Jump to content
Welcome to the NEW Photo.net! ×

Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital


mauro_franic
 Share

Recommended Posts

<p>Poor scans may be the reason why some people believe DSLRs compare to scanned medium format film. Either poor technique, or worse, the use of a flatbed scanner, can through most of the data captured on film out the window.</p>

<p>I recall a previous post claiming pictures from the D2X where comparable to the results of 6x7 film scanned with a Coolscan 8000.</p>

<p>To help answer the question, I asked Les Sarile to provide me with his D2X maps shots and a 6x7 strip of Kodak UC 100 6x7 (He shot with his Mamiya RZ 67 II).</p>

<p>Here are the results:</p><div>00SlJT-116259584.jpg.99ca6befc26d50abbb703895533fdaff.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 799
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Set 1 (above) has the film scanned with the Coolscan 9000 (left) next to the D2X (right).</p>

<p>Set 2 (below) has the film scanned with a flatbed (left - Epson V500 and Vuescan) and the with the same scanner using the scanner software (right - Epson V500 and Epson Scan).</p><div>00SlJx-116263584.jpg.cc4a17fa161c0b25155bfc92fe4f96a8.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>but a well done dark room print should outweigh a well done digital print, either from a film based medium or straight digital, right?...<br>

But i agree with you, i think a lot of people get a few poor scans and conclude that digital is the way to go and leave it at that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=17942">Ellis Vener</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" title="Hero" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 15, 2009; 06:30 p.m.<br>

The scans are way over sharpened</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If they were "way oversharpened" we see the effects of haloing. There is no haloing. The apparent grain from the sharpening wouldn't be seen on print.</p>

<p>Mauro has explained his scanning routine before. What I see here, and have seen for years, is that despite all the talk about what DSLR beats what film format.....it's plain to see which camera I'd like to use for landscape work.....and it wouldn't be the D2X. Heck, I get better results from my RB67 than my 1Ds Mk2.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hmm: that 8000/9000 scanned 6x7 edges out 12MP digital is old news.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original</a></p>

<p>Things are much closer with 20+MP digital. Here's the Mamiya 7 vs. the 5DII (taken at different times of day in different light, though.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/108672738/original">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/108672738/original</a></p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another problem with scanning is that it may no longer be practical. Can you really still get good drum scans, and how much will they cost? (And will you be able to 2 years from now?) I'd really like to get the new Fuji folder, but my 8000 is flaking out. A new 9000 is over US$3,000 here (and the store says that they're essentially made to order, so who knows how long they'll even be available), so that's over US$5,000 to compete with the 5DII + 50/1.4. I could pass on the Fuji, and get the 9000 + 43/4.5 + 150/4.5, also US$5000 and change. Or just wair for the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE. (Of course Canon, with their pricing of the new 17TSE, is making film look affordable again.)</p>

<p>"a well done darkroom print "</p>

<p>Again, that doesn't work if paper and chemicals are no longer made, and papers are going out of production one after another. And inkjet prints look pretty good nowadays.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ellis,</p>

<p>The comparison is between a D2x and 6x7 film, which has nearly 12 times the picture area. The D2x fares much better than should be expected in this lop-sided test. Actually, I've never seen results quite that bad from my D2x. Perhaps Les smears a little vasoline on the lens to help make his point :-)</p>

<p>I don't see oversharpening in the Coolscan results, but definitely in the Epson images. Halos belong on saints, not photos.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"According to Dpreview"</p>

<p>Uh, do you believe Dpreview or your eyes??? (FWIW 2800/2300 = 1.21x, and 54/42 (the ratio of 6x7 to 645) is about 1.28; these are differences that are large enough to be noticeable for detail that is just barely lost by the smaller format.) Seriously, 12MP is very much like 645 and 21MP is very much like 6x7 if you actually make prints.)</p>

<p>"never seen results quite that bad from my D2x"</p>

<p>The dSLR images are all upsampled to match the film scan resolution, and look a lot worse than native resolution images do.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>I recall a previous post claiming pictures from the D2X where comparable to the results of 6x7 film scanned with a Coolscan 8000.</em></p>

<p>I have made that statement, with regard to 6x6 film anyway, but ALWAYS qualified with a print size. For a D2x, that size is 16x20 inches, which is a respectable size for hanging on a wall at home or in a gallery. Some people never print larger than 4x6 inches, which would render anything larger than 3MP superfluous (If you pick your arena, Jeeps handle better than Porsches in a field of parking-lot dividers). If I wish to print 30x40 inches or larger, then medium format film wins handily.</p>

