northeast16th
Member
First, I've made my best prints from scanned film on Epson printers. I was always a horrendously bad printer in the darkroom, so I shot slides for the most part and like to look at them on a light box. This is just as digital printing was just really getting going, and my first time around I was stunned by the image quality of a scanned transparency printed on an Epson.
My question is this. Since I mostly make smallish prints, never larger than 6x8, can someone tell me if they have compared scanned film to a digital camera?
Let's put it this way for clarity. Let's say I have a digital camera that will give me a file of 1800 by 2700 dpi exactly, which would give a 6x9 print at exactly 300 dpi. Now let's say I scanned a neg or transparency to give me exactly the same, 1800 by 2700 dpi, and then printed them after doing photoshop corrections. And let's say the photoshop corrections could be done in a way where you have the same curves, same exact histogram, same color balance, etc. (I know this is impossible, but let's just say it were possible).
Now to make it even more even, let's say I used the exact same lens and switched between a digital full frame body and a film camera (like how you can use older Nikon lenses on DSLRs). And it was the exact same subject with the exact same lighting conditions, taken almost simultaneously.
I think I'm actually answering my own question. It seems to me that there's no way there could be any noticeable difference. I'm not talking theoretical here, which I don't really care about, but real world impressions from normal non-obsessive people.
This seems kind of silly now that I've gone to the trouble to write it down, but what the hell. I'm thinking about getting a dslr to shoot with for convenience. My prints are normally 6x8, never bigger, only smaller sometimes. It would be handy to use a dslr. Oh, what the hell, maybe this was just to convince myself that it was a-ok to get a digital camera. I love shooting film, but I'm thinking about shooting digital.
Cheers.
My question is this. Since I mostly make smallish prints, never larger than 6x8, can someone tell me if they have compared scanned film to a digital camera?
Let's put it this way for clarity. Let's say I have a digital camera that will give me a file of 1800 by 2700 dpi exactly, which would give a 6x9 print at exactly 300 dpi. Now let's say I scanned a neg or transparency to give me exactly the same, 1800 by 2700 dpi, and then printed them after doing photoshop corrections. And let's say the photoshop corrections could be done in a way where you have the same curves, same exact histogram, same color balance, etc. (I know this is impossible, but let's just say it were possible).
Now to make it even more even, let's say I used the exact same lens and switched between a digital full frame body and a film camera (like how you can use older Nikon lenses on DSLRs). And it was the exact same subject with the exact same lighting conditions, taken almost simultaneously.
I think I'm actually answering my own question. It seems to me that there's no way there could be any noticeable difference. I'm not talking theoretical here, which I don't really care about, but real world impressions from normal non-obsessive people.
This seems kind of silly now that I've gone to the trouble to write it down, but what the hell. I'm thinking about getting a dslr to shoot with for convenience. My prints are normally 6x8, never bigger, only smaller sometimes. It would be handy to use a dslr. Oh, what the hell, maybe this was just to convince myself that it was a-ok to get a digital camera. I love shooting film, but I'm thinking about shooting digital.
Cheers.