roger_smith4 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p>"m appalled however by the lack of sharpness in my scanned slides. Colour, tonal range etc is great and the overall look is lovely but everything is soft. The best sharpest photograph I can take (lens wide open, high shutter speed, good exposure and correct subject yields a good sharp scan, but anything less is soft! If this is what I have to expect - a much softer image than my dslr produces routinely - so be it. I can live with it, but is there something else worth trying?"</p><p>This is normal for slide film. I highly recommend Photokit sharpener's capture sharpener (or sharpen in Lightroom) to start and then to do output sharpening for printing (with Photokit or Lightroom) to show the detail you have in your slides.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p>Actually, I amazingly find myself in agreement with most of D. Taylor had to say. However the pro move to digital is less just about IQ than it is about convenience for publishers and editors. Sure, the quality has to be and is there, but it's not the whole story by any means.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claytontullos Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p>http://claytontullos.com/images/slide.tif for anyone who is interested. I would right click and save as.</p> <p>I shoot digital purely for the convience and do not use my slide scanner anymore.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill poole Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>William:<br> I asked a question much like this several years ago on photonet. Of the answers I got, the one I remember if that that I should stick to digital unless I was going to shoot 4X5 -- that only then would the difference be obvious. I took this advice, and was pleased with my digital images, which had remarkable clarity and sharpness--which is what is most often meant when people talk about image quality. <br> Then, about a year ago, I bought a Nikon scanner (mine is the V ED) to scan some old 35 mm transparencies and negatives. These did not have the "quality" of my 5 D images as I have defined it above. They did have a richness and presence--a difference, if you will-- that in my experience is unique to film. More recently, I acquired a used Nikon 8000 and began scanning my old medium format images, and was very impressed by the results. The black and whites especially had a richness, evenness of tone, and level of detail that were missing from my digital images.<br> I now have a 35 mm rangefinder and a medium format SLR--both bought used and both with lenses at the top of their class. I use the rangefinder as my carry-around camera and the MF SLF on a tripod. I enjoy exercising discipline of shot choice. I work slowly and carefully and almost never blow an exposure--in part because the film is so forgiving.<br> I scan because I don't have space for a darkroom. I have no doubt that wet processing might make more satisfying images, but I am grateful to be able to scan and print digitally. I am lucky to live in San Francisco, where quality B&W and C41 processing is readily available.<br> For color, I have been shooting Kodak NC negative film. This has much more latitude than the 5D sensor and has a lovely color palette right out of the camera that I am either too stupid or too lazy to be able to duplicate in Photoshop I pay $3.50 to get a roll of C41 35mm developed and $5 for 120 (no prints). I enjoy the process of scanning, and read or prowl the internet while the big 2 1/4 images are scanning<br> For medium format B&W I have been shooting Tri-X, rediscovering an old friend. Is there grain? I guess, but it doesn't offend me the way digital noise does, and in these film sizes, who cares. (My printer goes to 13 inches wide, so I am not making posters.) And yes, I have done a lot digital black and white from color files, used a half dozen conversion methods and made some picture I like a lot--but they simply do not look the same as images from medium format B&W film. <br> This workflow would make no sense for someone who was trying to make a living shooting pictures. As part of my job, I buy photos for a magazine, and I would never recommend that any of our contract photographers shoot film. For most purposes, digital is going to own the world. But if you shoot not for reproduction but for printing and you like the look of film, by all means give it a try. <br> Hope this helps,<br> Bill Poole</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirkal Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p> <p>First, I agree with everybody there was enough said about this issue in past. Once it get to digital versus film discussion is just endless! I shoot 120 film for passion and digital for work and both has advantages I appreciate. Regarding scanning, grain, high speed film you are all just correct in your statements. My experience scanning 6x6 at Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED is it is time consuming but you can get excellent results with low-speed color slides. B&W negatives scanning is more difficult in my experience but my Iford Deltas 100 and 400 are performing fine, 90 x 90 cm prints from Delta 100 show very little grain but not pixels at all. I agree with recommendations somebody did - scan fast at low res, choose the shot and scan at highest resolution. Scanning 35mm film bellow say 3000 dpi does not make sense, you'll be dissapointed. I'm scanning 6 x6 at 4,000 dpi and I'm happy with results, I don't think this could be beated for now by digital DSRL yet. Despite of it I will buy digital back to my Hasselblad in future anyway, it is just so slow to scan 6x6 at such a high resolution, it coudl take you 20 minutes and more according features you activated and resulting file is 200MB for color slide and 80MB B&W so consider TB storage space for your files! If you'll be using Nikon try multipass feature and fine scan feature, it is slow but it is worth of it.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photos of hans koot Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>What an endless discussion.... great!, here is my part :-)</p> <p>question: Is there a difference between scanned film and digital? whats the best way to have film scanned by a lab?<br> 1 scanned film is a digital image (call it high res photo wehn performed best) from a neg or a slide<br> 2 a digital photo is directly taken with the sensor by a camera.</p> <p>best way to have it scanned is where they scan with a drumscanner. (expensive yes)</p> <p>its as easy as that.....<br> what you like or not just depends on your personal interest.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielleetaylor Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p><em>Steve Hoffmann's Nature and Landscape Photography - that Daniel references, is almost as bad as the incompetent Ludicrous Lambaste digital/film testing.</em> <br /> <br /> I've noticed in these silly threads that whenever a test threatens someone's sacred cow, they typically sacrifice the test and the tester rather than the cow. It's human nature, seen over and over again across all walks of life. But that doesn't make it any less annoying. The icing on the cake is when the "heathens" clearly have more expeirence and more published work than the people who attack them for stating the obvious.<br /> <br /> Don't like Steve Hoffmann? Try Norman Koren: <em>"How many pixels does a digital sensor need to outperform 35mm film?" The answer is less speculative than it used to be: The 11+ megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds, EOS-1Ds Mark II, and EOS 5D clearly outperform 35mm. I can make finer prints with the 8.3 megapixel EOS 20D (razor sharp at 13x19 inches) than I ever could with 35mm— and I was fanatic about lenses and darkroom work.</em> - http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html<br /> <br /> Before you attack him maybe you better stop to read his resume: he is the author of Imatest, the industry standard software for testing photographic system resolution. http://www.imatest.com/home<br /> <br /> Need more? Roger Clark has written more on this issue than perhaps anyone, and has very detailed articles at his site - http://www.clarkvision.com/<br /> <br /> You may not like some of his conclusions, especially when he starts talking about Apparent Image Quality (resolution + noise) and how digital cameras compare in AIQ in real world prints. But before attacking him you better consider that he has a Ph.D. and has published over 200 scientific papers. While you're at it you might want to pause to reflect on the fact that NASA turns to him for expert advice on photographing planets in our solar system via remote probes like Cassini. If anyone has a photography resume that can top that, please post it.<br /> <br /> As for Michael Reichmann, he is an accomplished photographer with a fine art gallery, publications in fine art magazines, and a very successful and popular educational web site. He is so well regarded in the industry that when he plans a trip it sells out months in advance. Now I might not always agree with him, or anyone for that matter. But before making childish word plays on his business name maybe you should stop to consider the work and contributions of this man to the world of photography.<br /> <br /> You know, I'm not sure which device can distinguish more black bars on a USAF test chart or record a wider dynamic range on a Stouffer transmission step wedge. But I sure do like Clark's <em>Foggy Serengeti Sunrise</em> , as well as Reichmann's <em>Clouds and Ice, Antarctica.</em> I think I'll go look at more of their work.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>The funny thing with all these film digital threads is that many seem to miss the fact that ones own photographic skills and ones own vision will have far more effect upon the out come of a photograph then what medium used.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>I just like the look of film here is a shot Outdated Plus-X in a Kiev 6s</p> <p>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3179430225_dd701f1ed7_o.jpg</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>I don't know and to be honest I don't really care. I don't think anyone really believes that 35mm film only has 3mp of info. Could have been that the image he shot contained very little details and 3mp was enough to capture that scene so the film showed no advantage. Personaly myself I don't print above 8x10 very often and with that size print it is very difficult to see differences between a 2.75 mp D1h a 6mp D70 or 35 mm film. ISO 400 Medium format B&W prints tend to show better tonality even in 8x10 than ISO 400 35mm B&W prints but its not night and day differences. Overal though I feel that many worry way to much about mega pixels and resolution.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>I think I figured the answer out to this question. Shoot what you want process it how you want to get what you want. But remember you have to know what you want.</p> <p> Ohh wow the answer was in my head all my life..... Thanks folks I will never have to chime in again on one of these we can just say ... do what you want.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Daniel, it has nothing to do with a sacred cow....it has everything to do with incompetent testing. I think we've all seen the Clarkvision, Koren, Luminous Landscape, Sphoto nonsense posted a million times by web-tards who can't think for themselves. I have a Canon D30. I used to own an Imacon 343. Funny, when I scanned Provia 100 and compared it to the D30 at 8x10, not a single person viewing the prints has EVER said the D30 was more detailed. It's probably incompetence of the LL scanning. As to the other sites quoted, a laughed at the "razor sharp" 20D at 13x19. I don't think manu people would find the print meets fine art works criteria of "razor sharp" with a 180dpi print. Maybe razor shapr edges with no real fine detail or texture. Or maybe the silly comparison of Kodak 200 DR vs digital. How many other tests have we seen that show a different result? If a different result can be obtained....well, then maybe these sites aren't perfect afterall.</p> <p>The main problem Daniel is that over the years, these sites have even contradicted themselves. Remember the LL review of the original 1Ds vs 6x7 Provia. Funny, my 1Ds never beat my RB67. Guess what.....a few years later Reichman himself in a new test showed that the new 1Ds Mk2 was about the same as 645. Funny how after a few years, a higher rez DSLR was now about the same a lower rez film than 6x7. Maybe he cleaned his eyeglasses.</p> <p>The question has nothing to do with the resume of the owners of the sites you quote. The question is why, so many other photographers when viewing prints can't seem to replicate what these people come up with. I'll let you in on a little secret. In case you think there's a problem with my eyes....I've seen some of the test prints that Reichman claimed proved his point.....and while he makes out like everyone was viewing them and agreeing with him.....when I saw the prints posted in Toronto, it was plain which one was better....and it hasn't been the DSLRs. Comments in the shop seemed to indicate that the decisions of viewers were anything but united against film.</p> <p>When posts show that the sites you mentions are wrong.....that about sums it up. When people post samples that show film doing far better than those sites claim possible, it proves that regardless of how much hero worship you give the authors of those sites.....they are simply human, and in this case, are simply wrong.</p> <p>Oh, and by the way....you ever notice how it's the same 3-4 sites constantly quoted by the anti-film brigade? Funny, film users point out hundreds of sites and samples available proving their point, and all digital users can come up with is the same 3-4 sites over the last 5 years.....sites that even contradict themselves. Maybe it's the anti-film brigade who are having problems with cows.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Sigh</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>As inconsistent as it may seem for me to chime in here, after making the joke about how we have all become John Henrys, let me say that I have not given up the ghost on film, and there is one reason--I like film, and the resolution that I get from film is enough to print at the sizes I like to print. Everyone who likes film knows, however, that it is not simply about resolution. There are those intangibles that are hard to quantify, but I think that all of us know what we mean when we say that "There is something about film," because there is, and it is very pleasing. I am sorry that I was too flippant in my remarks and came off sounding like a troll. I also know that Daniel also appreciates film, too, and so I regret seeing this thread become unnecessarily polarized, as tends to happen on this issue. (For the record, Daniel originally said that "Scanner resolution is not film resolution, and today's DSLRs are a match for 35mm format." Well, what interests me at this point is medium format.)