mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p>"I really wonder is this-- what's better when shooting film at a concert scenario with flash:</p> <ol> <li>ISO 400 film exposed at EI 400 w/ auto flash, then pushed 2 stops during processing</li> <li>ISO 400 film exposed at EI 1600 w/ auto flash, then pushed 2 stops during processing"</li> </ol> <p>Best is:<br /> 1. BEST: No Flash. ISO 400 film exposed at EI 1600 or 3200 (pushed 2 stops in development), or ISO 3200 film exposed at EI 3200. The former will have more contrast and smaller grain. later will have smoother tonal gradations with larger grain.<br /> 2. ALSO GOOD DEPENDING ON THE LOOK DESIRED: ISO 400 film exposed at EI 1600 or 3200 in manual w flash compensating 1 stop, then pushed 2 stops during development. <br /> 3. BAD: This would be would result in unnecessarily overexposed film-> ISO 400 film exposed at EI 400 w/ auto flash, then pushed 2 stops during development/processing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p>Dave T, please post a live shot of your 40D at ISO H scaled up to 21MP. It is very helpful when people share their experiences with better results (film or digital).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p>"The conclusions that I draw from this thread is that in low light conditions, carefully developed and porcessed film shot with a flash at 5500k at f4, will look different to digital shot at ISO 3200 and f1.8 with ambient coloured concert light."</p> <p>Geoff, the f4 shot you are looking at was shot without flash with film at EI 3200 during the guitar change. Let me know what you think of it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15sunrises Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Dave T, please post a live shot of your 40D at ISO H scaled up to 21MP. It is very helpful when people share their experiences with better results (film or digital).</p> </blockquote> <p>It makes no sense to upscale it to 21MP for a sensor vs. sensor comparison if we're looking at pixel noise, but I will be happy to take an ISO3200 shot in low light and post a 100% crop. After some brief experimentation I've already come close to the 5DII examples in the post, which to me, seems ridiculous considering the supposed enormous low light performance advantage that the 5DII has over the 40D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russelharris Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p>Hi Mauro</p> <p>Forgive me if this has been answered but I was curious to know what lenses you were using? I imagine they play a role too when it comes to film vs digital or no?</p> <p>Thanks</p> <p>Russ</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie_robertson2 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p>I can't believe this ridculous thread is still raging. Anyone who is anyone knows the 5D2 will vastly outstrip 35mm film in just about every possible scenario.</p> <p>Do I own the 5D2? Yes.</p> <p>Am I biased? No, I am qualified to answer because I have extensive experience of both the 5D2 and 35mm film.</p> <p>I love film. I regularly shoot 35mm because I love the grain and the romance of it all. I shoot my Bronica for the fun of it and for the bokeh of 6x6 MF. But for sheer image quality in any given situation I reach for the 5D2 every single time without hesitation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Anyone who is anyone knows the 5D2 will vastly outstrip 35mm film in just about every possible scenario.</p> </blockquote> <p>That is your experience and the experience of many other people. However, there are also people who's experience and way of working means that the reverse is true... for them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie_robertson2 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <blockquote> <p>That is your experience and the experience of many other people. However, there are also people who's experience and way of working means that the reverse is true... for them.</p> </blockquote> <p>I know that but, seriously, these people are kidding themselves right? It's chalk and cheese.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p>I don't think they are kidding themselves. I think they are getting better results with film. Just because it's not your method, doesn't make them or their opinions wrong.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Russ, look at the link on the front page. The lenses are listed at the top of each picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Jamie, please share your experience with examples. Everyone will appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie_robertson2 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I don't think they are kidding themselves. I think they are getting better results with film. Just because it's not your method, doesn't make them or their opinions wrong.</p> </blockquote> <p>No disrespect, but people who think 35mm film can compete with modern DSLRs (especially in low light) either don't know how to use a camera or don't have the experience of both mediums. Shots like <a href=" at ISO 12,800 are just run of the mill for cameras like the 5D2 and Nikon D700 etc. No film on earth can match it.</p> <blockquote> <p>Jamie, please share your experience with examples. Everyone will appreciate it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mauro, there are hundreds of thousands of shots taken at ISO 6,400, 12,800, 25,600 and even higher all over the web. The best 35mm film can offer is Delta 3200 or TMAX 3200 pushed through the roof. If you want to talk about colour film photography then film is even less competitive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielleetaylor Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p>I was kind of avoiding this thread, but...