scanned film vs digital

[chrisnielsen]

<p>Thanks Steve!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Everyone should have paused and thought carefully about the fact that no film fan here could match the series I posted. If film is so much better it should have taken all of 15 or 20 minutes to post a half dozen comparisons of real shots proving it. No one did. Know why? Because if they even bothered to check they found the same types of comparisons I posted." --Todd Carson</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Todd, the series you posted showed nothing that anyone could comment on because they were not made of the same subjects, just the same types of subjects. The comparisons you posted were absolutely meaningless.</p>

<p>It is a shame that you are missing all of the subtleties of the points of disagreement. This is not a contest, but an honest conversation. Feel free to join it at some point.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I've been visiting this thread for the past four days. I own a 10 MP DSLR and a compatible 35mm film body, so I ran a blind test for my own curiosity yesterday, setting up identical outdoor and indoor shots at home using a matched ISO between DSLR and film bodies, with the same effective lens focal lengths and aperture setting (f/8). I had the film processed by a local mini-lab with a Noritsu scanning workflow. I uploaded the digital (jpeg) files from the DSLR to the same processor. When I got the two envelopes back in an hour (with prints and a CD from the film negs) I brought them home, emptied the prints from both envelopes and shuffled them like playing cards. Then I sorted out the various shots, not looking at the backs of the prints, and chose which version of each shot looked better to my eyes, in terms of tonal range, definition, color balance and grain/noise. Then I turned over the prints and noted which came from which. The prints from the DSLR upload all had a smoother look, but less detail in shadows. The prints from film had not only more shadow detail, but also more grain and what I assessed subjectively as better tonal range although there was some blocking in highlights. The original 10 MP DSLR files blew away the mere 1.5 MP images on the CD, so that's not a fair comparison. Viewing the processed negs with an 8X loupe, I saw much more detail and smoothness than had been recorded in the minilab scans. So the prints from film won, but the DSLR original files looked much better than the local low-res Noritsu film scans. I believe that it would take a much better quality of workflow than available to me here in my town, to realize the full quality of 35mm film in a scan, though local minilab prints from film showed an advantage to my eyes in this unprofessional test. I understand that local lab equipment presets and automatic workflow are largely determinant. But in my case I can't afford film scanning set-ups to compare with some others posting on this thread. For me, film is nice but more expensive and more labor. I'll probably only use film on occasion and stick with the DSLR for most of my future work, for more practical reasons. If I had a local friend with a drum scanner it might be different.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p>"Everyone should have paused and thought carefully about the fact that no film fan here could match the series I posted. If film is so much better it should have taken all of 15 or 20 minutes to post a half dozen comparisons of real shots proving it. No one did. Know why? Because if they even bothered to check they found the same types of comparisons I posted." --Todd Carson</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Todd....give it a rest. You posted absolutely nothing. A bunch of unrelated images. I'm amazed you think that is supposed to sway anyone when we have samples that are direct comparisons.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Howard, thank you for sharing your experience. You have made very good observations.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Sharon, "So if DOF is an issue with the crop from the sofa then it should be an issue with the crop Mauro has shown as well, IMO."</p>

<p>The front of the sofa is closer to the camera than the spices. </p>

<p>Not sure why try to compare detail in out of focus areas still.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Rishi, regarding Neat image, you are right,</p>

<p>the crop I posted I applied some 20% neat image which does not artifact and then sharpenning. On a print, I rarely use Neat image at all since grain doesn't show.</p>

<p>The full image, I applied whatever neat image had set and unsharpen with the parameters left in photoshop. Rough as sand in a bathing suit. This was posted to show the framing of the image and nothing else.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Chris "Given that there seems to be comparable quality between high end 35mm and a decent digital SLR, does this mean I can finally relax and shoot landscapes in 35mm, and not be constantly worried that I should be doing it in medium format???"</p>

<p>The difference between 6x7 and 35mm is almost 5 fold! The answer to your question is unrelated to DSLRs.</p>

<p>Whether 35mm is enough or you prefer medium format, is your choice. But this has nothing to do with 35mm film resolving more than DSLRs.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Bernie, your last file is by far the best from the 40D. DPP could use a make up.</p>

<p>This is your 40D file (left) next to the film (right).</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Like Rishi said, if Nikon could make a 6000 dpi Coolscan (instead of the 4000 dpi current model) I'd be in heaven.</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>This argument is absolutely fruitless I believe. The amount of time spent shooting spice bottles, focus charts, etc. would be much better used getting out and using the equipment for what you want to shoot. I am by no means any kind of pro, but I don't think that sitting on my keyboard arguing the merits of either medium will bring me any closer to being a better photographer. Brilliant photographs have been taken with both mediums. Get out there and shoot, regardless of what you use, your eye and technique are the most important tools in your arsenal. This discussion will resolve very little, as shown by the fact that these hundreds of posts haven't swayed either side.</p>

<p>Let's not try to turn photography into something so scientific that we completely remove the artistic quality of this wonderful hobby (or in some fortunate cases, job). Film still exists in a wide variety of forms for film shooters, digital shooters also have as many options as they will ever need. Trying to belittle one side doesn't help the other, while trying to make one side better than it actually is only detracts from its actual qualities. Get out there and take pictures of what you love, it will be infinitely more satisfying than trying to 'win' this endless debate.</p>

[swilson]

<p>Dave T,<br>

Your comments seem a bit odd to me, if you read this thread you will see that much is being said on how to get the most out of both film and digital, this is a good thing.<br>

There is art to photography, but without the science of it you don’t have anything. <br>

If you don't like reading this kind of thread then it is very simple not to.</p>

 

[chrisnielsen]

<p>Mauro: "The difference between 6x7 and 35mm is almost 5 fold! The answer to your question is unrelated to DSLRs"</p>

<p>Let me put it another way: If DSLRs seem to do the job for landscapes and high end 35mm seems to do the same job as a DSLR does that mean 35mm will do a decent job of a landscape without me having to resort to going MF??</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Chris, if you think DSLRs do a good job at landscapes, 35mm film will do an even better job (my opinion). </p>

<p>If you print 16x20 or larger (I do), MF can give you a vissible edge in tonal gradation and resolution.</p>

<p>What size do you print and on which paper?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>the difference in resolution seems marginal when looking at the comps above but it is not. To achieve that visible difference in detail you need a significant jump in resolution.</p>

<p>Also, you can come back to your film 10 years from now and scan it at a higher resolution.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Digital is an awesome medium too. It has evolved to a point where it allows a huge creative latitude not to be disregarded. </p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>Thanks Mauro</p>

<p>I currently print b&w only to about 8x10 or so as that's the largest easel I've got, should probably make one to to 16x20</p>

<p>In colour, my normal size is 8x12, largest I've done is 18x12 once or twice, and that was when I used to own a dSLR. And that looked quite yucky, although I'm sure my choice of Large/Basic JPG can't have helped.... (I ran out of storage at an airshow and had to resort to the smallest files).</p>

<p>I'm thinking though that it might be nice to pick up say a Pentax 645 or 67 and use that for shots I intend to enlarge and use 35mm for everything else - I can't see me taking MF everywhere as I like small cameras generally - my normal camera is a Stylus Epic !!!! I do have an F5 and a pile of lenses as well but I like the Stylus for it's tiny size..</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Got it. Here is my opinion:</p>

<p>35mm Ektar will be plenty for 8x12 (more detail than you can print). If you print on matte paper, it will comfortably do 16x20 as well.</p>

<p>With my 40D I'm ok until 11x14 with one or two exceptions I printed larger. Portraits you can generally do larger if you use soft focus filters.</p>

<p>For good/flexible/cheap and reasanobly small: A combo of canon Rebel with a std 50mm lens can be had used for under $50. That is what I have underneath the seat of my car at all times.</p>

<p>I can't speak of the Pentax. I can't imagine cheating on my Mamiya.</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p >For me, the other thing that comes into play is interpolation. When I’m working with a medium format or 35mm scan, and printing to 16x24 or 20x30, I find that interpolation of the film file seems to keep a more natural look than when I’m doing the same with the digital file.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I’ve done 24x30 from 6x7 Astia scanned on my V700 that looked great. Yes, because real rez from the scanner meant I had only a 210dpi file at that size, I did straight bicubic to 300 and output to a Lightjet. Comparing that print with the same done with my old 1Ds Mk2 showed very much the differences between film and digital. The digital file had better acutance…..in other words it “looked” sharper because of the sharp edges. However, the film file had more texture to it and didn’t have the fake digital look to it from the interpolation routines. The digital file looked sharper but fake…..and the film file looked more natural with more resolution and texture.</p>

<p > <br>

Of course, when I’m shooting with 4x5, I never really need much in the way of interpolation when the file is already at 300dpi when printing to 32x40 ;-)</p>

[chrisnielsen]

Thanks Mauro

 

I printed some scanned Pro400H the other day - very impressive at 8x12 - no grain visible and lovely colours. Pity my scanner isn't that sharp, my wet darkroom blows it into weeds for b&w!

 

I am keen to try printing a bit larger and see how it looks - say 18x12. That should be very interesting to put beside my previous digital efforts!

[chrisnielsen]

Oh and Mauro... I have a Nikon F80 and 50 1.8 in the car at all times :) I had a Rebel and 50 1.8 once but I managed to drop and destroy them. The F80 and Nikon 50 1.8 seem much sturdier !!!!

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Gentlemen, have You ever noticed that digital photo camera mostly and usually catches moments of *weird* movement of alive object? I mean you have to take 100 digital shots of human person to obtain ONE decent - where the human person looks naturally. Instead, you can get 35 decent out of 36 from film camera.<br /> Personally I blame digital evil. It murdered modern music long ago by providing stupid digital sound, and now - time to kill photography. It is a war.<br /> Additionally, many thanks to Les Sarile, for the great photos here - comparison of *RIVERS AND LAKES DISAPPEARANCE* in digital version of maps. Evil does not like water. It does not like life.<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995956"><br /> </a></p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I am going to put in my own take on what is needed for large prints. Ideally a large print should look just as sharp when viewed up close as a 4x6 inch print, IMO. If you hold a sharp 4x6 inch print next to your large print and you can see a difference, then you could do better with a larger format. This is not to say the large print with the smaller format will not look good, but there is room for improvement.<br>

For film it seems that going past 8x12 inch prints you can start to really see a difference between 35mm and MF, at least in the images I have seen to date.<br>

For digital I like to keep at 300 ppi for the images, so for a 20x30 inch image I would want 54MP. This can be a slight improvement going to 400 ppi, if the printer can handle that resolution, most optical printers are limited to 300ppi.<br>

Scanner film at higher resolutions later is no substitute for using a larger format today. I just don’t think a 35mm negative, no mater how carefully scanned, will match a MF image when printed at say 12 x 18 inches.<br>

Of course this is all just one person’s opinion.</p>

</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I dropped my rebel in the beach 10+ years ago and the tide got to it before I picked it up. Still kicking (don't ask me why). It's my car buddy. Although in Georgia they don't let me carpool with it.</p>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Push them, Mauro Franic, give them kick***! Smash that stupid digital plastic polished "imaging"! This is not a question "which one is better?". It is a relation "truth vs. lie". Push them to open eyes and to see NON_AVOIDABLE_DISTORTION of imaging, provided by digital. Thank you for your efforts here (and of course the others here on the the side of filming truth).</p>