Tri X against Monochrom

[Ansel]

I think it is normal, if no doubt somewhat boring by now, for people to compare digital to film. Film is the mature standard after all, and digital still has a long way to go to equal its beauty as a medium, even if it is more "convenient".

 

[Noll]

Juan, you say that you don't want to get into "this vs that," but it's exactly what you're doing. Incidentally, I can appreciate that you want to have a "physical original that can't be deleted." However, for me it didn't work that way: some years ago I lived in Uganda and negatives from all over East Africa. They were shipped with some household goods and, ended up, because of strikes, and other problems of the shipping company, staying in a large wooden container/crate in Mombasa for over six mionths, through a whole rainy season. By the time the (developed) negatives reached me, the emulsion side of misty of the negatives had beene eaten off by insects. Had these images been digital, I would have taken them with me, duplicated on two small hard disks, or have uploaded them to "the cloud" — and they would not have been destroyed.

The point is, as with all these digital vs film arguments, people should do what they like — and what is best for one person may not be best for another one.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems

Mitch - clearly you have your reasons and preferences for how you take photos and we can respect that. I think Juan makes it pretty clear that he is stating his personal preferences here too (Edit: oops - Juan beat me to that point 😉). Whereas Highway 61 is making sweeping, unsubstantiated declarations. This is generally the kind of thing that irks people who disagree and drags them into the debate.

 

[semilog]

Sorry but grainy 400-speed film has less resolution than even good point and shoot cameras these days.

The following is simplified in a number of ways, but that's just not right.

TMAX400 developed in D-76 has an MTF-50 of 80 cycles/mm and its maximum resolution is about twice that [Kodak technical bulletin].

160 * 24 = 3840 cycles/image height.

The Monochrom sensor is 5212 x 3472 pixels.

The sampling theorem tells us that we need to take discrete samples at ≥ twice the frequency of the signal to accurately reconstruct the signal.

To match the resolution of TMAX400 we'll need to sample at around 3800 x 2 = ~7500 pixels per image height (~7400 dpi)

That requires a 7500 x 11000 monochrome sensor, and an 80 megapixel image file.

Use Tri-X instead of TMAX400, and the Monochrom gets close. Use TMAX100 or ACROS, though…

 

[Pete B]

" However, for me it didn't work that way: some years ago I lived in Uganda and had negatives from all over East Africa. They were shipped with some household goods and, ended up, because of strikes and other problems of the shipping company, staying in a large wooden container/crate in Mombasa for over six mionths, through a whole rainy season. By the time the (developed) negatives reached me, the emulsion side of most of the negatives had beene eaten off by insects. Had these images been digital, I would have taken them with me, duplicated on two small hard disks, or have uploaded them to "the cloud" — and they would not have been destroyed.

But, to be honest, this is quite an unusual situation. Perhaps your digital camera and backup hard discs might have been eaten by manatee when your kayak over-turned in the gulf of Mexico. Maybe your house might've burned down taking with it your hard drives and SD cards. Generally though, negatives are a hard copy that are unlikely to be lost, eaten by insects or stolen and woven into carpets by space monkeys.
Pete

 

[__--]

But it's the usually the unusual circumstance that causes loss...and I mentioned that I would have uploaded what was really important to the cloud.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems

 

[semilog]

About the test itself, in my opinion it wasn't even accomplished: Tri-X was designed for wet printing, so a screen is not the way to compare both mediums, in any way at all.
About what I can see on screen, I like the look of Tri-X a lot more, and I use digital too.
About resolution and grain: photography has nothing to do with that absurd debate; it has to do with content and light and tone... The beauty of film, its superiority, lays in its tone, and it's present in LF, MF and in 35mm too, as even small screens show... The convenience of digital, lays in speed, although it's a disguised convenience that makes us slaves because of power, post, etc.
About tone: the day a digital sensor looks better than film, I'll prefer a digital sensor without any shame.
About convenience: the day working digitally gives me more comfort, I'll stop using film.
Maybe it will happen in the future... Who knows? By now both mediums are far away from the point of view of what I enjoy while shooting. That's the moment I love.
Cheers,
Juan

Right on, Juan.

But a quibble. The most recent formulations of Tri-X and the TMAX films are indeed designed to facilitate scanning, as well as wet printing. And the quality of inkjet prints from good scans, though somewhat different in character than silver-gelatin prints, is certainly comparable.

 

[Corran]

The following is simplified in a number of ways, but that's just not right.

TMAX400 developed in D-76 has an MTF-50 of 80 cycles/mm and its maximum resolution is about twice that [Kodak technical bulletin].

160 * 24 = 3840 cycles/image height.

The Monochrom sensor is 5212 x 3472 pixels.

The sampling theorem tells us that we need to take discrete samples at ≥ twice the frequency of the signal to accurately reconstruct the signal.

To match the resolution of TMAX400 we'll need to sample at around 3800 x 2 = ~7500 pixels per image height (~7400 dpi)

That requires a 7500 x 11000 monochrome sensor, and an 80 megapixel image file.

Use Tri-X instead of TMAX400, and the Monochrom gets close. Use TMAX100 or ACROS, though…

The theoretical numbers from the technical bulletin have absolutely no relevance to real life.

Please show me one source that shows TMY actually capturing 3840 cycles/image height of data using actual photographic lenses and situations.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I agree, semilog.
I have seen great inkjet prints from digitally recorded images and from scanned negatives, let's say close to great wet prints...
What I definitely don't like about digital cameras is: in second place, all you have to do after shooting to achieve great tone and great prints: I feel negative technology helps us a lot more in that respect, not to mention silver paper technology. And in first place, all you have to worry about cables and power supply, instead of just shooting as much as you want day after day: to me, that's a huge difference, because my film cameras are ready anytime, no matter the situation, hour of the day, trip or totally unplanned desire of shooting. I prefer it the way film is. Maybe if digital was the medium offering me a physical original, I'd consider the effort.
Cheers,
Juan

 

[ianstamatic]

resolution aside I think that the highlight shoulder and shadow breakdown still isnt there with digital.
6x7 low iso chrome or bw was the minimum for a double page spread, and scanned on my drum scanner it in no way lacks detail.
Also i like the way grain varies across different contrast and light levels on film.
a good drum scan operator can enhance or minimise grain aliasing and appearance via scanner aperture.
also Aztec DPI software can make amp adjustments at the pre-AD stage to further enhance the dynamic range of drum scanned film.
Also films like rollei retro 80s and others have recorded some very high resolution numbers.
Even delta 100 in xtol is way ahead of tri-x.
there is a reason that MF digi backs are at 16-bit unlike the d800, a7, fujicanikony etc I dont know about the MM bit depth.

 

[Highway 61]

Whereas Highway 61 is making sweeping, unsubstantiated declarations.

🙄

I just very clearly explained that, as a long-term film user and lover, I was still shooting B&W film today (with all the home processing onwards from the shooting, including wet printing on FB sheets).

But that, as an equally long-term film user and lover, I just couldn't, in all honesty, tell that film was "better" in terms of resolution, greyscale depth, dynamics and all.

By no means can a 35mm Tri-X negative be "in the 50MP territory".

Well.

As Mitch said, the whole debate here started from a 2 years old "test" which was done under totally amateurish circumstances. I really wonder who could seriously think that what we can see through this test is what the MM can really do.

Once and again : I don't own nor use any MM, my last capable digital camera was a D700 and I sold it because it was too big and because I wasn't using it enough. I'm now back at shooting B&W film only because this is what pleases me the more re. photography, but I clearly know what the global advantages of digital over film are - and they just cannot be denied, even by people doing their best to do so within some endless "film is better than digital" tirades.

 

[bhop73]

I think they both look good. I like shooting my M6, but would love to have a monocrom.

I do agree that a NSFW in the title would've been good. I don't mind nudity, but not everyone is looking at this site in the privacy of their own home. (I am at work, was on lunch break, they frown on looking at nudes, even art nudes at work)

 

[jtullar]

Different strokes for different folks. Both are excellent for BW work.

 

[semilog]

The theoretical numbers from the technical bulletin have absolutely no relevance to real life.

Please show me one source that shows TMY actually capturing 3840 cycles/image height of data using actual photographic lenses and situations.

If you've seen Salgado's 35mm film work printed large (silver gelatin prints), you've seen examples that approach what's possible with Tri-X. 2TMY has a resolution and grain structure comparable to that of Plus-X.

It is not ridiculously challenging to get well over 100 lp/mm on 35mm film with a tripod and good lens.

In most cases, you're lucky to get 40 lp/mm onto the sensor digital or film, unless your camera is bolted to something. The main limits are accuracy of focus, diffraction (less important but not unimportant), alignment of the film plane, and camera movement while the shutter is open. Ctein has some good posts about this. As he points out, even mediocre 35mm lenses resolve 75 lp/mm across the aperture range.

 

[gho]

It is hard for me to really pinpoint the difference between film and digital. Scientific measurements may be one route, but there is also the factor of subjective perception coming into play.

I have tried a lot of cameras, also digital ones, and in terms of resolution, quite a lot of cameras outperform an iso 400 film. But well, in terms of subjective perception, I most often prefer film, especially in black and white.

I think it has something to do with the tonal range and especially highlight clipping and drowned shadows. If I expose and develop correctly I get the whole tonal range of a scene in a negative which is a good base for post processing. But with digital files this is more difficult for me. I simply can not stand the look of clipped images.

But well, it is all a matter of taste right? I mean, it is vain to compare Tri-X with the Monochrome, because it really depends on ones preferences. For me it is clearly film, but I do not categorically say nay to digital. Convenience and speed is certainly a factor there (digital) for me. And what matters most is certainly the motive. Heck, I even use my cell phone if there is nothing else at hand.

 

[semilog]

Well said. The density rolloff, and the resolution rolloff, of film and digital sensors are different. The resolution rolloff raises a host of interesting questions, and it underlies many of the arguments about antialiasing filters and color arrays in digital capture.

The pictures that result from film and various digital workflows do look different. And whether a given difference is an improvement or a step backwards is an aesthetic judgement, not a technical one. I like the digital workflow, and in many technical respects my digital pictures are better, but I can't say that the digital pictures are, in general, better than the analog ones, or the ones made with a hybrid workflow. It is clear that some subjects do better with one approach or another…

It is hard for me to really pinpoint the difference between film and digital. Scientific measurements may be one route, but there is also the factor of subjective perception coming into play.

I have tried a lot of cameras, also digital ones, and in terms of resolution, quite a lot of cameras outperform an 135 iso 400 film. But well, in terms of subjective perception, I most often prefer film, especially in black and white.

I think it has something to do with the tonal range and especially highlight clipping and drowned shadows. If I expose and develop correctly I get the whole tonal range of a scene in a negative which is a good base for post processing. But with digital files this is more difficult for me. I simply can not stand the look of clipped images.

But well, it is all a matter of taste right? I mean, it is vain to compare Tri-X with the Monochrome, because it really depends on ones preferences. For me it is clearly film, but I do not categorically say nay to digital. Convenience and speed is certainly a factor there (digital) for me. And what matters most is certainly the motive. Heck, I even use my cell phone if there is nothing else at hand.

 

[Pioneer]

I use digital frequently so obviously it doesn't cause me to loose much sleep. But I also use film and I see no conflict in that. I don't use film because I think it is better than digital, I just enjoy the workflow. Done correctly, digital can be quite beautiful. Since it is really all about light and composition I don't worry too much about resolution or megapixels.

To me it is actually more about what I want to do with the final result. Do I see it hanging over my couch, or perhaps someone else's? Then if I am using digital I will reach for one that allows me the liberty of greater enlargement. Likewise with film, if I want to enlarge beyond a certain size I will almost certainly use medium format. But some pictures are much better printed at 5x7. In that case my little 6mp digital slr is the perfect solution.

It isn't one or the other. It is really more like one AND the other.

 

[semilog]

It isn't one or the other. It is really more like one AND the other.

Totally agreed.

I like my digital cameras and do scientific digital capture as part of my day job, but I do get my hackles up a bit when people start to forget just how highly evolved as a capture medium 35mm film really is.

There's a reason some of us were laying down cash for the 35mm Summilux ASPH before the M8 even existed.

 

[Corran]

All the tech sheets in the world don't matter to real-world experience.
I've shot a lot of film. Scanned a lot of film. Printed a lot of film, darkroom and digitally. Shot a lot of digital, professionally, with some of the best 35mm-form-factor cameras available and top-flight lenses.

I'm sure the film can "hold" 80 cycles/image height, if measured in a lab with a lot of crazy instruments designed solely for this purpose (in other words, not typical camera lenses). It simply doesn't happen in real life. Realistically, I would say that 35mm T-Max 100 even can be bested by a 12mp D700 in raw resolution metrics. Any of the 24mp+ FF sensors? Not even close.

The difference with film is the highlight rendition, tonal qualities, grain structure, etc. - NOT resolution.

 

[Noll]

Realistically, I would say that 35mm T-Max 100 even can be bested by a 12mp D700 in raw resolution metrics.

.

A d700 would not even come close to tmx 100. I'm so done with this thread. Will be posting a new one in film v digital soon with samples. Proof of the pudding Is In the eating.

 

[Corran]

Can't wait...because I've seen the results myself and done the testing. No comparison. 35mm film just doesn't have that much resolution.