Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: jnaneshwars on October 08, 2007, 07:14:53 pm
-
I was recently told by a photographer friend of mine that film cameras are recommended when you would like your prints in large size ; for ex 24" x 30" or more. Compared to film, digital files appear grainy when it is enlarged even though you print at the maximum resolution in a 10 mp camera. The pictures from 35mm cameras can be enlarged and still retain the sharpness of the image.
I'd appreciate if anyone convince me or throw more light on this belief. I own a 10mp digital SLR.
-
I was recently told by a photographer friend of mine that film cameras are recommended when you would like your prints in large size ; for ex 24" x 30" or more. Compared to film, digital files appear grainy when it is enlarged even though you print at the maximum resolution in a 10 mp camera. The pictures from 35mm cameras can be enlarged and still retain the sharpness of the image.
I'd appreciate if anyone convince me or throw more light on this belief. I own a 10mp digital SLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nonsense. If you manage the upsampling properly, the 10MP image will look a lot better at 24x30 than anything 35mm, even a drum scan of very fine grain film. Film grain is usually visible on an 8x10 print, nevermind 24x30. The flip side is that at 24x30 you won't see film grain from a good 10MP camera, but if you get close enough to it you'll see pixels. But at normal viewing distances the digital will be significantly cleaner.
Now if you're talking about large format film, 4x5 or 8x10, forget about it. A well handled 4x5 scan/print can go to 4x5 feet without showing significant grain, unless you're standing real close to look for it. 8x10 film, forget about it, nothing beats it for giant high quality prints.
-
35mm film can generally be matched by about 6 megapixels when the digital image is exposed, processed, and printed properly, regardless of print size. When you get large enough to see pixellation in a digital print, you will be able to clearly see individual grain particles in the film print. Whoever is telling you differently doesn't know what they're talking about. I have a Canon 1Ds, and it beats 35mm film hands-down in resolution, detail, clarity, color accuracy, and every other criteria you wish to compare. And I have done prints as large as 24x36 inches. Digital wins, no question.
-
I was recently told by a photographer friend of mine that film cameras are recommended when you would like your prints in large size ; for ex 24" x 30" or more. Compared to film, digital files appear grainy when it is enlarged even though you print at the maximum resolution in a 10 mp camera. The pictures from 35mm cameras can be enlarged and still retain the sharpness of the image.
I'd appreciate if anyone convince me or throw more light on this belief. I own a 10mp digital SLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Having never shot 35mm in anger, it's difficult for me to say, if MF film comes into it, then yes film is better. A film like Provia does not show any grain to speak of and even if the DR is not upto some digital, film still handles highlights and surrounding tones better and things like sunlight on water film does without giving you coloured lumps everywhere. If we are talking colour neg then grain is a big factor even MF, the last colour neg (400iso) I shot was on a 612 Linhof, straight scanned it shows the grain very well, the plus side is lovely greens and a silver roof looked very real and silver, the digital shot at the time gave a grey roof you thought was probably silver. So roundabouts and swings, I would say give it a go and see, there might be things other than resolution or grain you prefer in one or the other. A nice sharp scan will hold the detail it is given without software upscaling guessing at what pixels to add.There are still lots of films to choose from each one different and film does better than digital in the corners on wide lenses. I shoot 95% digital (1DsmkII), I do like having things on MF film if I have the time. If I spring for a Leaf or Phaseone I don't think I would bother with the film. I would of thought a slow film in 35mm would work very nicely, but only you can say.
Kevin.
-
Your friend is a full-fledged spouter. Others makegood points here.
I'll add an insight about MF film vs digital. If the image is produced conventionally by a good hand using a quality enlarger rather than scanned and printed, it definitely can beat most, if not all 35mm DSLR's. Scan the MF film and the edge disappears. The difference is in small details like face details in large groups of people in big enlargements.
We shot MF for over 10 years in our studio and immediately noted the change when our pro lab stopped printing directly from the negs and began scanning. Probably reflecting the limits of the labs scanner and technique, results stunk by comparison. We were tinkering with digital at the time, so shot side by side shots of the same model under the same lights with our DSLR and MF, then had the lab print up 20x24's of each. The DSLR won hands down. Which DSLR? The then-new 6mp Fuji S2.
Six years later the MF gear is still collecting dust, and meanwhile the capabilities of DSLRs just keep going up. The lab's switch to scanning certainly cost the film and chemical companies lotsa bux in our case. We went from 2500-3000 rolls of MF film per year to zero. That's close to 20,000 rolls of film we haven't bought and processed since then.
-
There is a huge difference between quality and seeing film grain. The grain may be visible, but it won't fall apart like the digital file, especially in terms of color. This constant "Digital is better" no "Film is better" is without merit. In the end, you decide.
For me, I'd rather see grain than big, messed up pixels. Fidelity.
-
Scan the MF film and the edge disappears.
Like you hinted at, that's down to a poor scanner and/or scanner pilot. I remember those early lab digital days, they reckoned 8mb would print to any size, mainly 'cos the system ground to a halt with anything much more, I used to get prints with funny colours around highlights etc. The labs inability to handle there newly purchased technology is the reason I bought a digital camera in the first place.
A decent scan from MF film and large print will easily out do a S2, more so on landscapes than portraits.
Kevin
-
Good point on the subjects, KAP.
In our studio the gold standard is portrait performance, of course. And we make our bux off of big enlargements. I've seen really decent MF scans and prints from them recently, but I can't bring myself to suck up the film and processing costs to get it. That in spite of 6 MF bodies and 20+ lenses sitting in a couple of boxes. We generate lots of sales too, from the the ability to do proof reviews and sales with clients at the time of shooting, rather than waiting for processing and scheduling return visits. Call it "impulse buying," but our sales jumped over 30% the first year we switched to digital, and there's not a piece of MF film or a scanner in the world that would make me take a 30% cut in business in order to use it.
All changes when we leave the studio and head out for landscapes. But there, we skip the MF entirely and switch to 4x5. Not so much for more detail but for use of the movements on field cameras.
-
There is a huge difference between quality and seeing film grain. The grain may be visible, but it won't fall apart like the digital file, especially in terms of color.
Once individual specks of film grain are prominently visible, a film image can and does "fall apart" when printed large. There are many techniques for printing digital images extremely large without exhibiting obvious pixelization artifacts. A few rounds of alternately upsizing and adding small amounts of luminance noise will effectively disguise any artifacts in much the same way film grain hides the shortcomings of a film image.
Digital color in a properly color-managed workflow is far more accurate and true-to-life than is possible with film. And color accuracy has nothing to do do with print size in the digital world. What are you talking about?
-
There is some subjectivity in this but here goes.
10+MP digital blows away 35mm film by any comparison short of personal taste. To be honest as a working professional, it is a valid comparison to currently compare the FF Canons to MF if you are talking about MF scans done on a sub $1000 flatbed scanner not drum scans. But to get the aforementioned medium format quality with a DSLR you have to work very carefully with very good lenses. This is the direction I have gone and would much rather work from a good DSLR image than a prosumer scanned MF (like an Epson 750 Pro which I own) because of the lack of grain and less noise. Plus I do huge volume and got tired of all the scanning. I still use my 4x5 and film constantly, but have not picked up the 35mm film, 6x6 Hassleblad or the 6x9 roll film backs for the VC since investing in the DSLR. They are paperweights now.
-
Once individual specks of film grain are prominently visible, a film image can and does "fall apart" when printed large. There are many techniques for printing digital images extremely large without exhibiting obvious pixelization artifacts. A few rounds of alternately upsizing and adding small amounts of luminance noise will effectively disguise any artifacts in much the same way film grain hides the shortcomings of a film image.
Digital color in a properly color-managed workflow is far more accurate and true-to-life than is possible with film. And color accuracy has nothing to do do with print size in the digital world. What are you talking about?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Grain is not a factor with a film like Provia, I can print at any size you like and grain is just not any kind of problem at any distance, grain is not a basis for saying digital is better. As for adding digital grain to disguise digital artifacts, with a decent scan you don't have to add or subtract anything. There is nothing to stop you running a noise reduction program on film or any of the other digital techniques, the fact is, done well you don't need to.
I
You can get superb largeish prints from DSLR's often though with much more effort you can get better on film.
I did a job yesterday in poor light I shot it on digital at 800iso wide open the results are much better than if I'd been using film on any format, so it's not a set in stone observation on my part.
If the conditions had been right MF film would of won.
All these magic tweaks, it reminds me of the skippers of a local craft in my part of the world from the 1800's. They believed brown sails were quicker than white sails, they had their own recipes for dying the new white sails brown, each believing they had a special something to get a bit extra out of the wind. Nonsense of course but they believed in the magic. Software is only juggling the information recorded, a 4000 dpi scan at 14 or more bits has much more in it in the first place. Upsizing with a step here and tweak there is dying the sail brown to me, if you need faster stick an engine on it, use a large lump of film.
Kevin.
-
"And color accuracy has nothing to do do with print size in the digital world. What are you talking about?"
KAP has taken my words, except for this. Not talking color accuracy, color fidelity. As the file 'breaks up" the color information also falls apart and makes more evident the failings of the enlargement. Careful uprezzing aside, you can't put information there that isn't, and that is what you are doing (interpolation) when upsizing a digital file and adding noise to cover the tracks. Banding is introduced, etc. If the film is scanned, all of the information is captured and no interpolation is necessary. Also, the film file could be printed traditionally with, as KAP noted say Provia. I can switch films to produce the best results, digital can't. Which is better? That is up to the person producing and viewing. Blanket statements of Digital is Better are dumb and every conversation need not be picked to death and become a digital vs film debate. The orginal post was in regards to 35mm vs a 10mp dslr and which might produce the best results. Opinions have been for and against and that is fine. Statements of fact which are opinions are unnecessary as is getting off topic and talking about other things only mildly related.
