Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital

[ned1]

<p>When a used Hassleblad goes for $1000, and somebody has just paid $5000 for their D3, it's hard to convince them that they just wasted $4000.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Rishi, I'll stay with my original answer of DSLR for the water fall. I think that the Mt. Hood shot is 35 mm film. (I know that you sure used a good lens on the Mt. Hood shot. Look at the flowers close to the edge.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>John Photo, "I'm amused at those, especially the original poster, who act as if this is the best one<br /> can get out their MF film."</p>

<p>I'm not sure how you interpret my notes to conclude the above. All my films outresolve my Coolscan. i.e. the film has more information pass 4000dpi.</p>

<p>A Coolscan 9000 for 6x7 or 6x8 100MP though, is probably the best scanner you can buy for less than the price of a small house. The quality and resolution of the output is the best you can produce short of a drum scan for medium format. Certainly superior to any digital camera in production and fit for a gallery.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>John Photo,<br>

"I certainly wouldnt want a 30x40 printed from a low end nikon film scanner" </p>

<p>John, you may have good intentions but you don't know what you are talking about. The output fron the Coolscan has more information I can print on my 7880 (24"). What makes you believe that going to 30" is going to make your print crumble?</p>

<p>What printer do you have? And do you consistently make prints out of a Coolscan 9000 on it?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Matt, please respond to my comment about "eye-balling" in context:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"And 12MP and 21MP FF DSLRs look very similar to 645 and 6x7, respectively. 35m simply isn't in either of those ballparks." --David Littleboy</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"David, I think that you are in a state of deep denial, or else you are just eyeballing the results, not really measuring them." -Landrum Kelly</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Matt, the whole point of measuring things is to avoid saying ludicrous things such as David Littleboy said and getting away with it unchallenged. What is the best challenge? "Measure it." Otherwise we have all kinds of impressionistic judgments, not to mention rationalizations.</p>

<p>All that I can say to the original post to which I was responding is that, if someone's 645 shot looks no better than a 12MP DSLR shot, that person blew the 645 shot--<strong>or the scan.</strong></p>

<p>Yes, I said <strong>blew the scan, </strong> which brings us back to Mauro's point in posting.</p>

<p>Having said that, Mauro, I think that the real reason that most people switch to digital is because of the convenience, not because of quality considerations. Digital for their purposes is "good enough."</p>

<p>You still laughing, Matt? Well, just keep on laughing, and good 645 shots will keep on blowing away 12 MP digital shots-- there is no contest, really. I shoot the 12 MP Canon 5D and the 16.7 MP Canon 1Ds II. I can tell you that there is no way that the 5D can beat 645 or that the 1Ds II can beat 6 x 7. </p>

<p>Since David and I disagree on that precise point, I recommend MEASURING rather than either emoting or laughing, regardless of whatever HCB said, quoted out of context. If I could offer comparative shots of the same subjects, I would show you. Side by side, yes, we could eyeball them. Otherwise, we are wasting our time.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott Wilson:<br>

"I have seen scans from 35mm that can match what a 8MP DSLR can do for sharpness, but I have never seen one that goes past."</p>

<p>Here, let me change that for you:</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott Wilson, also print the above at say 360 dpi (11x14 print) and tell me what you think.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Roman, I think you make some good additional points:<br>

 

<p >"...And I don’t think that the idea to eliminate art of film photography from our life came out from Nikon or Canon. However, there money talks. Apparently this idea was widely supported by Microsoft, Sony and other financial giants, who can control not just the market, but our mind as well and, using their financial leverage, may form any public opinion favorable to them. And unfortunately our “free” public media has no much to resist them..."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes, and I think this relates to the overall "big picture economy" in that so much is based on coming out with the "latest and greatest" (supposedly), and then putting in an intense effort of convincing people that they need these things.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This overall concept really hits home for me when after my usual habit of watching <i>quality</i> television programs here in the U.S. on PBS, I switch the channel (usually, just for the local and national news, thankfully) to another station. Suddenly, one is seemingly hit over the head with advertising every few minutes trying to make the audience think they need a new auto, Viagra or other largely remedial drugs, that they need to support Big Oil (at least they use a great looking babe in this one!), etc., etc.... I think all of these product "needs" moderately to largely preventable, but they wouldn't spend the money on this if they weren't largely successful in convincing people otherwise, I suppose... Hopefully, this will change if we can evolve intelligently to a more sustainable, and healthy economy, and lifestyle; I think this analogy holds at least moderately true for photo, as well. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And yes, I think we will be able to use our Nikon film bodies to a satisfying degree for years to come, so long as we can keep the herd from dissuading us and other film users, and potential film users, not to.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Film photography is a separate technology that also has advances in store if its market is not killed off by the effort to convince us that digital capture technology is the "only way". Kodak has proved this to me with the several wonderful films that have come on market these last several years. I think the trouble from the larger industry perspective is that for so many of us, we really don't need advances in camera body features. The advances need to come from the emulsion technology side, as they largely have been, therefore the profit potential is not as wide spread and as great as continuing on with their current business models.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Edward, "When a used Hassleblad goes for $1000, and somebody has just paid $5000 for their D3, it's hard to convince them that they just wasted $4000.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think that could well be a large part of it...</p>

