Digital evolution yes, but aren't we missing something here?

[henrik_rundgren1]

After reading a number of topics focusing (...) on the digital

aspect of things stating that digital is on the verge of

overthrowing the need for film and that digital SLR cameras of

today equal or better their MF counterparts I still can't help but

wondering if we aren't missing something here.

 

Optics.

 

Optics and all their inherent characteristics should play a more

defining role in the debate than just the pixel versus film

discussion. Or? Many of the postings so far are debating

whether DSLR brand X can yield better images than MF brand X

when a more fair comparison would be a DSLR versus an SLR

with the same optics and/or MF digital versus MF film instead of

just concentrating on File Size. Forgive me if I jump to

conclusions but isn't still the optics that generate the image in

the first place and the filmback / CMOS sensor "just" the recipient

and recording device? To me it's like comparing a professional

DAT recorder to an old Rolltape recorder not considering what

microphone is being used. Does it make sense?

 

Of course File Size IS important, but a gregarious xx MP sensor

generating a file size of xx MB with a so so lens - will it still be

knocking the socks off a MF negative taken with a stellar lens?

How about optics resolution and all that image wizardry like

bokeh and other optics design qualities - shouldn't they be taken

into account as well?

 

A more favourable comparison would be to compare the final

output (or the generated original) from a MF camera, say 645,

compared to the output from a full frame digital back (i.e. when

they come out with one) for the same camera, using the same

optics. Does this theory hold water?

 

I can spot a few leaks myself as, of course, comparisons can

and are being made from imagery generated by a digital SLR

with a 24x36mm sensor to both 135 film and medium format.

Comparing a DSLR image/file with a MF negative taken at

different times / different locations and different light doesn't

seem to be a fair comparison regardless of which would come

out on top.

Michael Reichmann at www.luminous-landscape.com have

made comparisons between DSLR, 645 and 6X7 taken on the

same spot and time which would make for a much more

reasonable comparison. However judging his resolution

conclusions based on scans from the slides and posting them

on the web at screen resolution instead of presenting them as

final print outputs doesn't give me a clue.

 

The most awesome imagery - quality wise - I have ever seen

has been at Tom Till's gallery in Moab, Utah, and he uses a 4x5"

camera (Pentax 6x7 occasionally) and output most on inkjet

printers.

 

I myself started with Nikon SLR's, moved on to Contax SLR's and

Contax G2 then on to Mamiya7II, Hasselblads and Rollei 6X6.

Not only the format I ended up with (6x6) pleases me - but also

the image rendering capabilities of the optics. Having had Nikon

SLR's I would never ever switch to a high resolution digital SLR

from them and forsake the optics I am now using - even if they

generated a larger Image File Size. It's the optics that have

captured (...) me.

 

I know today what I am getting out of my gear and the digital

technology has helped push the envelope by allowing me to

scan the negs on an Imacon scanner, enabling me to do some

image enhancing when needed, or I can still output great

analog images. Does this start to sound like a thread in which I

am trying to justify the gear I currently use? ;-) maybe. Draw your

own conclusions.

 

Quality wise I do not miss 135 film. For convenience it is hard to

beat though and I wouldn't say no (or even maybe) to a Eos1Ds

with some long teles if I was a wild life photog.

Also I have yet to be amazed by all digital though I am eagerly

awaiting a full frame 6x6 back at an affordable price (probably

just after I retire - can I make my order post mortem? ;-D) to go

with my existing optics.

 

Work flow wise I am not burdened enough (as I am not a full

time photog) to justify the shelling out of $$$$ for soon to be

rendered obsolete digital equipment. Some of the best photogs

I've seen are mixing film and digital and that might be the sign of

the times for some time still. Some of the worst I have seen are

shooting film. Where I work we do a lot of pre press scanning of

MF and 135 film as well as all digital files and boost them up if

necessary. Our main dilemma is still that many photographers

often do not provide the goods - be it digital or analog.

 

Sorry for the sheer bulk of this posting.

Opinions on the importance of optics anyone?

 

 

[douglas_cummings]

Here is a page with an excellent side by side using an M7 vs a

1Ds.

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/build/buildin

g.htm

 

Optics are important but since you can't in a practical sense use

the same lens on different bodies all that matters is the final

output if your goal is "best" image quality. Remember digital

cameras are only obsolete if you think so. If your 1Ds lasts 10 yrs

it'll still make darned good images. Certainly camera makers

must be jealous of expected computer obsolesence and will

never stop "improving" their digital wares from now on.

It would be great if somebody made a full frame competitvely

priced digital insert or back. Until then it is reasonable to

compare say a 1Ds with a 500CM if (blinded) you or your client

can't tell the difference between 30x40 prints made with the two

cameras.

[__jon__]

Remove the space between the "n" and the "g" in the above link.

 

Photo.net really needs to fix the "post an answer" form.

[godfrey]

<i><b>Henrik Rundgren:</b><br>... Does this start to sound like a thread in which I am trying to justify the gear I currently use? ;-) maybe. Draw your own conclusions. ...</i>

<br><br>

Yes.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[marbing]

The 'comparison' example given by Douglas makes the same mistake that everyone does..they don't compare a digital image to a film image but a digital camera image to a digital scanner image. All comparisons under those circumstances are meaningless.

[gary_yeowell]

Meryl, now someone is talking sense!!!!!!

[upscan]

Henrik: Interesting thoughts.

 

1) Optics vs the recording medium: a great lens and bad film can not make a technically superlative image. The digital sensors are the equivalent of film and being newer than film they are under the microscope. Sice the same lenses are not available on the same sensor, a lot of poetic license gets into the comparisons, which seemingly, the thirsty consumer readily absorbs, no questions asked. People now are too busy counting pixels, that is a sign of the times. Some years ago too, people were busy measuring the auto's tail fins; that is the forgotten past and when the CCD becomes mature more attention again will focus on the optics. The truth is that some optical firms have spent more on advertising than on research and quality manufacturing. They have got away with mediocre or bad optics for a long time, before digital. As for now since a clean 6 MP CCD with a mediocre lens can make better images than 2 MP with an excellent lens, it is easy to see why the CCD will get all the attention. That will change.

 

2) I had a similar experience as you with a twist. I used Contax with Zeiss lenses then switched to Nikon because of the AF which I wanted for candid family photos. All the Nikon hype and the zillion ED glasses plus high prices did nothing for their image quality, which in a high resolution scanner took a bad beating. I am back to Zeiss in Medium format and 35mm, the tonal richness of those lenses is breathtaking. Yet, I have to admit that in people photography getting a shot that is rich in spontaneity is better than getting one that lacks it altogether and that technical quality alone can offer no compensation. Nikon and Canon know that reason why their focus is on their excellent autofocus systems with mediocre optics. Technology in their case is market driven and who can fault them?

[stephen hazelton]

My $.02 worth- Up until very recently, film was inherently superior in terms of resolution. So nobody cared about lens resolution, or bokeh, because far and away, the limiting factor was the number of pixels. Once the pixel count is increased to the point where it is competitive with film, then those other factors might become more important. But that is the reason that for now, you only hear of resolution.

 

"Remember digital cameras are only obsolete if you think so." This is unfortunately not true. I have a perfectly good HP scanner. We upgraded our computer to Windows XP. We downloaded what was supposed to be Window XP compatible drivers. After a year, we never did get that scanner to work properly under Windows XP. The fact is, once a product is no longer made, manufacturers are very reluctant to continue to provide updated software. So, while your digital camera may not be obsolete, you may not be able to transfer images to anything else in 10 years. Anyone used a 5.25" floppy lately? I have a little "Pencam" here which was also used under Windows 98- anyone want to hazard a guess if it will work under Windows XP?

[douglas_cummings]

Meryl: I don't get it: Why can't someone compare final image

quality between different capture media? Cause you say so?

(Just how does one compare a digital image to a film image?

Looking at two prints I'd imagine). I chose MF because it was

clearly superior to 35mm. What: I can't compare those? I can't

compare chromes to negative films? Did you check the site I

suggested? Sorry about the spacing. Are the images too

dissimilar? They are MEANINGLESS?

 

Stephen: Too bad about that "old" scanner. Same goes for a lot

of computer gear. But pro digital cameras- which ones can't you

download now? An 8 yr old VX 1000 will plug into my firewire

port right now.

I guarantee you'll be able to download your photos from a 1Ds or

D1x (albeit through an adapter?) in 10 yrs. The cameras will be

better then but a 1Ds won't be useless.