Another thing to note, and this is interesting when you look at say the post processing examples, photographers are just that. They aren't professional printers, scanners, image manipulators, processors, etc. For example In the film days, you dropped off your film at the lab (most) for processing and printing. Nowadays, the photog is meant to do it all themselves and it is very evident in the results.
-
"In the film days, you dropped off your film at the lab (most) for processing and printing. Nowadays, the photog is meant to do it all themselves and it is very evident in the results."
That's why we didn't drop our rates when we saved so much with the end of film and processing costs. There's a whale of a lot more time involved in completing a job, even though we're still using a lab for printing. Our (admittedly expensive) hourly rate and flat shooting fees reflect the need for extra time on the computer compared to the Good Old Days of film.
Even if a person is not being paid for their work, the extra computer time required is paid for in other ways- less time in the field, less time for home chores, less time for the kiddies..... You're going to pay for the extra time somehow.
-
Most certainly true.
"In the film days, you dropped off your film at the lab (most) for processing and printing. Nowadays, the photog is meant to do it all themselves and it is very evident in the results."
That's why we didn't drop our rates when we saved so much with the end of film and processing costs. There's a whale of a lot more time involved in completing a job, even though we're still using a lab for printing. Our (admittedly expensive) hourly rate and flat shooting fees reflect the need for extra time on the computer compared to the Good Old Days of film.
Even if a person is not being paid for their work, the extra computer time required is paid for in other ways- less time in the field, less time for home chores, less time for the kiddies..... You're going to pay for the extra time somehow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Even if a person is not being paid for their work, the extra computer time required is paid for in other ways- less time in the field, less time for home chores, less time for the kiddies..... You're going to pay for the extra time somehow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Amen.
"And do think you could just email some low res over because we can't wait for the CD in the post tomorrow morning". A couple of years ago I would of dropped off at the lab next day, either picked the crome the day after or waited 5 days for the prints. The client ubderstood that, now same day is hardly quick enough.
Sorry realy off post now.
Kevin.
PS And got a Coffe and chat with other photographers at the Lab, or sat in the Pub for two hours waiting for the E6.
-
Grain is not a factor with a film like Provia, I can print at any size you like and grain is just not any kind of problem at any distance, grain is not a basis for saying digital is better. As for adding digital grain to disguise digital artifacts, with a decent scan you don't have to add or subtract anything. There is nothing to stop you running a noise reduction program on film or any of the other digital techniques, the fact is, done well you don't need to.
I
You can get superb largeish prints from DSLR's often though with much more effort you can get better on film.
I did a job yesterday in poor light I shot it on digital at 800iso wide open the results are much better than if I'd been using film on any format, so it's not a set in stone observation on my part.
If the conditions had been right MF film would of won.
All these magic tweaks, it reminds me of the skippers of a local craft in my part of the world from the 1800's. They believed brown sails were quicker than white sails, they had their own recipes for dying the new white sails brown, each believing they had a special something to get a bit extra out of the wind. Nonsense of course but they believed in the magic. Software is only juggling the information recorded, a 4000 dpi scan at 14 or more bits has much more in it in the first place. Upsizing with a step here and tweak there is dying the sail brown to me, if you need faster stick an engine on it, use a large lump of film.
Kevin.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=144841\")
From personal experience, the grain of film helps to create a texture to the image especially when printed large.
When printed small I prefer a digital image but when interpolation comes into the picture, the resulting colour information that is added to a digital image tends to come across as flat and graphic.
Film grain seems to fool the eye with its inconsistency, even with its presence the result seems more photographic to the eye.
When it comes to skin tones with an uprezzed image, the film grain actually adds a sense of roughness to the skin which comes across as realistic, whereas with digital what I get is a patch of ...beige. Very flat looking.
I don't know how other people's experience with shooting closeups is, but with digital cameras I still get the sense that the minute tonalities present on skin don't seem to register well. I switched to shooting with a 35mm film camera with Portra specially for faceshots because of this. Maybe I'm hallucinating but I see more subtle detail with film shots for skin
[a href=\"http://superhyperreal.com/liz2.jpg]http://superhyperreal.com/liz2.jpg[/url]
Take a look at the two images below and tell me which one you think is digital and which one is film.
http://superhyperreal.com/MerA640.jpg (http://superhyperreal.com/MerA640.jpg)
http://superhyperreal.com/MerB640.jpg (http://superhyperreal.com/MerB640.jpg)
noise/grain and sharpness are not the only factors that contribute to an image looking photographic versus an image that looks more like an illustration or a graphic design image.
All this is from personal experience printing exhibition prints about 4ft by 5 ft using anything from a 1dsMkII, a Nikon D70, 4x5 slide film,6x7 slide film to 35mm neg film.
The problem I have with film (slide film at least) is that shadow detail is absolutely nowhere near digital, and a less than optimal exposure will ensure that your dark areas will register as dense blacks when scanned and printed.
Just a note, I do most of my work with digital though. and I hate dealing with film. But there are certain points where film does have its advantages in terms of image quality.
-
The problem I have with film (slide film at least) is that shadow detail is absolutely nowhere near digital, and a less than optimal exposure will ensure that your dark areas will register as dense blacks when scanned and printed.
Just a note, I do most of my work with digital though. and I hate dealing with film. But there are certain points where film does have its advantages in terms of image quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
This is where a top quality scanner shines, I'm not saying there is greater DR in slide, but a good quality scan has you going back to the original to see where it got all the shadow detail from.
Isn't that half the problem here, someone will scan on an old Epson and claim film is no good.
When I first got a 1DsmkII or even the Kodak before it, I could only see the good in digital and the bad in film, now down the road a bit I can see more fairly the good and bad in both.
Kevin.
-
"...now down the road a bit I can see more fairly the good and bad in both."
And there's the nub. They're just tools. No single tool is best for all jobs, and anyone that thinks so is taking home a little too much from the Sunday sermon.
When results count, pick the tool that produces the best results from within the constraints of your own tool kit. If it's a recurring need and your existing tools don't live up to the standards required for the job, then by all means add a new tool to your kit.
-
Thanks for fabulous response guys! I have been educated on different apsects of film vs digital photography.
-
"And color accuracy has nothing to do do with print size in the digital world. What are you talking about?"
KAP has taken my words, except for this. Not talking color accuracy, color fidelity. As the file 'breaks up" the color information also falls apart and makes more evident the failings of the enlargement. Careful uprezzing aside, you can't put information there that isn't, and that is what you are doing (interpolation) when upsizing a digital file and adding noise to cover the tracks. Banding is introduced, etc. If the film is scanned, all of the information is captured and no interpolation is necessary. Also, the film file could be printed traditionally with, as KAP noted say Provia. I can switch films to produce the best results, digital can't.
Fidelity vs accuracy is a distinction without a difference. Please explain to me how the averaging of random clumps of dye (what film grain is actually made of) is any better than the Bayer interpolation process. When you enlarge enough that individual clumps of grain are visible, the "color fidelity" of a single clump of grain is no better than that of a bayer-interpolated pixel from a decent RAW converter. Sure with digital you "add noise" to reduce pixelization after upsizing, but with film the noise is already built in, it's the grain. You can scan at higher resolution, but that does NOT mean you are capturing any more actual image detail. In neither case are you printing additional image detail; the digital image has more actual image detail than film of the same format, it's just a matter of spreading that information out without introducing visually displeasing pixelization artifacts. If you upres properly, you aren't adding banding, either. Where are you getting that idea from? Your comment about switching films is hogwash also. Switching RAW converters has very much the same effect as using a different film in the digital world.
I've printed up to 24x36 inch prints, and the digital SLR files beat 35mm film every time, even at 12x18 inches. Period. In every respect. The bigger the print, the more obvious the difference is, and film doesn't beat digital unless the film is a significantly larger format than the digital.
-
I was recently told by a photographer friend of mine that film cameras are recommended when you would like your prints in large size ; for ex 24" x 30" or more. Compared to film, digital files appear grainy when it is enlarged even though you print at the maximum resolution in a 10 mp camera. The pictures from 35mm cameras can be enlarged and still retain the sharpness of the image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, that the opposite. The over-enlargements from film appear grainy, not those from digital. But the grain has the advantage of creating a texture that somehow can distract from the lack of resolution. Of course, there are various ways to add grain to a digital image.
-
I was recently told by a photographer friend of mine that film cameras are recommended when you would like your prints in large size ; for ex 24" x 30" or more. Compared to film, digital files appear grainy when it is enlarged even though you print at the maximum resolution in a 10 mp camera. The pictures from 35mm cameras can be enlarged and still retain the sharpness of the image.
I'd appreciate if anyone convince me or throw more light on this belief. I own a 10mp digital SLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Film is basically as good as the film/equipment used obviously and technique but all that is only as good as the scan you make. Only drum scanners get the optimal quality from 35mm film. With medium format and large format you can get away with using virtual drum scanners like Imacons.
With digital post processing is key. But you are working with a first generation original which means its going to be a lot cleaner than film right off the bat. I have worked with files from Canon 10d, 1Dmk2, 1Ds mk2 and 5D (before that with Fuji S2's) and the Canon 5D offers extremely clean images that enlarge very well and have a minimal "digital" look to them. The 1Ds mk2 is also very good as long as the ISO is kept low. Up from that would be the Medium Format Digital solutions of which I know very little compared to other folks around here.
-
The flip side is that at 24x30 you won't see film grain from a good 10MP camera, but if you get close enough to it you'll see pixels.
You can see pixels after enlarging a digital file? Nah.
A file from a 5D, or even a 20D will enlarge FOREVER, without ever seeing any pixels if you use PhotoZoom Pro, or maybe even PS bicubic, though I'm not a big fan of interpolating with PS.
You will NEVER see pixels. Detail will become smoother and smudgy, but still, no pixels to be seen.
So yeah, I'm not going to print a 100inch wide print at 300dpi from a 5D and expect micro detail, but I also won't ever see pixels, I can assure you of that.
Take a look at the two images below and tell me which one you think is digital and which one is film.
http://superhyperreal.com/MerA640.jpg (http://superhyperreal.com/MerA640.jpg)
http://superhyperreal.com/MerB640.jpg (http://superhyperreal.com/MerB640.jpg)
This is (seemingly) incredibly easy. The first one is film, and the second one is digital. Am I right? Probably not, but it looks so obvious to me.
-
Fidelity vs accuracy is a distinction without a difference. Please explain to me how the averaging of random clumps of dye (what film grain is actually made of) is any better than the Bayer interpolation process. When you enlarge enough that individual clumps of grain are visible, the "color fidelity" of a single clump of grain is no better than that of a bayer-interpolated pixel from a decent RAW converter. Sure with digital you "add noise" to reduce pixelization after upsizing, but with film the noise is already built in, it's the grain. You can scan at higher resolution, but that does NOT mean you are capturing any more actual image detail. In neither case are you printing additional image detail; the digital image has more actual image detail than film of the same format, it's just a matter of spreading that information out without introducing visually displeasing pixelization artifacts. If you upres properly, you aren't adding banding, either. Where are you getting that idea from? Your comment about switching films is hogwash also. Switching RAW converters has very much the same effect as using a different film in the digital world.
I've printed up to 24x36 inch prints, and the digital SLR files beat 35mm film every time, even at 12x18 inches. Period. In every respect. The bigger the print, the more obvious the difference is, and film doesn't beat digital unless the film is a significantly larger format than the digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you show me an example of digital noise that's been added to an image that looks like film grain?
Somehow I've never been able to recreate that film grain texture in my images through digital means.
It just looks like flat digital noise most of the time.
-
Well, anyone who claims 35mm slide film has only 6mp worth of information in it either doesn't know what they're talking about or they are using a really shitty scanner. I've made some damned nice 44 inch wide prints from 1DsMKII files, but there is something that happens when you scan Kodachrome or Velvia at a true 8000 dpi on a great drum scanner (no Imacons's here)and make a 36 X 54 inch or larger print. First of all, when you have sharp film and a really sharp image, there is a visible difference between 4000 and 8000 ppi both on screen and in print. Secondly, no matter what you think about film vs. digital (and I'm a huge fan of both) there is something that happens when you make huge prints form film that is palpably more pleasing to the eye than the digital prints. Below a certain size, and it seems to be about 24 X 36, the digital does look better, even rivalling medium format, but above that, I and many people I know are preferring the look of film.
-
In order to make this discussion (ah, good old religion wars! :-) ) more interesting and more informed, I warmly advice the reading of Tim Vitale's "Film Grain, Resolutions and Fundamental Film Particles".
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf..._resolution.pdf (http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf)
There are some common misconceptions that the document clarifies, which would be too many to list here, I will make a very short resumé:
Grain and ability to resolve details are different properties;
Silver halide crystals are 0,2 - 2,0 microns and color dye clouds are 10 - 15 microns (in a film you have particles of different size, to obtain the "foot" and "shoulder" in the response curve, incidentally Fuji is doing the same with their sensors, they use two cells (with different sensitivity) for one pixel in order to obtain a "shoulder" at highlights);
Digital microscopes arrive to 254,000 ppi and they see details on film!
When the film is exposed to light it forms filaments, very small compared to the silver particle
[attachment=3530:attachment]
These filaments form clouds which are not internally uniform. In a modern film there are at least 9 layers of these. The resulting color is formed by the light passing through the clouds and so, at the "pixel" level on the film, you still have variations which are practically "continuous".
[attachment=3531:attachment]
Graininess is a subjective sensation, a creation of the mind. When humans see a <B>regular</B> pattern (such as a dithered color) from near and, going further, the moment arrives when the minds discards the uniform pattern and only sees the color.
When humans see an <B>irregular</B> pattern, going further the minds still interprets the differences as "graininess" (same point dimensions, same distance of observation).
So instead of measuring graininess (which is subjective) film producers measures RMS granularity which is the real "noise" of the film at the densitometer (you shoot a uniform subject and you measure density variations at very adiacent locations, noise is the variation around the mean).
Vitale considers 18 slide films: RMS Granularity ranges from 7 to 13, and resolution (lp/mm at 30% I suppose the percentage indicates contrast) ranges from 35 to 80 (values in PPI range from 1780 to 4064).
(We should consider here that these values can vary with a different contrast or with a different film treatment).
Film like Kodak Panatomic X arrive to 170 lp/mm (8636 PPI). Exceptional lenses such as Leica or Zeiss on 35mm arrive to 140 lp/mm (at optimal diaphragm, with tripod etc.).
He arrives to a table with the combined resolving power of film and lens for many lens-film combinations. The resolving power of film is wasted with modern do-it-all zooms anyway, and only the very-very best lenses can approach the resolution limits of high resolution films. On the other hand, low resolution film can easily be "outresolved" by very good lenses. It is all old stuff but you have nice numbers here.
Very interesting reading.
The picture below shows that what appears as we would call "digital" grain at 400x magnification, actually appears as not digital at all at the electronic microscope. Please note that the "e" image is a SINGLE grain particle enlarged.
[attachment=3532:attachment]
The essay goes on with some notes on scanning: drum scanners only read luminance and are not as limited by optical factors as flatbeds. The 4000 - 5000 ppi "limit" does not apply to drum scanners. Drum scanners scan with profit at much higher resolutions.
I would like to make this post because of the "digital grain" and the "vortex shedding" stuff, you know ;-). Bumblebees fly, but that's not vortex shedding at all ;-)
So, as far as the question "has film more <B>resolution</B> than digital" the answer is that film has more resolution than any digital 35mm on Earth.
(This does not means resolution is all you want in life, and does not mean film is better. But film resolution is higher, and film grain is not "digital").
I will come back to the main subject in a moment...
Fabrizio
-
This is one of those situations where there are going to be as many arguments as there are writers!
I believe that there are not really any hard and fast rules to this thing; I have scanned a variety of film with differing results, and so far, the best seems to be from Kodachrome 64. I speak here of people shots.
Somebody mentioned that a ´badly´exposed transparency will not scan well - this is true as far as it goes, but you have to decide what badly means. I have spent a great deal of time (last night) working on a Kodachrome which is of a girl sitting on a doorstep in an old Spainish farm building, in direct, late afternoon light. She is dressed in gypsy-style clothes and her head is tilted back with lots of added perspiration on her face. As colour, it works very well, the hightened contrast spelling out the idea of heat. And, as a calendar picture, it printed dramatically and well.
Now, I´m trying to turn this into a good black and white and having damn all luck!
The contrast just looks awful and the missing detail in her shadows screams at me. No, I didn´t use a reflector, didn´t think it helped the mood at the time.
Other shots on Kodachrome, converted to b/w, are turning out more interesting (to me) than they were in their original guise! The skin detail on A3 is just so much more crisp (drops of water on skin) than it ever was when printed in colour on the original calendar run, and that was via drum-scanning whereas I´m using a CanoScan at 4000.
Black and white film also shows more crispness, printed digitally, than when I printed the same negs via a Durst with a 50mm Componon.
Digital capture. So far, and I have to state that I´ve only had one such camera, a D200, I think that on landscape/town shots, the on-monitor colour of the files looks far better than anything I ever got from any scanned film. This might be as a result of my admittedly limited experience of scanning, but I think it´s something more to do with the digital way of producing colour.
What I find, though, is that when converting those digital files to b/w, there is sometimes a feeling of emptiness about them, not so much in missing detail as in a sense of missing tonality. At least, that´s what I find with the non-people shots. I have yet to do any of the latter digitally in a serious way, but I´m not holding my breath.
All in all, I think that the contest between film and digital has already been won by digital, if only because of the trouble that outside processing seems to include in its package, not to mention the cost factor which Hank pointed out.
I also think that from a pro point of view, digital has created a stack of new problems. I was always a one-man operation, with my wife helping out as stylist etc. but maily as a pourer of oil on possibly disruptive waters! So, all the photographic bits were mine to do, which in today´s world, would mean that I´d never have got the time to go out and do the shoot! As it is, in my dotage, I still find myself spending many reluctant hours at the computer when all I really want is to have some prints in the portfolio. This really enforces my belief that, were I faced in the 60s with the pro choices that have to be made today, I might well have dismissed photography as a viable career. I think I would have found it simply too expensive to float, that it would have meant hiring staff, or taking in a partner and losing independence, and that would have meant me missing the times of my life.
God alone knows how today´s young turks get off the ground!
Rob C
-
I wrote the previous post not just for the sake of scientific interest but also because I am puzzled to explain how many photographers relate that they print much better with digital than with film, which I do believe as they say it.
I think there can be a "general" explanation and a more particular one which I will put very imprudently forwared.
The very general explanation is that oftentimes a comparison is made in a way which is not true to film quality: scans are not optimal, scan results are maybe scaled down to bring them to the resolution of the digital to be compared, and so on.
Noise reduction and sharpening are of paramount importance with scans (your DSLR processor, or your RAW converter, or both, always apply some sort of edge search, noise reduction and sharpening also as a necessity of the demosaicing process, so if apple are to be compared with apples, scans have to have NR and sharpening applied).
