Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: to film or not to film...  (Read 5142 times)

griffithimage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
to film or not to film...
« on: January 12, 2011, 04:05:17 pm »

I'm doing a personal project with the intention of displaying prints that are 40x50 inches in an exhibition. Part of the show has been shot with my Bronica 6x7 and the prints look good. Currently I have a canon 1ds mark 1 and I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5d2. (no money for a phase or pentax 645)

Will the 5d2 give me comparable results or should I just bite the bullet and use film? E-6 processing seems like a lifetime ago and with it the hassles of scanning etc.

Opinions?

IanB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2011, 07:05:20 am »

6x7cm scanned at 4000ppi is close to 100 megapixels, so in blunt quantitative terms can potentially out-perform the 5d2. But - the image quality depends very heavily indeed on careful choice of film type and processing, as well as scanning. E6 films may not always be the optimum - Ektar scans well, for instance. Depends on what you are doing.

Film-based processes with high resolution scanning still out-performs digital by quite a way for monochrome work (although recent top-notch MFD backs may have changed this - I've never used them).

All-digital workflow is much quicker, and has a different "look" - if you mix film-based and all-digital images in the same exhibition it may appear inconsistent. Only you can tell if that is likely to be a problem.

From where you are starting, film is cheaper, digital is quicker. Neither is "better" in absolute terms.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2011, 09:56:12 am »

Hi,

I spent some effort on comparing Velvia 120 (with a Pentax 67) and my Sony Alpha 900. The results are here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

But you may also check Michael Reichmann: http://www.llvj.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Best regards
Erik


I'm doing a personal project with the intention of displaying prints that are 40x50 inches in an exhibition. Part of the show has been shot with my Bronica 6x7 and the prints look good. Currently I have a canon 1ds mark 1 and I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5d2. (no money for a phase or pentax 645)

Will the 5d2 give me comparable results or should I just bite the bullet and use film? E-6 processing seems like a lifetime ago and with it the hassles of scanning etc.

Opinions?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

griffithimage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2011, 10:40:55 am »

Hi,

I spent some effort on comparing Velvia 120 (with a Pentax 67) and my Sony Alpha 900. The results are here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

But you may also check Michael Reichmann: http://www.llvj.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Best regards
Erik


interesting articles, for me it would be a no brainer to go digital except for the size that I want to enlarge the prints. I'm wondering how a 5d2 file will hold up when up rezzed to 40x50 inches.

IanB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2011, 12:14:05 pm »

No tests I've done match these for thoroughness, but my subjective (and inexpert) trials for my own use agree essentially with Erik - although I do suspect he could get better results with films better optimised for scanning than Velvia - particularly with those *@!+/># roses!

OK - time to 'fess up. Just before Christmas I compared a couple of my best recent prints (taken with a Linhof TK23 6x7cm on Astia and scanned with a Nikon 9000) with some done by a friend with his new Canon, which I think is a 5D. The digital images looked much sharper, and attracted immediate attention from the other side of the room - they made my prints look very drab by comparison. I think this is primarily a matter of sharpening and acutance, and I was pretty crushed, especially since we were planning on a joint exhibition (and I'm the more experienced photographer!). The effect of greater apparent clarity was very strong. However, when large prints were compared closer-to, the Canon images (which I think may well have been up-rezzed) began to look quite artificial, and the film ones gained a great deal of ground.

I'm sorry to say I have wimped out of the joint exhibition because of the difference. On their own my prints hold up very well, and have recieved significant praise from people I respect. I don't think in absolute terms they are inferior at all, but the sheer impact in the direct comparison with digital hurts them just too much. Experienced photographers appreciate the film qualities, as these images have noticeably better subtlety and tonality, but the non-expert public really don't seem to get it - the world is moving on. You might need to think about the danger of changing equipment mid-project for that reason alone - it may significantly hurt the appeal of the work you have already done.

