scanned film vs. digital: ask for advice

[jschrader]

To go back to b&w, I have revived my Nikon FE and tried an Ilford XP2. I have compared the negative scanned with a CoolScan III to the same picture taken with the same lens on a D700 (11 MP). The scan is supposed to be with 2700 dpi, that should be around 8.5 MP.

Film/Scan is left, the DSLR is right.

I do not know exectly how large the crop is, roughly 1/6 of the whole picture edge length.
I think if You click them, You see enough to decide that the scan contains less details.

WHY? because of the 8.5 vs. 11 MP? Or, is the 2700 dpi of the CoolScanIII only nominal and it is, in reality, only 2300 dpi?

Is there any use in buying a newer scanner with nominal 7200 dpi that has 3500 in reality?

Who can help me?

Thanks everybody

 

[Spanik]

Is the film really sharp? Could be a focus issue as well. And exposure doesn't look the same either. Both at the same iso? How was the digital photo treated? Sharpened, curves adjusted? How did you do the conversion to b&w?

Problem is that you are comparing 2 very different things.

 

[jschrader]

Is the film really sharp? Could be a focus issue as well. And exposure doesn't look the same either. Both at the same iso? How was the digital photo treated? Sharpened, curves adjusted? How did you do the conversion to b&w?

Problem is that you are comparing 2 very different things.

well, I confess it was no professionally executed test. :bang: I am sure it is "sharp" as I had daylight and iso 400, f stepped down and maybe 1/250 s, and carefully focussed.
Then, I did nothing in photoshop than to adjust brightness (not exactly equally in both, right) and contrast. And of course, I converted the D700 shot to greyscale.

But your reply sound like you are surprised that the scan is worse and that tells me You would expect a better quality of the negative; right?

One thing I have to do is to check the negative under the microscope.

 

[jparriott]

I would also add -- did you process the film yourself? I don't, personally -- but have noticed real quality differences in the labs I've used. And, yes, scanning at a higher setting will help. Epson's V-500 is a great deal at 200 bucks.

 

[jschrader]

I have meanwhile printed two (different) shots from a film on 13 x 19" and they ARE visibly less sharp than prints from the D700. I will try to find a microscope to see the details of the negatives.

I guess now it is the scanner. I will probably have to ask people who have upgraded from a coolscan III and ask for recommendations.

Thanks for You suggestions. Will go into the scanner details when I made up my mind, and also consider Epson. But is it not generally accepted that flatbed is a no-go for 35mm?

 

[jwicaksana]

A bit off topic, but do you expect digital-like sharpness from your film? I for one like the 'unsharpness' of film, because it's more natural and pleasing to me personally.
If you do need better scanner, Epson V700 is great with optimal optical resolution of 2300dpi according to some reviews, and it does 120 and 4x5 as well.

 

[matt_mcg2]

In my experience, 35mm film scanned and printed digitally doesn't match a decent digital SLR. In fact, I'm pretty sure that my flatbed scans of 35mm negs [V500] don't produce prints with any higher resolution than my digital compact [admittedly a fairly highish end one]. There are other reasons to shoot film, and I still shoot a fair bit of 35mm (although I prefer medium format), but absolute sharpness or quality of print (in a hybrid workflow) aren't it.

 

[JChrome]

If you really want to do a comparison, I would compare a scan from a serious drum scanner and not a flatbed scanner. Flatbed scans become less sharp because there is a curvature of the film that is distorting the image (hence the use of a drum scanner).

But really, what is the final purpose of this? Is this a shoot out between dslr and slr? Is it which makes better prints?

If I wanted to get the highest resolution for the most amount of money I would sell all my zeiss glass and buy a d800. But for quality of life? Film is it 🙂.

 

[Messsucherkamera]

A drum scanner is the best way to scan - but a high quality flatbed scanner like Epson's V700 or V750 can make quality scans which will result in quality prints.

IF the scanner operator and printer know what they are doing, that is.