This very general explanation is not satisfaying. People who has many years of experience in printing and participates in this forum still relates better results with digital. Some of these people has a previous experience with analogic tecniques, so this cannot be all (though it explains certain fast conclusions about film being better than digital).
So I will imprudently put forward the possible cause:
We all know that inkjet printers have the problem of printing a pixel that can assume 16 millions different colours, but they only have 4 inks available.
So for every pixel they will trace not a dot but a pattern of dots (7, 11, 17, whatever), which i will call "rosette" though I don't know what the exact English term is.
The rosette for a middle gray will have half dots black and half "white".
Also, printer drivers are smart guys: they don't print always the same rosette for every exact grey. They observe the colour of the adiacent pixels and, if the pixel B on the right of pixel A is let's say darker, then pixel A will be rendered by a rosette with a distribution of black dots "skewed" toward pixel B. Some sort of antialiasing at dot level. In a sense, this would give a printer a "perceived resolution" which is "higher" than the nominal one (the one the printer would have without smart algorithm for the composition of the rosettes).
Now what I suspect - and would elicit your observation on - is that this kind of smart behaviour of dot printers actually performs better with digital images, who tends to have less noise and more defined edges than scanned film.
What I also suspect is that this kind of behaviour will <B>increase</B> graininess of scanned film in comparison to continuous tone printers. Less suspicious on that, though.
What I also suspect is that if you print with a sublimation printer or with a laser beam on chemical paper or with any kind of continuous tone printing including traditional photographic typographic metods (so you have no rosette, and no smart algorithm) you don't have the advantages of the smart algorithm when you print digital, but also you don't have this disadvantage when you print scans.
Below a certain print size, most people would print with dot printers. I suspect all those who have better results with digital, print with dot printers.
Over a certain size (such as prints as high as a human being or more) you don't print with dot printers, do you? You make a traditional enlargment, or use Durst Lambda or so.
Just my 2 eurocents...
Fabrizio
-
Fabrizio, you have lost me.
Tell me, is the Via Veneto still what it was in the 50s and 60s? Is there anyone to replace Fellini, Antonioni, La Lollo, La Loren or anyone else of those days and of that stature?
You are damn lucky to live in Rome; I´ve been there for a couple of very short trips - my mother lived there for quite a while - and I remember standing somewhere on the Vittoriano looking out to the city and thinking of how magical the light looked; it gave me a feeling that Rome was a place where all dreams could be realised, anything could be done.
Then years later, when I had the choice of moving to any place in Europe, I decided to live in Spain. Why I didn´t choose Rome I shall never know - perhaps it was just some trivial business connection that made me make the choice that I did, but that´s all history now..
Enjoy where you are!
Ciao - Rob C
Edit: I forgot to mention Sergio Leone, the only man able to make me sit through a Western without my mind wandering off somewhere else.
-
Over a certain size (such as prints as high as a human being or more) you don't print with dot printers, do you? You make a traditional enlargment, or use Durst Lambda or so.
Just my 2 eurocents...
Nope. The bigger the print, the less practical traditional optical enlargement becomes. It's much harder to make a decent 2x3-meter enlargement than a 20x30cm; enlarger lens aberrations start getting ugly (barrel/pincushion CA, etc), vignetting becomes an issue, etc. And Lambdas don't do optical enlargement; they print on tratitional chemical papers, but they use either colored laser beams or LEDs to expose patterns of pixels on the papers. At smaller sizes, this can result in sharper prints as the individual pixels are not dithered like an inkjet, but with the large prints, dithering is not relevant to print resolution.
Just about any print the size you mention or larger is going to be made with some kind of inkjet printer, with really large prints (like billboard sized) printed in strips and then assembled when mounted.
-
Jonathan smacked the ball over the fence.
In days of yore (film and no scanning) there was very good reason to use MF rather than 35mm. It produced better large prints. We shot wedding formals with either MF or 4x5 because those were the shots most likely to be purchased in very large size, for which we make the most money. 35mm simply could not hold up with the larger formats. We used it only for casual or "walk-around" shots during receptions for convenience and because those specific images were usually only purchased in smaller sizes, compared to the formals. Occassionally the casual shooting produced real gems, and we paid for our "sin" of using 35mm. The images simply would not enlarge to the point that clients wanted, and it really cost us money.
With close to $1000 difference in our price between 8x10 prints and 24x32 canvases and more for larger that really, really hurt. And with contemporary DSLRs and printing methods able to blow away film not only 35mm but also MF, the situation is even better when we can sell better large prints from the formal shooting. We simply don't know beforehand how large prints will be ordered, so we need the greatest latitude possible while shooting- everything. DSLRs deliver big time over film in either format. We can easily print to 30x40 with the DSLRs, while that was a sincere push with film, even in MF.
Replacing our MF with DSLR has allowed us to shoot both the formals (all but the large crowd scenes, anyway) and the casual shots with the same gear while producing better files in both circumstances for very large printing. Those rare casual gems no longer suffer from the size limitations of 35mm film, yet we have the convenience of using the same gear for virtually all of our shooting. With location shooting it is a real boon to eliminate schlepping extra sets of shooting gear for two photographers while making more money for our effort!
-
Off-topic.
Via Veneto is an expensive place for wealthy tourists nowadays.
To replace Fellini, Antonioni, Leone, etc. we have had the Taviani brothers (La notte di San Giovanni, Fiorile), and Tornatore (Nuovo cinema Paradiso) which I think will make history just as well. There are certainly many more modern and interesting film directors, but those two are real giants.
You now meet famous people (be they film directors or politicians or whatever) a bit everywhere, in very normal restaurants and bars of the center, or just walking in the roads.
Like Sofia Loren (beatiful woman but also decent actress) I think we have only Giovanna Mezzogiorno nowadays (much better actress and totally echanting in her simple beauty).
Like Gina Lollobrigida (beatiful woman, awful actress) we have some, may I suggest Valeria Marini, Manuela Arcuri...
I am very much in love with Rome, I often do tourist tours in Rome (guided visits in places which are closed to the public), I know it better than most romans and any tourist, and Rome is basically what I shoot. Ancient, Renaissance, Baroque, Modern, everything. Michelangelo etc. but also Coppedé, Piacentini, Passarelli, Basile, Nervi etc (those are XX century architects).
Frankly, not because I am roman, I think there is no greatness on Earth than the greatness of Rome.
If you love history, if when you go on the Curia and you see that room, the Senate, and you see the seats, and you know it was there, on those very seats, on those very stones, that wars were decided, that history was made, that Cicero denonciated Catilina or Silla attacked Marius, that Cato asked for a war to destroy Carthago and that the De bello gallico was read to the senators, you have a shiver deep inside your backbone and you close your eyes and you understand it was here, it was here where you are, then you have understood Rome. It is your mental reconstruction that is fascinating. Rome is something that you visit with your eyes closed.
Venice can be more beautiful, the pyramids can be more monumental and ancient, London and Paris can have a more fashionly glamour surrounding them, New York might be seen as a modern center of the world, but for people like you and me, Rome is the town without equals, the shiver that simple things like the Aurelian walls can give you, no walls on earth will give you.
Sorry for the OT
Fabrizio, you have lost me.
Tell me, is the Via Veneto still what it was in the 50s and 60s? Is there anyone to replace Fellini, Antonioni, La Lollo, La Loren or anyone else of those days and of that stature?
You are damn lucky to live in Rome; I´ve been there for a couple of very short trips - my mother lived there for quite a while - and I remember standing somewhere on the Vittoriano looking out to the city and thinking of how magical the light looked; it gave me a feeling that Rome was a place where all dreams could be realised, anything could be done.
Then years later, when I had the choice of moving to any place in Europe, I decided to live in Spain. Why I didn´t choose Rome I shall never know - perhaps it was just some trivial business connection that made me make the choice that I did, but that´s all history now..
Enjoy where you are!
Ciao - Rob C
Edit: I forgot to mention Sergio Leone, the only man able to make me sit through a Western without my mind wandering off somewhere else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I was recently told by a photographer friend of mine that film cameras are recommended when you would like your prints in large size ; for ex 24" x 30" or more. Compared to film, digital files appear grainy when it is enlarged even though you print at the maximum resolution in a 10 mp camera. The pictures from 35mm cameras can be enlarged and still retain the sharpness of the image.
I'd appreciate if anyone convince me or throw more light on this belief. I own a 10mp digital SLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The best response I have seen here to that question is one word...
"Nonsense"
-
The best response I have seen here to that question is one word...
"Nonsense"
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=145117\")
I have found some interesting images from the following source:
[a href=\"http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6]http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6[/url]
Here is his image from a D2x:
http://www.fototime.com/0FCC45B9561E60A/orig.jpg (http://www.fototime.com/0FCC45B9561E60A/orig.jpg)
And his 35mm Velvia slide scanned with a Nikon 4000 DPI scanner:
http://www.fototime.com/30EDF9A886B0B62/orig.jpg (http://www.fototime.com/30EDF9A886B0B62/orig.jpg)
Same but with a Minolta 5400 DPI scanner:
http://www.fototime.com/51B425FAFA2F296/orig.jpg (http://www.fototime.com/51B425FAFA2F296/orig.jpg)
He concludes that the film scan equals the D2x. Well, I humbly suggest that the resolution might well be similar (though the lack of very fine detail does not help us to decide) but the DSLR walks over the Velvia scans. Look at the subtle tonal gradations representing mountains: clear in the D2x image, mushy in the scans. I find the scans awful.
Now following on from what someone else said (was it Jonathan W.?) try using Photoshop to add some Gaussian noise to the D2x image, and hey presto it looks awfully like the scans.
