Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital

[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 26, 2009; 09:29 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Obviously, the debate is between DSLRs and 35mm properly scanned.<br>

6x7 film properly scanned (the purpose of the thread) is in a different league.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>For some types of photography 6x7 is going to do better then a 5D II, and for some photographers this could well be the majority of what they consider their serious photographs.</p>

<p>

<p>For many uses however the 5D II is going to be the better camera to use, compared to 6x7 film. I do a lot of sports shooting with available light, there is no way to do that with a 6x7 camera. </p>

<p>

<p>For someone who is not going to print larger then 12x18 I think the 5D II is going to be better at constantly producing good looking prints. There are going to be a lot of pros where even the 5DII is over kill. </p>

<p>

<p>On lens that finds its way on my camera a lot is my 28mm f/2.8, this is a good lens for shooting inside with available light, a 6x7 camera with iso 100 film is a non-starter for inside shots that have people in them and shooting with available light.</p>

<p>The way I look at this is there is a huge range of photographs that someone might want to take and a huge range of needs. There is no one best camera, you can't say that a 6x7 camera is better then a 5D II, you can only say that for some types of photos it is.</p>

<p>

<p>You seem to concentrate on resolution only, but this is only one part of what makes a good photograph. Getting the colors right, getting good contrast, getting good low noise detail in the shadows are all some of the reasons I gave up on film, for me it never was about resolution, I could always get more resolution out of film then my digit cameras, but I could more often get the good looking print from digital.</p>

<p>So here is something for you to think about, in looking at your online photo I see the following, your images from the 40D are mostly posted at full size. Your 35mm photo are normally posted at not only less then full size but also less then the 40D. Your 6x7 photos are almost alway posted larger then a full res scan of 35mm film would be. If your 35mm shots were really as good as a 20MP digital I would expect them to be posted at 20MP, but very few are.</p>

</p>

 

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2291009">hary diax</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 26, 2009; 01:39 p.m.</p>

 

<p>This whole discussion is really very interesting. Maybe someone with a good scanner is interested in doing a test to measure the number of pixels a good film / good scan holds.<br>

Take 1 photo with a sharp film Test chart in the middle. Do a very good scan of it.<br /> </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Here is the thing, the world is not a test chart. If all we were photographing was test charts then we could all just use laser printers for our prints, after all my laser printer can print at 1200 ppi. Of course a laser printer makes a very bad print because there is great detail in it but very bad control on tone.<br>

35mm photo are bad a tone, DSLR are good at tone, it is not all about detail. </p>

<p> </p>

[pankaj purohit]

<p>I am posting a <strong>crop of 4800 dpi scan with different softwares</strong>, please have look...</p>

[pankaj purohit]

<p>I am posting a <strong>crop of 4800 dpi scan with different softwares on Canon 8800f flatbed scanner</strong>, please have look...</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, the scans posted on my website are either cropped or resized to manage the upload. Smugmug does not support a full scan of 6x7 and 35mm is borderline. The 40D 10MP files are much smaller.</p>

<p>If you want to see a particular scan fully, let me know which one and I'll upload it on yousendit.</p>

<p>Regarding speed, TMX 400 exposed at 3200 is wonderful. This will be the next post. My medium format like you said is not suitable for sports with available light, not so much because of the film speed but because of the weight and the shutter speed limitation. The RZ is definitely a take-your-time camera.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is a scan from TMAX 400 pushed to 800 at 100% unprocessed:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/5/412869552_SU8dE#479095536_oEbxN-O-LB</p>

<p> </p>

[rishij]

<p>Mauro is that TMAX 800 35mm or MF?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is a scan from Ektar 100 at 100% unprocessed:</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412875932_PajwY-O-LB</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Pankaj, what would you like us to look for in the scans?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Rishi, it is 35mm. (I feel flattered by your question).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Note the beauty of the tonality on the nose or the shape of the specular catch light on the the strands of hair on the TMAX shot. Nice to have 14 stops or more to play with.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Also note these are not just resolution charts.</p>

[rishij]

<p>Yeah, although I really value most of Scott Wilson's input in this thread, and it's obvious he really knows his stuff, I really don't like broad sweeping generalizations like '35mm tonality is bad'... says who?</p>

<p>The tones & gradient in the sky look pretty darn good to me here, in this unprocessed/untouched LS-4000 scan of Velvia 100's rendition of a Seattle sunrise:<br>

<img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/WessMount.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br>

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/WessMount.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p>

<p>Don't you think?</p>

<p>And, Mauro, always obliged to flatter a dude who deserves it :)<br>

-Rishi</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>That is pretty nice. I wish I lived in WA state. Is that medium format?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>How do the LS-4000, 5000 and 9000 compare in general?</p>

[rishij]

<p>Haha, nice one Mauro :P If that were MF, it'd never have that much grain.</p>

<p>That was a just a depth-of-focus test with the Wess mounts, one of the mounts that Steinhoff recommends using if you want to get flat film. Of course, it doesn't hold film flat enough for the LS-4000, as you can see a loss in grain definition in quite large portions of the image. It was my last test with mounts before I said 'screw it' to glass-less scanning.</p>

<p>BTW, unrelated, but, that magenta cast is from a Singh-Ray graduated neutral density filter. SINGH-RAY! Singh-Ray's not supposed to have such casts; only crap brands like Cokin are!</p>

<p>Nevertheless, nothing as refreshing as watching a sunrise upon the mountains 5 minutes from where I live :)<br>

-Rishi</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Can't beat WA for sure/<br>

Have you ever done a scan comparison of the 4000, 5000 and 9000 using the same frame?</p>

[swilson]

<p>Mauro,<br>

Both shots are nice enough clearly niether one is close to using the full 20MP of the scan. It is a bit hard to tell due to the really shallow DOF in the photos.</p>

<p>This is also a lot of texture in the out of focus areas of both photos, I know this does not bother some people so it is a presonal taste kind of thing, but I want to out of focus areas to be free of texture. More simply put any textrure in the photo should come from the subject photographed not the film, at least for me.<br>

<br />I found another one here<br>

<a href="http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412882634_PtEoi-O-LB">http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412882634_PtEoi-O-LB</a><br>

 

<p>This does not look like a focus problem as much as a camera shake problem. A tricky shot for film, the subject is in the shadows and you really can afford to get a negative that is thin where the main subject is, so the only thing to do is a slow shutter speed.</p>

<p>With digital you would have, I hope, put the iso out to 400-800 and avoided the motion blur.</p>

<p><br />This seems to be one of the sharper 35mm images, I am looking at the texture in the shirt. But this photo does not really start to look sharp until it is sized to about 50%. And in fact you can size it down to 50% and back up with no loss in detail.<br>

<a href="http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412862615_fraZq-O-LB">http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412862615_fraZq-O-LB</a><br>

 

<p>What I see is you have three tools that you can use when photographing, you have the 40D, a 35mm film camera, a 6x7 film camera. You might have some others as well but no matter. The 6x7 is the tool of chooice if you are going to take landscape photos, I would guess that most of the time you use a tripod with it. The 40D is a walking around camera and is not mounted on the tripod much. The 35mm, when it is used, is used in much the same way that the 40D is, mostly hand held. I could be wrong on this but from your photos that is my best guess. I am also going to guess that you mostly shoot with either the 6x7 or the 40D, and that the 35mm comes out from time to time to test a new film or to just have fun with it from time to time.</p>

 

<br>

 

<p>Your use model for 35mm film seems to be what most peoples is, a convenient camera to carry around and take hand held shots with. Given that plus the lower contrast subjects and I have to question if you are getting anything out of your 35mm that you would not get out of your 40D. </p>

<p>Of course I could be all wrong on how you use 35mm, in which case feel free to tell me so.</p>

</p>

 

<p>

<p> </p>

</p>

</p>

<p> </p>

[rob_ruttan]

<p>There are too many posts to read, so I hope I'm not a) repeating or b) tossing in a complete non-sequitr, but I've been happy with the results I've had scanning 6x6 b&w negs on my Epson V500, and much less happy with 35mm. negs...colour negs. have proven to be a different story. I have my colour stuff scanned at a local chain place and the woman who is the co-owner takes care to do a good job; I get these lovely scans from a drum scanner that result in perfectly good prints. What I've been meaning to ask is why they come to me on CD at a resolution of 72, and a size of about 28 x 28. Almost all the B&W currently on my site is scanned on the Epson; almost all the colour is scanned at Japan Camera.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>"Both shots are nice enough clearly neither one is close to using the full 20MP of the scan. It is a bit hard to tell due to the really shallow DOF in the photos." ___ Not sure I understand, they are both full 20MP, look at the hair - I usually focus on the close eye.</p>

<p>"This is also a lot of texture in the out of focus areas of both photos, I know this does not bother some people so it is a presonal taste kind of thing". ___Print it and you'll see no grain. I'm actually frustrated with the new TMAX 400 bcs I cannot get the grain to show on a print. I just shot two rolls at 3200. Next week I will try 25600.</p>

<p>The link you added has both camera shake and front focus. I had the IS off on the 70-200 at f4 (as I generally do).</p>

<p>Regarding the camera use, the 40D is mainly used in studio - tethered for convenience but not for something I expect to hang on the wall. The 35mm is the walk around - one lives in my car. The 6x7 is definitely my choice in most situations.......... other than when I need convenience in the studio without the chance of making enlargements [40D] or for walk around [35mm film].</p>

<p>Also as you said, the 35mm cameras are for film testing (in addition to regular purpose).</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>Rishi, and anyone else, let's talk about tonality some. To me tonality is the ability to discern two tones that are close to one another. In a digital image, either from a digital camera or a scan, there are two main things that can limit this ability, one is banding, where the tone jumps from one level to the next, we see this in jpg images that are save with too much compression. The other thing that will limit tonality is noise in the image. Since sky tend change very smoothly from one area to another any small area of the sky should have close same color and brightness as a small section right next to it. Your image has a huge amount of noise in the sky that would keep this from happening.</p>

<p>A great way to test for how good the tonality of a camera/film is, is to photograph a Kodak Gray Scale target and then do a histogram across it. The better the tonality the narrower the peaks in the histogram will be. Now to be fair in this test, when comparing to imaging system the photos should be scale to the same number of pixels.</p>

<p>So take a concrete example, photograph the gray scale using the same film but in one case a 4x5 camera and in the other case a 35mm camera. Scan both pieces of film on the same scanner, say a drum scanner, and scan both at 4000 ppi. At his point the noise at the pixel level should be the same between them, but now down size the 4x5 to match the size of the 35mm shot. You would reduce the 4x5 image by a factor of around 3.5 to do this. Now the 4x5 image is averaging about 12 pixels from the original to get to the new image. The noise at the pixels level is going to be way less now.<br>

<br />This is why LF images always have better tonality then 35mm, when using the same film. It all comes down to noise. More film = less noise. Less noise= better tonality.</p>

</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Mauro, I see that the specs given on DPREVIEW.COM for the images from the Nikon D3X are 6048 x 4032 for a total of about 24.5 MP . For the Canon 5D II the specs are 5616 x 3744 for a total of about 21 MP.<br /> </p>

<p>Above I have heard you or someone else say that the actual megapixels delivered by digital cameras are substantially less than such official numbers. On what basis do you say that? I don't understand.</p>

<p>--Lannie<br /> </p>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Ok, Scott, lets talk about tonality.<br /> I dont like the tonality of yellow color on you mega-super 200MP shot.<br /> The color of construction machines is usually pure yellow or yellow-orange.<br /> Color of your Komatsu is not pure yellow, it is closer to "Traditional chartreuse": <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartreuse_yellow<br /> Shot on Kodak film, even in a green forest, Komatsu machine is still yellow-orange.<br /> /> <br /> Correcting it to pure yellow is very difficult without badly affecting the rest of a picture.<br /> Why?</p><div></div>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Crop of Komatsu</p><div></div>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Landrum Kelly wrote:<br /> "Above I have heard you or someone else say that the actual megapixels delivered by digital cameras are substantially less than such official numbers. On what basis do you say that? I don't understand."<br /> Because in electronic digital sensor system the signal from one row/column DEPENDS upon the signal from another row/column. There is not one but several reasons for that: switching noise in each row/column channel, cross-row noise, sample-and-hold errors, memory of sample-and-hold device etc.<br>

Instead, "pixels" in film almost totally independent from distant ones.</p>