Landrum Kelly Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 <blockquote> <p>". . . the results from your Coolscan seemed to lack a bit of resolution but I attributed to the specialty glass holders and diffusers they may add to it. I just use the Coolscan 9000 with the built in factory diffuser..." --Mauro Franic</p> </blockquote> <p>Mauro, do you ever use wet mounting on the 9000? What about on the scans you have been showing us?</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 <p>Just use the Nikon Glass Holder/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_smith4 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 <p>"As I already said before, digital does not give fine details or tonality - it cuts it off. If you like that plasticky look then that is your judgement"</p> <p>I remember a few years back on photo.net when DSLRs were becoming popular, threads where slide scans were interspersed with digital shots. I hated the look of bad digital P&S files (clipped highlights, overly saturated colors), but found these shots impossible to tell apart consistently. <br> I find the same to be true looking at magazines including National Geographic, photo magazines like Lenswork, and the online print exchanges I have participated in. I think Rishi's shots above demonstratead that too- run film through a noise reduction program and digitally manipulate it and it doesn't look like film anymore. I miss the dynamic range of color negative film every now and then but raw is pretty good and it's rare when that difference makes or breaks the shot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 <p>Scott, did you have a chance to print your test?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote> <p>I think Rishi's shots above demonstratead that too- run film through a noise reduction program and digitally manipulate it and it doesn't look like film anymore.</p> </blockquote> <p>You mean like this?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 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 21, 2009; 06:36 p.m.</p> <p>Scott, "If I was photographing to capture text I would take the film image, if I was photographing to make a nice looking print I would take the bottom (40D) image."<br />Trees and grass are finer thant text.....</p> <p>Also, please print the file you created at 360dpi (aprox an 11x14) and please tell me your preference... almost there.</p> </blockquote> <p> <p>Ok I did the print at 360 ppi, I have to say mine looks sharper, but it is a cheat in a way as I put my contrast higher. This is for a viewing distance of 12 inches or so, at 6 inches you can start to read more of the text on the film scan. I could boost the contrast on the film and likely have it look just as sharp. So print out the samples and show it to people, without giving them a magnifying glass and ask which looks sharper. Not which can they see more detail but at a normal viewing distance which looks sharper. I will bet most people will be hard pressed to given an answer.</p> <p>When I look closer at the prints I can see the missed text from the digital but I am also seeing grain on the film scan, I would be nice to have the grain from the digital and the detail from the film.</p> <p> <p>As for trees and grass being finer then text, well that is true but there are a few things to keep in mind, aliasing does not mess up how a tree looks nearly as much as it does text. One color of text on a different color background is the hardest thing for digital to handle, with trees and grass the colors at not nearly as differentiated as the test subjects you were photographing. And if I am photographing a landscape then I am going to go after much higher resolution, as do you. I note most of your landscape photos are taken with MF not 35mm, I don’t shoot that many landscapes but when I do I stitch them and then there is no lack of detail and no grain, the best of both worlds.<br> <a href="http://sewcon.com/samples/50mp_image.jpg">http://sewcon.com/samples/50mp_image.jpg</a></p> <p>But many of my photo are more like this<br> <a href="http://sewcon.com/samples/IMG_3709.jpg">http://sewcon.com/samples/IMG_3709.jpg</a><br> In this type of photo a clean photo is more important then the detail captured.<br> Or an action shot like this<br> <a href="http://sewcon.com/samples/IMG_5970.jpg">http://sewcon.com/samples/IMG_5970.jpg</a></p> <p>What makes those photos work IMO is that they are clean, add grain and they would not look as good, at least not to me.</p> <p>Look, I have said this many time already either digital or 35mm film can make great looking 8x12 inch prints. Once you get to 12x18 I think that MF is going to look better then 35mm and stitched digital is going to look better then single frame digital.<br> Ok one more action shot<br> <a href="http://sewcon.com/samples/IMG_5885.jpg">http://sewcon.com/samples/IMG_5885.jpg</a><br> That last photo was taken with a 420 mm lens at f/11, to get the shutter speed fast enough (1/640) it was also shot at iso 400. Setting the lens faster then f/11 and the DOF would have gone real narrow and any slower then 1/640 and motion blur would have made it a different photo, good maybe but not what I was after.</p> </p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p> <p>Two comments on this thread, this has been one of the more productive threads that I have seen lately dealing with film vs. digital, I have seem some very good film scans, and some not so good. I think this kind of thing makes us all look at our images with just a bit more care.</p> <p>The other comment is if anyone finds themselves in Hawaii (Big Island) and wants to spend some time shooting the same subjects and then comparing prints I would be up for that.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maderik Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Lousy raw processing: Mauro, if you spent as much time on your digital processing as you do on your scanning, your results would be closer. On your couch & spices shot, your 40D image is underexposed and has a very different tone curve than your Ektar version. Like Scott, I took the raw file you uploaded and I just ran it through RawTherapee with some quick and dirty adjustments:<br> http://www.pbase.com/maderik/image/110472892/original.jpg<br> The Ektar still dows more detail, particulary in the fine color detail where CFA processing has some issues (red text, DOF markings.) But they are getting much closer than the version you show. With a bit more tweaking, you could close the gap a bit more and de-graining the Ektar may cost you a bit of detail as well.