Some might say that the problem here is the use of home scanners, and that is true. It says nothing about drum scanners, and direct prints.
My experience is that a D200 beats 35mm Provia 100F scanned on a Minolta 5400, which is roughly in agreement with the above results. I also find that a D200 handles highlights better with less tendency to clip, and I find the colours are more true to life, which I happen to prefer, though others might not. I never cared much for Velvia which creates a strange world of livid colours.
I keep meaning to use a D200 with macro lens and tubes to get greater than lifesize images of slides, and see if there really is detail out of the reach of the Minolta 5400 scanner. Not that it matters much to me, since slides are such a hassle.
-
I have found some interesting images from the following source:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6 (http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6)
Here is his image from a D2x:
http://www.fototime.com/0FCC45B9561E60A/orig.jpg (http://www.fototime.com/0FCC45B9561E60A/orig.jpg)
And his 35mm Velvia slide scanned with a Nikon 4000 DPI scanner:
http://www.fototime.com/30EDF9A886B0B62/orig.jpg (http://www.fototime.com/30EDF9A886B0B62/orig.jpg)
Same but with a Minolta 5400 DPI scanner:
http://www.fototime.com/51B425FAFA2F296/orig.jpg (http://www.fototime.com/51B425FAFA2F296/orig.jpg)
He concludes that the film scan equals the D2x. Well, I humbly suggest that the resolution might well be similar (though the lack of very fine detail does not help us to decide) but the DSLR walks over the Velvia scans. Look at the subtle tonal gradations representing mountains: clear in the D2x image, mushy in the scans. I find the scans awful.
Now following on from what someone else said (was it Jonathan W.?) try using Photoshop to add some Gaussian noise to the D2x image, and hey presto it looks awfully like the scans.
Some might say that the problem here is the use of home scanners, and that is true. It says nothing about drum scanners, and direct prints.
My experience is that a D200 beats 35mm Provia 100F scanned on a Minolta 5400, which is roughly in agreement with the above results. I also find that a D200 handles highlights better with less tendency to clip, and I find the colours are more true to life, which I happen to prefer, though others might not. I never cared much for Velvia which creates a strange world of livid colours.
I keep meaning to use a D200 with macro lens and tubes to get greater than lifesize images of slides, and see if there really is detail out of the reach of the Minolta 5400 scanner. Not that it matters much to me, since slides are such a hassle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hi I really wouldn't recommend judging based on a scan of flat art.
what enlarges better (film or digital) depends also alot on what you've shot
-
Can you show me an example of digital noise that's been added to an image that looks like film grain?
Somehow I've never been able to recreate that film grain texture in my images through digital means.
It just looks like flat digital noise most of the time.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=145020\")
I like this technique for B+W ...
[a href=\"http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=5]http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_D...ite.html?page=5[/url]
-
hi I really wouldn't recommend judging based on a scan of flat art.
what enlarges better (film or digital) depends also alot on what you've shot
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I gave those links as they are online and hence accessible. But they match my own experience using film and digital and hence I consider them 'kosher'.
-
Fabrizio
Thanks very much for your Off Topic reply - it was one of the things that happens here sometimes and makes the site that much more interesting. Cameras, films, sensors, lenses, printers and papers are all very well, but there is a greater life all around us and it´s nice, sometimes, to explore it.
By the way -I still like Monica Bellucci, the most beautiful woman in the 1997 Pirelli Calendar. I have not had the opportunity of seeing any of her films, but if she still looks as good, and can act as well, then there is still hope for the world. Or at least for Italy!
Ciao - Rob C
-
Here are some eye opening comparisons:
from Michael Clark Photo (http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html)(Nikon D2X vs. scanned 35mm Provia and Hasselblad with scanned Provia)
Also from Michael Clark Photo (http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/resolutionroundup.html) (D2X vs. D200 vs. 1DS Mk II)Also From Norman Koren's site (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html)www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html (digital vs. film part 1) and
Part 2 from Norman's site (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7A.html) Be sure to follow the links there, too.
I have personally seen Jay Maisel show prints (12X18 Epson on 13X19 sheets) from his 2.74MP D1 in the Summer of 2001 that made me question (at the time!) why one would need more pixels. In the Summer of 2004 at the Open Shutter Gallery in Durango, Colorado, I saw a show of Pete Turner's work, all Epson prints, with an absolutely amazing 20X30" print that by all accounts was also taken with a D1 and a 14mm lens. And a year or so ago I saw at a Nikon dealer demo day a 24X36" ( I measured!) Lightjet print of a photo that's in the last Nikon full line catalog I've seen taken with a 6MP D50 (RAW mode) and an 85mm f1.4 lens, a head and shoulders portrait of a boy lying on his side that was just gorgeous by any standard. They had a 4X6 FOOT print of a car there, too, shot with a cheaper zoom that looked great too, as long as you didn't "bury your nose" in it!
And for those that feel that digital can't "do" black and white, have a look at Lenswork magazine - the current issue has a layout with beautiful shots taken with a Canon 5D and apparently reproduced from Epson prints. In tha last year or so they printed equally nice portfolios shot with a Nikon D70 and another from a Canon Digital Rebel.
-
No, that the opposite. The over-enlargements from film appear grainy, not those from digital. But the grain has the advantage of creating a texture that somehow can distract from the lack of resolution. Of course, there are various ways to add grain to a digital image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which normally aren't as good as film grain.
I used to use Kodak recording film pushed in Acuspeed to 3200ISO. Why? Because it produced beautifully grainy prints. Digital images often look awful due to the awful lack of texture/grain. The real world has texture which digital can seem to remove at times.
A big grainey enlargement can look fine. A big digital enlargement where you see the pixels/digital artifacting always looks yucky. To my mind.
I shoot digitally, but I shoot and process to make it look like film, as I loathe the look of digital images, just like I loathe the lok of video cameras. Seeing as all a digital camera is, is a video camera doing stills, it's not surprising.
Flaws with film tend to look nice/interesting, digital flaws look like, well flaws. Though at high ISOs, digital is way better for colour work. High speed colour film was usually a bit poor, though I loved Agfa 1000RS.
-
Digital color in a properly color-managed workflow is far more accurate and true-to-life than is possible with film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And this is exactly why digital looks a bit rubbish at times. Because it is 'technically' better. Van Gogh, Matisse, Turner, Duchamp took reality and improved on it, sometimes by showing less detail and fidelity. If I want to see the 'real' world I just look around. If I want to make record it in a more pleasant manner I use film or make digital look filmic.
Some people are so concerned with images being technically perfect, they forget about the 'art' of photography.
I'm with Mark Tucker on this. Sometimes you need to worry less about pixel peeping and just go and take some images. Why not use a compact with no manual controls to take away the technical white noise. I prefer to use my girlfriend's Ixus to my 5D at times, as it's less effort and gives fantastic results. All I have to do is compose the image.
-
A big grainey enlargement can look fine. A big digital enlargement where you see the pixels/digital artifacting always looks yucky. To my mind.
Just because YOU don't know how to make a big decent-looking digital print without "digital" artifacts doesn't mean it can't be done.
If you must have a particular film's grain pattern to satisfy your aesthetic tastes, you can use film to shoot an OOF white card underexposed by a stop or so, scan the film at high resolution, convert it to B&W, and then place that as a layer over your upsized image in PS using luminance blending, opacity faded to achieve the desired amount of grain.
And not every image benefits from lots of grain.
-
And this is exactly why digital looks a bit rubbish at times. Because it is 'technically' better. Van Gogh, Matisse, Turner, Duchamp took reality and improved on it, sometimes by showing less detail and fidelity. If I want to see the 'real' world I just look around. If I want to make record it in a more pleasant manner I use film or make digital look filmic.
Then why are you a practitioner of photography instead of a painter? And the judgment that film is more "pleasant" than digital is something personal to you, and far from universally shared. While you personally may find the color palette of Velvia or Portra pleasing, a product photographer charged with ensuring that the final print matched the colors of the original item as closely as possible will have a completely different perspective. There's a big difference between having the option of using an altered color palette for creative purposes and being forced to use such a thing by the limitations of the medium.
The same principle applies to grain and other distortions. Some images can benefit from the creative inclusion of grain, but not all. Some people have a personal preference for more grain than others. But that does not mean that more grain is always better, or that a medium that forces its inclusion into an image is morally or creatively superior to one that does not.
Most people prefer the subject fidelity (more detail, more accurate colors, and less grain/noise) of digital because starting with a high-fidelity capture does not preclude the use of blurring, an altered color palette, or noise/grain for creative purposes. In the majority of situations, the digital practitioner can choose which of these distortions to use for creative purposes, and control the type and degree of the creative effect to achieve whatever artistic goal is intended in ways not possible or practical with film.
Saying that you enjoy using a certain film as a shortcut to achieving a particular creative effect is one thing. Saying digital is generally inferior to film because it is "too realistic" is quite another, and indicates of a lack of knowledge on your part regarding how best to capitalize on the advantages of digital. Such attitudes poorly serve all of those who practice photography instead of painting specifically because of things like subject fidelity.
-
................
-
You are such a douchebag and highly opinionated for a hobbiest.
Prior to joining the Army, I made my living as a photographer; it was my primary source of income. Over the last 5 years or so, I've made about 130,000 digital captures in my professional and personal work. The majority of the posts I make, including the ones in this thread, are based on personal experience, not theoretical BS. I've been there and done that and have the T-shirt. Care to expound on your level of experience?
-
Then why are you a practitioner of photography instead of a painter? And the judgment that film is more "pleasant" than digital is something personal to you, and far from universally shared. While you personally may find the color palette of Velvia or Portra pleasing, a product photographer charged with ensuring that the final print matched the colors of the original item as closely as possible will have a completely different perspective. There's a big difference between having the option of using an altered color palette for creative purposes and being forced to use such a thing by the limitations of the medium.