</p> <p>That said, I do more and more digital work--it is about the time factor for me, and thus the John Henry story, since John Henry was in a race. If time were the only consideration, I would have switched completely to digital. As it is, since I bought the IDsII a bit over a year ago when the 1DsIII came out (and thus after the IDsII price collapsed), I have bought only film bodies, except for one Nikon D80 body to go with an old manual focus Nikon 600 f/4. (I had been using it with a Canon 5D but got tired of that and so decided to go with a crop sensor camera to maximize the telephoto effect.) Everything else I have bought since has been either Bronica or Hasselblad. When I shoot full-frame digital, I shoot Canon. The Nikon manual focus 600 is about the only exception, and I have no real preference, just much more Canon than Nikon glass.</p> <p>I mention all this because I have been looking for a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (being a somewhat stubborn cuss who is quite convinced that some people are getting better film scans than I am), and B&H keeps telling me that they are out of stock, Adorama says that they have a shipment on the way real soon now, and Amazon says that they have it at $1995, and that it "usually ships within one to two months."</p> <p>Well, last night I saw an ad on Amazon (but from J&R Music and Computer World), and, lo, there was the the Coolscan 9000 for "only" a couple hundred dollars more than B&H. I had entered all of my data to buy the thing, but what stopped me was one thing: not the extra $200, which should have been enough, but the fear that I would not get it right away, or that I would wind up getting the scanner but be unable to get the holders.</p> <p>So, you guys who are getting these great scan results (and I have seen your work and know that you are doing it), how on earth does acquire a Coolscan 9000 without paying a premium, and how can one be sure that one can get the necessary accessories, within a reasonable time frame?</p> <p>Right now my best scanner is the Epson 4990--not a bad machine, but I didn't come this far just to "settle" for "pretty good." My old Epson 2450 Perfection does a respectable job in truth, but I really do want to see what I can get out of film, and I am quite sure that I am not getting anything near what some of you are getting. So, short of buying an Imacon (which I really cannot do on a teacher's salary), what is out there that works as well as the Coolscan 9000?</p> <p>Please forgive my impertinence. I really am here to learn. Yes, I know that in some ways the future belongs to digital, but for what applications? I have seen shots made with the Canon 20D and I <em>know</em> that it is not up to snuff. The IDsII? I don't know. It is all irrelevant, finally, since, if I could get results comparable to the very best film photographers, that would surely be good enough to justify hanging in there with film for at least some of my shots.</p> <p>As for my photographic technique, it is alright (nothing spectacular), and I use a pretty stiff carbon fiber Gitzo with an Arca-Swiss ball-head, and so, no, the real problem really is the scanning step for me, not my basic skills or my mount.</p> <p>That's why I'm here: can somebody tell me what's out there in the $2000 or so price range, and how on earth does one get it within a reasonable amount of time? I have been trying to follow these thread for the longest, but I am still not sure what to buy. I have heard some recommendations here, but some of the scans that some are oohing and aahing over are not quite up to what I had in mind.</p> <p>Thanks.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Lannie,</p> <p>The Nikon 9000 is pretty much your best option for 35mm and 120. Yes, you can get decent results from an Epson V700/750 or Microtek M1....but they will require more aggressive USM to pull the detail out because of the inferior optics. <br> The Epsons true resolution is about 2200ppi. The Microtek between 2400 & 2500. The Nikon 9000 is really capable of about 3800ppi, which is normally enough for most applications. Will you notice a difference? Yes....even at 16x20 from 120 film, the Nikon will be more detailed with less USM and have better shadow detail and tonality. Other options include a used Imacon like the 343 I used to own.</p> <p>For $2000, options are limited, but the Nikon is pretty much your best bet. And thanks for clarifying your intentions with this post.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>The only real interest I have in this is whether the OP comes back on to clarify why he asked the question. Is there a real photographic objective here that requires help, or was this just a bit of a laugh, to see whether the same old people coild be encouraged to trot out the same old entrenched positions yet again. Was it mischief or did he simply fail to provide sufficient detail to get useful answers apart from on a kind of random basis?