<em><br /></em></p> <p>The lighting is <strong>dramatically</strong> different in terms of intensity, direction, and spectrum between the film shots as a group and the 5D mkII shot. This is not a test of the 5D mkII vs 35mm film at high ISO, and no valid conclusions about their relative performance can be drawn from this comparison.</p> <p>I kind of wanted to avoid this thread because I didn't know how to interpret Mauro's actions. Mauro has the technical knowledge to appreciate how dramatically different the lighting is, and therefore how dishonest it is for him to put crops next to each other as a comparison of the underlying technology. Yet there the crops are along with the claims, both explicit and implicit, that what we see is a valid comparison. Was it a momentary lapse in judgement? That's hard to swallow given how obvious the difference in lighting is, and how the film tests as a group share the same much better (from a noise/resolution perspective) lighting.</p> <p>With that off my chest...I have found that in a raw test of detail and noise characteristics 35mm film comes closest to a camera like the 5D mkII when using the best films at the lowest ISOs (i.e. Velvia 50) on the best scanners (i.e. Imacon or drum). The DSLR still has the edge, but the differences are relatively small. Move away from the best in terms of emulsion, ISO, or scanner and modern DSLRs quickly pull ahead. By ISO 400 the differences become quite large.</p> <p>But people don't normally make 24" prints from ISO 1600-3200 shots. At 8x10 it's entirely possible to make a satisfactory print from high ISO 35mm film, and someone may even prefer said print due to the film's characteristics, such as grain in B&W film.</p> <p>Never the less at ISO 3200 a 5D mkII, in a properly controlled test, will easily out resolve comparable 35mm films and yield much less noise.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Jamie, most of the time supposed experience with film giving poor performance is hearsay with no examples or the result of using a flatbed scanner. Please share any film shots at EI1600 or 3200 that have given you bad results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Daniel, please print the samples from my website shot at EI11600 and EI3200 from tmax and portra and let me know how large you find them satisfactory. To you comments regarding the 5Dii let me clarify that I agree it is an extremely capable camera and there are plenty of posts to support it. The goal of the post was to show how well film does because there aren't readily available examples posted of tmax and portra at high EI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Jamie, no need to defend digital since it does great. I apologize for the confusion, I was asking to post your own results with film (not a 1.5 megapixel downsized digital picture from someone else). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielleetaylor Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 <p><em>To you comments regarding the 5Dii let me clarify that I agree it is an extremely capable camera and there are plenty of posts to support it. The goal of the post was to show how well film does because there aren't readily available examples posted of tmax and portra at high EI.</em></p> <p>The debate stems from the fact that you didn't show how well film can do. You showed how well a flash can do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Look at the shot without flash at EI 3200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Also look at the shot were the stage light is actually hitting the back of the performer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishij Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 <p>The EI 3200 Tmax 400 shot is without flash? It looks like there's some form of harsh light on the performer, compared to the 5D II shot...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 <p>It is just stage strobes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishij Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 <p>Do you have a 5D II shot when a stage strobe illuminated the main performer?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Never the less at ISO 3200 a 5D mkII, in a properly controlled test, will easily out resolve comparable 35mm films and yield much less noise.</p> </blockquote> <p>Daniel, you could be right, but if the test done by twinlenslife.com is reliable (5DII and Ektar 100), the difference would be minimal or non-existent.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishij Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 <p>LOL Mauro I think it's time for another one of your epic resolution threads where we look at lp/mm resolved by the different formats... :)</p> <p>Actually I'm thinking I'll do a resolution/latitude test myself to corroborate some of your findings (or not :). I rasterized a vector image file of the ISO 12233 chart at ~19in x 30in @360dpi to print on an Epson 7880, but I see some jaggies in the smooth curved lines. Is that to be expected? Is 20x30 a reasonable size to shoot? What did you shoot last time? I may need to experiment, of course, to get an angle of view that does actually test the limits of the film...</p> <p>Cheers,<br />Rishi </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 <p>Aw, crap, I totally misread your comment, Daniel! Sorry! However, the same web site did that comparison and you'll have to judge for yourself which did better.</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