Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital

[mauro_franic]

<p>David,</p>

<p>35mm prints excellent at 16x20 on BW negative, color negative and slide.</p>

<p>Not sure why you can't obtain good results even at 12x18. Can you share your workflow?</p>

[swilson]

<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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 18, 2009; 02:48 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Jeff,<br>

you have good points, also due to advertising people have switched from film to Digital, not now (when the 5DII can give results comparable in resolution to 35mm film) but several years ago where digital cameras didn't come near the quality of film.<br>

Those who did not give up landscapes with 35 film (an obviously MF) are left today with a library of much higher quality images than possible with 2MP, 3MP, 6MP, 8MP 10MP, etc cameras.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>Those who tried to shoot landscapes with 35mm were lost for the beginning, I know I was one of them. I have looked at your gallery and you have some very nice landscape photos taken with film, but they were taken with MF not 35mm. But I got to tell you this is one of your better shots.<br>

<a href="http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#279008132_rwc3m">http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#279008132_rwc3m</a><br>

Oddly I thougth it was MF untill I looked at the info for it, I don't think you could have gotten that shot with 35mm color film. Can you show me a landscape photo you have taken with 35mm film that is as good at the one above?</p>

<p>

<p>I may have missed it but I could not find any landscape photos in your gallery taken with 35mm film. In fact it took me a while to find any photo of yours taken with 35mm film, at last I found this.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

</p>

<p><a href="http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412868710_aY9jo-O-LB">http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412868710_aY9jo-O-LB</a><br>

 

<p>A nice photo but very soft, it would not come close to a 5D mark 1</p>

<p>Or there is this one</p>

 

 

</p>

<p><a href="http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh">http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412836438_dfYZh-O-LB</a>

<p>again very soft.</p>

<p>So what I see from you is this, MF very good quality, DSLR (40D) good quality but not matching the MF photos, and then 35mm not so sharp.</p>

<p>My point is this, in a controlled setup, with a carefully chosen test target, you might be able to get a good sharp looking scan from 35mm, but in the real world photos things breakdown with the 35mm film camera.</p>

</p>

<p> </p>

</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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 18, 2009; 04:09 p.m.</p>

 

<p>David,<br>

35mm prints excellent at 16x20 on BW negative, color negative and slide.<br>

Not sure why you can't obtain good results even at 12x18. Can you share your workflow?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Can you show me one landscape photo of your taken with color 35mm that you feel would make an excellent 16x20 inch print?<br>

 

<p>In a quick look at your gallery I did not see any, but I might have missed something.</p>

<p>But very nice MF photos BTW</p>

</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I was looking at some of Les Sarile's photos, he and I have a vastly different criteria for what would print well at 20x30. This image for example I would not print past 8x12</p>

<strong>

<p>http://tinyurl.com/c7nyhu</p>

</strong>

<p>Or this one</p>

 

 

 

 

<a href="http://www.fototime.com/%7BD8A7DCAC-052D-4029-AA38-C693854199B6%7D/picture.JPG">http://www.fototime.com/%7BD8A7DCAC-052D-4029-AA38-C693854199B6%7D/picture.JPG</a>

<p>Again the point is that when shooting outside in real conditions you guys don’t seem to be getting the resolution from 35mm that you claim you are.</p>

<p> </p>

</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here, try this (I just took it using TMAX 400 35mm):<br>

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479056402_r5kS4-O-LB</p>

<p>Let me know what you think of the print.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>This is from Ektar 35mm:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412832226_BhGTs-O-LB</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>This is from TMX 100 35mm:<br>

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#422413447_UDaff-O-LB</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>This is TMX 100 35mm developed at 200:<br>

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#427899016_Rwdz3-O-LB</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>FYI, I printed the TMX 400 at 24"x36" and it looks great.</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry for the dup posting, see the one below</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </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/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 18, 2009; 04:48 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Here, try this (I just took it using TMAX 400 35mm):<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479056402_r5kS4-O-LB" target="_blank">http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479056402_r5kS4-O-LB</a><br>

Let me know what you think of the print.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I sized it to 300ppi, which would be a print of about 12x18 inchs then cropped a 4x6 inch print from the center. At 300ppi it is way soft.</p>