<p>That said, I don't make large prints that often, nor do I use film of any size for weddings or events. It takes me up to two weeks to scan 400 images on my LS-8000 (assuming I have other things to do), which I can deliver the next day from my DSLR without breaking a sweat.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=359171">David Littleboy (Tokyo, Japan)</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Mar 15, 2009; 10:05 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Hmm: that 8000/9000 scanned 6x7 edges out 12MP digital is old news.<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original</a><br>

Things are much closer with 20+MP digital. Here's the Mamiya 7 vs. the 5DII (taken at different times of day in different light, though.)</p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/108672738/original" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/108672738/original</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe closer in your opinion....but what happened to the tile wall in the digital image? Oops.....the digital image couldn't handle it. Oh well....back to the $300 RB67 instead of the the $3000 DSLR.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"what happened to the tile wall in the digital image?"<br>

 <br>

Huh? The tile wall in the bottom comparison (21MP vs. 6x7) looks pretty close to me (both are having trouble; which do you think is the digital, by the way?). The tile wall in the top comparison shows that 12MP is clearly edged out by 6x7.<br>

 <br>

"back to the $300 RB67 "<br>

 <br>

How many drum scans can you get for US$2700?<br>

 <br>

 </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>How many drum scans can you get for US$2700?</em><br>

for such a price, you can get ls9000 ;-)<br>

<em> - </em> and that 21mp vs 6x7 comparison ... is it drum scan ?<em> </em> there is apparently some bug, 12mp ff can be similar to 35mm, but to 6x4.5 ? :)) .... yes, with defocused mf, shake, poor scan ...<em> </em> 6x7 is another league and it's fair to compare it against mf digital back :)<br>

and once shooting 35mm (and 6x4.5 too), you don't need to scan, as you can get phantastic result via simple slide projector - 80x54" image with unbeatable look, for cents - but you still can scan (or get scanned) your best shots, and you will have both slide and print, easy and with much more quality then poor 1600x1200 digital projection, or 4000x2700 digital to film transpher :)</p>

<p>yes, if you want to fill your hdd wiht gigs of raws weekly, then buy some 20+mp dslr and shoot! :) here is dslr apparently better :)</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=359171">David Littleboy (Tokyo, Japan)</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Mar 16, 2009; 03:11 a.m.<br /> "what happened to the tile wall in the digital image?"<br /> <br /> Huh? The tile wall in the bottom comparison (21MP vs. 6x7) looks pretty close to me (both are having trouble; which do you think is the digital, by the way?). The tile wall in the top comparison shows that 12MP is clearly edged out by 6x7.<br /> <br /> "back to the $300 RB67 "<br /> <br /> How many drum scans can you get for US$2700?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you think the wall looks close....get your eyes checked. The digital image looks like a bizarre checker board as opposed to real tile.</p>

<p>I don't need any drum scans for that....I can use the Nikon $9000 for far less money and leave the DSLR behind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=359171">David Littleboy (Tokyo, Japan)</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Mar 15, 2009; 11:24 p.m. Seriously, 12MP is very much like 645 and 21MP is very much like 6x7 if you actually make prints.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By the way David, part of my business is large format printing for other photographers. Trust me....I know what film and digital can do. MF and LF film do better than any DSLR on the market in large prints. You don't even need a drum scanner to see that.</p>

<p>As to which is which David....I'll leave it up to you to decide which one exhibits aliasing in the tile.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I will try not to take the threade to the old digital vs film. 35mm film on just a Coolscan (color neg, BW neg, slide) outresolves a 10MP DSLR (40d) by a very large margin (per other threads I posted). <br>

Resolution wise 35mm film like Velvia outresolves the 5DII as well (per test btw me, Rishi scans and DPreview).</p>

<p>I print on my Epson 7880 at 24x36 and there is no visible grain or halos. Not sure what size are other people that point these things must be printing on.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The point of this thread is to truly step back and reflect on how many people may have been fooled away from film (even by themselves) either via poor scans, not having a proper scanner, or reading the Luminous Landscape.</p>

<p>Yes, you can't compare a DSLR to medium format film. THAT IS THE POINT.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mauro.... is this the map with Lake Chad, or without Lake Chad?!? Remember, there is this little issue of credibility hanging over Les's head (unless he has finally answered this anomaly in the other thread). Like I said in the other thread, Mauro - I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong, but if you want to convince us of something, you need to carefully choose your evidence. If I was you, I would have conducted the test with something other than ANYTHING Les produced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...