Film vs Digital. But with a difference!

[rayfoxlee]

No, this is not quite the usual Fvs.D post that incites angst and usually enrages folk here and elsewhere – at, least I hope not!

I want to develop and expand my photography in a slightly different direction now. In the past, I have just taken shots that interested me – people, buildings, landscapes etc in mono and colour. I have an M7 and some reasonable lenses and a 16 megapixel DSLR with some quite good lenses for that, so for ‘normal’ picture taking, I’m pretty well sorted. I have been a snapper for 50 years!

What I want to do now is start to concentrate on mono, with prints up to A3 that I can produce at home, but with sufficient quality in reserve to go to A2 with a commercially produced print if needed. I don’t want to work in large format, as that is a step too far, but 6x6 and 6x7 is what I am thinking for film – or use the Pentax K5 for digital output as an alternative to film.

If I go down the film route, I will need an Epson V700/V750 scanner, plus camera such as Hasselblad, a Bronica 6x6 or 6x7 and a new A3 printer. Subject matter will be some still life, landscapes so extreme lenses in either wide or telephoto won’t be needed.

What is absolutely crucial is resolution and sharpness. I want the prints to stand pretty close scrutiny.

So, the question is – will I get significantly better quality from the medium format route over digital and, if so, what would be on your shopping list - camera, lenses, printer etc.? I have a budget, but will concentrate on quality without going completely OTT.

Thanks for reading this post. I would value your experience and input!

Ray

 

[wintoid]

Hi Ray,

I'm heading in the opposite direction. I've been using a Minolta Scan Multi Pro scanner to scan my Rolleiflex negatives, and print on an HP8750 A3 printer. The quality is definitely better than I get from my M8 or from my Canon 5D Mark II. However, I have now been seduced back to digital by the sheer convenience, so will probably be selling up my MF gear and scanner after Christmas, when I run out of film.

My verdict is that the quality is significantly better with MF film, at least in 6x6. I don't do landscape, but if I did I think I would feel a bit strange about 6x6. Surely you want a more rectangular negative for landscapes?

Simon

 

[RedLion]

For landscapes

For landscapes

For landscapes, I'd recommend the Fuji GW690III or GSW690III as it's in 6x9 format. Scanning slide film (no grain) on a Epson V750 scanner (with realistic 2200 dpi resolution) you'd have about a 7150x4950 image - 35MP !

Joe

 

[NLewis]

If you just want "resolution and sharpness," I'd say go with digital. 16mp is actually a lot, and if you want more, consider a Sony A850 at 24mp full frame, which would cost you less than a MF film camera system and scanner.

These days, film is for its special "feel" and "look," maybe the "medium format look," and also for people who just want to shoot film for irrational reasons.

I would consider a pro lab for prints instead of your own printer. I like Adoramapix.com. Maybe you can do a little better with your own printer ... maybe not. But, I would rather just spend $18 on a 20x30 than sink $2500+ into a comparable inkjet.

 

[Sparrow]

Hi Ray,

I'm heading in the opposite direction. I've been using a Minolta Scan Multi Pro scanner to scan my Rolleiflex negatives, and print on an HP8750 A3 printer. The quality is definitely better than I get from my M8 or from my Canon 5D Mark II. However, I have now been seduced back to digital by the sheer convenience, so will probably be selling up my MF gear and scanner after Christmas, when I run out of film.

My verdict is that the quality is significantly better with MF film, at least in 6x6. I don't do landscape, but if I did I think I would feel a bit strange about 6x6. Surely you want a more rectangular negative for landscapes?

Simon

Selling the scanner in the new year then? that's interesting 😉

... will it do 6x9 BTW?

 

[shadowfox]

Ray, that's a fun question 🙂

Resolution-wise, I think top level digital sensors and medium format would be indistinguishable at A3 size. In much bigger prints, a drum-scanned medium format negative will look much better. I've seen a huge blow up print from a Nikon pro model at a gallery and at close range, it's quite bad.

On certain subjects and scenes you will notice a difference in looks due to larger negative size. No affordable (in general) digital cameras today has the sensor size equal to 6x7 film.

