Resolution of Film Versus Digital

Aristophanes said:
Who prints?

Seriously, printing has been relegated to an esoteric practice mostly for value-added items rather than the normal output of the medium. When everyone printed because there was no other output option, resolution was critical, but for digital compromises are made to ne network-friendly.
Click to expand...

I never understood people who scanned film to print it digitally. Just makes no sense. So yes, if you are going to digital print then get a digital camera which cuts the out the weakest link which is the scanning.
But if you're prepared and/or interested enough, then wet printing from film has always given wonderful results when done well.
But that wasn't the question....
 
Not really true. You can do things digitally that are extremely difficult--nearly impossible--with wet printing, and there are things that film can do that digital can't. Shooting film and scanning it can gather the best of both together, if you know what you're doing. I'd love to have the money to do it Salgado-style--carrying it back to silver--but I'm not that rich.
 
tog said:
I never understood people who scanned film to print it digitally. Just makes no sense. So yes, if you are going to digital print then get a digital camera which cuts the out the weakest link which is the scanning.
But if you're prepared and/or interested enough, then wet printing from film has always given wonderful results when done well.
But that wasn't the question....
Click to expand...

Why not?
Scanned film retains the grain look and color or tones, cleaning up dusts are perfect using digital tools. Printing digitally is far from rewarding (process-wise), but is consistent and produce good prints.

Scanning is not the weakest link if you use a proper scanner.
 
Multi-shot cameras may overtake 4x5 in the years to come.

I would be shocked if a 35mm sensor would ever be able to beat to a contemporary 4x5 drum scan unless the technology simply ceased to advance any further. What 35mm lens could be 13 times as sharp as an APO Sironar?
 
Aristophanes said:
Unless the pixels measure atoms.

Both record photon-generated energy. How much is what you are asking. One can abstract measure it and, in the long run, sensor capture will surpass film.

If you are asking, odds are you cannot visibly tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a moire mess to me and surely that would be easy to see...lol

I don't think you will find moire patterns in a Daguerreotype!

I personally don't believe that there is a digital sensor currently made that will out resolve mercury vapors and silver on large format or a processor in any camera that can keep up with the information but I may be wrong.
 
shadowfox said:
Why not?
Scanned film retains the grain look and color or tones, cleaning up dusts are perfect using digital tools. Printing digitally is far from rewarding (process-wise), but is consistent and produce good prints.

Scanning is not the weakest link if you use a proper scanner.
Click to expand...

Why not? Because most people here obsess over having the "best" quality lenses. Then they are happy to put their film through a consumer grade scanner with a cheap lens and the inate ability to lose image detail ( a destructive process) followed by further digital destructive processes followed by banging on about how good their lenses are. Doesn't add up does it. And how many people actually use a drum scanner? Very few.
 
tog said:
Why not? Because most people here obsess over having the "best" quality lenses. Then they are happy to put their film through a consumer grade scanner with a cheap lens and the inate ability to lose image detail ( a destructive process) followed by further digital destructive processes followed by banging on about how good their lenses are. Doesn't add up does it. And how many people actually use a drum scanner? Very few.
Click to expand...

Ok, now you qualify your statement with "some people who scan a certain way."

In your original post, which was the one I responded to, your statement about scanning sounds like a general one.
 
shadowfox said:
Ok, now you qualify your statement with "some people who scan a certain way."

In your original post, which was the one I responded to, your statement about scanning sounds like a general one.
Click to expand...

I'm just making the point that generally scanning isn't a good thing to do if you are worried about resolution. But most people don't really care as they don't obsess over print quality. They obsess over reputation of lenses and don't care if they throw away what the lens is capable of. Or are ignorant of what wet printing can do or don't have the facility or inclination to try it. If they cared they wouldn't scan or would get a digital camera. And even drum scans have limits. But again, most people don't drum scan. They use a flatbed or consumer grade film scanner. It doesn't make sense if you are worried about resolution and ultimate print quality.
 
