what sort of coffee you prefer...the decision is very personal and its always fun to try new ways of fixin' your java.<br>

There is nothing like the immediacy of digital...if you want speed..go digi. If you like process...go with film.<br>

I am enjoying having a choice of how I want to shoot....and mixing and matching. Even when I shoot manually with film, many times I use my digital to check the exposure and layout...kind of like we used polaroid film for!</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Steve W.</p>

 

[claytontullos]

<p>I hate to rain on your parade but your scanner is only capable of 30mp and that is if you scan it at 5400x5400 which is unlikely. But your point still remains that your scanner is better than most pro slr's today.</p>

<p>My scanner can do 7200 x7200 '(51mp), but only has digital ice and slides are only able to look good at that resolution.</p>

<p>Here is a 41mp image done with my scanner, yes the tiff is quite large hence the conversion to jpg.<br>

http://claytontullos.com/images/slide.jpg</p>

[clayton_m]

<p>"Is there a difference between scanned film and digital?"<br>

As previously mentioned, scanned film is a copy of the original and subject to artifacts, degradation, etc. Whereas, a digital camera creates a digital file directly from the scene, as if you were scanning the scene rather than the film.<br>

"Whats the best way to have film scanned by a lab?"<br>

Probably a drum scan is the best quality you can get, but for most people that is inconvenient and cost prohibitive to consider using on any substantial quantity of images. If you're interested in working mainly with digital files and images, then using a DSLR to capture the images would be the most direct, convenient, and cost effective route. If you want the occasional digital file from your film, then consider the already mentioned options for scanning. If you buy a scanner, I recommend nothing less than a Nikon Coolscan 5000, or better if you can afford it. Hope this helps and good luck in your investigations. -Clayton</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scanner resolution is not film resolution, and today's DSLRs are a match for 35mm format.<br>

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm</p>

<p>While the Plustek 7200 is a good deal for the money, its true, tested resolution is somewhere around 3000 ppi, not the claimed 7200.<br>

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7300.html</p>

<p>If you want to shoot film, shoot it. If you want to shoot digital, shoot it. But don't sit around trying to convince everyone you're superior for your equipment choices. It's as stupid as claiming you're a great driver because you drive a Chevy/Ford, while the other guys drives a Ford/Chevy. The majority of the industry has moved to digital which means it can hold its own, and this has been true for a while. Don't think for a minute that this is false, that you have higher standards than the thousands of working pros who have switched, or that you know something they do not.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>I prefer the look of scanned film, particular Kodachromes. That doesnt mean its always the most practical or always the best option. Beyond that, who cares?</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Wrong, Daniel. I'm a great driver because I drive a Saab. ;~)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Well, Saab...I mean yeah...but the analogy holds for everything else ;-)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>" The "look" of film that everyone talks about is, in my honest opinion, a conjecture based on nostalgia."<br>

Glad you confined that to opinion. Really, this has all been discussed so many times before that raising it yet again is almost tantamount to trolling. Maybe the moderator should restrict this discussion to once a year, a digital vs. film thread. Maybe we can make it a national holiday!. In fact, I think the question should have been brought up in the presidential debates, right after the mac v. pc. debate. You know, 1 night for foreign policy, 1 night for the economy and 1 night each for dig/film and pc/mac. Than people would have the "answers" they've all really wanted.</p>

[yoshio]

<p>Daniel</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Scanner resolution is not film resolution, and today's DSLRs are a match for 35mm format.<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm" target="_blank"><br /> </a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>your arguments are sound, but it is tragic that you cite one of the flawed tests which has made me grit my teeth since it was published (I did not include its link as it is bad enough that Google counts that as a vote for it in your link above).</p>

<p> </p>