</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"<I>Having said that, Mauro, I think that the real reason that most people switch to digital is because of the convenience, not because of quality considerations. Digital for their purposes is "good enough."</I>"

 

<P>Bingo. Why else would pros switch from Speed Graphics and Rollies to 35mm in the late 1950s early 1960s?

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>several wonderful films that have come on market these last several years. I think the trouble from the larger industry perspective is that for so many of us, we really don't need advances in camera body features. --Jeff Z</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One also wonders how many persons are inclined to buy a <em>new</em> Nikon F5 or Canon 1V. I wonder if there are any numbers being published about how many are being sold new.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I meant the Nikon F6, not the F5.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>OK, I'll make this one easy for ya, folks:<br>

Here's a 12MP image file... is it from a 12MP dSLR or a 12MP scan of a 35mm frame of film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's a 12 MP image it probably started out as a 40 MB TIFF file (or the RAW equivalent). In order to display it on the web, it had to be shrunk to about 1/5000th of its original size and resolution. Comparing photos at this resolution is like tasting one drop of coffee dissolved in a 55 gallon drum full of water. IT'S LUDICROUS!!</p>

<p>A further complication is that most of the images offered for comparison on this thread have ***NOT*** been optimally sharpened. Most are undersharpened, and some like Rishi's otherwise beautiful mountain scene, are oversharpened to the point where it looks as though someone splattered the image with drops of white paint. How can you possibly judge the quality of a poorly sharpened image versus another poorly sharpened image? It's like comparing the height of two people who are slumped in their chairs.</p>

<p>One final thought. I love film. I love the look of film. I shoot a lot of film each year (mostly 4x5 transparency film). That said, scans costs a LOT of money and weeks can pass before I receive them. Then they require additional Photoshopping just to get them to look like the original chrome. I would need to be Donald Trump to have the budget to have all of my images drum scanned and optimized by QUALIFIED professionals, and the project would take years to complete. My digital camera may or may not match film's resolution, saturation, or contrast in any given shooting situation - sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse - but it sure as shootin' saves me time and money.</p>

<p>In a perfect world we'd all expose multiple 8x10 frames, scan them at 8000 dpi, and merge them into ultra-high-resolution, super-HDR masterpieces. In THIS world, we make the best image possible with the gear that we have in hand. The inept carpenter blames his hammer.</p>

 

[don_e]

<p>Film slr sales peaked in the late 1980s, I think. Digital cameras had two major impacts on the industry: 1) it provided cameras that would reverse the decline in slr sales, 2) it shifted the driver of the market from film manufacturers to camera manufacturers.</p>

 

[daniel flather]

<p>What Don E posted. Canon and Nikon must have posted some amazing numbers over the last 7+ years.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>Really, I want Mr. David Littleboy's vote... y'know, the guy who thinks that a 12MP dSLR surpasses 645, while scoffing at 35mm. C'mon man... which one of these is a <em>dSLR</em> & which one's just measly ol' <em>35mm-unworthy-of-landscapes</em> ?<br>

-Rishi</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Funny that despite the fact that this is a huge thread with so many opinions about whether there is any *meaningful* differences between DSLR and film/scan, very very few people take up this challenge.</p>

<p>If the whole point of this, and many other, posts like this, is to show that one medium is better than the others, then one has to be able to consistently and reproducibly discern real differences between the images that are captured by one method over the other. Otherwise the real point is this: no matter whether you shoot film, MF or 35 mm, or digital, the important thing is to know the pros and cons of your medium, and do the best you can to make the best of it to produce images that are memorable and artistic. </p>

<p>To answer the original question of this post: No, I believe the VAST majority of us switch to digital becasue it is CONVINIENT not because we stay home and shoot maps or what ever and crop and blow them up and analyze the results using a microscope.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Comparing photos at this resolution is like tasting one drop of coffee dissolved in a 55 gallon drum full of water. IT'S LUDICROUS!!" --Dan South</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, I think that Rishi was just playing with us on the "contest" to see who guessed right. You are right, of course. No one can say for sure, although one might be able to figure it out as a puzzle. </p>

<p>Rishi knows full well what is required for meaningful comparisons, and there are some meaningful comparisons in this thread, although some are not. Rishi's were not intended to be. I hate to say it, but "go back and read the whole thread." (Yeah, yeah, I know. . . .)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=696354">Les Sarile</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 19, 2009; 10:13 a.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=940372">Scott Wilson</a> , Mar 19, 2009; 04:01 a.m.</p>

Large photo attachment: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00Snj9-117573584.jpg"><br />(Compare -- 1408 x 1422 photo) </a></blockquote>

Please post the full unprocessed file.