The same principle applies to grain and other distortions. Some images can benefit from the creative inclusion of grain, but not all. Some people have a personal preference for more grain than others. But that does not mean that more grain is always better, or that a medium that forces its inclusion into an image is morally or creatively superior to one that does not.
Most people prefer the subject fidelity (more detail, more accurate colors, and less grain/noise) of digital because starting with a high-fidelity capture does not preclude the use of blurring, an altered color palette, or noise/grain for creative purposes. In the majority of situations, the digital practitioner can choose which of these distortions to use for creative purposes, and control the type and degree of the creative effect to achieve whatever artistic goal is intended in ways not possible or practical with film.
Saying that you enjoy using a certain film as a shortcut to achieving a particular creative effect is one thing. Saying digital is generally inferior to film because it is "too realistic" is quite another, and indicates of a lack of knowledge on your part regarding how best to capitalize on the advantages of digital. Such attitudes poorly serve all of those who practice photography instead of painting specifically because of things like subject fidelity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
not everyone's a product photographer
and I actually know many product photographers who prefer film.
Film grain and digital grain ain't the same....was reminded of that once again as I worked on uprezzing some images this weekend. there's something really sexy about the texture that film grain gives to skin.Plus the way it softens the edges on objects.OOOO I love it.check out the attachment.
maybe it's just the way I see the world. my human friends tend not to have edges, they tend to have alot of curved volume, not sharp contrasty edges.
Maybe it's my not-perfect eyesight, maybe it's the gunk in my eyes that makes the world seem textural and uneven kind of like how grain feels sometimes
I wish I could recreate the subtlety of film grain in photoshop. I've tried. Can someone show me a similar look on skin using photoshop grain, and tell me how it's done?I'll give you a hundred kisses.
It's not just skin. that plastic cup on my table seems more alive with some texture to it. Maybe it's just that pixels are too even. 1 sq colour pixel next to another sq colour pixel that's similar in colour. Not like film where the next pixel may be lighter, and then the pixel next to it a darker tone. Doesn't make sense right, since in the real world colours don't work like this.
disclosure:90% of my work is done on digital. I still love people shot on film though.
p.s. I just got an orgasm looking at that texture up close...ahhhhh.
-
I wish I could recreate the subtlety of film grain in photoshop. I've tried. Can someone show me a similar look on skin using photoshop grain, and tell me how it's done?I'll give you a hundred kisses.
Shoot an out-of-focus white card underexposed a stop or two with your favorite film, and then scan the film. The scan will be nothing but film grain texture. Convert the scan to B&W, and do an auto levels on it to give it the full range of tonal values. Then paste this as a new layer over your digital image with blend mode set to luminosity. Fade the opacity of the layer to adjust the intensity of the grain effect. You can also photograph sand, concrete, rocks, etc. for other interesting texture/grain effects.
I'll pass on the kisses, thanks. I'm engaged to a wonderful but slightly jealous woman.
-
Shoot an out-of-focus white card underexposed a stop or two with your favorite film, and then scan the film. The scan will be nothing but film grain texture. Convert the scan to B&W, and do an auto levels on it to give it the full range of tonal values. Then paste this as a new layer over your digital image with blend mode set to luminosity. Fade the opacity of the layer to adjust the intensity of the grain effect. You can also photograph sand, concrete, rocks, etc. for other interesting texture/grain effects.
I'll pass on the kisses, thanks. I'm engaged to a wonderful but slightly jealous woman.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
would you consider showing me an example?I have no idea how to get it right.
-
would you consider showing me an example?I have no idea how to get it right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[attachment=3570:attachment]
Here's a quick example. Upper left is a texture. This would be your film shot of an underexposed, out-of-focus white card scanned at maximum optical resolution and converted to grayscale. Then run the high pass filter with radius set to about 10 pixels to eliminate the effects of any vignetting, uneven lighting, etc. Upper right is the texture with a level adjustment so that 0.01% of the highlights and shadows are clipped to white and black respectively. Bottom left is the image to texture. Bottom right is bottom left image with upper right pasted over it as a new layer, with blend mode set to luminosity, opacity 50%, fill 25%.
The example texture is actually a rock surface, but you can use the technique for any scanned film grain or other texture you can imagine. And you can do all kinds of things to tweak the texturing by doing blur, sharpen, and other effects on the texture layer.
-
Jonathan, she doesn't look THAT jealous .
-
Just because YOU don't know how to make a big decent-looking digital print without "digital" artifacts doesn't mean it can't be done.
Why be rude and offensive. I'm not talking about my abilities here, I'm speaking generally and increasingly I'm seeing large images that are so obviously digital they are horrendous. I'm not talking about amateurs either or lack of money. I'm talking about one of the UK's biggest retailers having posters that loook like shit.
And not every image benefits from lots of grain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Anyone say that it did? I didn't.
But this obsession with technical perfection is usually done by those with no artistic ability. Yes their pictures may be correctly exposed, but there's often not much else to say about their work. Jeff Schewe is a nice exception.
-
Then why are you a practitioner of photography instead of a painter?
Why assume I want to paint, you are a bit literal aren't you? I was simply using painters who rejected fidelity and moved art on, rather than being literal and unimaginative.
And the judgment that film is more "pleasant" than digital is something personal to you, and far from universally shared.
It's a bit funny then, how digital images or equipment are altered to cpature that filmic look that is so prized. The best digital images are those that do not look digital.
There's a big difference between having the option of using an altered color palette for creative purposes and being forced to use such a thing by the limitations of the medium.
Limitations are about the greatest aid to creativity out there. Not being the creative type that will have passed you by.
The same principle applies to grain and other distortions. Some images can benefit from the creative inclusion of grain, but not all. Some people have a personal preference for more grain than others. But that does not mean that more grain is always better, or that a medium that forces its inclusion into an image is morally or creatively superior to one that does not.
Seeing as I shot in whatever style suits the subject and am anything but a one size fits all photography, I think I'm aware of that and probably why I didn't say all images should be grainey.
Most people prefer the subject fidelity (more detail, more accurate colors, and less grain/noise) of digital because starting with a high-fidelity capture does not preclude the use of blurring, an altered color palette, or noise/grain for creative purposes. In the majority of situations, the digital practitioner can choose which of these distortions to use for creative purposes, and control the type and degree of the creative effect to achieve whatever artistic goal is intended in ways not possible or practical with film.
But most don't use that potential or are inept at doing so. And even though I am pretty adept at PS and post processing, I often prefer to get the effect I want in camera, as it invariably looks better than simply using filters. And it saves me time too.
Saying that you enjoy using a certain film as a shortcut to achieving a particular creative effect is one thing. Saying digital is generally inferior to film because it is "too realistic" is quite another, and indicates of a lack of knowledge on your part regarding how best to capitalize on the advantages of digital. Such attitudes poorly serve all of those who practice photography instead of painting specifically because of things like subject fidelity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are very literal and an boor to boot. Yes, you may know technical stuff, but not much else it seems. You assume a bit too much and if you'd paid attention you would have spotted my saying I shoot digitally. I've not used film for some years now in fact and gave up on the darkroom when I discovered Photoshop in 1994.
I've not yet seen an image with digital noise or artifacts that looked anything but awful and I'll state it again, film's fantastic quality comes from in many ways, it's negatives [and I'm talking drawbacks here]. One negative was the initial inability to do colour, another was grain, but when used by talented photogrraphers, these become virtues and not drawbacks. And if the digital look is so great, then why there are so many people trying to make their images look not digital.
And boasting about how many images you take is not how to impress people with your photographic skills. Even a monkey can hold a shutter down long enough to capture the odd interesting shot.
-
Why be rude and offensive. I'm not talking about my abilities here, I'm speaking generally and increasingly I'm seeing large images that are so obviously digital they are horrendous. I'm not talking about amateurs either or lack of money. I'm talking about one of the UK's biggest retailers having posters that loook like shit.
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd not be taking the position you are. And I've seen some shitty film-based stuff, too, but I don't use that as a basis for a blanket indictment of film-based work. You can find incompetence everywhere; just because someone did some work for a big retail chain doesn't mean they know how to shoot and print something large. There's always the let's-save-a-few-shillings-by-hiring-my-nephew attitude even when said nephew barely know which end of the camera to point at the subject, let alone know what to do with a digital image once he's capured it. It may not be the photographer, either, but some junior intern in the graphic design department of the lowest-bidding ad agency who never figured out the distinction between the DPI tag in an image file and its actual resolution. There are an awful lot of graphics professionals out there who still don't know what "color management" means or how to implement it, but that doesn't mean that color management isn't useful.
I've done poster-sized enlargements with my 1Ds (24x36 inches) that while looking a bit soft on close inspection, certainly didn't have any obvious "digital" pixelization artifacts. It's all in the techniques you use to enlarge the file and prepare it for printing.
-
Jonathan, she doesn't look THAT jealous .
That isn't my fiancee...
-
It's a bit funny then, how digital images or equipment are altered to cpature that filmic look that is so prized. The best digital images are those that do not look digital.
This statement has me baffled. In the photographic crowds I run in, noone has had this attitude since the very early days of digital photography, when people were experiencing a "knee-jerk" reaction against Change. You have been making a great many statements like this as "fact" which are really personal opinions, many of them completely contradicting my own personal experience. When I went from film to digital a couple of years ago, my photographs became considerably better in quality, not worse.
I'd recommend you reexamine your opinions on the subject, and try to see others' points of view. There is a great deal of validity to them.
Lisa
-
I am totally in agreemant with Lisa.
