scanned film vs digital

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Very usefull (and VERY short) comparison of scanned film vs. digital on Ken Rockwell site:<br>

<strong><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/25-vs-5000-camera.htm">A $25 camera outdoes a $5,000 Nikon D3</a> !</strong> <br>

<strong>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/25-vs-5000-camera.htm</strong> <br>

<strong><br /> </strong> <br>

<strong><br /> </strong> </p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>This discussion will resolve very little, as shown by the fact that these hundreds of posts haven't swayed either side.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. This is the sort of discussion that swayed me to investigate better film scanning technique. Previously, from all the other comparisons on the 'net that show how much better digital is than film at much lower MP camera ratings, I was almost on the verge of giving up with film & buying one of the cheaper digital bodies that I could afford. I'm glad I didn't, b/c in my quest for bettering scanners & technique, I've started to find incredible detail in my previous Velvia shots.</p>

<p>In other words, this very sort of thread allowed me to dig back into my piles of film, and start extracting more information from them to generate digital files that hold their own against DSLR images. I am happy for that.</p>

<p>Of course, that doesn't mean I won't jump on a 5D Mark II as soon as I can, b/c the simplicity of the workflow of digital is just not arguable. It makes life much simpler.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, that doesn't mean I won't jump on a 5D Mark II as soon as I can, b/c the simplicity of the workflow of digital is just not arguable. It makes life much simpler.<br>

Rishi</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I too love the simplicity. But I also love seeing those MF and 4x5 transparencies on my lightbox under a loupe getting ready for scanning!!!</p>

[rishij]

<p>Check out: <a href="http://www.westernlandscapes.com.au/node/197">http://www.westernlandscapes.com.au/node/197</a></p>

<p>... for a comparison of 6x7 vs. Canon 5D Mark II.</p>

<p>And that 6x7 film is scanned on an Epson V700, which has been <a href="http://filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html">measured</a> to have an effective optical resolution of only 2300ppi.</p>

<p>Mauro... I think you're quite safe sticking with AF. And Dave, yup, nothing as pleasing as looking at a slide on a lightbox... the dynamic range is incredible!</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>My Nikon Coolscan 9000 arrived today from Amazon (through J&R Music and Computer World). The glass holders arrived last week from Adorama. I could have bought the 5D II for about the same price, or perhaps a bit more with battery pack for the DSLR. Did I take the wrong turn in the road? I don't think so. I already have the original 5D as well as the 1Ds II, and so it was for me a matter of buying the next level up in Canon digital or seriously going into film--but not both. I might come to regret this foray into film when it comes time to scan, or time to send out a mailer of film to get my slides back. In any case, after buying up some Hasselblad equipment over the last few months, and some Bronica gear (6 x 7) before that, I am willing to try this grand experiment. I know that I have a lot to learn, but I am looking forward to the challenge. Overall, this has not been a trivial amount of cash for me, but I hope that it pays off. If not, I'll try to recoup some of my losses--but not before I have given serious film scanning a decent chance. I know that it will take a while to get proficient, and I know as well that I have a lot to learn about film. </p>

<p>Who knows? With my existing digital cameras still in hand for those cases in which I want the speed of digital, and with the film equipment as well, I am hoping to enjoy the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>Wish me luck--and thanks for the great thread, which came along at just the right time to impel me to push on through. I frankly was on the verge of selling the Bronica and Hasselblad gear when this thread appeared.</p>

<p>I want to try this.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Rishi Sanyal wrote: "Previously, from all the other comparisons on the 'net that show how much better digital is than film at much lower MP camera ratings, I was almost on the verge of giving up with film & buying one of the cheaper digital bodies that I could afford."<br /> <br /> Wrong. You have been misleaded the same way as millions humans on this planet. The word *"better"* is incorrect REGARDLESS of the resolution and sharpness of your camera (digital or film). And here is why:<br /> 1. Photography is an art. The surrounding life, events and objects are much more complex than any type of art can express.<br /> 2. That is why any art is a kind of PRETENDING.<br /> 3. While pretending, any visual art uses some range of so-called "techniques" to: <br /> (a) control expression (kind of pretending) provided by it's media (or carrier). <br /> (b) at the same time these "techniques" are also tools to overcome the natural limitation of that media.<br /> 4. The main limitation of photography is : it is FLAT and it is STATIC. Humans (and all animals) have TWO EYES, percepting STEREO imaging, obtaining very important information about VOLUME and PERSPECTIVE of surrounding world (Thanks God). <br /> To avoid that *flatness of photography* this kind of visual art uses :<br /> (a) DEPTH OF FIELD - by aperture and choice of proper lens' focal length - very important tool to build VOLUME (pretended) on the flat surface of photopaper;<br /> (b) ANGLE OF VIEW - by using lens' focal length - very important tool to build perspective of real world on flat photopaper;<br /> © BRIGHTNESS by using again aperture and shutter speed/sensitivity of media - to build expression of image. Brightness can be corrected AFTER shooting by digital computer tool.<br /> 5. The main problem with modern digital photography is not sharpness or resolution of an image. It is in SUBSTITUTION the (3a)+(3b) by the (3b) only. <br /> The whole world is filled with billion of AUTOMATIC digital camera. They are very limited in, or even CAN NOT control the building of the VOLUME and perspective on photo image.<br /> That means all (99%) of digital photos ARE FLAT and HAVE NO PERSPECTIVE. You see? They are sharp and probably have decent color redention (excluding sky and "disappearing" water, as you can see clearly on photos by Les Sarile), but, again, flat.<br /> This evil substitution is also in false ads claims that RESOLUTION of camera is THE MAIN AND ONLY mesure of art-ability of photography tool. This is LIE.<br /> Who needs resolution if you can not obtain volume and very limited in perspective while using average digital camera ?<br /> Take a look on recent photos submitted here on photo.net: almost all of them do not have volume and perspective. They have FLAT and STATIC image (read "dead").</p>

[bob_estremera]

<p>Been following this for a while. The information here is helping me formulate my process for doing architectural photography in New York City with a MF. I like to print big.<br>

But I think Sirgiy has hit on something important - historically.<br>

At the beginning of the 20th Century, photographic 'Pictorialism' was in vogue. That was a style, promoted by the top photogs of the time, to legitimize photography as an art form. They did it by various 'pre-Photoshop' methods of minimizing the inherent resolution and sharpness of the photographic medium and focus instead on the softer, dreamier, impressionistic rendering of photographic images.<br>

Along came the 'Modernists', championed by the Ansel and others (even some that had been Pictorialists before) that took an opposite approach stating that photography is only legitimate if its inherent sharpness and resolution is taken to its fullest measure.<br>

This is where Sirgiy is correct. Many of the worlds most compelling photographs are not ones of incredible sharpness or resolution. They are evocative, emotional images that stir something inside. And on the other hand, as with a recent Walker Evans exhibit I attended, there can be something utterly mesmerizing about detail and tonal range so crisp and so rich, that we can almost reach out and feel the wood grain on the old Post Office.<br>

This is $.02 from a person who shoots digital now but will have to enter the scary world of scanning MF (black and white) film in the not too distant future.<br>

I will post with questions at the time. Be ready.<br>

Bob</p>

[hillsdalemichigan]

<p>Here is an example from a vintage medium format folder (over 50 years old) using Fuji Provia 100 RVP. I am posting this to show you an old camera, I feel, can still keep up if not be better than some digital cameras.<br />I scanned it with an EPSON 4990 photo using a 120 film holder from better image scanning. I did default scannings, scanned image 21 in x 13 in @ 240 dpi. I adjusted in CS3 and did a high pass sharpen. I could have played with the image more to bet better results.<br />Just to let you know I am an amatuer photographer so results could be better. The image was taken on a sunny day @f16/125 sec.<br>

The film was also expired for over a year.</p><div></div>

[hillsdalemichigan]

<p>And here is the crop take from the boat in the background.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Congratulations Lannie on the Coolscan. Hmmm let me think.... 5DII or Coolscan 9000.... ha ha that is not a tough decision..</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>569 responses....it just shows the depth of feeling. I wonder if its to do with justifying their investment in digital. Sure its SO convenient being able to go from shot to printable image within the camera. But thats all it is. Nothing will ever replace a beautiuful 6x17 landscapes taken by a pro like Ken Duncan with his Linhoff (or is it a Fuji?). To achieve the resolution of his negatives would require a digital image of some 300mb at least.<br>

http://www.kenduncan.com/gallery.php?ms=82&<br>

There is a place for digital but boy its expensive. I bought a used D300 for A$1700 a while ago. I now feel I have to go to FX for my landscapes, so I will sell it and buy a D700 for A$3500. Then it stops. I defy anyone to gain any advantage for an A3 print buy buying more pixels. The DIFFERENCE alone in the price between the two represents TWICE the investment I have in ALL my film cameras: FM2n, FE2, F4s and Hassy 503. Or I could buy a used Fuji 617....SO TEMPTING.<br>

That alone would buy me a lot of specialist lab processing. So the best answer to this argument is totall confused on the grounds of what type of photography you do. Who really gives a rats about getting loupes out to try to find the subtleties of difference. Fair dinkum. Get a life. Spend the time out there improving your technique.</p>

<div></div>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"film is its own best archival medium..."</em></p>

<p>Not even CLOSE. I can make 1,000 identical copies of a Camera Raw file and scatter thosw image files across the globe perfectly -- with film? Zero. You have one physical chance at it, no more.</p>

<p>What to do mean Mr. Anon Leo?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Also, I've shot tons of 35mm film and 50,000 DSLR images. I still grudgingly shoot a few rolls of film for nostalgia, nothing more (like pushing a boulder up a hill).</p>

<p>It was around the 6-8 MP sensors that DSLR prints > Film SLR prints. I've only been saying this for several years as have others FAR more expert than me, i.e., the previously referenced Norman Koren and Roger Clark.</p>

[richard_p]

<p>Yep, I think 4Mp used to be good. You need to get yourself updated. The new standard at this point 24Mp minimum.</p>

<p>Richard</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>I just scanned a piece of film and have a 80mb file I can send anywhere and duplicate as well. The difference between us is that I can go back 5 years from now to the film and with a better quality scanner, can pull more out of the film. Like episodes of Welcome Back Kotter from the 70's....you're locked into the quality you shot at....but not so with a film user.</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2336892">Stephen Asprey</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 04, 2009; 03:10 p.m.</p>

 

<p>"569 responses....it just shows the depth of feeling. I wonder if its to do with justifying their investment in digital"</p>

 

<p>I don’t know about others but I have invested far more in lenses and tripods then camera bodies.</p>

 

<p>I bought my first film scanner in 2001, at that time film scans had far more detail then I could get with the digital camera I had at the time. Over the years the gap closed and finally it got to the point where it just was not worth it to me to shoot 35mm film any more.</p>

 

<p>To even come close to what I can do with my digital cameras I would need a scanner costing close to $2,000 (Coolscan 9000), I did consider making that investment at one time but came to the conclusion that it would add very little to my photography.</p>

 

<p>For the type of photography that I do digital works great. If someone else would rather use film that is fine by me, I have no problem with it.<br>

If someone sees a limit to digital photography that I don’t then I will try and point out how to get around that limit, much in the same way that some film shooters have been pointing out better ways to scan film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

[leo_papandreou1]

<blockquote>

<p>Not even CLOSE. I can make 1,000 identical copies of a Camera Raw file and scatter thosw image files across the globe perfectly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes but I'm not interested in scattering my negatives around the globe. What does reproducing digital files have to do with archiving <em>film</em> ? Does taking a picture of film, scanning it or whatever, preserve the integrity of the image on the film better than the film itself? In my situation, I don't have any digital files from 5 years ago. Yet I have all my negatives from 25 years ago (somewhere), their content wholly intact. I didn't lift a finger or spend a penny in order to accomplish this amazing feat. It just happened because film is its own best archival medium.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ken, "It was around the 6-8 MP sensors that DSLR prints > Film SLR prints."</p>

<p>How large do you print and on what paper?</p>

<p>Also specifically what DSLR against what film is your experience based on?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>"... just happened because film is its own best archival medium."</p>

<p>All your eggs in one basket then... cool! I have negs from 30 years ago, slides too... doesn't mean they are safe.</p>

<p>"How large do you print and on what paper?"</p>

<p>So far only up to 13x19 inches. Highest quality archival inks and paper.<br>

Canon DSLRs from 2003 or newer.... I said 35mm format already.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>For Leo P<br>

Many of the film scans I did a number of years ago are now the copy of the photo, the film has since faded noticeably<br>

I have negatives going back around 60 years, these are from my father’s photos. These negatives are in about the shape one would expect after 50-60 years of storage. I have scanned some, but they are a real pain to scan. Likely as not my scans will be around in some form long after the negatives are in the landfill.<br>

In 2000 my parents switch from film to all digital. I now periodically grab a copy of everything they have shot to date. I will have a much better collection of their digital photos then their film ones. What is more I can give out copies to grandkids without giving up the photos for myself.<br>

I have seen how photos get pasted down from generation to generation, I am old enough to have seen this for a few generations, and from what I have seen you are lucky to get most of the prints. Having the negatives past down in very rare, it take the person how took the photos bothering with keeping the negatives and the person getting the photos to care or even know what to do with the negatives.<br>

For my film photos I scan the ones I really care about.</p>

</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<blockquote>

<p>All your eggs in one basket then..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>I'm not saying film survives by default or that technology should be forsaken in its preservation. If I had to choose between a dichotomy, film or digital, then I'd preserve film in a constant environment and keep digital files up-to-date with the latest recording medium. But I don't have to put my eggs in one basket, as someone suggested. I can scan <em>and</em> preserve a negative. I can copy a file from tape to CDROM <em>and</em> encode it on paper in longhand.</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon DSLRs from 2003 or newer.... I said 35mm format already.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Um, sure, but 35mm film has progressed quite a bit in the last decade.</p>

<p>Also, Leo, I believe what Ken is referring to is the possibility that if your house burned down, all your eggs would be, um, gone.</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

[rishij]

<p>Ken -- for example, there's a huge difference between Velvia 50's ability to resolve 160 lines per mm vs. Fuji NPH 400 being able to resolve only 100 lines per mm. In fact, a 22 megapixel vs. 8.6 megapixel sort of difference.</p>

<p>So your 'test' back then needs to be justified by what sort of film you used, how you scanned it or had it optically printed, etc. DSLRs don't just hand you unaltered RAW data to print; you de-mosaic, apply sharpening algorithms, enhance contrast, etc. etc. Yes film does this chemically to a certain extent, but you need to give it a fair chance by scanning properly, reducing noise properly (you do know that CMOS sensors themselves have build in noise reduction prior to even writing the RAW file, don't you?), sharpen properly, then print properly. THEN you can say that a 6-8MP DSLR out resolved 'el crapo film' or whatever film you had that was outresolved by a pathetic 6-8MP sensor.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[rishij]

<p>See <a href="http://cacreeks.com/films.htm">this</a> page for a comparison of different film resolutions, provided by manufacturers, I believe.</p>