Another advantage of medium format is that you can go up to 6x12 or even 6x17 for panoramic landscape shots using cameras that are quite compact (I'm thinking Horseman) and also more lenses to choose from especially if you're open to experimenting with Large format lenses.

Printer-wise, I'd pick Canon Pixma 9500 Mark II.

 

[redisburning]

so you want to focus on b&w work...

Adox CMS 20 comes in 120 now. And you're using a tripod, presumably with a MF camera doing still lifes and landscapes.

What is your budget? Because without one I will recommend a Blad SWC or a 500 series and a 100/2 Sonnar or 250mm Superachromat, or a Mamiya 7 with a 43 or 80, or a Sinar/other technical camera. All are expensive but brilliant options. Each will stand up to the scrutiny of even the most demanding people given a proper exposure and focus.

But, I don't think it's necessary to spend that much. I have seen MASSIVE prints made from 800 ISO color negative film done with an ancient blad + 80mm planar that looked better in person at considerably greater than life size than 800x800 scans on the internet of the same work.

I think the best buys in tripod based MF right now are Pentax 6x7 and the Mamiya RZ series though. Big negatives, low cost, quality optics. For your work, I just dont see a TLR or RF working, as great as they may be they do other things better.

I think if you really are going to focus on B&W you should print with an enlarger but I suppose you don't have to if you don't want to.

As far as quality goes, I personally feel modern low speed emulsions in 35mm produce better results than digital. Go up to a MF negative and it's not even a contest. I cannot say from personal experience, but I would bet money that with a modern low speed film, a 500c/m, a 250 SA and a tripod I could make a picture that would blow up to 60 inches by 60 inches and still look amazing, and twice that size and still look acceptable.

 

[ReeRay]

... will it do 6x9 BTW?

Yes it does - I have one and shoot this size

 

[Matus]

First of all - A3 print is about 6x enlargement from 6x7 - that is already pushing it with flatbed scanners like V750 - you better get a lab make you scan with Coolscan 9000 or Imacon. And if you think of decent A2 prints - it applies even more.

Getting a well done scan takes time and skill (and the flatbeds a bit of voodoo to get the focus right) - I would definitely start with a lab and see how I like the results. Realistic resolution of flatbed scanners is mostly under 2000 spi. On the other hand - Coolscan 9000 delivers at 4000 spi setting about 3600 spi true resolution. You will need that for A2 prints.

As it was suggested - the Fuji GW690 and GSW690 (there is also GW680) could be a good solution as there have great lenses are are cheaper than something like Mamiya 7. And if you plan to print rectangular, than 6x6 makes little sense as you would be cropping to 645 which could prove on the small side for A2 prints (though it strongly depends on the subject)

Digital will certainly give you nice and detailed A3. At A2 size one needs around 32 Mpix for 300 dpi print (though 240 dpi would probably be fully acceptable at this print size - around 20 Mpix). So it definitely can be do digitally, although something like Canon 5DII with couple primes could be a better choice for A2. But I have no personal experience.

So - as both ways are possible. I would say it depends on whether you prefer the look of film or the simplicity (and flexibility) of digital. Both ways will allow you to produce excellent results - if you master the process.

You mention that you have a 16 Mpix digital - so just go ahead and make a few well exposed, tripod mounted photos and have them printed to A3 and A2. That could be a good starting point before investing either to "better" digital or film camera & lenses.

And do not hurry getting your own printer. Do so once your printing volume will justify that expense.

 

[timor]

No, this is not quite the usual Fvs.D post that incites angst and usually enrages folk here and elsewhere – at, least I hope not!Ray

Well look, you an image maker, technology does not matter as long as you are getting the quality you want.
If you say "mono" I suppose you mean black & white. It is maybe a real problem, as digital can not see the light the same way as film does, so there is no alternative, is just different. But that is a small problem, most people will not see a difference between baryta print and printout from ink jet. So if you have the hopes to go commercial I think you should concentrate on digital and instead of playing with scanner and film exchange you M7 for Hassie and let say Phase One digi back for starters.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

excellent thread. thanks everyone.

