PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
I find these film/digital things incredibly boring. Plus over the years the methodology of the results is always super suspect. In other words, film has to be brought into the digital space and that is where the comparison falls apart because people bringing film into the digital space don't actually do it right. The old idea that six megapixels is equivalent of a 35mm film frame is just a lie that was promoted by someone trying to make money off of digital sales. Kool-Aid anyone?
The reality is until recently film needed to be kept analogue for maximum quality. There are a lot of options these days. But I feel that good enough is good enough. No point in pursuing it really. In that vein I'll post a couple of comparisons I did years ago but never put online because I didn't want the vitriol that gets spewed at people pointing out the truth. Make of it what you will.
The first is a scan from Agfa Optima 100 in a Nikon 4000 scanner. The scan is at 4000 dpi which is a legitimate number (not like the inflated numbers of flat bed scanners like Epson). The second half of the image was taken from a camera scan at somewhere around 12,000 to 14,000 dpi if my memory serves. The difference should be obvious so I don't need to say anything more about it. Getting to this level of detail though is a PITA and fraught with problems and I don't know why anyone would do it frankly except in extraordinary circumstances. The neg was shot in a Leica with a Summicron 35mm.
The second example is also from a Nikon 4000 scanner. This time of a black and white neg. Fuji Neopan 400. Shot with a Konica Hexar but I don't remember the lens. Perhaps a Zeiss 35mm Biogon. The second half is from an enlargement done in the darkroom then scanned. IIRC I maxed out my Saunders enlarger and used my Zeiss Orthoplanar. The difference in the two should be apparent. 4000 dpi doesn't even come close to resolving the grain of even a 400 speed film. The enlargement though has plenty of room to spare.
I don't have a direct comparison between digital and film because frankly I'm not interested. My general feeling is when digital hit around 36 mp then they were about equal. At that point too they were still different so comparisons are difficult. Digital is great with edges but film is good with content/tonality. And of course as you increase the size of the neg film still wins out, though digital keeps getting better. And frankly, does it really matter anymore? These two example though should show the issue with comparisons at least on the film end. They were never fair. They were done by people who were either ignorant or who misled on purpose to line their pockets.
The reality is until recently film needed to be kept analogue for maximum quality. There are a lot of options these days. But I feel that good enough is good enough. No point in pursuing it really. In that vein I'll post a couple of comparisons I did years ago but never put online because I didn't want the vitriol that gets spewed at people pointing out the truth. Make of it what you will.
The first is a scan from Agfa Optima 100 in a Nikon 4000 scanner. The scan is at 4000 dpi which is a legitimate number (not like the inflated numbers of flat bed scanners like Epson). The second half of the image was taken from a camera scan at somewhere around 12,000 to 14,000 dpi if my memory serves. The difference should be obvious so I don't need to say anything more about it. Getting to this level of detail though is a PITA and fraught with problems and I don't know why anyone would do it frankly except in extraordinary circumstances. The neg was shot in a Leica with a Summicron 35mm.
The second example is also from a Nikon 4000 scanner. This time of a black and white neg. Fuji Neopan 400. Shot with a Konica Hexar but I don't remember the lens. Perhaps a Zeiss 35mm Biogon. The second half is from an enlargement done in the darkroom then scanned. IIRC I maxed out my Saunders enlarger and used my Zeiss Orthoplanar. The difference in the two should be apparent. 4000 dpi doesn't even come close to resolving the grain of even a 400 speed film. The enlargement though has plenty of room to spare.
I don't have a direct comparison between digital and film because frankly I'm not interested. My general feeling is when digital hit around 36 mp then they were about equal. At that point too they were still different so comparisons are difficult. Digital is great with edges but film is good with content/tonality. And of course as you increase the size of the neg film still wins out, though digital keeps getting better. And frankly, does it really matter anymore? These two example though should show the issue with comparisons at least on the film end. They were never fair. They were done by people who were either ignorant or who misled on purpose to line their pockets.
