Scanned 35mm. VS full frame DSLR 12MP ?

Juan Valdenebro said:
I have a print (from the 90s) from a Velvia shot of a small frog (less than an inch) and its feet fingers are amazingly sharp, and just haven't been able to print it again with that quality, not even after a drum scan of 100Mb or more. I think one of the main limits of digital imaging and printing is, also, the 300dpi thing... Fine art reproductions with higher dpi printing give another feeling.
Click to expand...

Is that print via Cibachrome (and if not... how)? If so, you may be SOL for trying to get the same thing without just doing it again. There are still places that do Cibachrome prints.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Anyway, to go to the OP point, I think that if 100 of the best photogrphers in the world are asked to get involved in a project with no hurries at all, and with lots of money for it, most of them would go with film.

Then another factor comes: some people really don't know how to get the best from film... As someone said, with digital you get a shot and do a lot of things to make it better, and with film you must make a perfect original when you fire, and then do a lot of things trying not to lose all that beauty...
Click to expand...

I agree with the first statement I quoted of yours, but disagree with the second.

I think that if you gave nearly any competent photographer a project with no time constraints at all and a huge budget, the 4x5 and 8x10 cameras would come out. I know that would be the case for me. Unfortunately, too many things these days need to be fast and cheap.

I think that the idea of the perfect original film negative is, if not a myth, an extreme, extreme rarity, probably on the order of 1 out of 1000 keepers for most people. The vast majority of negatives benefit from some sort of contrast adjustment, dodging/burning, and/or toning, at the very least. Besides, if the negative was the important part of the equation, we would see negatives hanging up in galleries.

Also, in some senses, it is more difficult to get a perfect in camera digital exposure than it is a perfect film one, because film has a wider latitude range as far as how far off your exposure can be, at least with Black and White. You might argue that people cheat by chimping to check their exposures, but chimping isn't really any different than bracketing.
 
not shooting 8x10 to everything else being fast and cheap is a bit of a leap. i consider myself reasonably competent but the thought of hanging off a hilux crossing the northern batha prefecture with a 8x10 seems unsavory to say the least.
 
Merkin said:
Also, in some senses, it is more difficult to get a perfect in camera digital exposure than it is a perfect film one, because film has a wider latitude range as far as how far off your exposure can be, at least with Black and White. You might argue that people cheat by chimping to check their exposures, but chimping isn't really any different than bracketing.
Click to expand...

So long as you are talking about negative film...

Positive, on the other hand, has even less exposure latitude than digital. But it scans so easily on a color calibrated scanner.

(I do not think that chimping is necessarily cheating: but you should have a look at the Histogram in addition to the image on the LCD)
 
emraphoto said:
not shooting 8x10 to everything else being fast and cheap is a bit of a leap. i consider myself reasonably competent but the thought of hanging off a hilux crossing the northern batha prefecture with a 8x10 seems unsavory to say the least.
Click to expand...


That wasn't my exact point, I apologize for my apparent lack of clarity. My basic point was that in today's world, for a lot of photographers, shooting film is expensive, time consuming, and slow, and since people are very rarely given unlimited time and an unlimited budget, digital is often the option that makes the most sense. The other thing that I was implying, but I did not state clearly, is that part of unlimited time was unlimited time to actually get the shot. Obviously a view camera would be a horrible choice while one is careening across the mahgreb in the back of a pickup, but if you were still, and had all the time in the world to get the shot, a view camera is an extremely tempting proposition.
 
degruyl said:
Is that print via Cibachrome (and if not... how)? If so, you may be SOL for trying to get the same thing without just doing it again. There are still places that do Cibachrome prints.
Click to expand...

Yes, what I was trying to do was scanning the slide to get the same results.
 
degruyl said:
So long as you are talking about negative film...

Positive, on the other hand, has even less exposure latitude than digital. But it scans so easily on a color calibrated scanner.

(I do not think that chimping is necessarily cheating: but you should have a look at the Histogram in addition to the image on the LCD)
Click to expand...

You are quite correct about slide film having very little exposure latitude. That is where the bracketing comes in, however. Most photographers I have met are far more likely to bracket exposures with slide film than negative for that very reason.

As to looking at the histogram, one feature I really dig on my camera is the setting that shows, during playback, any blown highlights in blinking black and white. That way, I can know at an incredibly brief glance if my exposure is correct, or at least good enough.
 
It's not an issue that engages me (for me, a digital is for when I don't want to work at it and just run on automatic). But, at the risk of starting something, I will say that Ken Rockwell addresses this in his usual effusive manner in several posts at his site.
 
this has become way overcomplicated using the OP's benchmark of the two compared once uploaded onto a computer screen. The digital vs. film debate is OOOOOLD and hopefully not about to be repeated in full scale here.
 
notturtle said:
this has become way overcomplicated using the OP's benchmark of the two compared once uploaded onto a computer screen. The digital vs. film debate is OOOOOLD and hopefully not about to be repeated in full scale here.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but it is a handy and fun way to kill a rainy day ;)

Besides, if we have made it this far without it degenerating in to a flame war, I think we can actually have a decent discussion about it, considering that one of the main reasons it comes up so often is because digital is a constantly changing thing. It only makes sense to have a 'how are film and digital comparing these days' discussion every so often.
 
Merkin, apart from the fact that I didn't mention a bigger format and I didn't even think of it, such a format doesn't make any photograph better.

Negative color film is not the normal choice, but positive.

I can make with my Hasselblad a better image tonally speaking, than with any digital, but also with a cheap SLR. Film and lenses are the point, not the camera or format. Film "pixels", silver, are small enough for giving that sense, no matter the size.

Cheers,

Juan.
 
The difficulty in stepping up the argument to medium format is that very few people have had a chance to shoot with one of the $60k Hasselblad digital cameras. 35mm film vs FX digital is a much more reasonable comparison because of the affordability issue. As of right now, comparing a D700 or a 5d2 to a Hasselblad shooting velvia is comparing apples and oranges.
 
To me not much difference, that is why my scanner is getting lonely and the D700 is a near constant companion. I do use exactly the same lenses with the D700 as with my Nikon film bodies and the old 18/4 does not look so shabby any more either.

Bob
 
degruyl said:
...

If you do B&W, however, there is no comparison between the look of Tri-X and the results of a digital transformation. Even with simulated grain....

I'm curious why you say "there is no comparison". Have you done something like the side-by-side comparison that the OP suggested? Or did you see a comparison somewhere on the web? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks.

I hear this comment a lot on the web... that there's no comparison between the look of, say, Tri-X, and digital. But looking at web-based digitally-created black and white images, I see a LOT of gorgeous stuff that certainly LOOKS as good as anything I ever produced in the darkroom. And now with Photoshop ad-ons like Silver E-fex Pro, it seems like high-quality digital black and white is possible. Not true??
Click to expand...
 
Ok Merkin, then this way:

Same Leica lens, say by f/8, tripod, same shot with Velvia or Technical Pan film, and M9.

In your opinion, which has more resolution? Which has nicer tonal gradation?

In mine, yet it's comparing apples and oranges... They're very different!
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Ok Merkin, then this way:

Same Leica lens, say by f/8, tripod, same shot with Velvia or Technical Pan film, and M9.

In your opinion, which has more resolution? Which has nicer tonal gradation?

In mine, yet it's comparing apples and oranges... They're very different!
Click to expand...

I don't know, as I have never shot any technical pan, I have never shot an M9, and I have never made any large prints with velvia. I have a feeling that I would be more comfortable having a really huge print made from the M9 than I would making a really huge darkroom print with the Technical Pan. With the Velvia, it would probably depend on the printing method. How large of a print from technical pan and velvia would you be happy with, compared to how large a print from the M9? Keep in mind that if you scan the negatives and print in the same manner as you print (or have printed) digital files, you are comparing the scanner to the camera as much as anything. Put that velvia or that Technical pan loose under the glass of an old scanner that was cheap to begin with, and your results will probably suck. By the same token, if you pay the big bucks to have them scanned with an imacon, they will probably blow the average FX camera out of the water.

Also, what if you push the Velvia or the Technical Pan? My D700's base ISO is 200, but it is perfectly useable in color at 3200 or higher, and at 12800 or higher for black and white. There may be individual films that outresolve FX digital (for one thing, if the sensors on the various FX cameras go down to ISO 50 or 25, they are generally more noisy than they are at iso 100 or 200), but if you consider the entire range of films versus the iso range of the D700 sensor, it becomes increasingly difficult to make the case for film.
 
JPS said:
petronius said:
This question is very close to "Is photography art?":-(
Click to expand...

Sorry... nothing to see with my questions ! ...I was talking about IQ !

;=)
J-P.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. An intelligent viewer and photographer are better with both film and digital.

And art too, for that matter. That way you don't run into the "I don't know art, but I know what I like" mindset.
 
We're getting to the point...

Film is not designed for scanning, but for direct printing.

And there's no need for huge prints or TechPan: put side by side the Ilfochrome/Velvia print (8x10) and the paper/D700 or M9 file print (8x10).

Anyone not seeing the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom