Scanned 35mm. VS full frame DSLR 12MP ?

Sure there is a need for huge prints- people like huge prints. Collectors buy huge prints. That aside, I think an 8x10 from an M9 or a D700 would stand up to the 8x10 ilfochrome/velvia. From 35mm film, an 8x10 is an enlargement. At 300 DPI, an 8x10 is a reduction from either of those digital cameras.
 
Chris,

Photography can be art, sometimes. As painting and music, not always. Even though the consideration is always subjective... That would be a nonsense discussion.

The significance of this thread is full of sense. We're talking about visually measurable image quality. There's a difference. Those two prints are really different.


Regards,

Juan
 
Jamie Pillers said:
degruyl said:
...
I hear this comment a lot on the web... that there's no comparison between the look of, say, Tri-X, and digital. But looking at web-based digitally-created black and white images, I see a LOT of gorgeous stuff that certainly LOOKS as good as anything I ever produced in the darkroom. And now with Photoshop ad-ons like Silver E-fex Pro, it seems like high-quality digital black and white is possible. Not true??
Click to expand...

I was referring to the look of printed pictures, and therefore the web is completely irrelevant. Or don't you look at paper anymore?

Getting prints back from a frontier B&W printer has pushed me back into the darkroom.

As for "no comparison" I did not mean to say that the image quality of converted pictures was bad. It just looks completely different. I have never seen a good digital B&W made to simulate Tri-X. It was not a comment on the images, just the feel of the grain.

I have also seen some fantastic digital B&W. I am not as much a fan of using the Nik software as I supposed I would be, but that is me.
Click to expand...
 
Merkin said:
Sure there is a need for huge prints- people like huge prints. Collectors buy huge prints. That aside, I think an 8x10 from an M9 or a D700 would stand up to the 8x10 ilfochrome/velvia. From 35mm film, an 8x10 is an enlargement. At 300 DPI, an 8x10 is a reduction from either of those digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Try it, you deserve it.
 
I enjoy my digital photography. Have done it for years. It is just inferior...

The day there's a digital sensor/camera as good as film, film will finally have a reason to disappear in a natural way.

I wouldn't mind at all in that case, because I would have a good tool in my hands.

Cheers,

Juan.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I enjoy my digital photography. Have done it for years. It is just inferior...

The day there's a digital sensor/camera as good as film, film will finally have a reason to disappear in a natural way.

I wouldn't mind at all in that case, because I would have a good tool in my hands.

Cheers,

Juan.
Click to expand...

The difficulty there is that Film has certain advantages over digital, and digital has certain advantages over film. The D700 was the first DSLR that I thought possessed enough advantages over film to outweigh the disadvantages, so when I found myself in a position where I pretty much had to switch, that is the camera I bought. Right now, since neither is 100 percent demonstrably better than the other, it is a matter of personal taste where they draw that line. I think that in another 10 years, digital sensors will be demonstrably better than film in all respects, but that is just my prediction, it could be 20, it could be 50. I do think it will happen though.

If you ever find yourself in Louisville, KY, let me know, I'll buy you a beer :)
 
My FujiS3Pro (same sensor as S5) has in my opinion better tonality than any other digital I've seen for skins.

About its high ISO, I have 1600 poster prints with no visible grain from raw files.

It remains inferior to my SLRs. If we talk about my Hassie or my Arca Swiss, those high ISO prints are crap from digital toys not totally invented yet, and that's the only truth.

I won't give a D700 a try. It's too bad in front of all my cameras (and yours). I think you'll really enjoy that Ilfochrome print from a great Kodachrome, for example.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Don't knock the D700 until you have compared a black and white print made from an ISO 12800 file with any film print you have made from ISO 12800 film, or even from your Fuji S3pro. Above ISO 6400, I am of the opinion that the D700 is demonstrably better than any film. I know this is just a web image instead of a print, but show me an ISO 9000 film image that looks better than http://www.flickr.com/photos/deac0nb1ues/3908394576/in/set-72157622208779849/ as far as image quality goes, and I will film myself smashing one of my lenses with a sledgehammer, post it on youtube, and link it to RFF.

ETA: Oh no, Beer is one thing that will always be better in analog.
 
That's kind of an extreme example, ISO 12800. When would I use it? The few times when I got to 3200 the pictures looked too dang bright. I would have been better off underexposing them so the photos looked like the scene did.
 
Merkin! Now you've really made me smile with your ISO numbers thing! It's not that your D700 is better -at ISO 12800- than film... It's that film goes just to 640, and it's enough: it's always been like this and won't change. Even for photographing Chopin, ISO1 was enough. Photographers don't need those ultrahigh numbers, only geeks and companies!

Honestly, from my heart, I'll accept one day your beer, for the big secret you don't know yet and I am giving you now: Tri-X is all you need for life.


Cheers,

Juan
 
"The difficulty there is that Film has certain advantages over digital, and digital has certain advantages over film."

The biggest difference is that digital is the present and future, film is the past. Time marches on. And film will fade into obscurity, regardless of whether you prefer the look of film or not.

The prints from my Epson 3800 shot with a 5DMII are "better", IMHO, than I ever got with film, and I've shot film for almost 50 years. YMWPV (Your milage will probably vary).
 
I find the ability to freeze motion at f/8 out on the streets at night, handheld, where tri-x pushed to 1600 would be shooting at f2.8 pretty useful, especially since a d700 black and white at 12800 has a certain 'pushed tri-x' feel to the noise when you don't apply any noise reduction.

Sure, ISO 1 might be 'enough' to make a photograph, but its flexibility is severely restrained. A D700 can shoot in light from EV 19 (sunny 16 conditions are EV 15) down to EV 0, handheld, with no image stabilization, assuming a 50mm f1.4 lens used from f11 to f1.4 with a minimum shutter speed of 1/60th. A practical 15 stop range handheld is nothing to sneeze at. Assuming the same lens and conditions on an F5, 400 speed tri-x bottoms out at EV 5, giving it a practical 10 stop range, handheld.
 
Yup, and while today's films are less grainy, film speed seems to have a maximum limit of perhaps 3200 if you can put up with slightly blocked highlights, contrasty mid tones, and featureless shadows. I don't expect any great breakthrough at this point. You could get that speed with Royal-X Pan Recording in the early 1960's. I have a framed vintage 1962 print on the wall that I shot on Royal-X Pan Recording by the light of a campfire.

Nearly half a century later and we're still locked into 3200 with silver as the sensor. Is that the limit for silver or is it the limit for using silver the way we do? The early sixties saw some breakthroughs in speed enhancing developers ~ UFG, Acufine, Diafine, HC-110. Since then? Nothing. Was that a result of people thinking that was enough speed? Did the research money go into faster and faster color films instead? Tri-X is 400 but Walgreens has lots of 800 color. Is a faster B&W film and developer combo possible at all?

Is their another Harold Bauman in some university lab today? He's the guy who formulated Ethol UFG, then Acufine and Diafine. But, like I said, that was a long time ago. Over 45 years ago.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
The images from D700 with Zeiss lenses are truly impressive and the convenience of digital versus film is unquestionable.

But for me, it boils down to the final presentation.
Flipping tough images on a computer monitor just does not match the experience of projecting slides on a good quality screen.

When it comes to B&W, I still believe one can produce much better prints from film than from digital.

Scanning film with inferior scanners and comparing to the images taken with a good DSLR is an unfair comparison and somewhat like comparing pears and apples.

No doubt digital will only get better and I believe we are seeing the twilight of the film. But this does not stop me from enjoying film as long as it lasts.

At the end it really is a personal choice and one should experience both to be able to choose wisely.
Cheers,
ZS
 
With digital, I never get the AH HA moment EVERY time I open that developing tank and there are negatives in there, not all black film.

I think the tonality of my MF and LF black and white is more pleasing than the D300, while the D300 gives much sharper images. Sharpness is not every thing in a image, only when pixel peeping.

I love shooting my G1 with a MF voigtlander lens. While it does not give the same visceral pleasure is the M6

Dave
 
A really well exposed, well developed, well scanned e6 film can compete with a 12mp full frame d700 or 5d as far as sharpness and resolution goes - maybe even slightly surpass it. The only film roll I've ever shot that was at that level of quality was with an om2n and the insanely sharp 28mm f3.5 zuiko on provia 100, looking down from a city view platform in sydney. When I scanned it I took extra time to make sure it was done well. Looking at the scanned slides, the detail in them is pretty stunning. My 5d would probably hold slightly less detail in the same image. A d700 even less.

The problem is, that's only happened once to me, it's so hard to get consistency with film.
 
My observation from prints has been for print sizes up to the point where the 12MP digital image begins to show degradation the digital image will almost always show better clarity and detail than the scanned film image. But once enlarging past that point the digital image degrades at a greater rate than the scanned film image.

I've had 40x30 inch prints from Canon 5D and scanned 35mm Portra 160NC side by side in front of me and it just confirmed in my mind why I continue to shoot film.

YMMV of course though ;)
 
i work in a hybrid workflow since selling off my Nikon D3's. i shoot 35mm film

1)superior image quality for my tastes - digital too clean an unnatural
2)superior dynamic range
3)convenience - i'm a wedding photog, and after i shoot my wedding, i drop the film at the lab, and i'm done. i like to spend my sunday's with my family.

so now i have the best of both worlds.

With digital, you pay more up front, but with film, you pay more in the long run.
Click to expand...

this has not been my experience. i know that the film cameras I have will be working perfectly in fifteen years time. any working photog will be unlikely to be using the same camera that they are using today, in three years time. it all adds up. the current structure of the digital camera industry is unsustainable IMO. something has to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom