j_marrs

<p>I think it cost less in the long run to buy a Nikon 9000 scanner & Medium Format or 35mm camera from Keh.com. You can get all that for the price of the latest and greatest DSLR. Once you have bought this, you won't ever have to upgrade. Upgrading cost $$$. I think it's kind of sickening to pay $3000+ every three to five years to keep up with DSLR advances. You can also buy cheap B&W dark room equipment now. I'd keep a cheap DSLR available for those moments where you need high ISO. The manual focus Mamiya glass & bodies at KEH is a steal!</p>

<p>I know......I hate forking over $1500+ for a new digital system every 3+years. With the film camera, you buy it once. I do still need digital for the low light high iso areas where film is limited......or too grainy,,,,but $$$$- I'd rather spend in on photographic vacation............</p>

<p>The digital is cleaner, but you can can clean your film images up with software like Neatimage....The film technology is old, so you'll save $$$ in the long run without having to constantly upgrade......In a few years my $$$ DSLR will become a paper weight.</p>

<p>Are there any compact P&S that deliver pro quality results? Need something that I can<br>

pull out in high crime areas of the world but can still make decent 16x20s...</p>

 

<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 The only problem with the digital is that the technology is constantly going out of date, so in a year or two, your 2K investment becomes a paper weight.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>

<p>They're not going to get rid of E-6. It may be harder to come by, but think of all the landscape photographers that use it in their view cameras. Also, a lot of the digital prints are still printed on photographic paper and developed in traditional chemistry. Lamda, and lightjet prints still use traditional chemistry. So, even though E-6 is reversal chemistry, the companies that manufacture the chemistry for digital prints on photographic paper, should still produce the E-6 chemistry for slides. You can always send your slides to places like hollandphoto.com in Texas. They have a good reputation, and you should do very well considering the Pound/Dollar exchange rate.</p>

<p>Bought a book on large format photography. Always been intrigued by the skill & always wanted to try it.<br>

What's the best most affordable way to get into a 4x5 camera? Should you develop the film yourself or send it off?<br>

Is there a digital equivalent yet to 4X5?</p>

<p>Thank you, & I will play around with the histograms in the digital cameras and see if that solves some of the blown highlight problems...... Again, disregard what I uploaded, as both images lost a lot of resolution....I down sized them too much in photoshop so niether one is a true representation of the originals...... Had to use 400speed film that day cuase wind was blowing on the island.........Couldn't use Velvia that day. Mainly wanting to see how digital photographers deal with blown highlight issue.</p>

<p>Sorry for the bad resolution example.......I should have uploaded the pics @ 600x800pixels.. When uploaded properly, they are much sharper......The images have degraded a lot becuase I uploaded them at a much lower resolution...... Next time I will upload @ higher res....<br>

Anyway, to the point.....Just trying not to blow highlights in future digitals......I love my digital camera......The one digital example was taken with old digital technology 8mp camera. I currently have a PENTAX K-X which takes much better pictures than that. But I notice same thing with highlights...... Don't get me wrong--- I love my digital.......Just trying to get the most out of it....Love film too......</p>

<p>Yes, it looks like the pictures I uploaded lost a lot of detail in the process. They didn't look the same way they did in full resolution....Funny... Look like they're out of focus......They weren't out of focus when I uploaded them.</p>

<p>Now this is the digital shot</p>

<p>now the digital</p><div></div>

<p>here are some 100 percnet crops of above images from digital and film.</p><div></div>

<p>There's a color depth, I can't seem to achieve with my digital cameras. I noticed this recently on a trip to the beach when I was comparing digitals from a 12mp with 35mm & Medium format scanned film on Nikon 9000. You don't notice it right a way when you're shooting digital. But if you shoot the same shot with film, I don't know....what you call it.....The color richness is missing..... Now the film can get grainy.....But if you use a program like NeatImage - it gives it that digital smoothness. Takes the grain right out without sacraficing colors..... I'll have to submit some beach pics......later in this thread..</p>

<p>This one if the film shot- I moved the resolution down a lot to fit the web.....</p><div></div>

<p>I think this is a fair comparison. One is shot with Nikon N90 film 400 speed film vs 8mp Canon. As you can see digital blows the whites on the boats and film doesn't. Also how do you make the colors richer with digital. It seems like all the digitals I look at when compared to film, lack a depth of color when compared to film.<br>

400 speed film is grainy so I filtered it with neat image.</p>

<p>If you do a test, at least follow the scientific method. One sample isn't going to cut it. You need a control group, and variables. I think we can all agree that digital is better than film @ high ISO, unless you want a lot of grain. </p>

