Landrum Kelly Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 <p>Right now I am driven by the <em>challenge</em> of digitizing negatives and transparencies. I want to see if I can get some scans nearly on a par with some of the best I have seen--and I want to print the very best ones. If I get tired of that challenge I can go back to shooting primarily digital (as I have since 2002), but I have a hunch that this challenge will be with me for the rest of my life--and the challenge in great part is that of learning to get the best from my equipment.</p> <h1>"scanned film vs digital"</h1> <p>That was the title of the thread. I reject the dichotomy, and one reason is that everything in the title of the thread is on the digital side: scanned film resolves, bridges the horns of the dilemma between film and digital. Another reason that I reject the dichotomy is that I reject arbitrary choices when I have the option to pursue both--I will keep my DSLRs and lenses if I can afford to do so. How long I will continue to try to pursue both is another issue. To that question I have no answer. For now it is medium format shooting along with scanning the negatives and transparencies.</p> <p>I affirm both film and digital. I affirm it all, even if I cannot do it all, because I am sure that it is all worth doing. Yet, since the choice is there to be made, for the moment I accept the challenges of (1) learning to shoot medium format film well and (2) learning to scan well. They are both quite formidable challenges, but in all things I take the long view and gear down for the long haul.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishij Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 <blockquote> <p>(2) learning to scan well. They are both quite formidable challenges,</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, (2) is quite a formidable challenge. And it shouldn't be, had film scanner manufacturers ever gotten their act together. But what did they do instead? Sell half usable products at formidable prices, then discontinue any R&D in favor of digital SLRs b/c that's what'd sell, then leave Imacon to slit our throats with their flamboyant prices.</p> <p>But don't let's stop there. In come the color calibration companies who will sell you their kits so that you can get accurate color out of your scanner... but for a price. And by 'price' I mean about the price of your scanner (basICColor software alone costs $500 for a single license). Of course, if you're a CS whiz or just have a lot of patience (apparently: me), you can compile your own open-source profiling packages, at the cost of about 200 hours of your life to actually get it working reliably with no issues such as unnecessary black clipping and inaccuracies due to optical flare that mar the accuracy of the profiling algorithm.</p> <p>But I digress... now that you've bought a >$2k scanner, if you actually want to get 4000ppi scans from your medium format film, buy this glass holder for an additional $350! And in case that doesn't completely hold your film flat due to the gap, try fluid mounting for all its hassle & $$$.</p> <p>Of course, no such film flattening solutions exist for you 35mm film shooters, because, well you're not a 'real photog' if you use 35mm film (I, by the way, shot 35mm). So you'll have to put up with anything ranging from 1000-4000ppi scans depending on how out of the focal plane your particular portion of film lies. Oh well. But we'll charge you>$1,000 for a 35mm film scanner anyway, you plebian! HA! Let us make money off your ignorance.</p> <p>I'm going to stop there. Primarily because I just got really bored listening to myself but more so b/c I should probably stop sounding like a disgruntled disillusioned curmudgeon.</p> <p>:)</p> <p>-Rishi</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisnielsen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>After getting some good advice here about max enlargements recommended for 35mm, I decided to print much larger than I've ever done with 35mm, to see how it looked. I scanned a recent frame of Kodachrome 64 (shot with F5 + 80-200 2.8) with my Epson 4490, so right there I know any results with that probably would be much improved with a Coolscan. Anyway I scanned at max res, ran through Neatimage, did a USM as much as I dared and had it printed on a high end inkjet at the photo store at 18"x12" (the minilab only goes to 8x12 hence the inkjet). And you know what? It looks fabulous!! Lots of detail and you can only just see what looks like grain if you get very very close. All in all, I'm stoked with the result! And at the end of the day I think that's the important thing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=585199">Ken Papai - Marin County, Calif.</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 04, 2009; 09:16 p.m.</p> <p>"... just happened because film is its own best archival medium."<br /> All your eggs in one basket then... cool! I have negs from 30 years ago, slides too... doesn't mean they are safe.<br /> "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> </blockquote> <p>Ken, assuming you're not just a troll, Mauro asked some valid questions....to which your response was rather sarcastic.</p> <p>For starters....which DSLRs from 2003? As well, we know you said 35mm film....we too can read. What we want to know is WHAT 35mm film. Telling us you use 35mm film is like telling us you ate food.</p> <p>Now you may be printing with the highest quality ink and paper, but 13x19 is hardly a large print. So, in making comparisons, we'd need to know what film, how was it scanned and on what scanner. How was it output sharpened. As well, we'd need to know how your raw file was converted, uprezzed, and output sharpened as well.</p> <p>And finally, please post your comparison image that shows your 8mp camera being superior to the best 35mm color films out there. Being that we have 10mp vs 35mm samples posted here that don't agree with your opinion, I'm certain many here would like to see the image upon which your opinion is made that 8mp is better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4460440">Leo P</a> , Mar 04, 2009; 09:57 p.m.<br> 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> </blockquote> <p>Leo, I've already answered this. Scan the film and send the file all over the world if you like. Burn it CD if that floats your boat. But like I said....I can go back to the film file in a few years with a better scanner to get a better results. Your digital file is stuck with the quality you shot at.</p> <p>But like I said, by your reasoning, film is still better because I can transmit the file everywhere like you....and still have a master copy in lockup.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>I like the idea that, once in a great while, if I am not satisfied with a scan from the Coolscan, I could send it out to be done on a drum scanner. That won't happen often, if it happens at all, because of two primary reasons: first, it is expensive; second, I don't shoot many masterpieces.</p> <p>Even so, I like the idea that someone else besides myself might be able to go back to the film "with a better scanner to get better results," to use Dave's phrase.</p> <p>I can see a lot of possibilities for those who are really dedicated to getting the best results possible from either their negs or their equipment. </p> <p>Of course, I will have to go back to learning how to make better photos, or there is really no point.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Leo, my question to you was meant to be specific.<br> Exactly what 6-8MP camera your are basing your comparison and against which 35mm film.<br /> Also how are you scanning it?</p> <p>The problem could be in your workflow.</p> <p>If possible please post your examples, indicating which lenses you used.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Leo,</p> <p>13x19 is not large but is enough to clearly see the resolution advantages of 35mm film vs my 40D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_l Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>In terms of resolution, midtone detail, and sharpness, I'd put my money on large-format film, drum-scanned, every time. (This is how Clifford Ross produces his 10-foot murals, using 9x18-inch film.) In the 35mm world, my best results have been with a Canon 5D, tripod-mounted, using mirror lockup and a remote trigger, at ISO 100. Results from those 12.8 megapixels surpass the best I have been able to get from 35mm film. I have found this to be true whether I scan the film myself (using glass and five-point manual focusing) on my LS-8000 or send it out for drum scanning.<br> In terms of shadow and highlight detail, I think the ability to work on raw files in Adobe Camera Raw gives the 5D (and probably other higher-end DSLRs) an edge over transparency film, but negative film is still the best.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Andrew,</p> <p>I agree that larger formats are the way to go for the best quality. MF is wonderful. 4x5 is a complete eye opener. There is something about viewing a 40" pritn from 4x5 and seeing sharp, individual blades of grass as opposed to a green smear from a DSLR!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_stegal Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>I've been watching this thread with much interest. These threads <em>always</em> bring up issies that I never knew about. That being said, I'd like to question the original questions: "Is there a difference between scanned film and digital?"and " whats the best way to have film scanned by a lab?"</p> <p>My question is, why does it matter? Now, before I get the "artists" saying " That's right! It's the IMAGE that Counts!" I would like to point out, that photography isn't just about the "Art". Photography is also a recording method. And when you're recording data, you want the best method for capturing your data. By "best", I mean what works best for you and achieves your data capturing goals.</p> <p>Myself, I'm a naturalist. I use photography as a recording device. I have no interest in being an "artist". I need equipment to do the job I want. As a naturalist, I work in natural light, occasionally high contrast, and always the subject moves like a bat out of Hell. I wish I could put the equivalent of a 600mm lens on a 8x10 LF camera. I wish!!! But that's not going to happen. Even if I had Warren Buffet's money, I don't think I cold even buy a lens like that. So, the fact of the mater is that I'm stuck with "micro formats" that have the lens selection that I want.</p> <p>Now, when you factor in that a roll of 36 exp 35mm film costs, on average $8US and that precessing costs $10 for color that's what, $18 per roll of 36 exp film. A hundred rolls of film is $1800. That's a digital back. Two hundred rolls and you have a high end digital back. A high end digital back can do, what? 300,000 images? That's 8,333 rolls of film. That's $150,000 film and precessing costs. Right?</p> <p>Sorry, but considering the cost differential alone makes digital the winner. As far as detail capture, I'm with digital on that one too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_l Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Dave,<br> I love 4x5, but I've begun selling my 4x5 gear because of what Dan mentions: cost. My long-term, perhaps-crazy goal is to be able to replicate 4x5 quality with a DSLR. It certainly won't happen with this generation of cameras, and probably not with the next, but maybe with the one after that... and a little stitching, and a little Genuine Fractals... Only time will tell whether we lemmings are right.</p> <p>Dan,<br> Ever look at Eliot Porter's bird photographs? Some of them were taken with a 4x5, and maybe even with an 8x10. I would not have wanted to be him, though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo_papandreou1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Leo, I've already answered this.</p> </blockquote> <p>No I'm Leo. You must mean Ken, because I agree with you. You and Mauro are getting your interlocutors crossed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Sorry Leo....you are correct....I meant Ken. OK....another couple shots of coffee and I should be able to read this morning.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Dan,</p> <p>I'm not certain what costs you're referring to.</p> <p >I have not seen any digital backs for $1800…..nor any high end backs for twice that. Try $20,000+. As well, I pick up Ektar for $6 and have it processed for $3.50. That’s $9.50 a roll….not $18. </p> <p > </p> <p >Do the math. Shoot a roll of color and a roll of B&W every week for a year. That’s over 3700 frames. That’s $495 for color and about $125 for B&W. You’re in for $620 a year. </p> <p > <br> Now if you’re one of those people bragging about how you went away for a weekend and shot 10,000 frames, then you have to ask yourself……are you confusing your camera with a paintball gun? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_stegal Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Dave: Where are you getting your prices?<br /> I got mine from Wolf and Walgreens.<br /> <em>"I have not seen any digital backs for $1800…..nor any high end backs for twice that. " Here's an example: </em> L<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583953-REG/Canon_2764B003_EOS_5D_Mark_II.html">like this one? OK, it's $2700, but so what?<br /> </a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p>... are you confusing your camera with a paintball gun?</p> </blockquote> <p>Different tools are used differently. It makes perfect sense to machine gun a small format DSLR.</p> <ol> <li>Auto-bracket for the option to do HDR. </li> <li>When shutter speed is necessarily low and shooting hand held, burst a sequence of 10. At least one frame will be as sharp as it had been on a tripod.</li> </ol> <p>The whole point of small format gear is photographic freedom - fast, small, light, and spontaneous. This has been the hallmark of this class of cameras since the first Leicas (Barnack) of the 1920's. The modern small format, interchangebale lens digital camera is the logical and inevitable continuation of this lineage.</p> <p>Now, the next thing to get rid of is that stupid mirror and box on the DSLR...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4968164">Dan Stegal</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 05, 2009; 12:54 p.m.</p> <p>Dave: Where are you getting your prices?<br />I got mine from Wolf and Walgreens.<br /><em>"I have not seen any digital backs for $1800…..nor any high end backs for twice that. " Here's an example: </em>L<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583953-REG/Canon_2764B003_EOS_5D_Mark_II.html" target="_blank">like this one? OK, it's $2700, but so what?<br /></a></p> <p>You're Bullshitting us.</p> </blockquote> <p>First of all Dan, that is a DSLR....it is not a "digital back," nor is it a "high end digital back."</p> <p>Second, a roll of Ektar in the USA is I believe $4.79 or so. I obtain color negative processing in Canada at Prism Photo for $4 a roll ($3.50 USD). Lens and Shutter, another local lab, charges the same....as do others in Vancouver, etc.</p> <p>So before you call someone a BSr, I suggest that you learn the difference between a digital back and a DSLR, and learn how to research some pricing in processing. Based upon what you wrote, I'd say it's safe to assume you have no clue what you're talking about. I'd suggest you have a little education to catch up on before you start posting as some kind of authority and accusing others of BSing.</p> <p>Oh, and I see it's your first post. Way to make your mark.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Dan, here is a high end digital back:</p> <p><a href="http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/professional-photographer-news/phase-one-p-65-digital-back">http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/professional-photographer-news/phase-one-p-65-digital-back</a></p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Dan, here is a high end digital back:</p> <p><a href="http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/professional-photographer-news/phase-one-p-65-digital-back">http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/professional-photographer-news/phase-one-p-65-digital-back</a></p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>"My long-term, perhaps-crazy goal is to be able to replicate 4x5 quality with a DSLR."</p> <p>Andrew, let us know when you achieve that. Take your time. </p> <p>In all fairness, stitching is indeed promising, but even with the correct stitching software (not yet that advanced, to my knowledge), I think that there might be problems of perspective--but I could be wrong. Somebody help me out--or correct me on this.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill a. Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <p>Lannie,<br> For perspective consistency, you need to mount the digital camera at it's nodal point. There are pretty easy ways to find this (if not already doc'd on the web somewhere for your model). There are all sorts of jigs that facilitate mounting the camera on this point.<br> Some quick Google's on "panoramic" and "nodal point" will get you info.<br> Bill</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p>"Photography is also a recording method. And when you're recording data, you want the best method for capturing your data"</p> </blockquote> <p>When it gets down to 'recording data' that's when I give up and take up stamp collecting, I've been taking pictures for 29 of my 43 years soon as I start recording data... its over</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2163626">Mark Smith</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 05, 2009; 04:54 p.m.</p> <blockquote> <p>"Photography is also a recording method. And when you're recording data, you want the best method for capturing your data"</p> </blockquote> <p>When it gets down to 'recording data' that's when I give up and take up stamp collecting, I've been taking pictures for 29 of my 43 years soon as I start recording data... its over</p> </blockquote> <p>Well said!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p>... correct stitching software ... I think that there might be problems of perspective</p> </blockquote> <p>With most stitching software, you're at liberty to choose from the projection of your choice - including the standard rectilinear which we are all so used to. The corrections are done at both the individual picture element level and for the final image as a whole. For all intents and purposes, it's equivalent to shooting with a lens with zero distortion.</p> <p>Shooting about the nodal point is inconsequential with far field landscapes. A tripod isn't even necessary. Where preventing parallax becomes important is when doing close-ups. This is when a good pano head is a necessity.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now