I have decided that I will switch to MF digital, but only when my current project is completed. I will definitely look forward to the improved workflow as well as the results, but as someone who is addicted to technical cameras for architectural photography, I'm really not looking forward to paying for it!
Logged

griffithimage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2011, 12:34:15 pm »

yes, there is something to be said for the look of film and subtle grain, digital is too "clear" for my taste

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2011, 08:08:05 pm »

I shoot digital for color for most basic stuff.  But I have a camera that doesn't have a Bayer sensor in it, so it deals with light and color in a very different way.  It's great for trips and general use.

BUT...

My real "work" is mostly black and white and there I use medium format film.   There's no comparison between a 6X7 black and white picture and digital.  Because a black and white sensor would have to be purpose-built to be only that - no pattern at all.   There are no such sensors on the market currently(and only a few dozen were ever made in the past), so you're stuck with Bayer losses:
0.66 in each dimension is the best that you can manage.  Most cameras manage closer to about .6 due to consumer-grade software, AA filters, and so on in the mix (as opposed to Digital Backs).

6*7 is 2.36220" X 2.75591"
*note - IMAX is  2.072" X 2.772" - actually slightly *smaller* than 6X7!
Scanned at a bog-standard/basic 2400DPI even, that nets ~5670 X 6615 Pixels.  Or roughly 37MP.  Let's call it 35MP.  Scanners can resolve better film upwards of 3000DPI, but this is a reasonable lower limit/expectation with normal film and an inexpensive flatbed scanner.

To get that result with a Bayer sensor, though, the conversion in interpolation factors come in.  You have to multiply those numbers in each dimension by 1.33.  That nets ~7560 X 8820 to equal a mere 2400DPI scan.  A bit over 66MP. Let's call it 65MP.  Modern post-processing and pixel binning and other techniques can fudge this to closer to 45MP for color, but black and white is unforgiving.  Doubly so when you consider that most good black and white slide film can be scanned at closer to 3600DPI without major issues. (or essentially 100MP+)

Large format is stupefyingly huge, of course.  It still has no equal.  

Whew.  All of that said, my sincere recommendation would be to not spend money on a medium format DB system and move directly to large format for your work.  It's slower and more tedious, but for scenery and carefully composed/non-action shots, it's still in a league of its own.  Especially in an exhibition.  
Note - if action or spontaneity is required, a 6X7 camera and film, especially for black and white, is more than adequate.  

Both options can be set up, including a scanner, software, computer, lenses, and camera, for less than the cost of just the digital back for a MF system.  Unless you shoot hundreds of photos a year, you're better off with film.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 06:01:50 pm by Plekto »
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2011, 08:38:03 pm »

Film and digital are different medias, they look different, smell different, work slight different and pend on also subject which one is better or compatible. No matter what with either you can achieve a different look, as also it lend itself to lead to a different look. However...

Part of the show has been shot with my Bronica 6x7 and the prints look good.

Why then modify the formula ??


Currently I have a canon 1ds mark 1 and I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5d2. (no money for a phase or pentax 645)

Gear is only tool. The questions is, will it really aid the image? Or is it drawn by the gear itself? And what people dream of latest dslr being superior to film and to level of medium format digital, which it is not. They are different tools simply, choice is individual.

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 09:17:51 pm by Anders_HK »
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2011, 09:51:00 pm »

Hi,

I spent some effort on comparing Velvia 120 (with a Pentax 67) and my Sony Alpha 900. The results are here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

But you may also check Michael Reichmann: http://www.llvj.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Best regards
Erik




Mmm... comparsions of test targets are rather useless as compared to actual photographic situations and use and comparing thereafter.

My old comparison of ZD vs. Velvia 50 in Mamiya 7 is fair mention  ;D, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=20970.0

I do suggest scroll down and compare scans in my reply #47, 48 and #59 to that thread. Also, in reply #63 there:

Hi Anders, Thanks for doing all this and sharing the images.  The film scans have a real wonderful quality to them. While looking at these last 100% crops, I find that I'm really drawn to them and the ZD images that looked so great before look lifeless in comparison.

Regards,
Eric

That was with 22MP ZD and it seems it is now claimed that same MP dslrs will compare and beat 6x7. In my opinon nothing but sheer nonesense. Why should they? Smaller sensors, different type of sensors, AA, lenses?

Regards
Anders
Logged

Policar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2011, 10:54:12 pm »

Digital appears sharper than film and almost always will, but artifacts do show up in huge enlargements.  For that big an enlargement I'd go with 4x5 unless you're okay with it getting a little soft up close.  From a distance, the 5DII and 4x5 should not be differentiable in terms of sharpness.  The digital prints may even seem sharper from a distance.

Most professionals I've talked with think the 5DII far exceeds 6x7 under normal circumstances.  Based on the prints they've shown me...yeah it's close.

I shoot 4x5 because I like the ability to do tilts and shifts and I hate having to suffer with curves, etc. to get a punchy "look" but if I had the money I would use a 5DII and tilt/shift lenses.  Thankfully, a high-end field camera with a wide range of the best lenses available is a lot cheaper than a 5DII with kit zoom.  Until you pay for film and scans.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 11:00:35 pm by Policar »
Logged

tsjanik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2011, 08:06:22 am »

I used a Pentax 67II and a Nikon 9000 almost exclusively until a month ago when I got a 645D.  I’ve done a number of comparison tests and have come to the conclusion that the 645D gives files that are approximately on par with 67 scans.  Others will disagree but that’s what I see.  In any event, I certainly would be hesitant to mix 30x40 prints from a 5D and 67 scan in the same exhibit; they will have very different looks.
You can see one of my comparisons of 645N, 645D, and 67II scans here if interested:

http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_2775.html
Logged

Policar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2011, 02:04:50 am »

I used a Pentax 67II and a Nikon 9000 almost exclusively until a month ago when I got a 645D.  I’ve done a number of comparison tests and have come to the conclusion that the 645D gives files that are approximately on par with 67 scans.  Others will disagree but that’s what I see.  In any event, I certainly would be hesitant to mix 30x40 prints from a 5D and 67 scan in the same exhibit; they will have very different looks.
You can see one of my comparisons of 645N, 645D, and 67II scans here if interested:

http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_2775.html


Details?  What ISOs and lenses were you using?

A photographer I did a little work for recently showed me his 6x7 prints, 135 prints, and 5DII prints mixed together.  The 5DII was the smoothest camera by far, and as sharp as 6x7.  135 did not hold up.  I even thought a print shot on 8x10 was from the 5D.

So it's a huge surprise to me that you'd find this to be the case.  I shoot 4x5 and often have to defend it against its detractors (most of whom USED to shoot 4x5) and the best I can say is "it has a little more detail than the 5D," and even then many people think the 5DII has more detail than 4x5.  But maybe I'm wrong.  Never owned a full frame SLR.  Only seen prints taken with one.  Fwiw, APS-C seems to be a little worse than 6x7 a little better than 135 film, so likely comperable to 645 film.
Logged

tsjanik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2011, 08:09:34 am »

Details?  What ISOs and lenses were you using?........................
In that example ISO 400, 35mm A on the 645's, 45mm on the 67.

When I first received the 645D, I had two weeks to decide if I wished to keep the camera.  I tested a number of 645 and 67 lenses on the 645D, 645N and 67II.  The sample I posted I just one on many I did.  The film/digital debate has raged for years, so clearly different people evaluate different aspects.  I’m just stating my conclusion; others may see the same tests and conclude differently.  I was not comparing prints in these tests, but pixel peeping at 100-400 %.  Interestingly, the one test print (8x10) I did for a laugh was the 645D with a 35mm lens vs. a Pentax K20D with a 17-70 zoom. Much to my surprise, the K20D print looked slightly cleaner and sharper in some areas!  How could that be?  There simply was detail missing in the K20D print that gave it a cleaner look.

Here’s another test: 645D and 645N with the same lens (120mm FA); the 645D is clearly better, but it's not overwhelming.

http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_9035.html
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2011, 08:41:41 am »

Anders,

Sorry not mentioning your evaluation. I do it in several places on my website and also in several postings here on Luminous Landscape.

The issue is that the original poster does prefer a digital workflow and the question he asks is 'will a Canon 5DII enable me to make large prints from digital?´. The answer to that question is probably yes.

The reason I shoot test targets instead of comparisons shots is that it can be reproduced. Anyone can repeat my experiment at a cost of one US dollar. Also my image can be compared to the "Great Digital MFDB shootout of 2006", where a One $ bill was used at approximately the same scale. It's not art, neither is it science.

I have published full size images of much of my camera testing here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test so I don't feel like would I have ignored real life subjects.

I don't argue MFDBs being superior in sharpness to DSLRs. Also, the tests I made were done with Velvia 50. It is very well possible that negative film may have superior sharpness.

My findings were pretty consistent with Michael Reichmann's. There was also the great MFDB shoot out of 2006:

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

The cameras tested there were 2006 vintage, with the Canon 1DsII being the best DSLR.

Best regards
Erik


Mmm... comparsions of test targets are rather useless as compared to actual photographic situations and use and comparing thereafter.

My old comparison of ZD vs. Velvia 50 in Mamiya 7 is fair mention  ;D, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=20970.0

I do suggest scroll down and compare scans in my reply #47, 48 and #59 to that thread. Also, in reply #63 there:

That was with 22MP ZD and it seems it is now claimed that same MP dslrs will compare and beat 6x7. In my opinon nothing but sheer nonesense. Why should they? Smaller sensors, different type of sensors, AA, lenses?

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 09:10:31 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2011, 08:44:36 am »

I shoot 4x5 and often have to defend it against its detractors (most of whom USED to shoot 4x5) and the best I can say is "it has a little more detail than the 5D," and even then many people think the 5DII has more detail than 4x5.  But maybe I'm wrong.  Never owned a full frame SLR.  Only seen prints taken with one.  Fwiw, APS-C seems to be a little worse than 6x7 a little better than 135 film, so likely comperable to 645 film.

In all humble respect but I am of view that the above of 5D and 5DII sort of claim of similar to 4x5 is not correct. See my linked post above comparing to ZD, which at low ISO frank is superior to 5D and 5DII based on no AA and larger sensor alone, yet I believe due more aspects also  ;). It depends on HOW (technique, optimization etc.) and on WHAT you scan the film on. My Veliva 50 slides were scanned on perhaps not best drum scanner. Both those and ZD files were test printed large. Hands down the scans were superior in pleasing rendering, and slight to benefit to scans because of rendering when not quite sharp was made more believable to eye because... was on film  ;D. Forget a 5D being near 6x7 or even a 5DII being at it because that is not correct. It is about more than same MP as ZD, it is about sensor type, sensor size, no AA and more. However any comparison depends on how and what the film was scanned on. My comparison of ZD and Velvia 50 drum scans was primarily comparing on based on pixels and details level, but there is more; colors, naturally looking enhancement of reality, transition ares to highlights, and rendering of light in image, all of which where there is in my experience and opinion a struggle in landscapes for digital. In that regards I give benefit to drum scanned Velvia 50 and Mamiya 7 compared to ZD, as can also be seen by the number of folks who processed my raw files, which... did not hold up to the film  ;D. As for portraits, I find digital back superior to film (generally speaking).

My current 28MP Leaf Aptus 65 does not equal 4x5 in details. Naturally 4x5 is far superior in details and more. However digital is different of course... and film too  ::).

@ Erik, We do not know what will work, only OP can decide, as can we for ourselves. If one formula works (OP says film looks good), then why disturb it, but if digital also looks good perhaps use both? I and we do not know, no idea.

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 08:56:08 am by Anders_HK »
Logged

griffithimage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 12:25:51 pm »

I noticed that Nilon 9000's arent available anymore. I saw an epson 700 scanner that will scan a 6x7 trany. Has anyone had any experience with this scanner?