<p>This is such a pointless argument. If you want a film vs. digital debate, then says so in the beginning! But since that's where you're going, you can see that film is better for landscapes & people for big prints:<br>

<a href="http://www.twinlenslife.com/2009/05/digital-vs-film-real-deal-nikon-d300-vs.html">http://www.twinlenslife.com/2009/05/digital-vs-film-real-deal-nikon-d300-vs.html</a><br>

&<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm</a><br>

& this is from the Lightjet professional lab @ westcoast imaging. No digital outresolves 4x5 film from their printlabs.:<a href="http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html">http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html</a><br>

<img src="http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/uploadfaq/images/megapixel-print-size-chart.jpg" alt="Megapixel Print Size Chart" width="570" height="857" /></p>

purple is supeb, dark blue is excellent, orange is only fair........ Looks like nothing digital has to offer can outresolve film.

<p>To see this chart in its entirity, visit <a href="http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html">http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html</a><br>

I've used westcoast for my prints from 35mm & Medium format & they are incredible. I love their canvas prints......<br>

As you can see 35mm is equivalent to a 15-22mp camera & 69mp can only match 6x6 film in the superb range. And nothing touches 8x10!</p>

<p>This article is current and compares a Fuji 645 to A Nikon D300. The Fuji film camera wins in many comparisons. Now I know it won't when at high ISO, but for Landscapes and such it does.<br>

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2009/05/digital-vs-film-real-deal-nikon-d300-vs.html</p>

 

<p>Nikon makes a killing off of those scanners. I shelled out 2K for mine along with the glass carriers. It took 2months to get here, because they don't make a lot. If they flooded the market with them, then the price would fall, and they wouldn't be profitable. So keeping them in short supply, keeps demand high..... Every Photographer with old film or wants to shoot film desires a drumscan quality desktop scanner and Nikon has it. It's unlikely they'll improve it much as 4000dpi drags most of what the film has. I've compared my Nikon fluid scans to tango drumscans of the same slide, and found them so close. The Nikon actually appeared sharper, but the Tango's color was slightly richer. Not by much. And not something that photoshop's color adjustments didn't fix.</p>

<p>By all means, get you a nice film camera. Film is not as forgiving as digital. Since the manual film cameras don't have the fancy computers in them like today's DSLRs, anyone buying a fully manual Film camera is going to have a learning curve. Also, where you get your film developed matters. Cheap places like Walmart and Walgreens are not as good as a topnotch photolabs like Hollandphoto. Film has a different look than digital. I think the colors are denser and richer with film. Digital looks cleaner..... and at times sharper than film. But that is fixable with software.</p>

<p>To conduct the experiment scientifically, the lens, exposure, and development of the film is critical. So if your looking at Velvia under a microscope shot with a cheap Vivitar lens and developed at Walgreens and claiming it can't out resolve digital, you're not going to have a fair comparison. If you shot it with a Leica or Rollei, exposed it properly, and had it developed at a top notch lab that keeps their chemicals fresh, then you'll have a fair comparison. Film has many more variables than digital. If the film is developed in bad chemicals, then the image will suffer. Film is a lot easier to screw up than digital. If anything in the chain of image capture and production is flawed, then the film image will suffer.<br>

From a non scientific observation, I have noticed that digital has a cleaner look than film, but film has a richer color density. The film can be cleaned up with software.</p>

<p>It may be going away in some parts of the world, but it's still quiet alive in the USA. I've noticed serveral new black & white brands popping up that weren't available a few years back. I think as an Art form, film will continue to exist just like oil paints have. The masses will use digital because film will be too much trouble and cost a lot more to process. It's not dead!</p>

<p>I have the glass carrier and wet mount system from scanscience. Recently got back into a little B&W. I've found that you can scan it in RGB mode, and play with the hue/ color ballance to create sepia tones. Is this a good way to go?<br>

1. Any tips on getting the most from B&W scanning on a Nikon 9000.<br>

2. Is it best to send the scans off to say, Westcoastimaging, or buy a inkjet?<br>

3. On a seperate note, do you think the traditional darkroom processing of B&W trumps the scan & print method?</p>

<p>I'll admit, I've had pictures printed directly from negatives on a darkroom enlarger. They do tend to look better than a scan (professional) when done right. I think you loose a little, but not much, when you have to scan the image. But that said, my scans from Nikon 9000 look fantastic and on par with drumscans. Film equipment is cheaper than digital equipment when trying to achieve a similar quality. That said, nothing beats digital for those low light situations! So I have both. If I didn't have a large collection of film shots, I'd definitely spend my money on digital.</p>