Memories of detail

[zweeko]

<p>a couple of days to show resolution [not quality], huh? sounds about right. progress. convenience. two words i Always associate with the digital-scam-wagon! lol.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Regarding Mauro's enlargement of my Jpeg file, I would prefer to submit a crop taken from the original raw file. The jpeg file that Mauro started with has nowhere near the resolution of the original file. It might take me a couple of days to get back to this, but I am confident that my even closer crop will look a lot better than Mauro's freakish interpretation.</em></p>

<p>I was about to post on that. I hate to say this, but Mauro has a history of posting unoptimized enlargements of digital test samples. You need to start with the original RAW and produce a proper enlargement with processing optimized for such a close inspection.</p>

<p>Will the 6x7 exhibit higher resolution and sharpness? Of course. Will the 5D2 sample look as nasty as in Mauro's sample? No, not even close.</p>

[zweeko]

<p>of course. but it won't look any less dead.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Tech pan looks a bit odd to me for skin tones- is it over-emphasizing the reds? I'm not sure I'd choose it over a more normal film like Tmax or Tri-X for portraits and don't personally like grainless B&W anyway.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The goal of the thread actually to step back and reflect of what we give up in detail in this generation when using digital. Past generations used film and kept the detail, future generations will have better digital technology. This generation was stuck in the middle.</em></p>

<p>And this continues to be a ridiculous statement. The vast majority of images from the 20th century were produced using small format equipment (35mm or smaller). Out of those almost all were compromised, in terms of detail relative to a modern DSLR, either from inferior equipment, inferior emulsions, or poor photofinishing.</p>

<p>This generation is far more interested in photography, and producing far more work, thanks to digital and the Internet. That work is also on average of a higher technical caliber than what we see from past generations. Past generations didn't shoot Tech Pan or Velvia 50 in 6x7. They shot 35mm, often consumer print films, and often printed at a chain store photo lab. Even uncle Bob with his 35mm slides and prime lenses would struggle to match what today's DSLRs can produce.</p>

<p>DSLRs have replaced MF for some. But how do you weigh detail which will likely never see a print large enough to matter against producing more work and more memories? That's a real choice people face when choosing between the two systems for a particular job or event.</p>

<p>If you want to cry that people have lost detail, cry that roll film was ever developed. If you had shot your daughter with an 8x10 view camera you would have so much more detail in that memory of her. She would have gotten bored and fallen asleep by the time you set it up, which is a good thing considering the aperture and resulting shutter speed you would need. And you would have one, maybe two photos total. But could you imagine the grain, sharpness, and detail you would see in a photo.net crop equivalent to a 300" print? You could zoom right into a single eyelash and we would all marvel at the wisdom you possess for capturing your memories on 8x10 sheet film.</p>

<p>But no, your generation chose convenience over quality with roll film. Let us take a moment of silence for what you've lost.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>I only performed bi-cubic upsampling in Photoshop to match the sized of the comparison. That is all. That is the best I can do without the raw file. Dan will do better from the RAW.<br /> I am not sure why you imply that I purposely (or not) created an upsambling that is suboptimal. That is not the case.<br /> I take no offense since I am not defensive, I'm just confused why you think that information is intentionally distorted.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

Ian Cook, I'm confident that I can prepare a lovely file for you in a matter of minutes. I just don't have access to that file

where I am today.

 

Mauro, there is no offense of defense either. I think we're all well aware that jpeg files are compressed and therefore are not a good starting point for further manipulation. I would rather start with the original.

 

Further, you processed the jpeg fioe in Photoshop, but the original file was processed in Lightroom. Although both programs come from the same company their sharpening algorithms are not compatible. For the next example, I shall do everything in Photoshop in order to be compatible with your workflow.