I think that's a generalisation, people who spend lots on cameras and lenses often buy decent scanners. If you use one of the consumer Nikon scanners for instance you can resolve the actual grain of some films at over 4000dpi.
Drum scanners have problems sure, but on balance I'd say resolution wise they out do most optical printers by a wide margin.
From experience optical printing can have issues too with respect to ultimate sharpness; negative carriers holding negatives flat, light sources are critical, off axis projection, paper flatness (we use vacuum easels) all can have an effect.
Sure if you shoot with a Summicron on Pan F and scan on a $100 flatbed you're not getting the full benefit, but then again if you use the same equipment on pushed Tri-x you're not getting the full capabilities of the lens either.
Scanning or wet printing are fine, both are capable of outstanding quality (using say an imacon or a DeVere with Rodenstock APO lens) or less resolution (Espon V700 vs Durst 370 and cheap enlarger lens)
In the end it depends what you need the prints for, I scan and wet print, scan for web print for exhibition.
 
For some of us, scanning negatives is the only option we have if we want to shoot film. I used to have a darkroom back in the day but I don't have anything like the room - or the time - to process my own negs and print from them anymore.

Whilst I love shooting film and digital (for me there is no "versus" when it comes to film or digital as I choose both) I "prefer" using film. Why? Because of of the grain and the fact that it slows me down and makes me think more about what I'm shooting and why. I shoot most formats from 35mm to 5"x4" and, for me at least, it isn't about the resolution or the technical stuff, it's about the medium and how I feel.

I don't believe one is better than the other but I feel happier about my film output than my digital photos. There's an old saying that goes something like "a snapshot is picture of something but a photograph is a picture about something". Not sure where I read this but although I wouldn't say I'm any great photographer, my digital work feels like good record snaps whereas my film photos evoke a feeling (for me) about where they were taken.

Personally, I'd rather concentrate on taking photos than adding to a futile debate about which box with a lens is better than the other.
 
Now this is funny...is resolution beyond certain level (offered by 95% of gear people use) so important for us, amateurs? Sure, film may look different from digital but how does it relates to resolution?
 
lol, I really do not care.
The 12MP AA-filterless images from my GXR are way sharper than what I get from ISO 100 film and my freshly cleaned and adjusted Coolscan...but for my 20x30 prints that does not matter, really.
 
texchappy said:
As far as resolution, I've seen at different spots on the net where some say that modern digital cameras have now surpassed film while others say that film still has more.

Which is it? Does anybody know for sure?
Click to expand...

It's truly irrelevant.

texchappy said:
Bonus question: if you are going to scan then does the detail of 50 iso film versus 400 really matter?
Click to expand...

Yes, for any sensibly chosen film scanner. You can see grain structure in film easily at as low as 1600 ppi.
 
I always thought film had just enough resolution... however, I always look at pictures as a whole frame. Small details don't concern me that much. I also like to look at nice tones and how naturally they relate from one element to the next. I think film is just perfect for me.
 
Nermi9 said:
I always thought film had just enough resolution... however, I always look at pictures as a whole frame. Small details don't concern me that much. I also like to look at nice tones and how naturally they relate from one element to the next. I think film is just perfect for me.
Click to expand...

+1
Like.
Fav.
 
kanzlr said:
lol, I really do not care.
The 12MP AA-filterless images from my GXR are way sharper than what I get from ISO 100 film and my freshly cleaned and adjusted Coolscan...but for my 20x30 prints that does not matter, really.
Click to expand...


on the other hand, I just picked up a Coolscan 4000 to replace my Coolscan IV and I do appreciate the higher resolution :)
 
For me, it was about 10MP

For me, it was about 10MP

My first real digital serious camera was a Konica Minolta 5D at 6.1MP. Not bad, but not enough. The Leica M8 at 10.3MP (and no AA filter) is very adequate and compares well with my Nikon Coolscan V scanner, scanning 35mm at 4000dpi. My current camera is an APS-C 24MP sensor and that's more than adequate too. So for 35mm, this isn't scientific, but I think somewhere between 10 and 12MP.
 
I recently visited an exhibition where the prints were done by my local pro lab. A mixture of 35mm Velvia and digital captures (17mp 1Ds2) printed at 120x180 cm. I was surprised to see that film prints looked so much better. The problem I see is that you need to spend a lot of money to get such results (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom