Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: wofsy on January 01, 2013, 05:01:40 pm
-
This is a nubie question but I need to ask it to help resolve a discussion with a friend who has recently switched from digital - a Leica M9- to film - a Leica M6 I think.
He says that the "truly great photographers" only use film and I found this astonishing given the huge possibilities of digital technology.
His arguments for film are
- film has a more natural look
- film has greater dynamic range
- film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint.
So I wonder what your opinion is. For instance is it really true that a Canon 5d Mark 2 has less dynamic range than a Leica M6?
Aren't there techniques - such as adding grain or noise - that make digital images look as natural as film images?
Why do so many people say that film has that certain something? Why isn't this purely a matter of taste?
-
"Truly great photographers" produce truly great photographs no matter what their equipment is.
I think your friend's information is a bit dated: current digital cameras outperform film emulsions (size for size) in resolution and dynamic range.
Spend your energies taking great shots.
Nobody cares exactly what equipment you use - everybody cares about the results.
(Only a photographic ignoramus assumes that images that are better than theirs must have been shot with a "better" camera.)
Use film, use digital - enjoy yourself.
Tony Jay
-
Thanks Tony
I have noticed that many photographers in the printing lab at ICP are scanning medium and large format negatives into digital files then manipulating and printing them from the computer.
I assume the reason for this is that larger formats are affordable in film.
-
- film has a more natural look
No, it has a film look.
- film has greater dynamic range
Nope, not at least with many modern capture systems.
- film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint.
That's like someone saying white wine is more beatuful then red wine or an equally silly, general statement that is totally dependent on an opinion.
I must have published my last "film vs. digital" comparison in 1999** and I doubt film has progressed a fraction of what digital capture has in that time. **http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf
You'll all get a laugh out of the 'state of the art' digital camera used back there!
-
If you want the most precise rendering of the subject, use a modern digital camera.
If you want a nostalgic rendering of the subject, use film (and do not scan it either, darkroom only). Or use a modern digital camera and apply some film effects to the file... It is easier to make less from a lot then vice versa (from information theory standpoint).
-
Hi,
It is quite true that large format film equipment is much cheaper than MF digital. Film can produce extraordinary results.
On the other hand, what do you do with a piece of film? For most uses you need to scan it. Scanning needs expensive equipment and takes a lot of time. Or you send your slides to an expert scanner.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
A great aticle: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Tim Parkin sent me a crop of of a Velvia 67 slide, scanned at 10000 PPI using his own drum scanner. That scan outresolved a Phase One IQ 180. Was the image quality better? I doubt it.
Personally I have a 3000$ scanner and I cannot match digital, really.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Tony
I have noticed that many photographers in the printing lab at ICP are scanning medium and large format negatives into digital files then manipulating and printing them from the computer.
I assume the reason for this is that larger formats are affordable in film.
-
On the other hand, what do you do with a piece of film?
Well there are still a lot of photographers making sumptuous silver gelatin prints from negatives.
Yes, you can argue about resolution, DR, gamut or whatever, and, yes, inkjet printing has come a long way, but a really good silver gelatin print from a well made negative still has a unique quality that has great appeal.
-
This is a nubie question but I need to ask it to help resolve a discussion with a friend who has recently switched from digital - a Leica M9- to film - a Leica M6 I think.
He says that the "truly great photographers" only use film and I found this astonishing given the huge possibilities of digital technology.
His arguments for film are
- film has a more natural look
- film has greater dynamic range
- film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint.
So I wonder what your opinion is. For instance is it really true that a Canon 5d Mark 2 has less dynamic range than a Leica M6?
Aren't there techniques - such as adding grain or noise - that make digital images look as natural as film images?
Why do so many people say that film has that certain something? Why isn't this purely a matter of taste?
I pass over the "truly great photographers" only use film remark as it is ignorant unless he honestly considers the only "truly great photographers" to be ones who either stopped making photos or died more than ten years ago.
- "film has a more natural look"? Which film? Not Kodachrome, not any Ektachrome or any Fujichrome or color negative film that I ever used. All are interpretations of the real world. For that matter the reduction of the world to shades of gray in black and white photography is perhaps the greatest fundamental abstraction in photography.
-"film has greater dynamic range" some black and white negative films may but no color film ever had greater dynamic range than a current model medium or high end digital camera.
-"film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint."
That is the most honest claim he has made. Why? Because it is purely subjective. He prefers the look that film produces. and since creative enterprises are subjective enterprises that's the single best reason I've ever heard to choose and use any creative tool
-
I pass over the "truly great photographers" only use film remark as it is ignorant unless he honestly considers the only "truly great photographers" to be ones who either stopped making photos or died more than ten years ago.
- "film has a more natural look"? Which film? Not Kodachrome, not any Ektachrome or any Fujichrome or color negative film that I ever used. All are interpretations of the real world. For that matter the reduction of the world to shades of gray in black and white photography is perhaps the greatest fundamental abstraction in photography.
-"film has greater dynamic range" some black and white negative films may but no color film ever had greater dynamic range than a current model medium or high end digital camera.
-"film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint."
That is the most honest claim he has made. Why? Because it is purely subjective. He prefers the look that film produces. and since creative enterprises are subjective enterprises that's the single best reason I've ever heard to choose and use any creative tool
:)
-
Does this mean that if I switch back to film I'll become a "Truly Great Photographer"?
-
Does this mean that if I switch back to film I'll become a "Truly Great Photographer"?...
Some questions are better not asked... :D
Tony Jay
-
Possibly in your mind...
Best regards
Erik
Does this mean that if I switch back to film I'll become a "Truly Great Photographer"?
-
A couple of years ago I was on a sailing trip and using my Nikon D300 camera. Someone said to me that it was nice to see somebody using a "traditional" camera. I replied ....it was a digital camera. The reply was.... it isn't a real camera then? He was serious. :(
-
I've only ever seen one real camera (http://brightbytes.com/cosite/2green.html) up close and personal.
-
:)
Kirk's the only guy here qualified to say that!
But seriously, all it takes to master film is some old equipment and maybe 10 to 15 years to learn how to do it passably well. The thing that always struck me about my film days was how much bad advice there was floating around, just waiting to cause some bright-eyed, bushy-tailed young person to waste a few years barking up the wrong tree.
-
Kirk's the only guy here qualified to say that!
But seriously, all it takes to master film is some old equipment and maybe 10 to 15 years to learn how to do it passably well. The thing that always struck me about my film days was how much bad advice there was floating around, just waiting to cause some bright-eyed, bushy-tailed young person to waste a few years barking up the wrong tree.
And it's the opposite with digital?
Michael
-
In the Digital Age, there's always somebody ready shout down perceived bad advice within minutes if not seconds of publication. Followed by somebody with a counter shout, etc. We see a lot of that here. When film was king, most bad advice was cast in the glow of the printed page and placed on altars well out of the range of casual shouters. An effective counterattack against such information could take years to propogate. The internet has done a lot for nay saying and reality checking, and mostly that's a good thing except of course when such nay saying and checking is directed at my infallible pronouncements, and when it offends simple civility.
-
In a nutshell, Digital for colour, film for black and white.
Must dash
-
In a nutshell, Digital for colour, film for black and white.
Must dash
I'd be more inclined to say "Digital for today. Film for yesterday"
-
Hi,
It is quite true that large format film equipment is much cheaper than MF digital. Film can produce extraordinary results.
On the other hand, what do you do with a piece of film? For most uses you need to scan it. Scanning needs expensive equipment and takes a lot of time. Or you send your slides to an expert scanner.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
A great aticle: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Tim Parkin sent me a crop of of a Velvia 67 slide, scanned at 10000 PPI using his own drum scanner. That scan outresolved a Phase One IQ 180. Was the image quality better? I doubt it.
Personally I have a 3000$ scanner and I cannot match digital, really.
Best regards
Erik
Why do you doubt it?
His test seems pretty clear to me. http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html)
That is a good test showing both methods at what they are good at.
The 8x10 film clearly whumps (technical term ;) ) the IQ180 on everything but the shadows. The digital has great ability to show what is in the darker areas.
To my eye the provia 4x5 with NR and sharpening is better than the IQ180. It is also a pain to use relative. If you miss the shot you may have to wait years for another trip. If you go digital and your last shot on the card is botched somehow you can delete the redo. If you are out of film that is it.
The Mamiya 7 is outclassed by the IQ180. Maybe a pure B/W would be similar on resolution. Everything else is lagging.
This test shows someone can get in the game of high res prints with a cheap (now) film camera. They probably need the discipline of a master craftsman to do it all right consistently.
Digital gives you flexibility for a lot of money.
Now in the 35mm game DSLRs are starting to wipe out film. You cant be in the ballpark against the D800. You simply have no ability to do what DSLRs are doing now with quality at ISO 1600-6400.
Thanks Tim for all the work. Its a totally convincing test to me.
-
Hi,
What I said was that I measured MTF on a Velvia scan Tim sent me and compared it with MTF measured on an IQ180 image that I also got from Tim. MTF data on the Velvia indicated that it would outresolve the IQ180, for high contrast detail. As far as I can recall Tim has samples using microscope demonstrating that this is the case.
Click here for full size: http://www.landscapegb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/miroscope-700.jpg
(http://www.landscapegb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/miroscope-700.jpg)
But image quality is a lot more than resolution. My experience is that scanned film is noisy, but I have no 10000 PPI drum scanner like Tim has.
I would also add that it seem that many photographers prefer the "film look". Personally I prefer digital. The real issue I think is that it takes a lot of involvement to extract good results from film when scanning is involved.
Best regards
Erik
Why do you doubt it?
His test seems pretty clear to me. http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html)
That is a good test showing both methods at what they are good at.
The 8x10 film clearly whumps (technical term ;) ) the IQ180 on everything but the shadows. The digital has great ability to show what is in the darker areas.
To my eye the provia 4x5 with NR and sharpening is better than the IQ180. It is also a pain to use relative. If you miss the shot you may have to wait years for another trip. If you go digital and your last shot on the card is botched somehow you can delete the redo. If you are out of film that is it.
The Mamiya 7 is outclassed by the IQ180. Maybe a pure B/W would be similar on resolution. Everything else is lagging.
This test shows someone can get in the game of high res prints with a cheap (now) film camera. They probably need the discipline of a master craftsman to do it all right consistently.
Digital gives you flexibility for a lot of money.
Now in the 35mm game DSLRs are starting to wipe out film. You cant be in the ballpark against the D800. You simply have no ability to do what DSLRs are doing now with quality at ISO 1600-6400.
Thanks Tim for all the work. Its a totally convincing test to me.
-
Yes, scanned film is noisy. A good NR software does wonders on film grain.
The combination of high res scan, good NR, deconvolution sharpening really works well. People do NR and sharpening naturally in their raw conversion. Why feel doing the same on film is cheating somehow? On many shots not doing those two operations on digital would yield rubish. Not doing them on film yields relative rubish unless you need the grain for artistic effect.
Both methods are completely workable for very high quality images.
-
From Tim's crops I added NR to the Provia then sharpened, then did a mild soften to remove the sharpening artifacts. That is how I would send it to the printer. The detail is good.
Compare that to the IQ180 shot. We all know the green channel shows off digital at its best due to 2x as many green pixels. It would be a much bigger blowout if the image was red flowers or blue. The digital is nice on shadow areas. It fails with shades of green relative to the film. It all looks a similar yellowish green
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8369011622_4ede28bb7a_o.jpg)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8369011622_4ede28bb7a_o.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8369011622_4ede28bb7a_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8073/8369010544_e52e752210_o.jpg)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8073/8369010544_e52e752210_o.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8073/8369010544_e52e752210_o.jpg)
The links are large versions from Tim's original size.
-
Added Tim's Velvia 8x10 with my NR, Sharpening.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8072/8370929497_661e6deb54_h.jpg)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8072/8370929497_a83895788f_o.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8072/8370929497_a83895788f_o.jpg)
Original size linked.