[scott_ferris]

<p>This is one of the silliest threads I've seen for a long time. Probably why I don't bother coming in here often.</p>

<p>So the film vs digital threads have become so desperate that we are comparing crops from a jpeg off a 864 sq mm sensor at 200 iso, to a crop from a 3920 sq mm neg at 25 iso, and moaning about the lack of detail in the digital image! Get real.</p>

<p>Same size digital bests film in almost every practical area, resolution included. That is a fact. There are very compelling reasons to use film if you want to. Digital is not "better" than film, it is different.</p>

<p>Now here are three images, top is from a ff digital, or 24x36. Second image is a 2% crop, nothing has been done to either image, no sharpening, re sampling, nothing. Third image I believe represents .004% of the full image, this has had auto resample and auto levels done, no sharpening. This crop equates to a massive print, truly massive. Show me people making 6 foot x 9 foot prints of their kids and I'll show you somebody who might benefit from a MF film kit over a "ff" digital kit. Though they would almost certainly be better off with a Pentax 645 digital.</p>

<p>As I said, there are very good reasons for using film, but don't bemoan the lack of detail in digital imagery as one of them.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sorry, posted the tif by accident, here, hopefully, is the jpeg! Doh!</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Actually your unenlarged first post was already freakishly plasticky as pointed out.</em></p>

<p>I think you're confusing who is who. I did not shoot or post the 5D2 sample. "Plastic" is often used to describe digital files that lack detail. As pointed out, the 5D2 actually exhibits more skinsurface texture than the 6x7 crop. (Again I'll say that this is odd. 6x7 should exhibit greater high and low contrast detail.)</p>

<p><em>In the thread "<a rel="nofollow" href="00WErk?start=200"><strong>It all comes down to the print</strong></a>" (search for "35mm Velvia - 18MP DSLR") you submitted raw scans in comparison to your highly optimized digital output. It was Mauro who processed the raw scan which showed it resolving more then your further optimized digital file.</em></p>

<p>I forget who ended up with the best 35mm crop. We were both working towards the goal of optimum crops from both mediums. The 35mm Velvia scan did not resolve more detail than the digital RAW file. The high contrast details had a smoother rendition, but no additional high contrast detail was actually resolved. The digital RAW file held its edge on low contrast detail. As I recall it took a lot more work, at least for me, to get the 35mm scan to par than the 7D RAW file.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>No Les, like I said the third image had auto levels done, the shot was taken with a CTO on the flash, the auto bit has messed with the unbalanced white balance.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott,<br>

This is not a competition of MF against DSLR. Earlier on when DSLRs were introduced people thought that DSLRs surpassed 35mm film and even MF film - most people know better now.<br>

The differences in detail between MF and DSLRs are very clear at the sizes I print the most 16x20 and 24x30. The difference in tonality is evident at 11x14 or larger.<br>

There is no need for 6 ft x 9 ft prints to show the difference. Not sure why but I see this comment often.</p>

<p>*** This particular thread is about detail captured and preserved - not scanned or printed. Many people have given up MF film over the last 10 years in exchange for DSLRs ranging between 3MP and 20MP. Detail was lost.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I am not sure why you imply that I purposely (or not) created an upsambling that is suboptimal. That is not the case.</em></p>

<p>Mauro, I don't think you do it on purpose. But I have seen you make knee jerk enlargements of samples provided by others, like in this thread, that were clearly sub optimal.</p>

<p><em>I take no offense since I am not defensive, I'm just confused why you think that information is intentionally distorted.</em></p>

<p>It can't be anything other than distorted because it's a compressed JPEG upload from a file sharpened for print. Let Dan do his best with the RAW file, or get the RAW file from him. I'm sure 6x7 Tech Pan will still exhibit greater resolution and less grain. But if we're going to do these silly comparisons lets at least do them right.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Dan, the comparison is welcomed but not needed since no one argues the point. </p>

<p>Think about the time were you replaced MF film for a DSLR for most of the shooting. What was that DSLR? Was detail lost?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott - your sample puts in a better performance than I would have expected. While the 6x7 scan clearly shows smoother rendition of detail, that's quite the shot across the bow from a 35mm sensor. I think you've made the point that unless you're looking for very large prints, you're not missing anything with FF digital.</p>

<p><em>Show me people making 6 foot x 9 foot prints of their kids and I'll show you somebody who might benefit from a MF film kit over a "ff" digital kit. Though they would almost certainly be better off with a Pentax 645 digital.</em></p>

<p>The only people who push into the realm of extreme print sizes which are critically reviewed at close range are landscape photographers shooting LF, MF digital, or stitching DSLR shots like mad. Families aren't missing anything by moving to digital. They're most likely gaining compared to what they would have been shooting before digital.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Think about the time were you replaced MF film for a DSLR for most of the shooting. What was that DSLR? Was detail lost?</em></p>

