The last Velvia 67 to digital comparison by me

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In my view CCD scanners are OK for large print, I have made very good prints from scanned Velvia and Provia. The largest prints I made were 70x100 cm. The major disadvantage I have seen with CCD scanners is that they cannot handle the DMAX of Velvia (it's about 4.0). The Nikon may be better than the Minolta scanner I had. Whatever DMAX the CCD scanners handle, slide film has a low dynamic range.

What this boils down to is simple. What can be done depends on subject and film. In the best case a CCD scanner can deliver, in other cases it may be hard. I have never scanned negative film, to my knowledge it is not easy,

Best regards
Erik

An established artist friend of mine who did a 70+ piece exhibit at Ace Gallery in Los Angeles, with most prints being 7' diagonal or larger, shot MF film with a Coolscan 9000.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

When I wrote "last comparison by me" I essentially meant that I publish all my finding in this discussion instead of starting new ones.

Comparing scanners is not easy as there is is no easy way of sharing physical quantities on the net. We cannot share print, silver halide images or Idaho Potatoes over the net. One way is to try to reproduce some standard image, like the one here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

Could be done by anyone having a mini color checker and a dollar bill.

Best regards
Erik

Somehow I don't think this will be the last comparison.

Here's the rub - while a drum scan is nice and all, unless we're talking about either Aztek or ICG, none of the other players are still around.  Add to that there are only 5 companies still actively producing scanners; Canon, Epson, Hasselblad, Kodak, and Nikon, and you have yourself relatively few options grouped into two categories: affordable and insanely expensive.

Now, here's an idea - instead of comparing scanned film to a digital capture, why not compare the same piece of film, scanned across the last scanners standing?  THAT would be something worth seeing, provided, as Kurt so rightly pointed out, the operator was skilled in the use of the particular scanner.

[harlemshooter]

yes, in my experience the coolscan 9000 produce mf film scans from my mamiya 7 which far surpass dslr quality in tonality and color in large 30x40 or bigger prints...most fine artist's will agree.  i only use my d3x when absolutely necessary.

[uaiomex]

Harlemshooter, in your opinion:
Under the same circumstances a print of "only" 24X30" would far surpass  a D3x? - Or at this size, the difference would be irrelevant?
Do you wetmount?
Back to the 30X40 print: Is print resolution better or just tonality and color depth?
Thanks so much for your answers
Eduardo

yes, in my experience the coolscan 9000 produce mf film scans from my mamiya 7 which far surpass dslr quality in tonality and color in large 30x40 or bigger prints...most fine artist's will agree.  i only use my d3x when absolutely necessary.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Are you shooting slide film, negative color or Black and White? If slide film which one? I would expect Velvia having issues with blocking shadows, due to it's high D-MAX.

Best regards
Erik

yes, in my experience the coolscan 9000 produce mf film scans from my mamiya 7 which far surpass dslr quality in tonality and color in large 30x40 or bigger prints...most fine artist's will agree.  i only use my d3x when absolutely necessary.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

This comparison http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry322993
was made by some knowledgeable gentlemen (Bill Atkinson, Charlie Cramer and Michael Reichmann) and regarding film probably still valid.

Regarding the tonality and color depth I'm somewhat confused. With digital almost any color can be achieved.

Best regards
Erik

Harlemshooter, in your opinion:
Under the same circumstances a print of "only" 24X30" would far surpass  a D3x? - Or at this size, the difference would be irrelevant?
Do you wetmount?
Back to the 30X40 print: Is print resolution better or just tonality and color depth?
Thanks so much for your answers
Eduardo

[Slough]

Regarding the tonality and color depth I'm somewhat confused. With digital almost any color can be achieved.

Not really. The camera gamut is limited by the Bayer colour filters and the demosaicing algorithms, and your ability to process digital images is limited by the gamut of your monitor. I do find it odd that the gamut of digital cameras is almost never discussed.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My impression is that camera gamut volumes are huge, but so are scanner RGBs. I have not found any RGB volume for Velvia. Anyway the issue is complex. Cameras and scanners don't really have color space. Regarding film it works like a camera, but using subtractive filtering. Once we project or scan the film it has probably a gamut volume defined by some RGB coordinates corresponding to dyes. Scanning the film adds another level of complexity. We have a gamut mapping from film to scanner. Scanners have huge gamuts, so we can assume that film gamut is preserved. If we discuss scanned images we can definitively adjust them outside the gamut of the monitor, but cannot display on screen. The colors missing on screen may show up in print or even not.

Check this article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...photo-rgb.shtml


Best regards
Erik

Not really. The camera gamut is limited by the Bayer colour filters and the demosaicing algorithms, and your ability to process digital images is limited by the gamut of your monitor. I do find it odd that the gamut of digital cameras is almost never discussed.

[Jeremy Payne]

most fine artist's will agree

Is that like when 4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum?

[Rob C]

Is that like when 4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum?

Better yet: toothless gum. There lies money!

Rob C