Again, these are crops provided by Tim in his article linked here http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html)
-
Hi,
You know, sometimes Swedish winter has a feel of Tri-X underexposed three stops. Other than that there is nothing natural about film. Which film by the way? Ektachrome? Provia? Velvia. By the way, have you ever seen grainy blue California sky?
Does the M6 has better DR than a Canon 5DII? No, it has no DR at all! The film you put into it has DR. Velvia has about 5 stops, a bit less than Canon 5DII at 12800 ISO. Negative color may have 16 stops.
Next question is, what do you do with the stuff? Are you looking at projected slides? Great! If you need prints or screen the image needs to be printed by a lab or yourself. The paper you print on has nothing natural in it. Now, Kodak and Fuji have spent a lot of effort on developing papers, films and chemistry that match and give nice colors.
If you are into serious photography with film you either have a dark room or scan. Scanning is a can of worm of it's own. Most scanners don't have enough dynamic range to handle Velvia. My experience may even be that they even don't have enough DR to correctly handle Ektar 100. Some people have drum scanners that can eak out every detail from a slide or negative. I'm pretty sure that scanning has a steep learning curve.
My take is really that digital is mostly preferable. Large format film in combination with an excellent scanner and scanner operator can give excellent results.
Best regards
Erik
This is a nubie question but I need to ask it to help resolve a discussion with a friend who has recently switched from digital - a Leica M9- to film - a Leica M6 I think.
He says that the "truly great photographers" only use film and I found this astonishing given the huge possibilities of digital technology.
His arguments for film are
- film has a more natural look
- film has greater dynamic range
- film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint.
So I wonder what your opinion is. For instance is it really true that a Canon 5d Mark 2 has less dynamic range than a Leica M6?
Aren't there techniques - such as adding grain or noise - that make digital images look as natural as film images?
Why do so many people say that film has that certain something? Why isn't this purely a matter of taste?
-
On the whole I agree digital is preferable. That is, it is much easier to use. I have not taken the cinder block out to shoot in a couple years.
135 film I really enjoy when I do it. It is refreshing to be focused on the process of making the shot. Everything culminates in the click then it is over, you forget about it until the delight of picking up your roll. I find I am in the zone with film far more than digital. Digital often feels mechanistic. Take shot. Check histogram. Check focus.
My scanner has no problem with Velvia. Every scanner can probably handle slide film. Ektar is negative if I remember. The DR of negative is much greater than slide. I find negative is too compressed in the tones.
-
Hi,
What scanner do you have? Velvia is known to be difficult to scan.
You are mixing up DR and DMAX, by the way.
Best regards
Erik
On the whole I agree digital is preferable. That is, it is much easier to use. I have not taken the cinder block out to shoot in a couple years.
135 film I really enjoy when I do it. It is refreshing to be focused on the process of making the shot. Everything culminates in the click then it is over, you forget about it until the delight of picking up your roll. I find I am in the zone with film far more than digital. Digital often feels mechanistic. Take shot. Check histogram. Check focus.
My scanner has no problem with Velvia. Every scanner can probably handle slide film. Ektar is negative if I remember. The DR of negative is much greater than slide. I find negative is too compressed in the tones.
-
Epson Perfection 4490
-
How? DR is a function of the film or sensor. Dmax is a function of a scanner.
My scanner has a dmax around 4. 3.8? A negative film that can be 16 stops has to be compressed into the 3.8. Black still shows as black, white is still white in the output. Tones look very similar. With slide film tones look dynamic.
-
How? DR is a function of the film or sensor. Dmax is a function of a scanner.
My scanner has a dmax around 4. 3.8? A negative film that can be 16 stops has to be compressed into the 3.8. Black still shows as black, white is still white in the output. Tones look very similar. With slide film tones look dynamic.
Film has a DMAX (maximum density) it is given in spec sheets. If you check the enclosed see that maximum density (DMAX) is around 3.8 for the blue channel and 3.4 for the red channel. So DMAX for that film is 3.8.
DR for film is the range of exposure that the film can separate, so you would check Exposure axis to calculate dynamic range. DR is not easily defined, because of the inverted S-shape, but I would say about 1.5 that is about 5 stop.
The enclosed figure comes from Velvia-100 spec sheet.
I also enclose a screen dump of a scanned Velvia 50 slide (with very high contrast) the one on the left was drum scanned while the one on the right is scanned on my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. If your scanner handles a DMAX of 4.0 it should be able to handle darkest detail on Velvia. Most scanners don't.
Best regards
Erik
-
Thanks, I have never seen DMAX in reference to film before. I have seen it on scanner reviews.
I remember comparing velvia scanner output to visual inspection of the film with a high magnification telescope eyepiece. The detail seemed the same in darker areas.
Maybe you need Hamrick's vuescan. it does a multi-pass with different scanner light intensities.
-
Hi!
I used Vuescan. It does multipass, but there is a tendency to double contours.
By the way I happened to work with Ed Hamrick on Vuescan, the drivers for the DSMP are developed for my scanner ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Thanks, I have never seen DMAX in reference to film before. I have seen it on scanner reviews.
I remember comparing velvia scanner output to visual inspection of the film with a high magnification telescope eyepiece. The detail seemed the same in darker areas.
Maybe you need Hamrick's vuescan. it does a multi-pass with different scanner light intensities.
-
Hi!
I used Vuescan. It does multipass, but there is a tendency to double contours.
By the way I happened to work with Ed Hamrick on Vuescan, the drivers for the DSMP are developed for my scanner ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Then I don't see why your dark areas are blacked out. What is the dmax on your scanner?
-
I don't know. According to the manual it is 4.8 but I have seen some test where they put it much lower. I guess 3.5.
"Bcooter" recommended Iconlab. They say their Imacon has DR of at least 3.2.
"The Imacon scanner can handle standard film formats by the roll or individual frames; film does not need to be cut. This scanner has a dynamic range of at least 3.2, which ensures that negatives are scanned with almost as much detail as a drum scan. It is able to do an adequate job scanning chromes, but the extended range of a drum scanner will capture additional highlight and shadow detail. Color references should be provided when scanning negatives to achieve the best results."