<br> Anyway, since the thesis of this thread is how detail can be lost due to poor scanning, the exact same can be said for processing from RAW. A skilled user can almost always get more than a casual user. The reason that every user comes up with a different answer to this question is that every workflow is different. But if you want your comparisons to be taken seriously, you need to apply similar levels of skill and effort to both workflows.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanjoseph Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Good to see film vs digital threads are still so active.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishij Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Hahaha! Nice job Robert Lee. At first, I really thought those were the 40D shots on the left :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardwest Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote>Lousy raw processing: Mauro, if you spent as much time on your digital processing as you do on your scanning, your results would be closer. On your couch & spices shot, your 40D image is underexposed and has a very different tone curve than your Ektar version.</blockquote><p> OK, let's get a couple of things straight here. I believe the version of the 40D image that Mauro showed is from my conversion I did related to the thread which that comparison first appeared in. I posted that version for the same reason you have, and that is to make a comment about raw processing. If you had of seen his own version of that file, well, you would have had a point. But I'm sorry, your version shows no more detail than mine does. The tone curve has absolutely nothing to do with the level of detail. I posted my version to Mauro's original thread with the following qualifications: 1. Processed for detail, not good looks; 2. Used RawTherapee which I downloaded specifically for the task (i.e. I had never used it before); and 3. I explained that I didn't have a sophisticated sharpening workflow (as I only have PS7) and perhaps someone with Smart Sharpen or PKS might be able to do a better job.<p> So apart from the irrelevant tonal difference, the only difference I can see is too much noise smearing with edge sharpen that makes yours look worse than my conversion (with probably less detail as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardwest Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Rishi.... I downloaded the trial of photoacute and had a quick play with the 5D. Hand held with 4 shots actually led to a softer image with photoacute. Two points to make about that: 1. maybe it works better with tripod shots and less movement in the shot (I shot the bush outside my house, which would have had some small movements due to air movement); and 2. I did a couple of trials, one at iso 1600 and the other at iso 200. The 1600 shots benefited tremendously in terms of noise reduction using the software. The 200 iso didn't. Will do more tests when I get a chance, but at the very least it is an awesome option for noise reduction for hand-held landscapes in low light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Guys the raw file is posted for you to process. I'm not trying to spend hours processing the raw (what is the point?) In my version of the 40D I did nothing but to convert to tiff from DPP. Has nothing to do with not wanting to try all the different raw processing alternatives. That is why I posted the raw to gladly pick the best processing for comparison against 35mm negative film.</p> <p>I still think the best output -considerably- is the one from Bernie. Although in the quest for details it shows a few strange artifacts not present in the original image or in the DPP output. I think (until bettered), it is best to use Bernie's as the mark for the 40D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Scott, I agree a DSLR and stitching may be an option. A 10MP DSLR is not (under my standards) unless you want to stay under 11x14. </p> <p>I never have cold feet shooting a landscape with 35mm if I have it handy but I can't bring myself to use the 40D.</p> <p>Yes, I use 6x7 most of the time, but 35mm is totally a valid option for me as well when I need convenience, especially with B&W where gran shape is more pleasing (to me).</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Scott, I dind't know you were in Hawaii. I will have to make a trip there on the name of science with the selfless intention to contribute the photography world.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=332004">Erik Magnuson</a> , Mar 22, 2009; 12:32 a.m.<br> "Lousy raw processing: Mauro, if you spent as much time on your digital processing as you do on your scanning, your results would be closer. ------------- a bit more and de-graining the Ektar may cost you a bit of detail as well."</p> <p>Eric, youe are wrong. (I wish you weren't). Here is your own raw processing next to Ektar with de-graining. You are experiencing "the erath is not flat" discovery phenomenon with a DSLR, it is a painful but fun Journey.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>On the crops film is obviously the one on the right or bottom.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Still doubts?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Erik, here is the entire crop:<br> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7469988_hodC5#496368760_Jppab-O-LB</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshio Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Mauro</p> <p>I have read this thread a few times (and provided some inputs) but to go back to your initial question I think that the answer is most likely yes (to DSLR being compared to MF film).</p> <p>however I put forward a viewpoint which I would ask you to consider. Compared to HiFi people seem to have given MP3 and WMV a high preference, indeed CD is inferior to half speed mastered 1/4 inch 8inch per second reel to reel tape. Only the few 'affincados' of HiFi bothered with that (and of course the studios). The masses will say that their MP3 (or their compact cassettes) are good enough.