36 Megapixels vs 6×7 Velvia

[Zorki5]

Can't say it's still relevant (hence Coffee Corner), but still IMO very interesting:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia-tim-parkin/

[BobShaw]

I know at least one very famous landscape photographer who still shoots film, even though he has an 80MP Phase One.

[Telecaster]

As much as I like my electronic cameras, and the technical qualities of the images they produce, I still love the look of film. From a purely æsthetical POV I'd say I even prefer film. If I could buy Kodachrome and get it developed, I'd likely be using my Sony as a transparency digitizer as often as a proper camera.

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is an interesting article. I am pretty sure Tim's findings are correct. But, I don't think it is the whole truth.

Another way to see it is that Tim's article is focusing on resolution, but resolution by itself is not the most important factor in the image. Low speed film can resolve a lot of high contrast detail, but the resulting image will be noisy. Also, the the scanned image will have high resolution but at low fine detail contrast. So, you end up with an image that is quite noisy and needs a lot of sharpening.

Now, Tim has his own scanning business and he is doing drum scanning. Drum scanners don't use CCD-s, like old film scanners did, but photomultiplier tubes that are much more capable of handling high density ratios than CCD scanners. Tim actually touches on the issue in his article.

What I have seen in my shooting is that scanned Velvia 67 at 3200 PPI sort of matches resolution of a 24 MP digital camera. I have compared 30"x40" prints from both and the images are quite similar.

With a lot of post processing, film  scanned on drum scan can really shine, but I don't think CCD scanners are really good enough to make the best of film. The images will be quite noisy and cannot handle the density range of slide film.

My experience is closer to Michael Reichmann's findings back in 2009: https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout/

But, this all depends on choice of film. High quality slide film is more difficult to scan than negative film, which mostly has a much narrower density range. Digital processing tends to give high quality images with very good noise characteristics. The major issue with digital is the lack of resolution, at worst creating false detail.

Another side of that coin is colour reproduction. With digital it is pretty much given and pretty accurate. With film it is far more tricky.

So, it is possible to get very good and perhaps even superior image from film, but it needs:

• A carefully selected combination of film, processing and scanning.
• Scanning on a properly maintained drum scanner at a very high resolution-
• Carefully optimised post processing.

For some reasons, Imacons are often referred to as drum scanners, which they are not. They are CCD based scanners, even if they have a very carefully made optical system.

The best way to reproduce a slide frame is probably shooting it under perfect conditions using a high resolution digital camera. The three problems you need to fight are:

• Film flatness
• Keeping sensor parallell to film
• Stray light

Best regards
Erik

Can't say it's still relevant (hence Coffee Corner), but still IMO very interesting:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia-tim-parkin/

[Zorki5]

My experience is closer to Michael Reichmann's findings back in 2009: https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout/

Oh I remember that article... It wasn't in 2009 though; the "2009" at the top of the article is an artifact of migrating the site to a new platform; the dates of everything before 2009 had been reset to 2009. The article in question was published in January 2003. (Note to LuLa: it would be nice to manually correct at least the dates we know).

Tim's article is focusing on resolution, but resolution by itself is not the most important factor in the image.

This is what I thought when I was reading Michael's article -- though not because of noise and such, but because the colors in digital and scanned images were so vastly different. The building in the top-left corner was, basically, brown on 1Ds image and green on Pentax image. Could that be corrected in WB so that the images would look similar, or were tone curves "incompatible"? I was amazed Michael did not even touch that...

[Zorki5]

As much as I like my electronic cameras, and the technical qualities of the images they produce, I still love the look of film. From a purely æsthetical POV I'd say I even prefer film.

Can't say I prefer film because of its aesthetic qualities, but there is one other thing that still attracts me: there is indeed something special (to me, anyway) in not seeing the image until you develop it. Watched TheCameraStoreTV video on Leica M-D recently, and it got me thinking about that again.

It all boils down to the fact that digital cameras are becoming "too perfect", I think. And we start longing for some "magic", that is no longer there. I remember another article here on LuLa: Michael complained about mobile phones' cameras becoming too good, so he bought himself some tiny crap-o-cam, with which he managed to have quite some fun. Yeah, that "fan factor" that those of us shooting solely for fun always look for...

[SZRitter]

Can't say I prefer film because of its aesthetic qualities, but there is one other thing that still attracts me: there is indeed something special (to me, anyway) in not seeing the image until you develop it. Watched TheCameraStoreTV video on Leica M-D recently, and it got me thinking about that again.

It all boils down to the fact that digital cameras are becoming "too perfect", I think. And we start longing for some "magic", that is no longer there. I remember another article here on LuLa: Michael complained about mobile phones' cameras becoming too good, so he bought himself some tiny crap-o-cam, with which he managed to have quite some fun. Yeah, that "fan factor" that those of us shooting solely for fun always look for...

Oddly, as I shoot 645 beside my M43 gear, I'm finding much the same. Digital is much easier to work with, and quicker, so for all paying gigs, I'm using digital. But, for the love of photography, I find the process, including scanning, much better in film. When working in film, I let it dictate some of the result (i.e. choosing the film by the look I want) rather than trying to control everything in post.

And there is no greater feeling than inspecting that role of film for the first time after development and finding a few "keepers" in there.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for pointing out the date error!  I should have reacted a bit more…

Regarding colour rendition, my two samples that I enlarged were very close, although the 67 image was shot and scanned early on in my digital career. So, I think scanned colour can be quite good. You calibrate the scanner to a known target, normally an IT8/Q60 target. So, the scan takes the colour rendition of the slide into account.

But, I don't think that Michaels Reichmann's article was about colour rendition. He found that the digital workflow suited him fine, and that is really the end of story.

For me, no way that I would work with film again. I have a Pentax 67 and also two film backs for my Hasselblad. But, it is a lot of hard work to get anything useful out of film and I rather spend my time shooting images or processing them than scanning and trying to make them look as good as digital.

Would I shoot 8"x10" and do mural size prints, it may be different. But my maximum film format was 6x7.

Subjectively, I feel that my best images may have been made with the 12 MP Sony A700. The images are good enough for my standard print size (A2) and I was doing some good travel.

Just to say, those 67 slides of yore are still magnificent today when shown in a high end 67 slide projector…

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Something I may need to point out… I am an engineer by heart and profession. I love photography, but don't see myself as an artist. So, digital may come a bit natural to me.

Oh I remember that article... It wasn't in 2009 though; the "2009" at the top of the article is an artifact of migrating the site to a new platform; the dates of everything before 2009 had been reset to 2009. The article in question was published in January 2003. (Note to LuLa: it would be nice to manually correct at least the dates we know).

This is what I thought when I was reading Michael's article -- though not because of noise and such, but because the colors in digital and scanned images were so vastly different. The building in the top-left corner was, basically, brown on 1Ds image and green on Pentax image. Could that be corrected in WB so that the images would look similar, or were tone curves "incompatible"? I was amazed Michael did not even touch that...

[Telecaster]

The best way to reproduce a slide frame is probably shooting it under perfect conditions using a high resolution digital camera. The three problems you need to fight are:

• Film flatness
• Keeping sensor parallell to film
• Stray light

I've found this setup (attached pic) works well for medium-res (12–20mp) digitizing of mounted transparencies. I suspect it would also work fine with the A7r2, though I have yet to try it (and suspect it would be overkill spatially if not tonally).

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Dave,

A great solution, taking care of all problems I mentioned! :-)

What tubes are you using?

Just to say, I really like that idea!

Best regards
Erik

I've found this setup (attached pic) works well for medium-res (12–20mp) digitizing of mounted transparencies. I suspect it would also work fine with the A7r2, though I have yet to try it (and suspect it would be overkill spatially if not tonally).

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

Erik, those are Heliopan tubes. They're just lens hoods that can be screwed together and stacked. I put a short wide-angle hood in front to improve stability. 

 - - - - -

There's something to be said, from a creative standpoint, for embracing a set of limitations and working within them. That's part of why I like film, particularly transparencies when it comes to color. You get a set color palette, high-ish contrast and low-ish dynamic range (but often very fine tonal gradation within that range). So you go with that…

For much the same reason I wish camera makers would offer high-bit JPEG as an output option. I'd like being able to choose a look and have it baked in at the source without accepting the downsides of 8-bit files.

-Dave-