<p>They're different tools with different strengths. What photographs might I miss using MF rather than a DSLR? I'm limited on capacity, lens choices, and working speed with a MF body. Is it worth getting more detail per shot but missing shots? That all depends. Am I waiting 20 minutes for the perfect light on a landscape? I'll take the time to use a larger format or stitch the DSLR. Am I shooting a surfing competition? I think it's obvious MF isn't even in the running there. (And I could write several paragraphs on the improvements in IQ brought to surfing photography by DSLRs. It's quite obvious when comparing today's digital shots to yesterday's 35mm shots, even the most recent film work from the 1990's or early 2000's which benefited from digital post processing before the magazine run.)</p>

<p>Horses for courses my Tech Pan hoarding friend.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, that is a great shot from a DSLR. But when comparing to MF film, detail is obviously lost. </p>

<p>Whether you would print at 16x20 or larger to see the difference on paper does not change the fact that detail is lost. No need to argue, this is just a reflection. </p>

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

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel, I did not modified Scott's crop.<br>

The differences in detail are not marginal.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>These make awesome comparisons since I noticed even the umbrellas are on the same position.</p>

[j_marrs]

<p>I think both the film & the digital look good. The only problem with the digital is that the technology is constantly going out of date, so in a year or two, your 2K investment becomes a paper weight. Not so with the film camera. And the film cameras are cheaper.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>It seems like your position has changed slightly. When I compare my "FF" DSLR prints to my 135 Velvia/Provia prints there is no competition. The DSLR really does embarrass the film, please understand that is a fact, not an emotional opinion. I earn a reasonable portion of my mortgage money from large print sales, at 20"x30" my digital prints are "better", with more detail, than my beloved Cibachromes. I did not buy a DSLR to use for critical work until they came out with a 21mp ff sensor. At that point it was time to move. I still have, and use, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 film backs, but with the ease of stitching and the quality I can get from 17mm TS-E lenses and the like, this will probably be their last year. My FF digital camera can not produce the quality my larger MF gear can. If you can see tonality differences in 11"x14" prints then you are doing something wrong in post.</p>

<p>Your point seemed to be that today's digital shooters are missing out on detail. I said, in a roundabout way, compare like with like and they are not, the high mp dslr's, size for size, deliver more detail than film. Compare a FF digital crop to the same sized crop from a 135 film shot at the same iso and you will have the truth too. Take casual, walk around, shots with a medium format camera with enough light to shoot 25iso film and sure, you'll get more detail than the casual shooter with a DSLR. But how many of those DSLR shooter would have ever used MF gear? Most would have been using 135 sized cameras and smaller. How many 110 cameras were sold compared to MF when they were in competition?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>Of course your MF image has more detail, it is from a MUCH larger area!</p>

<p>J Marrs,</p>

<p>For my $2,000 I can take tens of thousands of images for the cost of a couple of TB storage ($150). My Velvia cost me at least $1 per image, not including subsequent storage costs. In two years my FF DSLR will still be able to take images exactly the same as today, I have no need to upgrade. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>You are correct. </p>

<p>The casual user that use to shoot film from a convenience store and now has $2,000+ in digital gear has really improved his/her detail capture. <br>

Those who moved from 35mm films like TMAX, Velvia with L lenses to 3MP-20MP DSLRs have not. Through their journey of upgrading DSLRs they have left behind a lot of detail, and if they are at 20MP now they are comparable.<br>

Those who move from MF to DSLRs obviously more so.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott,<br>

I am glad to hear you didn't move critical work to digital until 21MPs. You are one of the few who had the knowledge to manage that.</p>

<p>---<br>

You quote "When I compare my "FF" DSLR prints to my 135 Velvia/Provia prints there is no competition. The DSLR really does embarrass the film". Can you post an example? My results on Velvia are pixel sharp...</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>I have never scanned my slides, all my film prints have been wet prints, or out house auto printing scans and slides lent for scanning for magazines etc (I own the slide but the magazine pays for, and owns, the scan). I don't have any digitised film images. I always thought it missed the point! I watched the progress of scanners and decided to skip it completely. I do have very similar images printed out to the same size shot from the same place with the same lens, but at different times, from 135 Velvia and FF DSLR's, the digital captured prints really are better at the sizes I have, 20"x30" and 24"x36".</p>

<p>Sorry I can't be more helpful.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>