[photobyalan.com]

Douglas,

 

What Meryl is saying is that the comparisons made between original digital files and files made from scanned film are severely biased in favor of the digital original. The file made from scanned film is a second-generation image, while the digital original is first generation, that's hardly a head-to-head comparison. If real comparisons are to be made, it should be a comparison of same-size prints made directly from the originals - a digital print for the digital original and a darkroom print for the film original. That removes the variables introduced by scanning the film. Put the prints side by side and then you can make a fair and unbiased comparison. I'd suggest starting with 20x24 prints at a viewing distance of 10 feet and see which one looks better. Making comparisons of JPEG's on a computer monitor and trying to make conclusions about which is better, a la Luminous Landscape, is just plain silly.

[eric_duncan]

I could not agree more with the above. Comparisons are interesting, but only if they are well designed and scientifically valid. There is no point putting an F-14 jet fighter on the track at Monza with a Ferrari F1 car, racing them around a few laps, and declaring that the Ferrari is faster!

[douglas_cummings]

Comparing large same size color prints (at any distance you

want) of the same scene (landscape, model etc) is absolutely

NOT like comparing a jet to a car! I wouldn't call monitor

comparisons meaningless, but I did suggest a blinded test of

30x40 prints. I personally feel that prints from scanned film are

superior to optical prints and in fact make for a fairer

comparison, but you could do it with optical prints. Why would

anyone on this forum use MF in the first place if they didn't

compare it to other formats?

[roger krueger]

Well, you can certainly beat a Nikon 8000 (or Imacon or Sprintscan 120) with a drumscanner, so the comparison is unfair to the film cameras on an absolute basis--the scanner isn't getting everything that's there. Of course, an analog print isn't going to get everything that's there either. So while the comparison may be valid for the workflows 99% of people use, it is not a valid absolute comparison.

 

There's also the issue of flexibility--since the M7 is limited more by the scanner/enlarger/film, and less by optical performance, it would follow that there should be a wider range of apertures that can capture a given degree of resolution than on the 35mm digital, and that similarly it should be able to tolerate slower handheld speeds and filters better.

[gene crumpler]

It seems that after 20 centuries, the human race has still not decided how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let's go expose some film (pixels)instead and enjoy our art.

[ken_hughes4]

I agree with Gene, what difference does it make? If you are happy with what you get with the equipment that you use, then who cares what someone else says or uses?

[wieslaw1]

One more issue to recon with. In one of the recent Pop. Phot. magazine there is an article regarding stability of traditional emulsions vs. digital printers inks. One of these categories will fade in no time. Guess which one (and do not trust advertising).

[uncle_ziba]

A large EM impulse (e.g. from a nuclear blast) will wipe out all images from magnetic media and flash memory cards as well as destroy all cameras will electronics, quartz watches, etc. Enjoy digital images while you still have them... ;-)

[Spearhead]

<i> Enjoy digital images while you still have them... ;-)

</i><p>

 

One good earthquake (and I live in an earthquake zone) will wipe out all my negatives. My digital files are stored in multiple locations and easy to retrieve.<p>

 

Of course, the earthquake could easily take me out, so it probably doesn't matter whether it's film or digital.

[wim_van_velzen]

Hi Jeff,

<p>

May be it wouldn't matter to you then, but to mankind it would!

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[henrik_rundgren1]

Godfrey, of course I am trying to justify my keeping of my current

gear... ...and at the moment I can see no reason for me ditching

what I have, for sheer qualitys sake. What I want is an

IMPROVEMENT in quality and, of course, work flow. As long as I

am not getting it - why bother? For my kind of photography -

mostly travel and hiking - digital isn't a perfect solution; battery

dependant and possibly not as enduring in harsh conditions. I

for one wouldn't want to haul a laptop around to complement a

digital kit. If I were shooting a long time on location I can see

some major advantages in going digital but I am not. So I

wouldn't mind if film prices went up 50 or even 100% but I would

mind if film manufacturers started taking my favourite emulsions

off production. That's my worry.

 

As I work with selling cameras I frequently get customers who

are anxious that film will be obsolete any day now and their

cameras too. My response is that they will be - as soon as

people feel that what the digital camera makers produce is good

enough and affordable enough to replace film cameras. But

many people are still hesitant to shell out $500+ for a digital

camera that isn't better than an average Canon EOS 300V so

film will still hold it's place in our game. There are still a few

dozen million cameras out there and as I see it film

manufacturers must still be making a few bucks from that

market even if they stopped doing further R&D. Some people

who bought 1.3-3MP cameras thinking they could get by with

digital alone have gone back to film or still do both. But the

cameras evolve... But that's as far as the small format market

goes. As for the MF market we are in another ($-wise) league,

don't you think?