</p> <p>and so it is with DSLR's for the masses. I would like to ask you a question: Do you listen to MP3 versions of your CD's? If so perhaps the diminishing returns (effort vs quality gain) of that is sufficient for your music listening (as DSLR's are sufficient for the masses)</p> <p>That many are misinformed is hardly a surprising thing, for instance how often do you read in this forum people answering with "<em>the Coolscan LS 5000 is the best value for money scanner</em> " when the poster asks about scanning 120 film and not 35mm. So many seem not to know there is any other film than 35mm or even that slides are simply a different film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Yoshio, agree. I use a DSLR myself. It is a wonderfult tool both for work and creative. I just don't trick myself into believing that it is something that is not. The choice between film and digital varies for me depending on the task at hand.</p> <p>For studio - work I use a DSLR. </p> <p>35mm (based on my results) is superior for landscape than any DSLR I tested. 6x7 is a different universe.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote> <p>"For those that claim these posts are not bringing anything new, I say these are good to remind or make current previously known information and at least refute misrepresented scanning facts. . . ." --Les Sarile</p> </blockquote> <p>Let them speak for themselves, Les! Some of us didn't know beans before reading threads such as these--and still don't know much, but now we at least know what is possible for those willing to put the time and effort into learning something new. All this is old for you guys but new for many of us. I just wish that I had more to contribute by way of reciprocation, but it will be quite a while before I am anywhere up to speed.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 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 22, 2009; 09:11 a.m.</p> <p>Scott, I agree a DSLR and stitching may be an option. A 10MP DSLR is not (under my standards) unless you want to stay under 11x14.<br> I never have cold feet shooting a landscape with 35mm if I have it handy but I can't bring myself to use the 40D.<br> Yes, I use 6x7 most of the time, but 35mm is totally a valid option for me as well when I need convenience, especially with B&W where gran shape is more pleasing (to me).</p> <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 22, 2009; 11:12 a.m.</p> <p>Yoshio, agree. I use a DSLR myself. It is a wonderfult tool both for work and creative. I just don't trick myself into believing that it is something that is not. The choice between film and digital varies for me depending on the task at hand.<br> For studio - work I use a DSLR.</p> <p>35mm (based on my results) is superior for landscape than any DSLR I tested. 6x7 is a different universe.</p> </blockquote> <p> <p>I am going to put forward a thought experiment, shoot a landscape photo with a 10MP DSLR, 35mm film and 6x7 ,make both 8x12 and 12x18 inch prints from each. I am assuming color film for all of the film shoots, B/W is whole other thing.</p> <p>Assuming good film and good scans I would say the 8x12 would look so close to one another that there would be little to choose from one to another. In fact even if I used a 100MP stitched image for the digital at 8x12 it would be hard to tell the difference.</p> <p>For the 12x18 inch size the 6x7 will be noticeable better then either the 10MP DSLR or the 35mm film camera. The difference in quality between the 6x7 and the 35mm will not just be due to better resolution of the 6x7 but also smoother colors gradations as well.</p> <p>The photo from the 10MP DLRS will be much softer in the 12x18 inch print then the 6x7, but the color gradations will be about the same between them, IMO</p> <p>How large someone is willing to print with what format depends a lot of what bothers them, I like a really sharp and clean image so for me I don’t like to print past 8x12 with either a 10MP digital or 35mm. Some people seem happy to print big with either format. So people capture detail is what matters most and will happily print 12x18 with 35mm film. I don’t think we can call any of these people wrong, just different tastes.</p> <p>One last note, some people have really bad eyes, I have had people looking at 12x18 prints I have made, some with one shot from the 8 MP DSLR and others from stitched images. To my eyes the stitched images are way sharper but many people can’t see the difference.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>One more point about stitching.</p> <p>I often will go out with just a prime lens on my camera, and often not be able to get as wide a shot as I would like due to this. So a few quick shots and I have a nice wide angle view as well as a nice sharp image. The attached photos is nothing more then a snapshot, I took it while waiting for our bus to show up. It is stitched from 5 photos, total time to take the photos was 8 seconds. I had my 28mm lens on and wanted a wider shot but did not want to take the time to pull out a zoom lens. If you check out the signs in the center of the photo you can see that you can see that you can read text that is only a few pixels high.<br> <br />The stitching of this photo takes about 30 seconds, far less time then it was taking me to scan a frame of film.</p> <p>I like this photo for how it reminds me of waiting for a bus on a chilly moring.</p> <p>The point is that for a medium resolution photo like this stitching need not be a hard thing, a few quick hand held photos, dump it into the stitching program, crop the image and you are done.</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=696354">Les Sarile</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/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 22, 2009; 05:12 p.m.</p> <p>With regards to "waiting for the bus" - personally, I would rather loose resolution then have the mountains blend with the sky - blownout. Fortunately you won't need to sacrifice either with film.</p> </blockquote> <p>There is lots of detail in the sky, since I shoot raw I can reconvert and get the highlights back, of course the rest of the photo gets a bit dark, with a bit of work this can be balanced of course, but then I did say this is just a snapshot.</p> <p> </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