 

[dave y]

It sounds like you have everything you need already!
An M7 with quality lenses for film and a 16mp Digital also with quality lenses.
Seems to me you just need to get a suitable printer for your needs.

If you are not happy with your shots with your present equipment then buying a new camera won't solve anything and just leave you with a lighter wallet.

 

[MCTuomey]

I've done print comparisons b/w scanned Mamiya 7 negatives and a 5D II using mostly ts-e lenses. Tripod-based, carefully exposed, etc. For my needs (varying subjects at 16x20 to occasional 20/24x30/36, both BW and color), and factoring cost/convenience, I will likely concentrate on a fully digital workflow. Yes, provia slides from the Mamiya are beautiful things, and so are competent scans and prints made from them, but my digital files aren't far behind, imho. Close enough that the time, effort, and expense associated with working in film isn't practically justified for me.

 

[Steve M.]

All you need is a Rolleiflex w/ a Xenotar or a Planar lens for 6x6. Plenty of resolution and sharpness w/ that. I never cared for the Fuji MF cameras, though the lenses are sharp. They don't do it for me, though they might for you. All I shoot is Tri-X, even for landscapes, but there are some slower, finer grained emulsions that would work better for large prints if you don't want the grain. Grain in MF is much smoother anyway.

Will you get better quality than digital? Depends on why you talk to, but as you mentioned you already shoot film and digital, you have an idea what you're looking for in IQ. For B&W, wouldn't you have to shoot film? That's my take on it, others will be on the other side of the fence. For me, if I shot color landscapes and portraits, I'd shoot digital. For B&W, film. Horses for courses. But then, I haven't shot any color anything in many years.

 

[bensyverson]

With an Epson scanner, you won't see any sharpness advantage from MF vs digital.

However, sharpness is not the only reason to shoot film... MF lenses can be much nicer than even the best Canon L lenses. And with negative film, you get HDR in one shot. To get the same latitude out of a digital shot, you need to do multiexposure HDR, which is not always possible.

 

[hxpham]

Let me be the devil's advocate and say that the K5 has an amazing sensor with amazing dynamic range.

 

[doolittle]

This approach works for me:

Get a cheap medium format scanner, or even adapt your current scanner (e.g. using a light box or an iPad etc. to act as a light source) just to get a closer look at your negatives.

Get the ones you want to enlarge drum scanned (or with a Hasselblad/Imacon virtual drum scanner).

I got lucky and found an arts centre that lets me use a Hasselblad scanner for a reasonable hourly rate.

 

[NickTrop]

If you just want "resolution and sharpness," I'd say go with digital. 16mp is actually a lot, and if you want more, consider a Sony A850 at 24mp full frame, which would cost you less than a MF film camera system and scanner.

These days, film is for its special "feel" and "look," maybe the "medium format look," and also for people who just want to shoot film for irrational reasons.

I would consider a pro lab for prints instead of your own printer. I like Adoramapix.com. Maybe you can do a little better with your own printer ... maybe not. But, I would rather just spend $18 on a 20x30 than sink $2500+ into a comparable inkjet.

+1 on all counts.

 

[Solinar]

Even with 6x9 negs, my main beef with the at home film-to-digital workflow for color is the scanner.

A film based scanner like the now out of production Coolscan 9000 will out perform a flatbed both in resolution and color depth. Also, it really is nice to have an IT8 slide or negative for the particular film that is being scanned.

If you are shooting 6x9 B/W - lose the scanner. Print directly through the negative onto photographic paper with an enlarger. The tonality and gradiation possible with a 6x9 B/W neg onto an 11 by 14 is still impressive.

For color - full frame 35mm digital capture is ever improving and currently is unquestionably good enough for an A3 size print. Throw in multiple exposures with some mild HDR post processing and I'm not going to touch the exposure latitude with color slide film.

 

[NLewis]

Another option would be to get a cheap MF camera, like a Yashica 124 or Fuji GW690, shoot some rolls, send them to Precision or NCPS for scanning, and make your decision based on the results.