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Thanks, Dave. Your response led me off to try to find out a bit about the 343, which in turn led me to threads about the 949, and from thence to discussions of drum scanners, etc. So. . . what I am finding is that, yes, there really is something that some of us know-nothings think we can see but can't prove it, although we also know that we can't afford it. But at least it exists and is not merely a figment of the imagination of those who are simply reactionary--which is obviously not the case. The best film photographers who are trying to digitize their images are actually quite knowledgeable--an obvious fact for those who are likewise knowledgeable, but not so obvious to those of us who are not knowledgeable, and who are at times simply trying to keep up with the conversation.</p> <p>That itself is a comforting thought to me, since my forays into medium format film have been based not just on faith but on perceived differences in quality that are hard to verify and quantify, but that clearly are real and worthy of discussion. I would like to think that the Bronica and Hasselblad gear that I bought up on eBay (for next to nothing, all things considered) will finally yield the kinds of results that I was hoping for.</p> <p>I'm still wondering if I should trust J&R Music World about the Nikon Coolscan 9000, or will I give them my credit card info and then get the message that they "just sold the last one," or something similar? I am also a little worried about the prospects of ever getting the holders for the Coolscan 9000. (How long, Lord, how long?)</p> <p>I like this kind of thread and am frankly glad that these issues keep coming around again and again. Otherwise a whole generation could lose this knowledge completely, and then who would keep the tradition going?</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p><em>"...but I have found no digital camera that can make images pop with an almost three dimensional nature like I can with scanned tranny film.</em><br> Such images can be found all day long in the top rated photos on this site."</p> <p>You can't beat a 1/3-2/3MP backlit digital image for pop, true, and when my chosen output format is 700x pixel web jpegs I'll switch to digital... probably.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Thanks, Les. I have been cruising these sites for weeks, but this time I actually got it! The FH-869G holder will be on back order, but I halfway expected that.</p> <p>So now. . . I defiinitely have passed the point of no return: I've got the cameras, got the lensess, got the scanner (or will soon), and I've got a relatively new 17" wide printer. This had darned well better work, or I'll have to start knocking off convenience stores--or sell it all back on eBay. I do intend to find out, however, whether I have what it takes to gets the scans and prints that some of the rest of you are getting.</p> <p>I'll let you know how I do, but this might take a while to get it right. . . .</p> <p>--Lannie</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Lannie,</p> <p>It will take a while. Scanning film is as much art as it is science. But, once you get that good scan of MF film, and output it to your printer (Epson 3800?) then you'll be thrilled, like most of us were.</p> <p>Best of luck and post some of your results as they become available.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photos of hans koot Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Hi William, I am sure you now know what to choose.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photos of hans koot Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>On the other hand, did I ever explain how much detail you get from a polaroid? Of course it has to be properly exposed. Cosider it as a kind of medium format direct positive. The best thing is you don't even have to bother about an expensive printer! or bother about lenses!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_sevigny Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Everyone finds a different way to work that works best for them. I do all my BW work (well almost) on film and scan it at home. There IS a difference between a well-scanned BW negative and a converted digital image. Whether you like one or the other better is a matter of opinion.<br> For color, I never ever shoot film. I don't have time to deal with getting color balance right in my scanner.<br> That's the way I work. It's not necessarily the way anyone else would or should work.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Lannie, like Dave said, the Epson 3800 and Velvet Fine Art paper will complete your workflow.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Mauro, I just started with a couple of Velvet Fine Art sheets from a friend. My main paper for years has been HM Photorag 308.....I just love the more subtle color of matte papers. The Velvet though, looks VERY good. </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