I shoot digital for color for most basic stuff.  But I have a camera that doesn't have a Bayer sensor in it, so it deals with light and color in a very different way.  It's great for trips and general use.

BUT...

My real "work" is mostly black and white and there I use medium format film.   There's no comparison between a 6X7 black and white picture and digital.  Because a black and white sensor would have to be purpose-built to be only that - no pattern at all.   There are no such sensors on the market currently(and only a few dozen were ever made in the past), so you're stuck with Bayer losses:
0.66 in each dimension is the best that you can manage.  Most cameras manage closer to about .6 due to consumer-grade software, AA filters, and so on in the mix (as opposed to Digital Backs).

6*7 is 2.36220" X 2.75591"
*note - IMAX is  2.072" X 2.772" - actually slightly *smaller* than 6X7!
Scanned at a bog-standard/basic 2400DPI even, that nets ~5670 X 6615 Pixels.  Or roughly 37MP.  Let's call it 35MP.  Scanners can resolve better film upwards of 3000DPI, but this is a reasonable lower limit/expectation with normal film and an inexpensive flatbed scanner.

To get that result with a Bayer sensor, though, the conversion in interpolation factors come in.  You have to multiply those numbers in each dimension by 1.33.  That nets ~7560 X 8820 to equal a mere 2400DPI scan.  A bit over 66MP. Let's call it 65MP.  Modern post-processing and pixel binning and other techniques can fudge this to closer to 45MP for color, but black and white is unforgiving.  Doubly so when you consider that most good black and white slide film can be scanned at closer to 3600DPI without major issues. (or essentially 100MP+)

Large format is stupefyingly huge, of course.  It still has no equal.  

Whew.  All of that said, my sincere recommendation would be to not spend money on a medium format DB system and move directly to large format for your work.  It's slower and more tedious, but for scenery and carefully composed/non-action shots, it's still in a league of its own.  Especially in an exhibition.  
Note - if action or spontaneity is required, a 6X7 camera and film, especially for black and white, is more than adequate.  

Both options can be set up, including a scanner, software, computer, lenses, and camera, for less than the cost of just the digital back for a MF system.  Unless you shoot hundreds of photos a year, you're better off with film.



I not

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2011, 08:14:49 am »

I noticed that Nilon 9000's arent available anymore. I saw an epson 700 scanner that will scan a 6x7 trany. Has anyone had any experience with this scanner?

I have not used, but per what I understand the Epson V750-M Pro is the best flat bed film scanner yet made* (wish they would make an improved replacement). In general perhaps in published tests it is perhaps not considered as good as the Nikon. However, there was an article titled "High End Scanning Results on a Budget" by Brian Akerson in 2009 Jan-Feb issue of Viewcamera Magazine, pages 44-47 that described in great details of how to best achieve optimum scanning results with the V750-M Pro scanner, including special profiles and holders etc. Perhaps check with www.viewcamera.com for that article. That would I believe be well worthwhile even if they will charge some money for it. When compared to stock scanning with that scanner, the article presented the optimized results as very significant and highly superior.

Another source is of course www.largeformatphotography.info/forum.

Good luck!

(*) of course an Imacon or Hasselblad or drum scanner should be better but $$$

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 08:17:07 am by Anders_HK »
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1211
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: to film or not to film...
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2011, 11:47:46 pm »

Out of the gut. 40X50 inches is a pretty big print. I'd say that at this size, a properly scanned 6X7 neg would outperform a 5D2 file. The general consensus is that the bigger the print, the more obvious is the advantage the bigger film formats have over typical size digital pro sensors. On the opposite, the smaller the print, the less it shows. I've seen 8X10's prints made from a 6mp aps-c sensor that looked better than a darkroom print the same size made from a 4X5 negative.
I would also take under consideration that the digitals may look different from those made with film. This is very important when hanging a coherent show.
Eduardo  
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 11:52:04 pm by uaiomex »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up