Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD  (Read 6437 times)

jacsin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« on: July 23, 2017, 07:06:59 am »

Would a film MF camera hold it's own against the newest MFD's when used with HiRes scanner? I'm keen to hear experiences from anyone using analog MF cameras in combinations with scanners like Flextight. A slower process than digital MFD's, obviously, but still interesting from an IQ point of view.

Cheers,
Jan.

Sent from my VIE-L29 using Tapatalk

Logged

UlfKrentz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 530
    • http://www.shoots.de
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2017, 07:44:44 am »

No way. I´m sure others will disagree but we felt resolution already better with an old 33MP Leaf back vs 6/7 slides of EPR scanned on a Flextight. That said if you like to shoot film go for it. Cheers!

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3307
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2017, 08:28:52 am »

You may be surprised with the capabilities of Olympus M43 multi-shot mode. Color accuracy is superb, DR, and resolution are great. Impeccable technique is required. I suggest using a high-end enlarger lens for copy work. My favorite is a Rodenstock Rodagon 60mm f/4. I think that lens surpasses the Rodenstock Rodagon APO 80 f/4 N.
Logged

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2017, 09:16:09 am »

I personally believe mfd surpassed medium format film a while ago.  The digital raw files also give a flexibility that film never did.  I love shooting mf  film, especially chrome.  Large color slides are a joy to view...but it's pure novelty at this point. 

There is a also a clarity in the high megapixel backs that film just can't deliver.  Then again, the highlight handling in film is still not the same when going digital.  I love the look of highlights in film...never have in digital. 

Like previously mentioned...I am getting very convincing results from even m43 that makes me put the film aside.
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2017, 10:48:45 am »

The best scanners use a 15-20 yr old sensor technology with limited dmax and slow workflow. Film has its merits but the real limitation is the scanner...
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

Juanito

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • John Raymond Mireles
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2017, 11:46:37 am »

There's not just resolution and dynamic range to think about but overall workflow, cost and ease of use. With digital, you get to see what you get when you're shooting and then again at the end of the day when you review your take. With film you're waiting for days to see what you've got, which, if you're on location, means you have to wait until your shoot is done to see anything. Scanning is such a pain the neck and then there's the cost of film and developing. If you shoot large numbers of photos, the cost of film quickly overshadows the cost of an MF camera. I shot MF transparency film for years as a professional. I think of shooting film as a step back in every possible way, image quality included.

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2017, 06:49:54 pm »

If all you're talking about is resolution and dynamic range, then, yes, the new MFDB's are *better* than film, but thankfully, those are only part of what makes a compelling image. A good drum scanner (and yes, there are bad ones and worse, bad scanner operators) can record the entire range captured on the film, so if that old technology is somehow limited, who cares, it's more than good enough.

It's kinda funny that in preparing for an exhibit last year of music portraits, I made a LOT of drum scans, many from film I had forgotten about over the years. In the show there were only two images that were shot digitally, and yet not a single person who attended the gallery when I was there commented on how inferior the images from film were. The technical comments were more along the lines of "how did you get prints with no dust spots" on them. I felt a little guilty telling them they were actually digital prints from drum scans and that I had "spotted" out all the dust beforehand.

A few years ago, well, maybe more than a few, I did a little comparison, shooting a subject with very fine detail with a Canon 200mm 1.8 @ f/4, bracketing focus to get the sharpest focus example, then scanning at 8000 ppi with a 3 micron aperture, then comparing that scan to actually looking at the image projected in an enlarger through the high end Omega grain focuser, and seeing that there was actually more detail on the film than even an 8000 ppi scan could record. A large print from the scanned film would still be sharper than a projected analog print due to optical losses in the enlarging lenses and printing paper combos, but it was quite surprising to see just how much the film to actually resolve.

There are certain times when I still shoot film specifically for the look it provides. If film provides the best feel and best mood, is digital better just because it's sharper? Don't let anyone tell you one is always better than the other because the answer is, it depends.
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2017, 07:59:21 pm »

A few random thoughts:

What makes an image great/valuable/interesting/compelling/memorable, or whatever other merit it is imbued with, is only sometimes related to it's resolution. And there are many reasons why one might want to shoot medium format film unrelated to resolution. Resolving more detail, compared to a modern medium format camera, is not really a reason to shoot medium format film.

Drum scanners legendary status is largely a case of being compared to the only alternative of their era (flat bed scanners). Drum scanners were a decade ahead of their time when they were in their prime, but are now far from state of the art. The best performing film scanner now available are actually with a phase one digital back, and is being used at Library of Congress, Center for Creative Photography (which houses Ansel Adams and Edward Weston's work), the Getty, and many other top-end institutions.

Tests run of film resolution in studio test environments bare little relationship to what can be expected in the field (ditto with digital, though with an intrinsically smaller disparity). Once you add in the issues of ground glass focusing, mirror slap, wind, film flatness, and the inability to fine-tune in the field based on 100% feedback the typical results are, even in the hands of a master, rarely anywhere near the studio test. In practice, the overwhelming amount of field film work would have been easily out resolved by well scanned MF film (e.g. 645 or 67).

Having the MOST resolution is entirely unimportant. Having ENOUGH resolution is the only thing that matters. How big would you like to print? How close do you expect or want your viewers to view your large prints? Does your subject matter, shooting style, and presentation method benefit from higher resolution (e.g. grand landscapes often do, but impressionist motion-blurred street photography rarely would)? If MF film, plus the scanner that is reasonable for you to use, gives you enough resolution for your needs it doesn't matter if MFD would give you more.

Lenses. Lenses. Lenses. Doesn't matter a nickel how much resolution the film or sensor have if your lenses don't carry it. Many medium format film lenses, even from venerable brands, even those that had a good reputation in their era, are woefully outperformed by modern lenses. This is especially true on the wider end where the most development in optical design has been made in the last two decades. The Schneider 35LS and 45LS Blue Ring lenses, or a Rodenstock 32HR on an Arca Tech Camera, compared to any film-era wide, are hugely better.

Want to shoot medium format film for the experience? For the lower price of entry? For the challenge? Go for it! But if you're after top resolution... no.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 08:03:53 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

jacsin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2017, 03:33:40 am »

I shoot mainly portraits (both color and BW) and am curious as to whether this process would give me anything beyond what I'm already getting from my MFD. Not necessarily improvements in resolution, but more from an overall look point of view - if that makes any sense. I'll see if I can get access to a top scanner and give it a go.
Thanks for all input, much appreciated.
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2017, 09:29:54 am »

I shoot mainly portraits (both color and BW) and am curious as to whether this process would give me anything beyond what I'm already getting from my MFD. Not necessarily improvements in resolution, but more from an overall look point of view - if that makes any sense. I'll see if I can get access to a top scanner and give it a go.
Thanks for all input, much appreciated.

Absolutely. I think if you're drawn to consider film you should give it a go! It's a different medium and my experience, working with a lot of photographers, is that anytime a photographer switches mediums they get outside their comfort zone and happy accidents, inspirations, and great work often ensues. It's very reasonable in price to do a shoot or two in film (though long term use can start to add up). Personally I'd suggest Fuji 400H. I spent around a hundred hours of R+D emulating that emulsion for Phase One CMOS backs in a Custom Capture One Style for our Contax+Film hybrid shooters. It's a very stylized film that heavily lifts skintones, shifts greens, and has many interesting strong tonal modals that you likely wouldn't think to try yourself in digital. The crazy amount of work it took to properly emulate that film with a Capture One style, even with the experience I have in making them and my background of color science, made me greatly appreciate that film.

It might be your thing. Or it might not be. The point is it's not especially hard or expensive to try.

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 807
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2017, 10:11:20 am »

. The crazy amount of work it took to properly emulate that film with a Capture One style, even with the experience I have in making them and my background of color science, made me greatly appreciate that film.

I gave up trying to emulate long ago and have just shot more film as a result, just interested if you modelled against the Fuji scanner rather than the Noritsu or a balance? (Don't want to wander too OT: in pure technical IQ there is no competition but the market for test charts and colour checker frames is rather limited and the real life "look" with film, in particular the Portra highlight roll off and and as you say colour balance and shifts and the B/W output possible is very "pretty" as one poster missing for a while would say)

« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 10:21:06 am by Chris Livsey »
Logged

PWS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2017, 12:19:44 pm »

pfigen,

... i totally agree with you.
There's much more than just hardware... Have seen so many poorly executed scans (drum-scans included)
wich actually is a shame, if you imagine how lovely well scanned files might look.

I don't want to argue about dynamic range, resolution etc.
However, there are still subjects you just can't shoot digital looking that gorgeous as on film.

sample
Logged

Juanito

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • John Raymond Mireles
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2017, 01:06:13 pm »

I shoot mainly portraits (both color and BW) and am curious as to whether this process would give me anything beyond what I'm already getting from my MFD. Not necessarily improvements in resolution, but more from an overall look point of view - if that makes any sense. I'll see if I can get access to a top scanner and give it a go.
Thanks for all input, much appreciated.

What I've found is that when I change formats or capture mediums, I'm reinvigorated and feeling creative all over again - for like ten minutes. Then it's back to the fact that I'm still the same old unimaginative hack that I ever was. Fortunately, I've fooled enough people that I've been able to sustain some sort of career over 27 years. The other thing is that we may notice the minutiae of one camera or another but, to the vast ocean of viewers out there, the differences aren't significant. What's more important is overall vision and skill. Of course, you can't buy or replace either of those as easily and quickly as we can punch in our credit card number for a new piece of equipment so the temptation for new gear is always there.

tim wolcott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
    • http://www.galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2017, 10:30:29 pm »

There's no contest.  If it was close we wouldn't spend that kind of money for the digital when we all had medium or large format.  Michael did this along time ago.  And I have the high res scanners.  Smell the coffee.
Logged

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2017, 12:08:48 am »

Well Doug wouldn't be Doug if he wasn't trying to sell you something, now would he. I've seen the comparisons he's published comparing his photos of film to a scanner, and, while they are sharp, especially the color on his color neg "scans" left a lot to be desired.  Now, I shot film for decades and have been scanning a LOT of that in the last few years, and all at very high resolutions on a real drum scanner that reveals all the flaws. What I see is that the film and lenses I was using back then are actually much BETTER than I ever thought, and even while digital is sharper, it's rarely better in terms of vibe. And since I shot (and still shoot) both in and out of the studio, people, places and things, I never really seen any real evidence of Doug's hypothesis of images shot in the field somehow not living up to what you tested in the studio. If that's Doug's experience, then maybe his technique wasn't that good to begin with. Technique is just one thing that was hammered into us in school, but it was one of the most important things.

The bottom line is that a good drum scanner is STILL better than most other scanners out there and are true RGB devices and don't use any Bayer demosaicing where you do lose color information, and can be bought used for a fraction of what he wants for his scanning device. Now, it's no surprise that large institutions are going in his direction, but it's really not a viable option, price wise for individuals.

And anyone really considering drum scanners should know that there are big big differences in the scanners and there are really only two that I would consider capable to the best results, ICG and Howtek, neither of which is in production anymore. But the biggest factor in how good your drum scan is really lies with the person who is running the scanner and how well they understand the entire process.
Logged

Richard Man

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
    • Richard Man Photography
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2017, 04:12:58 am »

As mentioned, MFD is much better in sharpness.

OTOH, Portra, CineStill, FP4, Tri-X etc. all have a look that are hard to emulate and looks ... different. May be not in commercial fashion style portraits where there are tons of make up and post, but for the more "natural" look.

I am now using a Flextight, and while it's no drumscan, it's a heck lot better than even the Nikon LS-9000. For people like me who only do personal projects, I really like the freedom of going out with simple cameras and some rolls (or sheets as I shoot a lot of 4x5) of film..

(*) not like I am a luddite, in my dayjob, I write close-to-the-metal software
Logged
// richard
[url=http://richardmanphoto.c

Ken Doo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
    • http://www.kendoophotography.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2017, 12:50:08 pm »

The Hasselblad Flextight X5 is just simply easy to use compared to other options. Hasselblad customer service is good and responsive (in my experience) and it's nice to know that the scanner is still supported.

ken
Logged
Ken Doo
 [url=http://www.kendoophotograph

Richard Man

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
    • Richard Man Photography
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2017, 03:35:29 pm »

I have the slightly older 848 and after a trip to Hasselblad, is now working great. One of the firewire ports is not working all the time, but otherwise the scans are just amazingly good (not drumscan good, but it's so easy to use...). When I have the dough, I will send it in to Hassleblad for a motherboard replacement ($2000+) and it will probably be truly "as good as new" operation wise.

I process all my own film (135, 120, 4x5) in B&W, C41, and even E-6. And with the Flextight, I get great base images that need very little work in post to get great final images.

Is it still better to have gone with MFD and even high end digital? Probably for most people, but I enjoy using my equipment the way they are.
Logged
// richard
[url=http://richardmanphoto.c

imagetone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
    • http://www.tonymayimages.com
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2017, 03:35:54 am »

The older Flextights are incredibly slow once you are used to the immediacy of digital. Although I have film backs which I keep telling myself I'll use again some day for personal work, the thought of the time involved in scanning any volume of film with the Flextight again was not appealing, so I sold it. 

The newer Hasselblad scanners may be quicker - I don't know - and others may be happy taking the time.

Tony
Logged

Richard Man

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
    • Richard Man Photography
Re: Film+HiRes Scanner vs MFD
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2017, 05:59:02 am »

The Flextight is necessity since I shoot > 300 sheets of 4x5 each year, and then BAM! Now my MF and 135mm negs scans are about the best they can be too. I also have a Pakon that can do a roll of 135mm in about ONE minute, so that can serve as quick web/contact sheets and the Flextight for highest quality print. Even when I use my digital Leica M9 or dSLR, I don't shoot too much (except in cases of like Taiko concerts etc.) so the workflow is just fine for me.

Is it for everybody? Nah. Digital is probably more convenient for most people. But as I say, there's certain freedom of going out with a Leica M7 with a few rolls of Tr-X and Portra, or the Hassy 203FE with the same, and just a couple replacement batteries that take next to nothing in space, and I am all good to go.
Logged
// richard
[url=http://richardmanphoto.c
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up