<p>You have much sharper images from your 40D then that, here I up-sized one of your 40D photos by 140% to match the size of the 35mm scan and put them side by side, to my eye it is clear which one looks sharper.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[swilson]

<p>BTW I printed the compared photo I posted above at 300ppi, which would be 12x18 for both the 35mm fim and the 40D photo. Whereas I think 12x18 is pushing it for either image the 40d image looks far sharper.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>I've been shooting MF since the 60s, and I've never seen an 11x14 print from 35mm that met my stadards for that size. And at 12x18 (my current standard print size (before borders)) 35mm is even further off. I'm reminded of the digital crazies who insist that their 6MP images printed at 16x20 are "tack sharp". A print that would have looked noticeably better taken on the next format size up, isn't a print I'm interested in making.</p>

<p>So I don't "get" 35mm. MF looks way better at the sizes I'm printing. And 12MP and 21MP FF dSLRs look very similar to 645 and 6x7, respectively. 35m simply isn't in either of those ballparks.</p>

 

[jeff_z.]

<p>

 

<p>Scott, I don't believe you regarding 35mm not being suitable for landscape. I believe there is definitely a limitation on it as far as quality deteriorating after a certain enlargement size, but as far as tonalities, sharpness, and whatever other criteria is appropriate for judging print quality, my results are excellent <i>up</i><i> to a certain enlargement size</i>. I have the Nikon LS40, not the latest generation of scanners. That said, for an uncropped 35mm image which was made using quality lenses, on a tripod, etc., I can make images up to approximately 14 to 15 inches on the long end that are of high quality. I'm not a fan of large prints, in fact, my favorite size is 6" by 9", but when time and energy has allowed, the larger prints have been good enough that I've sold a few in a local gallery that is in a very arts oriented area. Several were eagerly accepted very recently to a new area gallery, also. All are "landscapes".</p>

<p>I've seen, and fully appreciate what larger formats can produce, including an exhibit of actual Ansel Adams prints. (Interestingly, many of his prints, even though made with a large format camera, were not very big at all.) I do appreciate what the difference is, but with proper technique, equipment, and the new generation of Kodak films, and with no desire to exceed the moderate sizes mentioned, 35mm is darned good. </p>

<p>I'd also viewed several outstanding Susan Bank framed prints recently. They are from a project she'd done in rural Cuba with 35mm. Although probably not technically "landscape", they were the largest prints I've recently viewed made from 35mm. They were substantially larger than my largest, at about 12" by 18". Of course nothing can be determined with these web images, but in person they were amazingly high quality, even at that relatively large size for 35 (imho).<br>

Susanbank.com</p>

<br />

 

</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The d2X did well considering it was enlarged way beyond its native resolution. I was suprised looking at the print how well it did. The d2x would not be my choice for photographing maps though. If I was a 6x7 shooter with a good scanner and regulary producing 24 inch wide prints and happy with the results I doubt I would be rushing out to buy a D2x on the other hand if I owned a D2x I would likely be very happy with it and probably not likely to splash out on medium format scanner.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Here's the correct link: http://www.susansbank.com/Portfolio.cfm?nK=7482</p>

<p>Mauro, Just wanted to say that you make some great images! They are really good to see. Jeff</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott,<br>

"BTW I printed the compared photo I posted above at 300ppi, which would be 12x18 for both the 35mm fim and the 40D photo. Whereas I think 12x18 is pushing it for either image the 40d image looks far sharper."</p>

<p>You must be doing some thing wrong. What size did you print the 35mm scans at and what size did you print the 40D shots at? This should be 240dpi for 35mm film, but only 160 dpi for the 40D (for 16x20).</p>

<p>Try printing both at 16x20 (Sharpen to your taste before you print - Soft is relative to you printer-size-paper and you need to do that to your liking before you print. I can't sharpen for you without knowing your printer and paper selection). <br>

Let me know your results again. Maybe use the Ektar shot next to a color shot of the 40D.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Stuart, now that you have run the prints, do you agree a 24" tall print from 6x7 is dream sharp and just an 18" print from the DSLR has VISIBLE compromises? <br>