 

Meryls point is a good one as a scanned negative actually is a

second generation "original" and much of the end result lies in

the scanner and scanner operators abilities to cream it out. As

for myself I operate a Fuji Frontier (digital printer) and put out

10"x10" prints from my 6x6 negs. We have an Imacon scanner

which I use for touching up negs if necessary but it is very hard to

match the tonality and quality of the straight (Frontier) print. For

bigger I have to go via the Imacon and I output on a Epson 7600

printer.

 

As for the storing of files I have to agree with Jeff Spirer, digital

prints are easier to spread and protect; hard drives and CD

storage for example. Should my apartment go up in flames I

would be in a very bad spot as I have piled up my negs and

slides (and most prints) in the same locker which can only resist

fire for so long. But I still play happy-go-lucky and should this

happen - c'est la vie. I have been warned...

 

One good thing with some people switching to digital is that

some really really nice second hand cameras can be had at

affordable prices now. We have sold a few nice outfits to

dedicated amateurs who before couldn't afford entering the MF

sphere.

 

To each his/her own outfit, my final say is as long as digital

doesn't improve significantly to my eyes I won't get bogged down

in details and I´ll keep using my "obsolete" gear.

 

Cheers for the input all, and forgive me if you spot any false

grammar as english is my 2nd language.

Henrik

[henrik_rundgren1]

1) Digital, affordable, full frame 6x6 camera back for my Rollei

and my Hassy with built in Hard drive to store some... ...say 500

pics at respectable MB's

 

2) That people like Godfrey would contribute more to the

discussion by adding a useful comment instead of contributing a

one-liner to score a cheap point. Not that I took it personally - I

just find it odd that people actually take the time to post on

photo.net without having a real message to convey. I respect

people who have a different opinion than me who wants to argue

for his/her sake but please refrain from one-liners if it doesn't

CONTRIBUTE to the discussion.

 

Cheers again, Henrik

[._._z]

"... Does this start to sound like a thread in which I am trying to justify the gear I currently use? ;-) maybe. Draw your own conclusions. ..."

 

I agree with Godfrey.

[robert_ton1]

I always love these discussions.

 

On one hand, there's digital vs. film. Digital photography is in its infancy today when compared to the huge advances in film photography over the last 150 years. Just given the history, one might expect digital photography to become the mainstream for almost everything in the next decade. Resolutions and optics improve and prices come down.

 

What seems to be missing from the discussion is the relationship between the photographer's eye and the eye of the viewer. Isn't this what really counts? Millenia ago, 'photographs' were 'taken' by artists with paintbrushes.

 

Today, we get wrapped up in the technology and tend to forget the simple relationship between photographer and viewer. Through the ages, we've graduated from hieroglyphics to paint to film and from film to pixel.

 

The technology has changed and will always change. But, is the intent any different?

 

I have seen amazing work from the Masters. Van Gough, Picasso. I have also seen amazing work from people today who used nothing but Photoshop. The guys and gals who start with a blank screen in Photoshop are arguably more like the old Masters than the best of today's photographers. I admire them all, but I also admire those who can capture the imagination with a camera. Everywhere I turn, I see amazing work in photography, much of it digitally produced these days.

 

You're right though, Henrik. It IS about optics. The optics in your eye and the optics in your brain. Concentrate on those two, and the film to digital transition will take care of itself.

[eric_duncan]

"I personally feel that prints from scanned film are superior to optical prints and in fact make for a fairer comparison, but you could do it with optical prints."

 

Scanned at what resolution/color bit depth? Printed on what printer, and at what resolution, and on what paper?

 

For the optical prints, printed with what enlarger lens? On what photographic paper? How experienced is the person making the prints?

 

And that is only the start of identifying and quantifying the variables. The statement "I feel" does not belong in a scientific comparison. Unless all of the relevant variables--and there are a lot of them--are identified, quantified, and compensated for, it IS like comparing a jet to a car. Useless. As I wrote earlier, comparisons are interesting, but only if they are well-designed and scientific. I have seen very few comparisons of this kind, which truly isolate one variable--method of capture, for instance.

To the original question: Optics are important, because they are a variable--camera optics, scanner optics, and enlarger optics, if chemical prints are involved.