I shot film for forty years before switching (very reluctantly) to digital. It has taken a while for me to get the hang of it, but there is absolutely nothing that film does better than digital in my not so humble opinion.
As for technical perfectionists who were also great artists, the names of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and Minor White are just a few of the names that spring immediately to mind.
As a footnote, I find jjj's comments to be much more "rude and offensive" than Jonathan's.
-
This statement has me baffled. In the photographic crowds I run in, noone has had this attitude since the very early days of digital photography, when people were experiencing a "knee-jerk" reaction against Change. You have been making a great many statements like this as "fact" which are really personal opinions, many of them completely contradicting my own personal experience. When I went from film to digital a couple of years ago, my photographs became considerably better in quality, not worse.
I'd recommend you reexamine your opinions on the subject, and try to see others' points of view. There is a great deal of validity to them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Firstly - If I didn't think digital wasn't 'superior' to film, I wouldn't have [as stated for the third time now] stopped using film, would I?
I'll rephrase - my point is 'better quality' is not necessarily better photographs. Personally, I like the flaws of film. And the reason why video/video look is used to symbolise reality in films/on TV is because it is closer to reality than how film tends to render it. Film can make the world look 'better/more interesting' because of it's lack of fidelity. I shoot digitally, but often degrade the 'quality' as it looks nicer. And yes I do know that's personal taste. But as a photographer, one is usually employed for one's taste.
I would also say that the technical quality of images I see published, even in advertising on magazine covers, has gone down since digital has arrived. There's a much greater acceptance of poor quality images these days it seems. Camera phones + paparazzi images have become the normal standard for many people as regards image quality. Plasticy looking skin also seems to be increasing and not though over PSing, but as a result of how some digital cameras render skin. There are a lot of video quality [albeit higher res] images around in UK publications.
In the film world, i.e. movies, where I spend some of my working time, getting a filmic look is a big thing. A very big thing, even now. Looking like video, i.e. digital is rarely seen as a good thing. The look has to do with sensor size as well as image quality, which drags us back to the MFDB vs 35mm DSLR debate.
-
I find jjj's comments to be much more "rude and offensive" than Janoathan's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well seeing as Jonathan was rude and patronising for no good reason, whilst making innacurate assumptions about myself, I simply described him as the pompous boor he is at times on LL.
Maybe you'd have found him ruder, if he had been as partonising to you as he was to me.
Anyway this is way off topic.
-
Firstly - If I didn't think digital wasn't 'superior' to film, I wouldn't have [as stated for the third time now] stopped using film, would I?
I'll rephrase - my point is 'better quality' is not necessarily better photographs. Personally, I like the flaws of film. And the reason why video/video look is used to symbolise reality in films/on TV is because it is closer to reality than how film tends to render it. Film can make the world look 'better/more interesting' because of it's lack of fidelity. I shoot digitally, but often degrade the 'quality' as it looks nicer. And yes I do know that's personal taste. But as a photographer, one is usually employed for one's taste.
I would also say that the technical quality of images I see published, even in advertising on magazine covers, has gone down since digital has arrived. There's a much greater acceptance of poor quality images these days it seems. Camera phones + paparazzi images have become the normal standard for many people as regards image quality. Plasticy looking skin also seems to be increasing and not though over PSing, but as a result of how some digital cameras render skin. There are a lot of video quality [albeit higher res] images around in UK publications.
In the film world, i.e. movies, where I spend some of my working time, getting a filmic look is a big thing. A very big thing, even now. Looking like video, i.e. digital is rarely seen as a good thing. The look has to do with sensor size as well as image quality, which drags us back to the MFDB vs 35mm DSLR debate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A great many editorial photographers in New York still use film. There's no denying a certain look for film that translates well into print.
stylistically I believe that paolo roversi is still shooting film..
I also believe that alot of conde naste travel photographers are shoot film. And it's quite obvious from the pictures (reproduced to 3 inches sometimes, even at that size)
I look at magazine covers and sometimes the digital nature of the files are so obvious it's irritating. Digital in a flat way, not used to a positive effect. I was in Gallaghers in NY looking through tons of magazines and noticed that an optimal photo reproduction period was around the late 90s...
I agree with the skin rendering coming off plasticky.I would like to attribute that to a lack of texture due to the way digital renders skin.
I believe steven spielberg once talked about film in movies...about how it makes the scene more alive. I tend to agree. Let's compare digital video with film, there's a reason why alot of people still try to go for that feel.
the people who say they can't see a difference between a well printed film and digital image...well we must be from different planets.
I think ultimately both have different qualities and to answer the question of which renders better, it depends on how you approach the processing of the file and your stylistic approach towards the subject. If your work uses the colour purity, hard edged nature of digital, or if you're printing a picture of flat art,then I'm sure that will reproduce better as digital.
If your image is something more organic and gentle in rendering , then tonality and slight softness of film has great benefits
btw I love the digital look also which I use for my work, and have full admiration for people like Erwin Olaf and Jim Fiscus in their use of the digital look and pushing it.
However when it comes to personal stuff somehow I love shooting the people I love in film, there's something beautiful about the way it renders things
-
In the film world, i.e. movies, where I spend some of my working time, getting a filmic look is a big thing. A very big thing, even now. Looking like video, i.e. digital is rarely seen as a good thing. The look has to do with sensor size as well as image quality, which drags us back to the MFDB vs 35mm DSLR debate.
And that world is a very small subset of working or creative still photography. The only reason film is still dominant in the world of motion pictures is because all but the very most expensive professional digital video cameras still have performance specs similar to today's P&S digicams; low DR, high noise, interlacing artifacts, etc. But that has little to do with still photography, where image quality in the professional cameras substantially exceeds that of film in the same format, and the majority of photographers and clients at all levels have gotten over the "only film is good" hangup. Since you claim to shoot digital, I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet.
Just because you "like" the flaws of film doesn't mean that opinion is universally shared, or even shared by the majority of photographers or clients. And it's a bit arrogant to define your personal stylistic preference as the photographic nirvana that represents what all photography should aspire to. I doubt Ansel Adams would agree with you. It's especially ironic, given your sig, that you so strongly defend the look and limitations of a visual recording medium that is quickly going the way of the 8-track tape.
-
And that world is a very small subset of working or creative still photography. The only reason film is still dominant in the world of motion pictures is because all but the very most expensive professional digital video cameras still have performance specs similar to today's P&S digicams; low DR, high noise, interlacing artifacts, etc. But that has little to do with still photography, where image quality in the professional cameras substantially exceeds that of film in the same format, and the majority of photographers and clients at all levels have gotten over the "only film is good" hangup. Since you claim to shoot digital, I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet.
Just because you "like" the flaws of film doesn't mean that opinion is universally shared, or even shared by the majority of photographers or clients. And it's a bit arrogant to define your personal stylistic preference as the photographic nirvana that represents what all photography should aspire to. I doubt Ansel Adams would agree with you. It's especially ironic, given your sig, that you so strongly defend the look and limitations of a visual recording medium that is quickly going the way of the 8-track tape.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think we're losing the point here
Let's get back to the original question on which enlarges better.
I think your belief is that
"Once individual specks of film grain are prominently visible, a film image can and does "fall apart" when printed large. There are many techniques for printing digital images extremely large without exhibiting obvious pixelization artifacts. A few rounds of alternately upsizing and adding small amounts of luminance noise will effectively disguise any artifacts in much the same way film grain hides the shortcomings of a film image."
whereas a number of us do not believe that an image falls apart when film grain is visible.
Those of us also have the belief that digital enlargements have their failings, mentioned earlier
"As the file 'breaks up" the color information also falls apart and makes more evident the failings of the enlargement. Careful uprezzing aside, you can't put information there that isn't, and that is what you are doing (interpolation) when upsizing a digital file and adding noise to cover the tracks."
I am of the belief that digital noise added on an image is a superficial method that misses the effect of film grain, which causes an unevenness of colour and texture which I feel adds more depth and a certain more organic feel to the image.
I've printed files from a leaf aptus 75s, a H39 (33 and 39 megapixels respectively), a kodak pro back, 6 megapixel cameras, 16 megapixel cameras,I've done cold head RA4 prints up to 40x60 inches, I've printed with large format photo printers from canon and epson, I've seen billboard prints close up I've seen large fine art prints close up, and I am hardpressed to say which one enlarges "better"
Have you seen a well scanned, well printed 4x5 slide above 40 inches? I walked up close to a Tina Barney print, absolutely gorgeous.
I've seen 35mm b/w negs printed 40x60inches beautifully too
It depends on your criteria of what's important for you in an image. Personally I feel that film well scanned and printed large retains a more organic feel, whereas a digital file may be able to retain a clean well coloured file but be prepared for lack a dimensional texture. This however works well for very graphic images perhaps.
Just different ways of perceiving the world I feel.
-
btw last time I checked the world of motion pictures using the most expensive professional digital video cameras was not an issue for a film with 7 to 8 figure budgets upwards.
I think a point to note regarding which enlarges better has to consider that digital SLRs lack the dynamic range capable of handling a wide range of tonalities which contributes to that graphic look. When you uprez and interpolate you are interpolating a limited palette of colours in the first place.
-
It depends on your criteria of what's important for you in an image. Personally I feel that film well scanned and printed large retains a more organic feel, whereas a digital file may be able to retain a clean well coloured file but be prepared for lack a dimensional texture.
And if your personal preference is for the image to have a bit of texture, the technique I posted earlier can give a digital image the exact same texture as scanned film. The primary difference is that you have complete control over the type of texture and how prominent it is in the image on the digital side. Digital can be as "clean" or "dirty" as you make it.