I actually want to know if you agree with the statement above base on your own experiment (Yes/No). Now that you tried it, you can speak to it and share your experience.</p>

<p>I know you said it did well condidering.... but the fact is that the results are (to me) vastly superior VISIBLY on just 18". (Never mid 11 feet).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>David, you have been taken photographs from the 60s and never got a decent 11x14 print from 35mm. </p>

<p>No ofense here,</p>

<p>1) just print the side by side (40D - Ektar) above and let me know whther you think a 10MP DSLR is at the level of 35mm film.<br>

2) pick any of my scans from 35mm above, sharpen to taste and print at 11x14. Let me know if I can chane your 40 years of bad luck.<br>

3) If you think a 12MP DSLR can give you an output similar to medium format 645, I really can't help you. Mind sharing your equipment and workflow?</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Jeff, thank you for the compliments. The images on my website are just for sharing. I have my best ones sold and on the wall but not posted.</p>

[photo_smith]

<p>Here is a link to a good landscape from 35mm, should easily print to 20x16 at 240 dpi. Look at the two guys on the jetty LHS<br>

(warning large file)<br>

http://www.retrophotographic.com/image1_100.htm<br>

You'll need to download it into photoshop and look about. But anyone who says 11x14 is the limit for 35mm is not using to right technique, film, lenses.</p>

 

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>The idea that 35mm is as good as 645 for 12x18 is, well, nuts. If you can't see the difference, then, well, you need better glasses. And I never said anything about 10MP dSLRs. They're just a tad underpowered for 12x18, so there's really no point here: 6MP for snapshots, 12MP or 645 for minimal quality work, 6x7 or 21MP for overkill for 12x18 prints. My workflow is Mamiya 645Pro (or 5D) or Mamiya 7 (or 5DII) -> Nikon 8000 -> Epson 2400. I don't see significant differences between my scans, what my loupes and microscope show, and the sample scans on the net; we're all in the same ballpark, and that's that film is incredibly wonderful at 7x and losing it at 12x. If you can't see the difference between a 7x enlargement and a 12x enlargement, then we're in alternate universes.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Mauro there is not a doubt the 6x7 is better. There has never really been any doubt about that. Unfortunatly it just not something my dreams are made of. Looking at the print while I type this I can really say the 6x7 film image is better, having spent 6 years making wide format prints for a living I printed thousands of large prints from both good and bad files, filmscans and digital. What I can't say is that the differences are night and day and that everyone shooting a D2x should stop and start shooting medium format thats really down to each individual to decide for themselves based on their own images using their camera as they would normaly use them.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<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>

<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. Les Sarile's shot probably runs (as displayed) at close to 19 megapixels, better than my Canon 1Ds II (though not really noticeably better in terms of resolution, but very, very sweet in terms of overall quality).</p>

<p>More to the point, 645 and 6x7 are going to give you much, much better than 12MP and 21 MP DSLRs, respectively.</p>

<p>If what you are saying were correct, we would be getting files from the Canon 5D II that matched 6 x 7 files (properly scanned), and that is not going to happen--UNLESS YOU GET A BAD SCAN, or a bad shot to begin with.</p>

<p>I think that that was Mauro's point in starting this thread: <strong><em>bad scans give comparisons that make DSLRs appear to be vastly superior to film.</em> </strong> Is film more trouble? Heck, yeah. Are the results worth the trouble? Each person has to decide that for himself or herself.</p>

<p>I don't mean to sound combative, but DIGITAL AT 24mm x 36mm IS NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO MEDIUM FORMAT YET. At 35mm? I would say so, and with 24+ MP sensors, almost certainly so, usually better, I would say.</p>

<p>Again, though, there are a lot of variables, from shooting technique to film resolution.</p>

<p><strong>Mauro reminds us of that other variable: skill at scanning.</strong></p>

<p>One last point: Les Sarile's shot was not made in a studio. And by the way, it is possible to blow a shot made with a DSLR, too, getting a soft shot made outside the studio!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I meant to say, let's go back to the first images on this thread and ask, "What happened to those blue rivers?" They're just not there on the D2X, as more than one of us has previously noted.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>