mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Lex, that is a fantastic picture.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Scott, email me your address and I will send you a sample of 3 foot prints out of TMAX 400 35mm. You make your jusdgement.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>David, every person chooses their gear and lives with the results.</p> <p>If you think you are getting comparable quality out of a 5DII as 6x7, I won't try to convince you otherwise. </p> <p>My results with film (35mm) are superior to any DSLR I tested, but I understand technique and my blessed equipment may be the difference. At 6x7 gee, a low end flatbed, with the worst scan possible, laying on the glass withouth adjustments outresolves the 5D. But honest good luck with your choice of gear and conclusions.</p> <p>I'll shoot my landscapes with Velvia 6x7, you pick a DSLR, and we are both happy...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Scott, I had a Dimage II and although a tad better than an Epson flatbed, it wasn't by much. That is the point of this thread. Bad scans, bad results. I know you said the scan wasn't good - That is the message I wanted to pass. I think we agree.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Rishi, the scans look good. </p> <p>On print it should be very nice to hang on the wall.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Arguments about the 5DII's being comparable to medium format remind me of the claims for the 3MP D30 (effective resolution 1.8MP) bettering a Provia slide scanned with an Imacon (effective resolution 20+MP).</p> <p>Good luck to the ones who decide to believe that. And good luck 10 years from now when you say Darn it! I could have taken that shot with Velvia.</p> <p>Arguments about the 5DII not being comparable but good enough, well, that is a personal decision - but not wrong.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_harris Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 20, 2009; 08:57 a.m.<br> Lex, that is a fantastic picture.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mauro, thanks, I rather like it too. I just wish I'd shot more K25 back then, I realise now how good it was.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Lex, do you mind if at print it at 3 feet (with your watermark on it) for my reference of prints?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_harris Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <blockquote> <blockquote></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 20, 2009; 09:25 a.m.</p> <p>Lex, do you mind if at print it at 3 feet (with your watermark on it) for my reference of prints?</p> <p > </p> </blockquote> <p>No, not at all, please feel free.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Thank you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>I adjusted for print and let it rip. Glorious.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Scott, you picked an area out of focus from Lex's image. This is how your DSLR "Today" compares to film shot from "26 years ago" upsampled to match.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>There was jpeg artifacting on the film scan, not to be confused with the lack in detail shown by the DSLR.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_harris Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=940372">Scott Wilson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 20, 2009; 08:16 a.m.</p> <p>Lex Harris,</p> <p>You are not trying to say that you think your scan is even to be as sharp at the pixel level as a DSLR are you? You put up your image where I was asking for a 5400 ppi scan that was as sharp at the pixels level as my DSLR. So ok your scan is a 6400ppi, but it is a world away from being sharp at the pixels level, kind of bigfoot photo blurry, I have attached a comparison to a 100% crop from by DSLR.</p> </blockquote> <p>Scott Wilson, unless you have a 40MP DSLR it's rather a pointless challenge. Yes the scan I posted was ~50MP in size, but if you wish to compare it to a single DSLR image you need to downsize to the same size as your DSLR before comparing. It appears you are comparing a 100% crop from a 50MP scan to a 100% crop from a (presumably) ~20MP DSLR. You have also selected a blurred part of the image, the figure is obviously moving and this is 25ASA film. The main part of the image, the morainal cliffs, are clearly more sharply rendered. And I stated quite clearly that this is a raw scan - no sharpening or post processing of any kind has yet been applied.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_harris Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 20, 2009; 11:01 a.m.</p> There was jpeg artifacting on the film scan, not to be confused with the lack in detail shown by the DSLR. </blockquote> Mauro, would you like a crop of the original TIFF to compare? I'm not surprised there was jpeg artefacting, I used level "8" in PS to keep file size down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Yes please, can you email me the same crop at franicma@yahoo.com?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_goldhammer Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>One thing that I have not seen posted here is the cost factor. with a DSLR, take the image and do all my own post-processing and printing. For film, there is the cost of the film and the processing and then the scan. Now I do have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 but as I read through this thread I need to step up to a scanner that would give better resolution to get everything there is out the film transparency. As far as I can tell Imacons are pretty darn exepensive so one is faced with sending the transparency out for scanning. Maybe Rishi and Mauro have ready access to such equipment; I don't.</p> <p>My question is what is the cost and effort to obtain a good scan? I can quantify my time from DSLR image shot to final print (I'm not interested in computer images but rather something that I can hang).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_harris Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <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 20, 2009; 11:25 a.m.<br> Yes please, can you email me the same crop at <a href="mailto:franicma@yahoo.com">franicma@yahoo.com</a>?</p> </blockquote> Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Lex, that is one awesome picture. I hope that the scans I get from the Nikon 9000 come somewhere close. Once cleaned up, I would send the picture to the printer and let the printer program downsample it. </p> <p>I wonder how large yours would print with good results.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Here is the same crop adjusted from the TIFF:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_harris Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4785188">Alan Goldhammer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 20, 2009; 11:32 a.m.</p> <p>One thing that I have not seen posted here is the cost factor. with a DSLR, take the image and do all my own post-processing and printing. For film, there is the cost of the film and the processing and then the scan. Now I do have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 but as I read through this thread I need to step up to a scanner that would give better resolution to get everything there is out the film transparency. As far as I can tell Imacons are pretty darn exepensive so one is faced with sending the transparency out for scanning. Maybe Rishi and Mauro have ready access to such equipment; I don't.<br> My question is what is the cost and effort to obtain a good scan? I can quantify my time from DSLR image shot to final print (I'm not interested in computer images but rather something that I can hang).</p> </blockquote> <p>Alan, that's a good point and if I was starting out from scratch the start-up and/or ongoing costs would certainly be a consideration. My situation is that I have a large 35mm film archive, mostly Kodachrome, going back 30-40 years. To make the images more accessible and useable I began to scan them with a Nikon 5000ED but soon discovered it was not up to the task (this is the subject of another previous thread) and bought an Imacon. With a large number of images to scan it was more cost effective for me to buy the scanner than to out-source. Now having the scanner, the cost of scanning is eliminated from the film vs digital equation and I've continued with film, mostly MF these days. My feeling is still, as Mauro and others have clearly shown, that affordable film cameras can capture better quality data than affordable current generation digital SLR systems. Work flow is not an issue for me, I don't make money from photography, I don't mind the extra cost and time involved, and I enjoy the film process. But I guess it's not for everybody. It gets even more complicated in that getting a good scan is not an easy thing to achieve. There is a big learning curve involved. So apart from the purchase cost of a good scanner you need to consider the time and effort to learn the art. Out-sourcing is not always the easy answer either, there are many stories of bad results from so-called pro-labs so there is the challenge of finding someone who can be relied upon to deliver the goods. Despite all these "negatives", I'm a happy film user and I feel the cost and effort is justified by the quality of the results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Man, I go away for just a bit and now am way behind in reading this thread<br> Lex, I compared our two images pixel for pixel because you poster your image right below quoting me here</p> <blockquote> <p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=940372"><strong>Scott Wilson</strong></a><strong> </strong><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a><strong>, Mar 19, 2009; 06:16 p.m.</strong></p> <p>Let's see, a frame of 35mm being the same as having a 40 MP camera? So you should be able to show some 5400 ppi scans that are as sharp as the pixels level as my DSLR?</p> </blockquote> <p> <p>I took if from this quote that you were taking on the challenge of providing sharp pixels at 6400ppi. It appears now that you did not understand what I was asking for. No I don't think a film scan at 5400 (or 6400) ppi needs to be as sharp at the pixels level as a dslr for it to be a good scan. But I do think it needs to be that sharp if you are going to call a pocket film camera the same as having a 40MP digital, which is what I was responding to.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 20, 2009; 09:09 a.m.</p> <p>Scott, I had a Dimage II and although a tad better than an Epson flatbed, it wasn't by much. That is the point of this thread. Bad scans, bad results. I know you said the scan wasn't good - That is the message I wanted to pass. I think we agree.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know about the Dimage II, but the Dimage III was far better then any flatbed that I worked with. I did have some test Velvia slide scanned both with my Dimage III and a Nikon Coolscan V ED. The Nikon got more detail off of the slide, but by the time I made a print large enough to tell the differance the grain was bothering me.</p> <p>I have attached a scan from it that is from a sharper slide, note you can almost make out the shape of the stars on the flag and some of the weeds in the forground are nice and thin. Sure a higher res scanner could have gotten more pixels and even some more detail but in either case I would not print that larger then 8x12.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>Shoot missed the attachment, here it is</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <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 20, 2009; 09:15 a.m.</p> <p>Arguments about the 5DII's being comparable to medium format remind me of the claims for the 3MP D30 (effective resolution 1.8MP) bettering a Provia slide scanned with an Imacon (effective resolution 20+MP).<br> Good luck to the ones who decide to believe that. And good luck 10 years from now when you say Darn it! I could have taken that shot with Velvia.<br> Arguments about the 5DII not being comparable but good enough, well, that is a personal decision - but not wrong.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know of many people who claimed a D30 matched Provia, I do know of one. The D30 was not even all that sharp at the pixel level given how few pixels it had.<br> I don't know of anyone claiming that 5DII is as good as 6x7, but some who feel it is good enough not to shoot 6x6 anymore. But for everyone there is a decision on what is good enough, some decide that 35mm is good enough, some 645, some 4x5 and some 8x10. Sometime 8MP is good enough for me, sometime 20MP, often I wand 54Mp, sometime 200 feels about right and then a few time I feel the need to go a bit over 1000MP. I all depends on what you are going to do with the photo.</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