Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Was anyone else impressed/disheartened by how much better the Sony Alpha 900 images look than scanned film? 🙁
Kodak Ektar 100 -- have you tried it?
- Thread starter fraley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 113
- Views 20K
Was anyone else impressed/disheartened by how much better the Sony Alpha 900 images look than scanned film? 🙁
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
"Absolute photography = lifelike colors, extreme sharpness, no diminished images."
That's a joke, right?
That's a joke, right?
dfoo
Well-known
Depends what you mean by better.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Digital images nowadays are cleaner, especially when pixel-peeping 🙂
But when looking at a picture as a whole (or print), the very existence of texture (grain) on film contributes to the vibrancy of the image. If this is not the case, there will not be a market for the myriad "make-my-file-look-like-film" plugins and software floating around.
A friend of mine who is a wedding photographer commented that nowadays, people *think* they wanted portraits that are too clean and looks like... uh, I would not quote his exact analogy here 😉
uhligfd
Well-known
Of course it is/was NO joke, if we want to preserve the original subject to the largest possible degree. Same with Absolute Sound: reproduce as truthfully, dynamically, ... as possible.
A Steinway grand's sound or a brick wall's color.
Why no joke? Because otherwise we accept imperfection, green reds, blue magentas etc, loss of detail etc.
Absolute sound, absolute sight (eagle eyes and memory), absolute smell etc with/for all our senses and their recordings is one aim.
Hazy memory, distorty landscapes, sound drifting out of a bar is another aim. But without true reproduction at our fingertips (shutter release), the secondary, the arty look is predetermined by the limits of the recording system, pre-biassed and ultimately diminished in our arty possibilities.
I want a true film/sensor, like clean water. Not a pink one, not a Softar one ... No joke!
40oz
...
Those were test images under controlled lighting and in the best possible circumstances, and I thought the DSLR did terrible.
The films all seemed to accurately pick up the very texture of the paper, while the DSLR made it look like a blank white area. We have no idea if the film shots of the women's faces picked up grain present in the original image. Grain doesn't seem to be a problem in the black and white test patterns, so I don't know why it would spontaneously appear in the color sections. Either way, the DSLR shot didn't show any grain, and one wonders if that's because it couldn't see what was there.
There is something like grain in the film shots, but look closely at a piece of paper under a bright light. Tell me you don't see texture. Texture that is entirely absent from the Alpha shots.
I'm not saying we should confuse grain for existing texture, but let's not assume just because we can see something in the film shots and can't in the digital shots that it shouldn't be there. Film is intended to be used to capture an image and then printed to a larger size. Color film IS dye clouds that make up an image. Silver B&W IS silver particles covering a film. I'd *expect* to see them if I looked close enough, colored in a manner respective of their part of the image. Just like pixels if I zoom in far enough. When I look at those film scans I see a whole bunch of dye clouds colored differently making up each tone. When I look at the DSLR shots I see a bunch of pixels all the same color next to other pixels slightly different in color.
Look at the flabed scan vs. the Sony Alpha shot: http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_imagequality.htm then look at the film shots. Pretty obvious to me the digital sensor hardly saw the actual dots of color making up the image, while the film actually mimicked it.
What I saw was an inability of the DSLR to pick up the detail of the test chart itself. It captured the details on the chart OK, but that was about the limit. Viewing over the internet makes any conclusions we could draw provisionary at best - we sure can't judge color without comparing to the actual test chart. I'd be willing to say the film + Imagon 848 scans made it clear that the Sony Alpha is not bad but hardly better when it comes to detail capture. And that's just from a scan. What do the prints look like?
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
When I compare 4000 DPI scans using my coolscan 5000 from Reala 100 to an Canon 5D capture I don't see as much difference as I do in that test... To me, at any rate, it depends on what I'm really going for. If I want that ultra clean smooth look, then I'd use digital.
charjohncarter
Veteran
This sounds like an OT drift of this thread. But I guess it is pertinent, especially the way the world is turning. Do we go for happy middle of the road or do we mix egg whites by hand and add pigments that thrill the art world.
dfoo
Well-known
Ok, lets get back on topic. Here are some scans from the first roll of Ektar I scanned. All these shots were my Leica M4p with either 50mm Summicron, or 28mm Ultron 1.9.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have to say that I like this photo very very much !! Excellent !!
Cheers,
Gabor
Cheers,
Gabor
M4 | 50 Summicron (current) | Ektar 100
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Thanks, Gabor.
M4 | 50 Elmar II
This film scans very easily on the Coolscan V ED. Much less grain/noise than the typical C-41 film.
M4 | 50 Elmar II
This film scans very easily on the Coolscan V ED. Much less grain/noise than the typical C-41 film.
charjohncarter
Veteran
dfoo and ?Gabor, great images.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I forgot if I have posted this here already or in another thread but ...
dfoo
Well-known
I've only shot a single roll of Ektar so far, but I think it looks quite nice.
I'll post some comparisons with Reala 100 at some point. The grain with Reala can also be very good, as long as the exposure is not off.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Thanks, Gabor.
M4 | 50 Elmar II
This film scans very easily on the Coolscan V ED. Much less grain/noise than the typical C-41 film.
JJ, you're killing me ... that's beautiful!
You're now my contact on flickr 🙂
Tuna
Fotoğrafçı
I see some very impressive stuff here showing off the capabilities of this film. Here are the first two I've processed from my first roll:
marke
Well-known
Gabor
Gabor
What lens did you use on this one?
Gabor
What lens did you use on this one?
I forgot if I have posted this here already or in another thread but .
dfoo
Well-known
That first shot is really beautiful. Nice colors!
maddoc
... likes film again.
Mark,
that was taken with my Noctilux at f/1.0.
that was taken with my Noctilux at f/1.0.
Last edited:
david.elliott
Well-known
I have what hopefully isnt too foolish a question...
With the ISO 100 films, are you all just mainly shooting outside or in really really brightly lit areas?
For me, ISO 400 is barely sufficient in most indoor situations (and I mainly take photos indoors). ISO 400 indoors still typically requires me to be at or near wide open. That would require a two stop push for Ektar 100 as it is.
Do you typically just push the film two stops and use it indoors? Or do you go for ISO 400 rated films from the outset?
Thank you in advance for your insight and your patience. 🙂
With the ISO 100 films, are you all just mainly shooting outside or in really really brightly lit areas?
For me, ISO 400 is barely sufficient in most indoor situations (and I mainly take photos indoors). ISO 400 indoors still typically requires me to be at or near wide open. That would require a two stop push for Ektar 100 as it is.
Do you typically just push the film two stops and use it indoors? Or do you go for ISO 400 rated films from the outset?
Thank you in advance for your insight and your patience. 🙂
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