The Imacon is a step up from the scanner I have.
Iconlab also offers drum scans: "Our drum scanning department is able to capture full tonal range and all the detail in any original. We can scan any size original up to 11x14 transparency and 16x20 reflective. The entire frame of any format, including rebate or borders, can be scanned. This is the only way to scan 6x8 or panoramic film. Virtually unlimited resolution results in file sizes up to 2GB from any original."
Best regards
Erik
Then I don't see why your dark areas are blacked out. What is the dmax on your scanner?
-
I used Vuescan. It does multipass, but there is a tendency to double contours.
Hi Erik,
You could try treating 2 separate scans as a kind of HDR image bracketing, and assemble an aligned HDR version from 2 scans. The same applies to your camera repro version. Film tends to require some time acclimatizing in the scanner when they are not fluid mounted, otherwise the dimensions could change during (or between) the scan(s).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
I have tried that but it didn't work out well. I'm quite happy with the drum scan I have.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
You could try treating 2 separate scans as a kind of HDR image bracketing, and assemble an aligned HDR version from 2 scans. The same applies to your camera repro version. Film tends to require some time acclimatizing in the scanner when they are not fluid mounted, otherwise the dimensions could change during (or between) the scan(s).
Cheers,
Bart
-
None of you know what you're talking about. Digital and film both suck. I'd go on to discuss the issue further but I've got to go coat my glass plates.
-
None of you know what you're talking about. Digital and film both suck. I'd go on to discuss the issue further but I've got to go coat my glass plates.
:D
-
Can you email a sample?
-
Hi,
Whom are asking for a sample of what? Sorry for asking but I cannot see which post you have been responding to.
Best regards
Erik
Can you email a sample?
-
It's a joke in reply to the prior joke about using glass plates.
-
It is interesting to note most film photography originates on film then once you go to the minilab or pro lab it becomes digital because they scan the negative or slide then it becomes a digital file.
The digital file is often printed on Kodak or Fuji chemically processed paper it could be looked at as film to digital back to analog.
Or....film to digital to digital inkjet print.
I have to say film use is a lot more digital these days than it used to be than when labs used optical enlarging equipment.
This digital printing is a massive improvement when you want prints from your slides, no more lousy results due to the use of the obsolete Kodak Ektachrome printing paper for prints from slides, the true beauty and color character of your Kodachrome, Agfachrome of Fujichrome slide is now available on Fuji Crystal Archive paper and Kodak's fine color paper.
Digital cameras are kind of toys, experimental, had an old digital camera converted to infrared, lots of fun!
I have a lot film cameras and a lot of film in my fridge to use up for now
-
In short, I warmly encourage your friend's switch from digital to film. Although his assertion that great photographers only shoot film is obviously a ridiculous proposition: you can make truly great work with your cell phone, an antique 8x10" camera or absolutely anything analogue or digital that captures an image at any workable resolution. Other than that, much of what he's getting at is very true. Before you all throw a hissy fit, I'd like to preface by saying that I own and frequently shoot with a 60mp Phase One medium format digital system, as well as a 36mp Nikon D800. I'm a professional photographer and my job demands that, but when shooting my own work I prefer film, which I sometimes shoot using a Leica M7, similar to your friend. The pictures I take with my digital cameras are sharper and have much higher resolution than the ones I take with my film cameras, but the pictures from my film cameras are much more beautiful.
Film pictures usually are more beautiful than digital images of the same scene because they have a warmth to them that's not achievable with digital capture. The obvious retort is that this is all subjective, but beauty isn't really in the eye of the beholder - if shown 20 faces and asked to rank them in order of beauty, people of wildly varying cultural backgrounds and ages will tend to rank them almost identically. If you were to go outside and take a quick picture of somebody you know with the sun setting behind them with color negative film, then with color digital, I've no doubt that people will respond more positively to the film version. In the great megapixel race, digital camera manufacturers are focusing on making cameras with ever higher resolving power, and resolution is probably the least important aspect of what makes up the quality of a photograph.
People seem to get confused about the issue of dynamic range or exposure latitude in the film vs digital debate. True, the dynamic range of current digital cameras is better than slide film. But slide film is for amateurs, films like Fuji Velvia are for enthusiast photographers who do workshops and make unbearably cheesy saturated photos of the American landscape. The idea that slide film is for pros and amateurs use print film is probably the biggest misconception I've encountered in the photo industry over the past 20 years. All the great photographers of the pre-digital era produced almost all of their work on print film. Some, like Annie Leibovitz, used slide film in the 80s, but look at the results with a contemporary eye and it should be obvious how awful they look. The same goes for cinema. Basically every great movie you have ever seen was filmed using B&W or color print (negative) film, not transparency - even though transparency stock is widely available. Why? Because negative film looks better and has a much wider latitude.
The dynamic range of high-end digital cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars - like the one I use - is not even in the ball park of negative film. If you think the dynamic range of digital is better, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and probably used to shoot boring pictures with Fuji Velvia. You can under or overexpose negatives by several stops and the results will be useable. Even slightly overexpose digital, on the other hand, and it's useless. This is digital's fatal flaw: it's a huge step backwards technically from the days when you could take a portrait backlit by the sun and get a beautiful result. Digital behaves like slide film, which is NOT a good thing.
-
Hitch: Welcome to LuLa. You make some salient points but as they say there's no accounting for taste. I prefer Velvia 50 because of its limited range. I bracket to cover my mistakes in calculating exposures. Ektar 100 print film is pretty good too. But I find it's easier to scan Velvia. I find high contrast and dark shadows appealing to my eyes, as well as the heightened colors. I'd like to see your pro and personal pictures as I'm always looking to learn something that could improve my photography. Can you post some links of your work or add them to your Profile? Thanks and welcome aboard. Alan.
-
Well, this is a landscape-oriented hangout...and transparency film was by far the most popular pre-digital choice, in 135 format at least, for both amateur and pro landscapers. My favorites were Kodachrome & Provia rather than Velvia, but the latter saw lots of pro use. Back when you could make a living from stock sales.
Anyway this stuff is a matter of taste. There's no need for attempts at universal declarations of better or worse. I'd still use Kodachrome if it were available because I love the way it looks. (Or, rather, they way they look...25, 64 & 200 are all different to each other.) I love color neg films too...IMO the current Portras are lovely. I also agree with Alan that limitations, such as in dynamic range, can be a good thing. Only got five stops to work with? Fine, adjust your technique and choice of subject matter accordingly.
-Dave-
-
Hmm. Truly great photographers. A lot of the popular icons were also truly great printers.
I shot a lot of transparencies, even 4X5, in the film days, precisely because I had no ability to print. I looked at them through a projector, or on a light table, and that was that. I could print black and white fairly well, but I don't know that I was ever satisfied with a single color print from any form of film I ever used. I have many thousands of pleasant transparencies though.
Maybe your friend meant to say that when most folks speak of well-known photo artists, they usually refer to people who became popular during the film era.
-
There was a debate here on LuLa a few years back where some folks eulogised about how film was better than digital. I added some images to thread and some of the pro-film posters said that they were good examples of why film was better than digital, because they had that certain something [or words to that effect]. The irony being that they were digital images and not from my FF DSLR either, but my small sensor pocket camera, a Ricoh GR200 IIRC.
-
There tends to be a fair amount of confirmation bias at work when it comes to what people think they prefer. Believing, for example, a particular photo was taken with film or sensor—or printed optically rather than mechanically—can improve or degrade the photo in the viewer's judgment regardless of the actual technology used. Same thing with music recording and reproduction tech. Better to just accept different technologies & processes as different. This way you can continue to have your preferences, with whatever degree of confirmation bias that may entail, but without as strong an impulse to proselytize them or treat other peoples' preferences as attacks on your character.
-Dave-
-
There tends to be a fair amount of confirmation bias at work when it comes to what people think they prefer. Believing, for example, a particular photo was taken with film or sensor—or printed optically rather than mechanically—can improve or degrade the photo in the viewer's judgment regardless of the actual technology used. Same thing with music recording and reproduction tech. Better to just accept different technologies & processes as different. This way you can continue to have your preferences, with whatever degree of confirmation bias that may entail, but without as strong an impulse to proselytize them or treat other peoples' preferences as attacks on your character.
-Dave-
Well written. I love the acceptance of both as just different. Just as glass plates were different from film.
-
This is a nubie question but I need to ask it to help resolve a discussion with a friend who has recently switched from digital - a Leica M9- to film - a Leica M6 I think.
He says that the "truly great photographers" only use film and I found this astonishing given the huge possibilities of digital technology.
His arguments for film are
- film has a more natural look
- film has greater dynamic range
- film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint.
So I wonder what your opinion is. For instance is it really true that a Canon 5d Mark 2 has less dynamic range than a Leica M6?
Aren't there techniques - such as adding grain or noise - that make digital images look as natural as film images?
Why do so many people say that film has that certain something? Why isn't this purely a matter of taste?
"Dynamic range" is a misnomer. It refers to the range of loudness (such as a symphony orchestra) from the softest to the loudest. Classical music typically has a large dynamic range (extremely soft to extremely loud), whereas most pop music has a small dynamic range (everything is just loud). By extension, it has been applied to electronic recordings of music, and then later to electronic signals. It is usually expressed in dB.
Dolby noise reduction was invented to increase dynamic range by suppressing tape hiss (noise) by emphasizing the high frequencies during recording and then de-emphasizing them during playback. If done carefully, there are no audible artifacts, and dynamic range is increased because the quietest part is now quieter than it would have been without the Dolby noise reduction. It does not, however, do anything to the loudest signals: the "increase" in dynamic range is entirely at the soft end of the recording. Digital recording generally has even greater dynamic range than Dolby-equipped analogue recording equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_noise-reduction_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_noise-reduction_system)
In any event, film records differently than digital. With film, there is some tonal compression at both the brightest and darkest parts of the image. This compression occurs both in the negative and positive stages. The effect is generally more pleasing than a perfectly linear tonal presentation.
The range of densities on the negative should be called "negative density range", and the range of densities on the print should be called "print density range" or informally "tonal range". The range of brightness in the subject should be called "subject brightness range".
Film cameras are limited by the film with which they are loaded. Different lenses have different optical properties with regard to flare or lack thereof. Leica rangefinder lenses are generally among the best in "brilliance" due to the fact that rangefinder lenses are almost always simpler than reflex lenses, with fewer and thinner elements.
Also, Leica has for many years used glass types with a very high index of refraction, which enables the lenses to have fewer elements and the lens elements to have softer curves. This also results in superior image brilliance.
Using fewer, thinner elements makes the lenses better and lighter.
-
In short, I warmly encourage your friend's switch from digital to film. Although his assertion that great photographers only shoot film is obviously a ridiculous proposition: you can make truly great work with your cell phone, an antique 8x10" camera or absolutely anything analogue or digital that captures an image at any workable resolution. Other than that, much of what he's getting at is very true. Before you all throw a hissy fit, I'd like to preface by saying that I own and frequently shoot with a 60mp Phase One medium format digital system, as well as a 36mp Nikon D800. I'm a professional photographer and my job demands that, but when shooting my own work I prefer film, which I sometimes shoot using a Leica M7, similar to your friend. The pictures I take with my digital cameras are sharper and have much higher resolution than the ones I take with my film cameras, but the pictures from my film cameras are much more beautiful.
Film pictures usually are more beautiful than digital images of the same scene because they have a warmth to them that's not achievable with digital capture. The obvious retort is that this is all subjective, but beauty isn't really in the eye of the beholder - if shown 20 faces and asked to rank them in order of beauty, people of wildly varying cultural backgrounds and ages will tend to rank them almost identically. If you were to go outside and take a quick picture of somebody you know with the sun setting behind them with color negative film, then with color digital, I've no doubt that people will respond more positively to the film version. In the great megapixel race, digital camera manufacturers are focusing on making cameras with ever higher resolving power, and resolution is probably the least important aspect of what makes up the quality of a photograph.
People seem to get confused about the issue of dynamic range or exposure latitude in the film vs digital debate. True, the dynamic range of current digital cameras is better than slide film. But slide film is for amateurs, films like Fuji Velvia are for enthusiast photographers who do workshops and make unbearably cheesy saturated photos of the American landscape. The idea that slide film is for pros and amateurs use print film is probably the biggest misconception I've encountered in the photo industry over the past 20 years. All the great photographers of the pre-digital era produced almost all of their work on print film. Some, like Annie Leibovitz, used slide film in the 80s, but look at the results with a contemporary eye and it should be obvious how awful they look. The same goes for cinema. Basically every great movie you have ever seen was filmed using B&W or color print (negative) film, not transparency - even though transparency stock is widely available. Why? Because negative film looks better and has a much wider latitude.
This is incorrect. Due to optical losses and color distortions, the negative-positive process produces results that are inferior to reversal stock, but reversal stock does not duplicate well because contrast tends to become excessive. Motion pictures that are distributed as multiple prints (which are copies) have always used the negative-positive process, which produces far better results than duplicates of reversal stock, which becomes too contrasty in duplication (though special products were available for producing and duplicating reversal stock). In the late 1930s, Kodak did supply a low-contrast version of Kodachrome for the motion-picture industry for remote location work where Technicolor cameras could not be used (Technicolor was a negative-positive process that used three B&W separation negatives, each exposed through a blue, green, or red color filter; the Technicolor cameras were very delicate and expensive, and there were only a few of them).
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor4.htm (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor4.htm)
Some scenes in the Wizard of Oz and other color motion pictures were shot on this Kodachrome stock, from which separations were made. No color negative stock has ever approached Kodachrome for color quality, sharpness, or stability, and most "serious" photographers used Kodachrome almost exclusively until Velvia came out. Kodachrome was vastly superior to the other films available. I did use some Ektachrome, Agfachrome and Anscochrome in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but these films were inferior in many respects to Kodachrome. Agfachrome had a very interesting color palate, but was quite grainy. Most of the old slides made on these films have faded badly, but my Kodachromes from that era look like they were made yesterday.
Professionals (commercial photographers) and serious amateurs used reversal products, except for professional portrait & wedding photographers. Among amateurs, color negative film was used primarily by moms using Instamatics, for photos of family events. Kodak sold millions of rolls of Kodacolor film in size 126.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome)
"Contrast
Kodachrome is generally used for direct projection using white light. As such, it possesses a relatively high contrast.
For professional uses, where duplication is expected and required, a special version, Kodachrome Commercial (KCO), was available in a 35 mm BH-perforated base (exclusively through Technicolor) and in a 16 mm base (exclusively through Eastman Kodak's professional products division). In both cases, Eastman Kodak performed the processing.
Kodachrome Commercial has a low-contrast characteristic which complements the various duplication films with which it is intended to be used: silver separation negatives for 35 mm (controlled exclusively by Technicolor) and reversal duplicating and printing stocks for 16 mm (controlled exclusively by Eastman Kodak).
Kodachrome Commercial was available until the mid-1950s, after which Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) replaced it for these specific applications.
After the late 1950s, 16 mm Kodachrome Commercial-originated films (and Ektachrome Commercial-originated films as well) were quite often duplicated onto Eastmancolor internegative film, after which these films were printed on Eastmancolor positive print film, as a cost-reduction measure, thereby yielding relatively low-cost prints for direct projection."
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/index.htm (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/index.htm)
and:
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/1940-1959/index.htm (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/1940-1959/index.htm)
I have no idea what is meant by "warmth", and such terms are neither scientific nor accurate. Film images are composed of randomly distributed particles, which create a specific kind of image quality. Also, because the silver crystals in an emulsion are sensitive to light hitting them from any angle, and because the photons striking the film tend to scatter within the film emulsion, neighboring crystals are exposed to photons striking them from the side as well as from the front. This process, called "irradiation", tends to "smear" the image a little. It tends to "smooth out" edges and create a somewhat more pleasing image. Sensor cells (which are not randomly arranged) are sensitive only to light coming right into them, and so light striking adjacent cells does not affect them. But the cell arrays themselves are much larger than film crystals, so the finest details are not captured as well as with film. The result is that digital images tend to look "sharper" but have less actual detail.
-
For me, the whole debate of film vs digital is foolish and should of had a stake driven through it's heart many moons ago. However, the whole debate, at least for me, has taken a turn for the strange.
Somes examples, but not all:
- new plugins for Photoshop like Nik sotware, Topaz labs, etc, all now have settings or sections where you can "make your picutre look like film." You can add noise, grain, make the image "shaky", yellowed with age even. Seriously. The pre-set setting in Nik is called "Granny's Attic."
So I don't get all these debates about film vs digital when all these new software programs are now replicating the look of film.
- Lomography seems to be selling more and more. One of the biggest camera stores here in town opened a new location at the local university, and it is stocked floor to celing with Lomo products. Film, Diana cameras, and more. Fuzzy Lomo cameras and lenses are growing ever in sales, at least from what I can see, so why any debate over which si better?
- lastly, a local photography studio opened up - two years ago now - and thier specialty is tin-types. Seriously. Honest to goodness tin-types, like something out of the Civil War era. I was readind the earlier jokes/messages in this thread about glass plates, but hey, what about tin-types? :)
So those are just a few examples. I guess my point is, digital is becomming more and more "perfect" all the time, maybe there is a backlash of some kind going on. Who knows?
-
But slide film is for amateurs, films like Fuji Velvia are for enthusiast photographers who do workshops and make unbearably cheesy saturated photos of the American landscape.
That's really absurd! When I was shooting professionally, with film (1980's and 1990's), we had to shot transparency (what you incorrectly call slide film) so it could be scanned for reproduction. Shoot a commercial job with color neg film, the art director and their prepress people would laugh you out of the office.
-
That's really absurd! When I was shooting professionally, with film (1980's and 1990's), we had to shot transparency (what you incorrectly call slide film) so it could be scanned for reproduction. Shoot a commercial job with color neg film, the art director and their prepress people would laugh you out of the office.
Correct, except in the wedding & portrait market, where prints were the item being sold.
-
That's really absurd! When I was shooting professionally, with film (1980's and 1990's), we had to shot transparency (what you incorrectly call slide film) so it could be scanned for reproduction. Shoot a commercial job with color neg film, the art director and their prepress people would laugh you out of the office.
In the editorial world (fashion/portraiture) there was a significant shift from transparency to negative in the mid 90s.
-
In the editorial world (fashion/portraiture) there was a significant shift from transparency to negative in the mid 90s.
Color neg? And what, prints were scanned for repro?
Still the statement, but slide film is for amateurs is absurd.
-
Color neg? And what, prints were scanned for repro?
Still the statement, but slide film is for amateurs is absurd.
Yes, 99.99% of color negative film was consumed by amateurs (overwhelmingly female). Slide films were used primarily by advanced amateurs (overwhelmingly male) and pros (other than those who did portrait & wedding work).
Part of the reason for this was that negative-positive process was simply not as good as slide films. Only when Kodak introduced T-grain films in the 1980s (marketed as "Ektar") did things start to even out. The C-22 process color negative films were discontinued in about 1972, and replaced by C41 films, which were sharper, and had more accurate color and better keeping properties. The C41 process was introduced along with the new 110 format, and the first C41 films were available only in 110. C22 films were not sharp enough or fine-grained enough to allow such a small negative to produce satisfactory images. Even so, Kodachrome was still far superior to any negative film, and to the E6 films and process (introduced in 1977) which were an outgrowth of the research for the C41 process. They were sharper, more stable, and had better color than their E4 predecessors, but were still inferior to Kodachrome. Fujichrome Velvia gave more saturated colors than Kodak's E6 films, but was not as sharp as Kodachrome, which had been improved in 1974. The 64 speed material in particular (Kodachrome 64) was far superior to Kodachrome-X, which had been introduced in 1963.
So, even though color negative materials had improved, they were still far inferior to the improved Kodachrome films. Ektachrome films were used only where greater emulsion speed and quick turn-around were needed.
Kodak might have been well-served to try to come up with a nature-oriented Kodachrome, perhaps about ISO 50. The Kodachrome films were intended as general-purpose materials. Velvia was not.
-
Color neg? And what, prints were scanned for repro?
Still the statement, but slide film is for amateurs is absurd.
Yes, colour neg. The photographer delivers contact-sheets to magazine. The magazine make their selects and order c-types from the photographer. (That's how I worked from the mid 90s until switching to digital in 2008.)
-
Yes, colour neg. The photographer delivers contact-sheets to magazine. The magazine make their selects and order c-types from the photographer. (That's how I worked from the mid 90s until switching to digital in 2008.)
I believe this would be the exception rather than the rule, and perhaps this was the practice among some editors with a lack of technical knowledge.
-
I believe this would be the exception rather than the rule, and perhaps this was the practice among some editors with a lack of technical knowledge.
Believe what you like. The adoption of 'wedding' films (Kodak Portra, Fuji NPS/NPC) by high end editorial photographers in the 1990s is an important part of the history of the film medium. When allied with a good printer, the photographer could do things with colour negative film that were impossible with transparency.
-
Believe what you like. The adoption of 'wedding' films (Kodak Portra, Fuji NPS/NPC) by high end editorial photographers in the 1990s is an important part of the history of the film medium. When allied with a good printer, the photographer could do things with colour negative film that were impossible with transparency.
There should be little need to debate that segments of the professional photo community used color neg B&W neg and transparency. For those who's final was 4 color reproduction to a halftone, the vast majority was shot on transparency film. But the professional wedding and portrait market indeed used color neg film. What shouldn't need to be debated is the ausurd statement that: slide film is for amateurs .
-
There should be little need to debate that segments of the professional photo community used color neg B&W neg and transparency. For those who's final was 4 color reproduction to a halftone, the vast majority was shot on transparency film. But the professional wedding and portrait market indeed used color neg film. What shouldn't need to be debated is the absurd statement that: slide film is for amateurs .
Yes. Slide films were used primarily by pros and advanced amateurs (overwhelmingly male).
-
Yes. Slide films were used primarily by pros and advanced amateurs (overwhelmingly male).
Is there a reason you have mentioned numerous times in the past few posts the gender difference in use of negative or transparency film? I only ask because while it may or may not be true - I cannot see it has any relevance. I agree that most 'serious' amateur photography was a male dominated pastime years ago - but that was because the man of the house probably controlled the purse strings and thought a compact type camera was plenty for the little woman and he should take share of the real pictures. Which is a huge shame. A very good friend of mine was in this situation until her husband died about 20 years ago. He would never let her use the 35mm camera. She took up 'serious' photography at the age of 55 and has since produced some outstanding work. Luckily digital photography has emancipated the female photographers at last and has democratised photography. Another female friend recently attained her Associateship of the Royal Photographic Society with a panel of prints shot on a Panasonic TZ compact camera. At last the limiting factor is imagination and creativity - not what type of camera you can afford.
Anyway - on the subject of film v digital I would say each to their own. It's a creative medium - just use what you enjoy. I switched to digital in 2001 and never looked back really. I miss the old workflow - shooting, dev film, printing etc, but it is nostalgia really.
Jim
-
There should be little need to debate that segments of the professional photo community used color neg B&W neg and transparency. For those who's final was 4 color reproduction to a halftone, the vast majority was shot on transparency film. But the professional wedding and portrait market indeed used color neg film. What shouldn't need to be debated is the ausurd statement that: slide film is for amateurs .
During the last years of film use before and around the year 2000 in our publishing house we had started to use more and more color negative film for both 135 and 120 sizes. This was because the latitude, ISO speeds and grain of color neg started to be clearly better than with reversal film. It also caused slower workflows (no in-house developing and printing) as reproduction was done from 24x30 or 30x40 prints. Not to mention the cost of having one-off prints made by hand in a pro lab. Those were the financially good days, now that would not be tolerated anymore.
-
Is there a reason you have mentioned numerous times in the past few posts the gender difference in use of negative or transparency film? I only ask because while it may or may not be true - I cannot see it has any relevance. I agree that most 'serious' amateur photography was a male dominated pastime years ago - but that was because the man of the house probably controlled the purse strings and thought a compact type camera was plenty for the little woman and he should take share of the real pictures. Which is a huge shame. A very good friend of mine was in this situation until her husband died about 20 years ago. He would never let her use the 35mm camera. She took up 'serious' photography at the age of 55 and has since produced some outstanding work. Luckily digital photography has emancipated the female photographers at last and has democratised photography. Another female friend recently attained her Associateship of the Royal Photographic Society with a panel of prints shot on a Panasonic TZ compact camera. At last the limiting factor is imagination and creativity - not what type of camera you can afford.
Jim
I worked in photo retailing in the past. Though some women had good equipment, most used the simplest and least expensive, and used color negative film, as their photos were mostly for family. Photography was not an end in itself. I bet 99% of 126 and 110 cameras were sold to women. The men customers tended to be serious hobbyists (most were doctors, dentists, professors or businessmen); they owned Alpas, Leicas, and Hasselblads. Most used transparency film and had projectors and screens.
-
I worked in photo retailing in the past. Though some women had good equipment, most used the simplest and least expensive, and used color negative film, as their photos were mostly for family. Photography was not an end in itself. I bet 99% of 126 and 110 cameras were sold to women. The men customers tended to be serious hobbyists (most were doctors, dentists, professors or businessmen); they owned Alpas, Leicas, and Hasselblads. Most used transparency film and had projectors and screens.
Lotsa kids owned 110 and/or 126 cameras. Me for instance, along with my childhood friends Greg & Dona. I still have my Kodak 110 (two unused flashbulb doohickies too!) but the 126s are long gone. Digging through my dad's photo archive last year I found two boxes of 126 Kodachrome slides I took during a spring 1972 holiday in Florida. Quality is pretty good.
-Dave-
-
Lotsa kids owned 110 and/or 126 cameras. Me for instance, along with my childhood friends Greg & Dona. I still have my Kodak 110 (two unused flashbulb doohickies too!) but the 126s are long gone. Digging through my dad's photo archive last year I found two boxes of 126 Kodachrome slides I took during a spring 1972 holiday in Florida. Quality is pretty good.
-Dave-
Yes, kids too, no question of that.
-
Hi,
Just to mention, we had a small shooting with our photo club. Let's see what we had
- A lady shooting Nikon
- Another lady shooting Nikon
- Another lady shooting Sony A7
- Another lady shooting Panasonic GH3
- A gentleman shooting Canon
- Another gentleman shooting Nikon
- Another gentleman shooting a DSLR the make of which I don't recall.
We also had two young ladies (14 and 15 years of age) acting as models, normally shooting Canon and Pentax DSLRs, but this time they were using my Sony Alpha 99 for technical reasons.
Myself was shooting my Hasselblad as I lent out my Sony Alpha two the two young ladies.
Some other observations:
The lady shooting the Panasonic GH3 felt that it was not serious enough, but I gave her a hint that James Russel regards it as one of his favourite cameras. I guess he is a photographer serious enough. That lady was making her living in database development and also happened to be the grandmother of one of our young models.
The young ladies both wanted to upgrade their cameras. The 15 year old wanted higher FPS, the younger one wanted a Canon, because all her friends had Canon.
So, it is not really my experience that ladies are shooting with inferior equipment. One of the ladies, the one shooting Nikon has made some of the best wet darkroom B&W prints I have ever seen. Ansel Adams class…
Some of my images from that shoot are here (full disclosure, both JPEGs and RAWs :-) :
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Nynas_NFK_2014_09_13/
First time I was shooting portraits in 40 years…
Some observations on the Hassy/P45+:
Shooting against the sun I got bad hazing in parts of the image on the Sonnar 180/4, somewhat unexpected.
In high contrast situations the screen and histogram was difficult to see.
I got decent focus on quite a few images. Better than what I expected.
In general I was happy with the Hassy.
Best regards
Erik
I worked in photo retailing in the past. Though some women had good equipment, most used the simplest and least expensive, and used color negative film, as their photos were mostly for family. Photography was not an end in itself. I bet 99% of 126 and 110 cameras were sold to women. The men customers tended to be serious hobbyists (most were doctors, dentists, professors or businessmen); they owned Alpas, Leicas, and Hasselblads. Most used transparency film and had projectors and screens.
-
This is a nubie question but I need to ask it to help resolve a discussion with a friend who has recently switched from digital - a Leica M9- to film - a Leica M6 I think.
He says that the "truly great photographers" only use film and I found this astonishing given the huge possibilities of digital technology.
His arguments for film are
- film has a more natural look
- film has greater dynamic range
- film images are more beautiful. They have a certain something that is difficult to pinpoint.
So I wonder what your opinion is. For instance is it really true that a Canon 5d Mark 2 has less dynamic range than a Leica M6?
Aren't there techniques - such as adding grain or noise - that make digital images look as natural as film images?
Why do so many people say that film has that certain something? Why isn't this purely a matter of taste?
35mm flatbed scanned color neg film is = to about 4mp. So it is a lot fuzzier media than digital.
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/
Film has a less clinical look since the smaller formats are less sharp than digital. It is kinda like the old film movies versus the HD video movies. The HD movies have that artificial look. But you can make digital to look like film. You just use the tools you mentioned. Put some old glass on the cam and you are almost like film
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biker_37_Copyright_2014_Daniel_Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg
-
35mm flatbed scanned color neg film is = to about 4mp.
When we got the Canon EOS-1d cameras some 12 years ago I made a test against Fuji Provia 100 transparency film, which was our standard film stock. Using same lens with same framing (had to zoom a bit, 1.5x crop factor) and after the slide had been scanned to 20 MPix resolution (60MB TIFF), I was a bit shocked to find out the 4.7MPix digital file was just as sharp as the Provia scan. Happily shocked...