b.espahbod
Optophile
Which media do you think from your experience is sharper (contains more imaging detail and resolution) ?
Which is Sharper?
- Thread starter b.espahbod
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 15
- Views 202
b.espahbod
Optophile
no i simply want to know the degree of satisfaction photographers reached in real life photography using both film and M8 to capture detail.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think the M8 has it all over 35mm film for detail and resolution but it's not my choice generally ... I still constantly choose to use film because detail and resolution are less of a priority to me in my shooting style ... the dynamic range of film appeals to me far more than it's sharpness!
MartinP
Veteran
I'd say the largest film format I have used beats the largest digital format on all areas.
This is not so very surprising as I have used 10"x8"sheet film and only a teeny-weeny digital compact camera . . .
In the real world ? I don't have the current digital experience to give an opinion (fortunately).
This is not so very surprising as I have used 10"x8"sheet film and only a teeny-weeny digital compact camera . . .
In the real world ? I don't have the current digital experience to give an opinion (fortunately).
whickus
Established
there are still many factors involved with measuring the sharpness of a film shot converted to digital, even at the basic "average" consumer level. consumer scanners range from cheap flatbeds to relatively high-end dedicated film scanners, not to mention the film holders which have an influence on perceived sharpness. throw in the vast choices of available films and the answer to the question you're asking becomes very convoluted. it is a question that should be asked at some point when deciding on which system to go with, but it definitely should not be given too much weight or made a deciding factor.
i'm satisfied with my results, but not due to sharpness. maybe digital has the potential to do better in that area on a consistency level, but still, i'm plenty satisfied with the sharpness i get out of my scans/prints.
i'm satisfied with my results, but not due to sharpness. maybe digital has the potential to do better in that area on a consistency level, but still, i'm plenty satisfied with the sharpness i get out of my scans/prints.
mfogiel
Veteran
If you use low speed B&W neg it wins, but even the worst B&W neg wins in tonality, which is what B&W is about. If you use Velvia 50 it might have a better resolution, but it will have a more limited dynamic range, so it is a tie. To sum up: in colour digital wins, in B&W digital loses.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Get yourself a Schneider Reproclaron and an 11x14 view camera. Those process lenses are almost unbelievable when it comes to sharpness and resolving power! Forget about itty bitty digital sensors if you want fine detail.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Is there an ever ready case available for that kit Al ... more importantly does 'Gordy' make a strap for it? 😀
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
The answer is -
There is substantially more information captured on any film when compared to a digital capture, particularly by the M8. We have some time to go before this is reversed.
Take a picture with an M camera with any slide film and create a digital negative with a drum-scan. Then compare the results with a digital capture (use an M8 if you like).
The difference is staggeringly in favor of the drum scan.
There is substantially more information captured on any film when compared to a digital capture, particularly by the M8. We have some time to go before this is reversed.
Take a picture with an M camera with any slide film and create a digital negative with a drum-scan. Then compare the results with a digital capture (use an M8 if you like).
The difference is staggeringly in favor of the drum scan.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Just look at 240 dpi printing resolution for a sensor the size of the M8's- the print size is there. At maximum pixel size you get a 16 1/2 x 11" print. I can easily go bigger than that from HP5+. Print bigger from film you see grain, print bigger from digital the image breaks up. To my eye anyway.
waileong
Well-known
1. Sharpness is overrated.
2. If you're just asking for opinions, it's likely you'll get a spectrum, arising as much from personal experiences as from individual factors such as type of subject and movement, exposure and focus accuracy, choice of lens and aperture, handholding skills, etc.
3. Lpm data is easily available and can be used for comparison. It's clear from the specs that film has more resolution than digital, and the lens outresolves the M8 sensor.
2. If you're just asking for opinions, it's likely you'll get a spectrum, arising as much from personal experiences as from individual factors such as type of subject and movement, exposure and focus accuracy, choice of lens and aperture, handholding skills, etc.
3. Lpm data is easily available and can be used for comparison. It's clear from the specs that film has more resolution than digital, and the lens outresolves the M8 sensor.
Last edited:
b.espahbod
Optophile
The funny thing is every one here is talking about scanning the films ??? no one even mentioned printing with enlargers! so i guess we all agree Shoot Film 2 Scan is the best process until today. i myself shoot e100g ,gx, vs, adox cms 20 and hp5+ 4x5" with mastertechnika and scan with flextight. Hybrid Rules 😀
Tim Gray
Well-known
I still wet print B&W. It looks better than scanned B&W to me. I do scan color film though.
Though this argument is largely academic in my mind nowadays. It's like CD vs vinyl. Maybe vinyl has the potential to sound better, but for 98% of uses, CD's are going to consistently sound better. Likewise, the M8 is going to be sharper for most uses. It's got the resolution and lacks the grain of film. I personally like the look of film more (enough that I don't shoot digital), but if you just want shear resolution, then I think a decent large sensor digital of > 6-8mp is going to win out most of the time over 35mm film.
Though this argument is largely academic in my mind nowadays. It's like CD vs vinyl. Maybe vinyl has the potential to sound better, but for 98% of uses, CD's are going to consistently sound better. Likewise, the M8 is going to be sharper for most uses. It's got the resolution and lacks the grain of film. I personally like the look of film more (enough that I don't shoot digital), but if you just want shear resolution, then I think a decent large sensor digital of > 6-8mp is going to win out most of the time over 35mm film.
whickus
Established
i mentioned it. i didn't talk about it extensively, but i mentioned it. it's the only way i do my b&w these days and i might start printing color seeing as how the supplies are so cheap. i can understand why most people don't take darkroom printing into account - it's a lot easier to buy and use a scanner than it is to set up a darkroom and become proficient at printing, but i find it well worth the effort. not necessarily in terms of sharpness, but overall tonality and feel.
colker
Well-known
rolo
Established
The M8 produces excellent images and does so with some ease in most circumstances.
However, last month I treated myself to an Imacon 848 scanner and have to say that there is no competition between the two in my mind. Using only Reala 100, no Velvia yet, the scanned images are magnificent in comparison. It's not just sharpness, but subtle variation of colour and shadow that provides for a 3D effect, highlights that don't burn out, shadows that carry so much detail.
OK, the M8 might produce smoother colour images and is certainly more convenient, is cheaper to operate, but we all know that digital misses B&W completely and in terms of the finished product film wins (IMO).
I'm looking forward to this experience.
Rolo
However, last month I treated myself to an Imacon 848 scanner and have to say that there is no competition between the two in my mind. Using only Reala 100, no Velvia yet, the scanned images are magnificent in comparison. It's not just sharpness, but subtle variation of colour and shadow that provides for a 3D effect, highlights that don't burn out, shadows that carry so much detail.
OK, the M8 might produce smoother colour images and is certainly more convenient, is cheaper to operate, but we all know that digital misses B&W completely and in terms of the finished product film wins (IMO).
I'm looking forward to this experience.
Rolo
