(When) Will 35mm DSLR Exceed MF Film Image Quality?

[mauro_franic]

<p>Colin,</p>

<p>It is a fact that a lot of information can be lost in a bad scan and also in the print. These also combine to make people believe that their DSLR capture similar information than their 6x7 negatives.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Also, Daniel I observed even the Howtek scan looks very losy to me. This is my own scan at my humble Coolscan 9000 from not even Velvia but just color negative that Les Sarile provided for me to scan. I upsized your 7D example using Bicubic alg in CS4 to match the size of the scan.</p>

<p>As you can see, the scan step is where most people leave the information behind.</p>

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

[mauro_franic]

<p>Those differences will certainly be material on a 30x40 print. Using a full frame 20MP+ DSLR will be an improvement but not in the order of magnitude needed to catch up.</p>

<p>Velvia or TMX B&W film are also vastly superior than Kodak UC.</p>

[swilson]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>I could be wrong but it looked like Daniel had already upsampled the output from the 7D in his examples.</p>

<p>At this point some clearity as to what we are looking at would help a lot, such as what size MF was Daniel's shots, as well as what size film was used for your scan. I don't think it is safe to assume the same FOV in both shots. It would also be nice to know how much if any Daniel scaled up his samples and what his scan resolutin was.</p>

<p>I for one am getting lost as to just what we are looking at with both the 7D shots as well as the film scans.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>A lot of this has to do with the kind of photgraphy one does. I have prints on my walls that are 60" wide from a 35mm digital system. These prints make a single image from any medium format system look sad. They even beat large format film. That is because they are composites. It takes me less time with my 35mm slr to make many of my composites than the same photographer making a single medium format or large format image.<br>

So if you are making images of things that are not moving, 35mm dslr images can now easily beat any form of SINGLE image made from film.<br>

If you are making images that require a great deal of DOF, 35mm systems are also superior to medium format.</p>

<p>So it comes down to how you use your camera, and what you shoot. A wonderful development in photography for me is to have the ease of use of a 35mm system with almost any kind of image quality I want. True, MF digital blows away 35mm digital on many levels, but it's heavy, big, slow, no high ISO, silly expensive and has low DOF. So for me, it's 35mm digital for now.</p>

<p>In the end though, I have to agree with Matt's first sentiment. If you can't blow people away in a 30x40 with a D3x and good technique, then quality is not your problem.</p>

<p> </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Mauro - <em>Daniel, that is what I thought. If this is color interpolation where the 7D (or raw processor) guessed wrong, it is safe to conclude that, at least in color resolution, 35mm Velvia still outresolves the lates (crop) DSLR.</em></p>

<p>If there was no evidence of a converter issue with regard to the rivers I would agree that Velvia had the edge on high contrast color detail. But knowing that a 40D can resolve the rivers indicates a converter setting or issue. (I was using a beta version of ACR.) When I have the time I will re-convert using different settings and converters and see where the issue lies, but given the 40D sample I cannot conclude that this is actually a resolution issue as opposed to a software issue. I think the 35mm vs. DSLR debate in terms of technical merit is done, and I'm comfortable saying that the 7D out performed 35mm Velvia in all respects, and matched the well regarded but now discontinued 35mm Tech Pan.</p>

<p>As for MF, a lot of the difference between your Kodak UC sample and the Velvia sample comes down to levels and chosen sharpening. That level of brightness and contrast in a normal print would come off as cartoonish. Though it still appears that the CoolScan recovered more B&W detail. Velvia on the Howtek did better on the contours. That's interesting because I would expect the Howtek to out perform the CoolScan in all respects, but apparently not. The CoolScan 9000 is really quite the scanner.</p>

<p>The view you presented looks like the equivalent of a (roughly) 120 inch print. Scaled to a 40 inch equivalent magnification there's not nearly as much apparent difference between the two, especially if the 7D sample is given similar sharpness, brightness, and contrast settings. You would notice the difference in print, but it wouldn't stand out like it does in the above magnification. I consider the 7D to be an excellent 16x24 - 20x30 camera, depending on subject matter. If I needed a 40" print of certain subject matter (i.e. landscape) I would most likely stitch frames.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>All testers shoot the map covering the frame. For easy comparison, a long as the same area of the map is the same size on the screen the resampling is right.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>I agree DSLRs today can make very good large prints. Unless someone hangs them on a wall next to a MF film based print side-by-side, they look good up to 16x20 or even higher for some people.</p>

<p>I have always been happy with the CS9000. It is not the best out there but it is, by far, the best for the money.</p>

<p>I love DSLRs and they do a good job even on large prints. I am able to tell the difference (both in technical and subjective qualities) when compared to film and as a result I prefer film. But some people prefer digital and some can't tell the difference. </p>

<p>Most of what I do sell or present on my walls is from B&W 6x7 though. With film I can always count on what I envision to be ready-made out of tank. With digital I just can't achieve that. It may be a personal preference.</p>

<p> </p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>I really don't want a 30x40 of any picture on my wall; Maybe a painting but not a picture. I actually prefer small pictures in 8x10 frames, and the composition and subject matter of the picture is much more important to me then the sharpness or lack of grain. Put me down for who cares about clinical photography. I'm into the art of it.</p>

[ed_armstrong1]

<p>I shoot digital for most of my shots of structures (bridges)...and find the resolution and convenience of computer storage and sharing just right for my purpose. However I do have a Mamiya C330 and still shoot some of the bridge details with Ilford HP5+...and do the processing in house. And I must say the detail on a 6 X 6 negative is hard to beat.<br>

I have a question for Brad Cloven...I also own an Agfa Billy Record (it doesn't say II on it) and obtained it in 1946 in Frankfurt Germany. Recently I tried to load 120 film in it but the plastic film spools fit too tight in the camera and won't pull through...have you had this problem? The film I used in 1946 I obtained at the Army PX and the spools were metal and probably thinner than today's plastic...Ed Armstrong</p>

[philippartridge]

<p>Agree it is timely to revisit. I am fortunate enough to have a Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens, and a Sony A900 with a diverse set of alt lenses. I never enjoyed the linear, clinical faded colour of digital compared to a well-worked Astia 100F file, until the Sony sensor (D3X also uses it) arrived - it is a game changer and I hope the Nikon crew get a D800 (or whatever) with it soon.<br>

In terms of resolution I have no complaints about either. If large prints is the intention, both technologies are aided and abetted by the progress in printing and colour management, papers, processes, etc. A print is also kind to images in a way that high def screens are cruel. <br>

The main other point I want to get across is that the attraction to, and preference for MF film is the stylistic look and specific aesthetic that large film so effortlessly delivers; after a century of development it is one hell of a refined imaging system. The Sony is attracting a lot of pros and/or Leica users - not surprising, because of its film-like, decidely un-digital colour rendition. Separation of the kind you see in MFDBs but with less Mps. Not a particularly high pixel density either.<br>

I still feel the 6x7 images are very special, unimpeachable really. But for nature and travel work the Sony has giant advantages - DR, especially highlight roll-off, that just goes on and on (at low ISO) and very clean greyscale tones at and near each end of the tonal scale, even with high levels of chromaticity. These benefits really add to image authenticity, which combined with photographic appeal is the goal for me.</p>

[raymond_firmani]

<p>Digtal images appear to be flat and lack image depth. They resemble an image cut out from a magazine. To see this difference between a film made print and a digital image, scan an 8 x 10 inch photo made with film and compare the two. To an experienced photographer the difference is apparent. It is not the sharpness but the quality of the print that is the defference. This difference is also apparent with images made from a digital camera and a image made via the traditional photography methords.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>By the way,</p>

<p>Going to the OP's question in a more practical way:</p>

<p>Theoretically, DSLRs can handle large B&W prints but in reality -in my experience- they don't. (AA Filter, color interpolation, B&W conversion difficulties, lack of resolution, etc are just attempts to explain that fact - plus subjective preferences as well as Daniel pointed out).</p>

<p>I would like to see otherwise though. Is there any one who can provide their best DSLR file processed B&W so I can print it at 30x40 or equivalent to see what the results are? </p>

<p>If that is possible, I would appreciate the experience and the comparison to my prints first hand (most are from 6x7 TMAX).</p>

<p>Thank you in advance.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>I'm sorry Raymond but I can't agree. In my experience, with proper post-processing and proper printing, digital images ON AVERAGE look better to me than chemistry images. It's a matter of taste to some degree, but post processing matters so much here.</p>

<p>The individual shot matters a lot as well. Sometimes film just renders the scene in a more visually pleasing way depending upon the light and subject. But other times it doesn't. I don't think it's a clear black and white issue.</p>

<p>Cheers, JJ</p>

[swilson]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>Here is a photo take with my 350D converted to BW, have fun.<br>

<a href="http://sewcon.com/samples/lighthouse.jpg">http://sewcon.com/samples/lighthouse.jpg</a></p>

 

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Well, the great news is is that is just does not matter anymore. If you are good matters, what you put on the wall matters. So if you want to use film, use film, if you want to use digital, use digital. All you do in trying to see which one is better in science is get away from raw talent, the thing that matters most. <br>

Oh, the magazine article I shot last night was on black and white film in a Hasselblad, because I like it.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, that is a nice picture.</p>

<p>The gray tones do not look attractive to me but it is a subjective matter. It is difficult to explain but here you can compare against true B&W film (the one just I just posted but larger). It is a crop of TMAX 400 35mm pushed to 800.</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Places/3639504_X4XUj#758134723_utqbU-X3-LB</p>

<p>(there are several other shot I posted on the website to share with photo.net where you can look at the tones as well)</p>

<p>The detail is very good. Is this several shots stitched together?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Stitching and other techniques are very useful. Like you mention, in particular when you need a panorama shot with a compressed focal length. For this particular use, I have stitched film pictures as well.</p>

 

[swilson]

<p>My shot is of several shots stitched, as you can tell it is a very wide angle shot.<br>

<br />The gray tones can be adjusted somewhat to taste, for example I can boost the contrast to make it look more dramatic, but less realistic.<br>

<img src="http://sewcon.com/samples/small_lh.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br>

 

<p>Given the three color filters on my camera I can only approximate the spectral response of a given BW film, but with filters in from of the lens I could do much more.</p>

</p>

[j_marrs]

<p>The only problem with digital (35mm DSLR) is that it has that glow around the edge look like it came from a TV screen in the highlights and shadow detail. I think most of the younger people raised in a purely digital work flow won't notice this problem, but I do. <br>

I own a new 12 mp DSLR, and Medium format gear with a Nikon 9000 scanner. This digital glow is subtle but evident if you look hard at the highlights and shadow area in a DSLR image. Film records light at the molecular level using silver halide. I don't think the digital sensors record info at such a molecular level.<br>

Digital makes subjects in the foreground look sharp and clean like MF film, but objects in the background lack the definition of film. That's why digital looks great for portraits and weddings. Also high iso and low light are better with digital. But when it comes to 16x20 and larger prints, film starts showing why it has better resolution than digital. There's been several discussions on photo.net about the resolution problem of digital. There was a great one last year showing how much better film was at resolving on http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00SSfp. Notice the lettering on the crushed red pepper.</p>

<p> </p>

[erik_schaug]

<p>One respect in which MF is much better than digital is in transparency projection. I had a Pentax 6x7 (which was stolen) and replaced it with a Linhof Super Technika with 6x7 and 6x9 backs. I also acquired a Linhof 6x7 projector, and the projected images can be huge. I understand it's the same format as Imax movies.</p>

<p>The image can be so big, with such great detail, that you can walk right up close to the equivalent position from where you took the photo. Converging verticals seem to vanish. One seems to step right into the photo, and have to turn your head this way and that to see everything — just like it was on site. </p>

<p>I don't think that digital projectors are anywhere close to this, but I might be wrong</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, you do a fantastic job stitching. I did not see any obvious seams or DOF inconsistencies. Also the flow of the clouds looks very natural.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>Thanks Mauro,</p>

<p>There really should not be any DOF issues since I always use manual focus when shooting for stitching. As for the clouds I shoot with a panoramic head that allows very fast shooting, about 1.5 seconds between shots, so there is very little time for the clouds to move between shots.</p>

</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Sometimes in panoramic shooting as you rotate the head the same subject would move significantly in and out of the plane of focus. Nothing I noted in your shot.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott - you did do a very good job stitching that shot, and it's a nice composition. Nice work!</p>

<p>Well regarded B&W work often has very strong areas of dark shadow detail and bright highlight detail, as in Mauro's shot, which is why (I think) Mauro made the comment about the gray tones.</p>

<p>It should be noted that this look is not automatic with B&W film either. It can take quite a bit of work. The whole point of the zone system is to control tonal separation and placement with scenes that would otherwise produce either muddy prints or off the chart contrast. I've spent hours in the darkroom trying to produce prints with that crisp B&W look, strong blacks and whites without anything "blown", and also good mid tone separation. So it's no surprise that achieving the same in Photoshop also takes some work.</p>

<p>Sometimes when these debates come up good B&W work is presented as "the B&W film look" as if all one has to do is load some B&W film. You might get that lucky with the occasional scene that just happens to match the range and tonal curve of your film. Likewise you might get that lucky with a digital shot and automatic conversion with a plugin. But more often than not it takes considerable effort.</p>