 

[Ranchu]

Digital camera files are made of sharpening, mainly, to compensate for the anti-moire blur glass in front of the sensor. The main reason I shoot film is for DR and colors, not detail, though I'm satisfied with what it has. There's this, too. http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

 

[jschrader]

Thanks for your replies. I know sharpness is not all. I do not look for highest resolution, and don't care for an "upgrade" to a D800E. But I am afraid I make a technical mistake in scanning and loose detail that is in the film. When starting something new, one should make sure one does not get used to wrong procedures.

I like sharp photos, so I would like to get out of the negatives as much as I can. Not at all costs, but also, it's not all the same.

That's why I keep on asking. Thanks.

 

[kanzlr]

Well, digital is sharper than Film.
With the approx 19MP scans from film, I only get DSLR like sharpness, It needs to be downscaled to 50%...So I would say I can get the equal of D700 details with film, but thats really pushing it. It needs to be well exposed, sharp, fine grained film to be competitive.

digital has overtaken film for a while when it comes to things like that.

still, I love using it 🙂

 

[jschrader]

Well, digital is sharper than Film.
With the approx 19MP scans from film, I only get DSLR like sharpness, It needs to be downscaled to 50%...So I would say I can get the equal of D700 details with film, but thats really pushing it. It needs to be well exposed, sharp, fine grained film to be competitive.

digital has overtaken film for a while when it comes to things like that.

still, I love using it 🙂

What kind of a scanner is that?
I would be satisfied with something in that quality range, I guess.

 

[jschrader]

Digital camera files are made of sharpening, mainly, to compensate for the anti-moire blur glass in front of the sensor. The main reason I shoot film is for DR and colors, not detail, though I'm satisfied with what it has. There's this, too. http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

Thanks for this link. I did 4x5 with a Linhof Technika for some time, when I still had a lab. Incredible thing, the camera, the pictures and the working.
When I will be retired, I will get it back (a friend is using it now since some years)

 

[wblynch]

Something to consider...

Nikon scanners have an internal mirror and lens that get quite dusty and hazy over time. You should look into opening it up and cleaning the optical path.

That will make a tremendous difference in your scans.

Minolta scanners are similar and also suffer the same problems. Minolta scanners are more difficult to open and clean.

 

[Ranchu]

I looked at it some more, It does look like the scan should be better, the focus of scanner to film looks off to me, or the above mentioned dirty mirror? I do get grain sharp scans with a coolscan VED. I would think you would too. I've heard they can go out of alignment if dropped, and Nikon charges a flat rate of $250 to repair them.

 

[sanmich]

You can't draw any conclusion from a poorly scanned frame.
On my CS 5000, I even see a clear difference between scanning with the slide adapter that holds the film flat and without it.

 

[nikkor-watching]

For what it's worth, I like the tonal/contrast response of the XP2 better, even through that scan. Now I remember XP2 as a smooth film, even if 400CN trumped it. Why so rough looking?

 

[yinyangbt]

I'd say you have to double check your scanning. A new scan on a drum scan or a Coolscan V ,5000 0r 8000 could give you an answer . I know that the scanners can gather dust and smoke on lenses and mirror ,wich compromises the results. If a new scan is better , you should try to clean your device.
Also , you have to try to apply a little PP to your files from the scanner (sharpening and denoising in some proportions can give good results) .
Don't forget to look what sharpening level did you applied in camera on the D700 or after

 

[jschrader]

I finally managed to check the negatives under a microscope. Result is that the digital picture IS more sharp. The scan is all right, in the negative there is nothing more than in the scan.
Pity.
Now, I have three options:
- stay with the D700 and convert the digital files to grayscale (no good choice for an everyday-in-the-pocket camera)
- use my father's M6 with film (enjoying this wonderful thing, but knowing that the picutes will be less sharp)
- buy an M9/M-E or even better MM (would rather wait for the prices to fall a bit, let us say 50%).

I think it does not make sense chosing a lower speed film; a everday-in-the-pocket camera that needs sunlight is not so useful here as autumn is approaching rapidly.

That is life, I will think.