 

</blockquote>

It is from a raw image, so they are always processed to some degree, as are all film scans. But I will give you two image, the one after upsizing, which is what I posted the crop from and the image before upsizing.

First the one that has not been resized.<div></div>

[swilson]

<p>Now the resized photo</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Lannie, I have read the whole thread as well as a similar thread launched a couple of weeks ago.</p>

<p>My comments were not directed toward Rishi but rather to ALL who post images on such threads and claim that they prove that digital/film is better than whatever. There are so many variables involved - including compression for web display - that such informal online comparisons amount to little more than a raucous parlor game: fun, but not terribly conclusive!</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>Comparing photos at this resolution is like tasting one drop of coffee dissolved in a 55 gallon drum full of water. IT'S LUDICROUS!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan South: Umm... I posted links to the full-size 12MP & 10MP JPEG files... did you not follow those links? What kind of idiot do you take me for if you think I'd expect you to make any sort of comparisons of an 800x600 web-sized JPEG :)<br>

-Rishi</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 19, 2009; 09:10 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Scott Wilson, also print the above at say 360 dpi (11x14 print) and tell me what you think.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hello Mauro,<br>

I have gotten a bit behing in this thread, not hard to do.<br>

I have a number of probems with your sample photos, one of which can be fixed. First off the contrast seems to be set much lower for the DSLR images, could you post a link to the raw image(s)?<br>

 

<p>The other issue is that the test targets are all very high contrast, this is were film works the best. As I have said before if I am photographing to read street signs film does great. I did a test a long time ago with film and digital of my car, in the film image you could read more on the license plate, but when the whole image was viewed the digital still looked a bit sharper. I have seen color 35mm film photos from others that do match what I can do with my DLSR, but not better.<br>

I would be much more interesting in seeing tests photo looking out at your backyard rather then high contrast writing. The idea is a shot that is closer to a landscape photo rather then a test chart.</p>

<p> </p>

</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 19, 2009; 12:08 p.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>OK, I'll make this one easy for ya, folks:<br />Here's a 12MP image file... is it from a 12MP dSLR or a 12MP scan of a 35mm frame of film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's a 12 MP image it probably started out as a 40 MB TIFF file (or the RAW equivalent). In order to display it on the web, it had to be shrunk to about 1/5000th of its original size and resolution. Comparing photos at this resolution is like tasting one drop of coffee dissolved in a 55 gallon drum full of water. IT'S LUDICROUS!!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>1/5000th, really? just how small is your monitor?<br>

Figure at most it started out at 20MP, 20M/5000 = 4000.<br>

So what, your monitor is something like 74 x 54 pixels?<br>

I have a 2.3 MP monitor, can see the whole image at once at the pixel level, but I can see enough at one time to get a good idea of what I am looking at.</p>

<p> </p>

[rishij]

<p>Thanks everyone for the votes & comments on the images!</p>

<p>The voting results:</p>

<ul>

<li>10MP Fairy Falls: <strong>5</strong> said it was <strong>dSLR</strong> | <strong>2</strong> said it was <strong>film</strong> </li>

<li>12MP Mt Hood: <strong>All</strong> voted <strong>film</strong> on this one</li>

</ul>

<p>The reality:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fairy Falls: 35mm Velvia 50|Canon EOS-3|17-40 f/4L @ f/22 scanned @ 8000ppi on Imacon 848</li>

<li>Mt Hood: 35mm Velvia 50|Canon EOS-3|70-200 f/4L IS @ f/16 scanned @ 8000ppi on Imacon 848</li>

</ul>

<p>I think this little exercise was indicative of the fact in a blind study, things are not as clear as when someone performs a test with a pre-established bias attempting to prove that one format is better than the other. For example, if David Littleboy thinks that a 12MP dSLR is comparable to 645, then how one earth did >200% of the people vote the waterfall photo a 10MP dSLR when it was in fact <em>35mm</em> ? Surely a 2MP step up from 10MP to 12MP isn't paramount to going from 35mm to 645! And in fact, if I re-posted that photo to 12MP instead of 10MP, I'm fairly certain I'd get the same voting results, as it doesn't look much different to me whether I resize it to 10MP or 12MP on my screen at 1:1.</p>

<p>What I'm trying to say is: IMHO there's at least <strong>as much</strong> or <strong>more</strong> image detail in these scans than either a 10MP or 12MP dSLR would've captured... even in a low-contrast 'real world' scene. And this is 35mm, which has been trashed on this thread as being entirely inadequate for landscape photography. Tell that to 5D owners. Yes, in comparison to some of Mauro's ridiculous MF scans (wow, look at the resolution & cleanliness at 1:2 viewing of some of his waterfall scans... stunning. Gorgeous!), 35mm certainly loses its glamour in my book. But let's not unduly trash 35mm... in fact, a large part of my entire comparison was to show that those trashing 35mm film were:</p>

<ol>

<li>Being unobjective</li>

<li>Didn't know how to scan film properly. </li>

</ol>

<p>Wait a tick, isn't 2. the <em>premise of this thread</em> ? :)</p>

<p>Certainly the test could've been run better. For example, Dan South comments on the over-sharpening of the Mt. Hood shot... which he's absolutely right about... Scenes like this with both low contrast and bright high contrast detail are difficult to perform auto-masked sharpening (as in Lightroom), because the high contrast regions get sharpened more than the low contrast ones... hence the almost 'tracing-like' effect on the mountain. The image hadn't been processed before and I was simply being quick-n-dirty... sorry... but appreciate the feedback :) By the way, Dan, do you think the foreground (foliage, etc.) is also oversharpened? Scott: right on about selectively reducing noise in the sky... I can't stand grainy skies :)</p>

<p>Additionally, I don't even like Imacon scans as they accentuate dust/imperfections and grain in comparison to my Scanhancer-modified Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. But that's out of commission for now (been modding the light source).</p>

<p>My point is: scans/processing coulda been better, but (one) still got confused as being digital SLR <strong>at 1:1 viewing</strong> . That means that at 100% the 35mm film scan was sharp enough to not be considered 'soft 35mm' as has been touted on this thread quite a bit. Why? Because image was <em>properly scanned</em> .</p>

<p>Hence, the entire premise of Mauro's thread.<br>

-Rishi</p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>There is actually a pretty simple solution to the conundrum of film v digital. Print everything out at 4x6 inches; you get amazing color and sharpness that way. :-) </p>

<p>All of my Tri-X 35mm darkroom work was done at 5x8 inches. I liked the size (I guess because I'm from the Vermeer school of size v the Rembrandt school) and the grain of the Tri-X was appealing without being intrusive. Again this was in the pre T-Max B&W film days and all Tri-X was shot at 200 ASA from my on densitometer testing. I was too poor to afford a nice 4x5 inch field camera at the time and made do with what was available. I have been scanning in these negatives on my Nikon and getting sometimes good results (I need Rishi's tutorial - hint, hint to optimize things). I like the prints that come out of my Epson 2880 and they are differnt from the silver prints but appealing none the less. I wish T-Max was around in those days as it would have led to better printing options. We also had limitations in color film back then with chiefly Kodachrome and Ektachrome (liked the former and disliked the latter). I still have the Nikkormat and still shoot film (need to try the new Fuji slide films). I haven't permanently deserted one camp for the other (though I did need to get a set of silver oxide batter adapters for the camera and light meter as the wonderful mercury batteries are no longer available).</p>

[rishij]

<p>BTW, I'm surprised more folks didn't figure the waterfall image to be film given the dense/black shadows... that's characteristic Velvia when scanned without ridiculous amounts of analog gain :)</p>

<p>Lannie, yup, 70-200mm f/4L IS is prolly my favorite lens of all time. Certainly puts the quality of the 17-40 f/4L to shame; however, that being said, the 17-40's performance everywhere but the corners is quite stellar (compared to non-L lenses).</p>

<p>Look at the mountain shot again at 1:1. Look for individual tree trunks and branches in the 'mid-ground'. There's a lot of detail there. Certainly not anywhere near as clean as how it'd look with MF, but, IMHO, there's detail in tree trunks & branches that prolly woulda been blotched by a 12MP dSLR. That's just a guess. The other half of the guess being that a 5D shot would probably sharpen much better than this film scan without introducing grain/noise... but certainly, I think, this 35mm scan would be on par, if not better (remember, I downsized it quite a bit), than a 5D.</p>

<p>Feel free to argue that point. It's not really objective :P<br>

-Rishi</p>