Scanned 35mm Leica vs consumer DSLR

[qruyk12]

I am sure there are a lot of you out there than scan yuor Leica negs and also have DSLRs with prime lenses.

What are your thoughts? Are the new consumer DSLRs catching up or passed the 35mm scans?

 

[snip]

I am sure there are a lot of you out there than scan yuor Leica negs and also have DSLRs with prime lenses.

What are your thoughts? Are the new consumer DSLRs catching up or passed the 35mm scans?

Yes and no, some (most) of my scans are "below" what I have made with a prime lensed dslr in any aspect but the resolution of the stored file.

But, even the ones that are technically not great but have a good "feel" to them have far more "character" than the dslr ones, dslr pictures, in the ratios that I can compare on my computer, have less "feel" and "character" to them than scans.


Results might be different with Leica frames. I shoot Voigtlander and Hasselblad.

Some scans that I have seen online and at friends are far better than I could do with a dslr, this might be because those people are better photographers than I, because they scan better, or indeed because some of them are shot on Leica :




//Jan

 

[Fraser]

I am sure there are a lot of you out there than scan yuor Leica negs and also have DSLRs with prime lenses.

What are your thoughts? Are the new consumer DSLRs catching up or passed the 35mm scans?

They passed them at least 5 years ago.

 

[Tim Gray]

I like B&W film so I have gone with film cameras (Leica and Canon). I'm sure you can get close to it with a DSLR, but I don't really feel like jumping through those hoops when I can just pop in a roll of Tri-X.

I also print in the darkroom, so the film choice helps out there 🙂

Mind you, when most people respond to this question, they are talking about resolution first, and noise/grain second. If you like the look of films like Tri-X and TMZ, then those usually aren't you're first concern. You can shoot at ISO 1600 and 24mp on your DSLR with no noise? Good for you. I'd still take TMZ over that anyday - noisy as hell and what, maybe 2mp? 😀

 

[hans voralberg]

You either do one of them, or both. No point in a versus really. Save for ISO1600 colour film, I prefer film, although I do own quite alot of dslr for professional work

 

[calajava@gmail.com]

I think technically, that's the longer an issue to compare film to digital pixel by pixel...for people shoot film like us that certainly other aspect includes mentioned above like "feel" and "character" those subjectively quality that sustain the choice of film.

 

[Frank Petronio]

In terms of resolution and noise, digital is way better. Color balancing mixed light sources is also much easier to do with raw digital files. And the latest cameras, like the Nikon D700, are amazing at high ISOs.

The reason to still shoot 35mm film is for the way B&W is rendered. You can get pleasing, good results from converting raw digital files (which are RGB) into greyscale files, but even the best technique still doesn't look "film-like". Although a few people, who print contrasty and dark, can fool you.... You can also get surprisingly pretty high resolution with slow film and Leica-quality lenses, and good technique (i.e. tripod).

Color 35mm film is used because you simply don't care to work with digital -- if we're talking image quality you might be able to do something competitive yet different with slow speed film and good drum scanner, but even a >$1000 consumer DSLR raw file will be at least competitive or better than the best scanned 35mm color film.

Commercially, a pro DSLR can be used where a pro used to use (need?) a medium-format camera.

 

[payasam]

Working with DSLR pictures is faster. So far as quality is concerned, the results of both are good enough for my limited needs.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I wish people would take a slightly sophisticated step towards this issue. Its DSLR vs. Scanner, not DSLR vs film, the thing you are scanning has very little to do with it. Most people do not have a drum scanner and most digital cameras will resolve higher than what you'll get from a commercial scanner. Saying "film" in this case is as pedestrian as it gets as "film" can get scanned by just about anything with results that are simply all over the place. If your scan didnt cost $100 per frame this discussion is probably not worth getting into in the first place.

 

[snip]

Commercially, a pro DSLR can be used where a pro used to use (need?) a medium-format camera.

Aaw I don't know, Slide and good quality C41 frames from my Hasselblad look pretty damn tasty scanned when they come back from my lab scanned on an Imacon by a technician.

And the prints...Ah the prints..
//Jan

 

[MCTuomey]

what work i sell is all digi based (i'm amateur), sports and some portrait and event product.

most of what i do for myself, modest and limited volume, is b&w film, once i got over the initial digi thrill. at any rate, i believe that a proper comparison involves prints rather than monitor-based viewing. on monitors, the digi files typically trump scanned film pretty clearly, though not always. in the end, as others note, this is all rather subjective and depends on what you want to achieve.

 

[snip]

I wish people would take a slightly sophisticated step towards this issue. Its DSLR vs. Scanner, not DSLR vs film, the thing you are scanning has very little to do with it. Most people do not have a drum scanner and most digital cameras will resolve higher than what you'll get from a commercial scanner. Saying "film" in this case is as pedestrian as it gets as "film" can get scanned by just about anything with results that are simply all over the place. If your scan didnt cost $100 per frame this discussion is probably not worth getting into in the first place.

I agree to a point, it can be hard to get good results, even with the best scanners, but as I have seen myself, being good at scanning can get you very good results, even with scanners costing under $2000 just as the photographer is as important to the picture as the camera.


//Jan

 

[snip]

what work i sell is all digi based (i'm amateur), sports and some portrait and event product.

most of what i do for myself, modest and limited volume, is b&w film, once i got over the initial digi thrill. at any rate, i believe that a proper comparison involves prints rather than monitor-based viewing. on monitors, the digi files typically trump scanned film pretty clearly, though not always. in the end, as others note, this is all rather subjective and depends on what you want to achieve.

Yes a black and white portrait shot on 5x4 and wetprinted will tear a digital black and white portrait apart most any day.

A home scanned 35mm frame and a digitally shot image, when printed, are somewhat more a balanced mix and the digital files are predominately better, especially in colour in reflection to the number of prints being observed.

//Jan

 

[Chris101]

If you kosh someone in the noggin with a hefty flatbed, chances are it's gonna be lights out for a while. Hit someone with even a large DSLR and, it's gonna hurt, but they're probably not going down. But the strap does help with swinging it. I'll give the edge in a free for all to the scanner.

ps, for making digitized images, I have 2 dslrs and 2 scanners, so I guess they are evenly matched.

 

[pachuco]

At this point it is purely a personal choice for me. DSLR images obviously looks cleaner than a 35mm scanned negative but most of the time I do not want a perfect image. That's just the way I roll, I like my images like I like my women....a little on the dirty side 😎

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I agree to a point, it can be hard to get good results, even with the best scanners, but as I have seen myself, being good at scanning can get you very good results, even with scanners costing under $2000 just as the photographer is as important to the picture as the camera.


//Jan

If we are talking resolution only here, being good at scanning doesnt enter into this, its just the mathematical limitation of the equipment in question.

 

[nightfly]

I look at film sort of like a saved Photoshop action. Encoded in the way I shoot and develop film is 90% of how I like my final print to look. Different types of film encode different looks, many of which I really like. Usually when a photo grabs me, it's about more than the content, there's also something of the look of it which draws me in. In most cases it's NOT the sharpness or resolution.

I'm sure someone talented in Photoshop could examine this "look" that I like and come up with adjustments to get digitally captured files to look like my film scans, however it seems like a moot point for me as I like what I'm producing.

However the entire process from capture to print is much more pleasurable to me with film cameras and film. Although enjoying using your tools can certainly leading to fetishing, a positive relationship, I can't help but think improves the work.

Film long ago passed paint as an accurate medium for producing likenesses yet people continue to paint. Go figure.

 

[nrb]

I shoot digital, Canon and Sony, but I still find solace in shooting bw negative film for the graphism of it and for the convenience small film cameras provide for street photography.

 

[elude]

In terms of resolution and noise, digital is way better. Color balancing mixed light sources is also much easier to do with raw digital files. And the latest cameras, like the Nikon D700, are amazing at high ISOs.

The reason to still shoot 35mm film is for the way B&W is rendered. You can get pleasing, good results from converting raw digital files (which are RGB) into greyscale files, but even the best technique still doesn't look "film-like". Although a few people, who print contrasty and dark, can fool you.... You can also get surprisingly pretty high resolution with slow film and Leica-quality lenses, and good technique (i.e. tripod).

Color 35mm film is used because you simply don't care to work with digital -- if we're talking image quality you might be able to do something competitive yet different with slow speed film and good drum scanner, but even a >$1000 consumer DSLR raw file will be at least competitive or better than the best scanned 35mm color film.

Commercially, a pro DSLR can be used where a pro used to use (need?) a medium-format camera.

a drum scanner won't do s*** on a 35mm film. for professional use a simple beloved file scanned by a Nikon Coolscan 5000 will do a far better job.

 

[dfoo]

^ You've confirmed that?