-
And if your personal preference is for the image to have a bit of texture, the technique I posted earlier can give a digital image the exact same texture as scanned film. The primary difference is that you have complete control over the type of texture and how prominent it is in the image on the digital side. Digital can be as "clean" or "dirty" as you make it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll believe it when I see it.I've been looking and trying different solutions. Still nothing close to that look. I'm sure video people have been trying hard too.Still yet to see a good authentic result.
Theoratically possible, yet still can't see it.
=)
-
I'll believe it when I see it.
Did you even try my method?
-
Have either of you tried the DXO film pack?
Like Jonathan's method on steriods from their blurb.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_filmpack (http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_filmpack)
-
Have either of you tried the DXO film pack?
Like Jonathan's method on steriods from their blurb.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_filmpack (http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_filmpack)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I actually played around alot with Alienskin's Exposure 2(actually helped abit with their beta testing to get their noise profile more authentic looking..)
still not quite there but one of the better ones...it varies the grain depending on shadow midtones and highlights to get a more random spread.
the test is in large scale reproduction. I'll test abit more.
Has anyone actually printed a large image (above 20 inches) and reproduced a film grain look with a digital file that actually looked filmic?
-
Here's another perspective. Except for artistic symbolism, such as pointillism or impressionism, why try to reproduce another medium's problem (for me grain was a problem to be solved, not something I normally wanted) while trying to deal with your own? I try to get an image that looks beautiful of its own. What "look" depends on the specific subject, but I want a beautiful image that gives me a certain feeling or emotion but doesn't necessarily "look like film" or "look digital". It is its own thing.
When things go off in an image, the "offness" will manifest itself differently depending on the medium. But the basic idea is to reduce the "offness" so that it isn't noticeable and you're left with an image that affects you in an intended manner. At that point there is no "film" and there is no "digital", just the image you wanted.
I believe this can be accomplished in either medium within their own particular capabilities. Otherwise it's like saying oil paints are better than water colors.
But then we wouldn't be having these interesting discussions .
-
That pretty much sums up my perspective. I have no issue doing blurring, color distortions or adding grain/noise for a creative effect, but I do so on an image by image basis, not to every image indiscriminately. Every image is different; some look best in B&W, others look best wearing a hypersaturated Velvia-like color palette, and still others look best with a true-to-life color palette or something else between the extremes. Some images are best with everything in razor-sharp focus; others are best with only one element in focus and everything else blurred to one degree or another to draw attention to something or away from something. Some images bebefit from a heavy dose of grain, and in others, grain is a distracting annoyance. There is nothing wrong with having a personal stylistic preference for a particular subset of these parameters, but declaring that one's personal preference is "the look" to which all images should aspire is both narrow-minded and ridiculous.
Image artifacts, whether film grain, pixelization, blur, skin smoothing, altered color palettes, contrast manipulations, or whatever else one can imagine, are like spices. In the right combinations and proportions, they can greatly enhance an image. In the wrong combinations, thay can be quite detrimental. The combination of spices appropriate for a pot of chili are not what you want on an ice cream sundae, and vice versa. And some foods really don't need much in the way of spices, like an apple. In much the same way, the approach for processing a landscape with lots of fine detail shouldn't be the same as that for a "glamour shot" of a woman in her late forties who needs a bit of help to look her best, and a product shot where accurate color is paramount will require yet another approach.
There's no single "recipe" that is best for all images. If there was, it could be made into an action and there would be no need for creative thought after the image is captured. Use the best recipe for the particular dish being served. To do otherwise is pointless traditionalism.
-
There is an article in the brand new issue of Rangefiner Magazine that is very much on topic with this discussion. Luckily it is online in pdf. Here you go...
http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Oct07/120.pdf (http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Oct07/120.pdf)
-
That pretty much sums up my perspective. I have no issue doing blurring, color distortions or adding grain/noise for a creative effect, but I do so on an image by image basis, not to every image indiscriminately. Every image is different; some look best in B&W, others look best wearing a hypersaturated Velvia-like color palette, and still others look best with a true-to-life color palette or something else between the extremes. Some images are best with everything in razor-sharp focus; others are best with only one element in focus and everything else blurred to one degree or another to draw attention to something or away from something. Some images bebefit from a heavy dose of grain, and in others, grain is a distracting annoyance. There is nothing wrong with having a personal stylistic preference for a particular subset of these parameters, but declaring that one's personal preference is "the look" to which all images should aspire is both narrow-minded and ridiculous.
Image artifacts, whether film grain, pixelization, blur, skin smoothing, altered color palettes, contrast manipulations, or whatever else one can imagine, are like spices. In the right combinations and proportions, they can greatly enhance an image. In the wrong combinations, thay can be quite detrimental. The combination of spices appropriate for a pot of chili are not what you want on an ice cream sundae, and vice versa. And some foods really don't need much in the way of spices, like an apple. In much the same way, the approach for processing a landscape with lots of fine detail shouldn't be the same as that for a "glamour shot" of a woman in her late forties who needs a bit of help to look her best, and a product shot where accurate color is paramount will require yet another approach.
There's no single "recipe" that is best for all images. If there was, it could be made into an action and there would be no need for creative thought after the image is captured. Use the best recipe for the particular dish being served. To do otherwise is pointless traditionalism.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
actually the point that some of us made was that a digital image when enlarged doesn't maintain the same photographic integrity as a film image
even if you add your digital grain to it it's still going to have that issue of a base file that needs to be interpolated.
a film image might be grainy but it doesn't "break up" the same way a digital one does
but of course you're going to continually argue otherwise as will I.
I mean, what do I know, I only regularly reproduce fine art prints for exhibitions 30 inches upwards all the way to 6 ft.
sigh I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so I'll just leave it as it is.
-
actually the point that some of us made was that a digital image when enlarged doesn't maintain the same photographic integrity as a film image
At the risk of possibly repeating what might have been said above:
If you enlarge a digital image to the point where the digital artifacts you object to start occurring, and enlarge an equivalent film image by the same amount, the film image is going to look equally (or more) crappy, because the film grain is becoming more obvious and interfering with the image content. You might personally like obvious film grain (because it reminds you of the old days, perhaps?), but most of us here see it as a flaw rather than a feature.
Lisa
-
At the risk of possibly repeating what might have been said above:
If you enlarge a digital image to the point where the digital artifacts you object to start occurring, and enlarge an equivalent film image by the same amount, the film image is going to look equally (or more) crappy, because the film grain is becoming more obvious and interfering with the image content. You might personally like obvious film grain (because it reminds you of the old days, perhaps?), but most of us here see it as a flaw rather than a feature.
Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ok I guess I'm just lucky to have not had to deal with that problem with my film shots.
Perhaps we're working with different scanners and films.
anyway!that's that.cheerio.
-
I have a hard time understanding this love of grain. I am one of those who have always considered it a defect to be overcome.
I'm sure I have seen hundreds of thousands of grainy prints in my life. I think about a half dozen of them convinced me that the grain was a positive aspect of the image.
If you like the look of grain, fine. I almost never do.
-
Film grain. Hmmm... yes, it is and is not the bee´s knees, depending on both your mindset and the requirements of the job.
Look at Sarah Moon´s work for Pirelli, Cacheral et al and the grain, as she used it in those days, and as did David Hamilton too; if you fail to see the beauty, the failure is in your eyes, I´m afraid.
I have both film and digital capture available; my time is spent most happily working on film, old Kodachromes which are virtually grain-free dyes. I sometimes add noise simply for the beauty I see in the granularity. I stress that this is mainly in b/w conversions - the more I work in the digital darkroom, the more I find myself drawn to b/w and the ways in which it is now better than the wet process used to be. Heresy? Some might think so, and four or five years ago I would have thought so too.
What is happening to me is that as time goes by, colour seems less and less important and more and more of a cheap version of almost anything you care to turn into a subject.
I´m sorry if this offends anyone - it isn´t meant to, it´s just how I feel within myself now.
Ciao - Rob C
-
A person's preference for a particular style or view should never offend or detract. It's the way of the world, many cultures, many paths, many perspectives. I for one am grateful for it, as different perspectives are the seed of growth and evolution.
Having said that, I can't believe I said that ...
-
I have just scanned an old picture at 5550 dpi, I picked something to show the grain, something without lots of detail. The best I could find was an image on Kodak EPP, I don't know much about this film it must of been a one off for me, I'm sure Provia is even better.
The crops at 100% do show grain, printed at 300 dpi I don't think you would see it, from my experiance I know you would not. The print would be 4ft wide at 300 dpi.
I have not done anything extra to the image like sharpen or run a noise reduction filter etc I let the scanner sort out most things, if I'd paid more attention I would of turned the croma down to normal, lightened it a touch and cleaned the film!
I find DSLR's struggle with this kind of scene, you to often get a banding somewhere.
Scanned on a Dainippon Screen 1045Ai.
Take a look here:-
http://homepage.mac.com/kevin_allen/PhotoAlbum15.html (http://homepage.mac.com/kevin_allen/PhotoAlbum15.html)
Kevin.
-
You're comparing 6x7cm film to a DSLR; the film has nearly 5x the area of a full-frame DSLR sensor. How about comparing 35mm film scan to a DSLR RAW, which was what the OP was asking about. Or better yet, compare your film to a RAW from a Phase One P45+?
-
You're comparing 6x7cm film to a DSLR; the film has nearly 5x the area of a full-frame DSLR sensor. How about comparing 35mm film scan to a DSLR RAW, which was what the OP was asking about. Or better yet, compare your film to a RAW from a Phase One P45+?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A 5550 dpi scan of a section of 35mm or a 10x8 is the same as far as grain structure is concerned.
I was not comparing recorded detail just emulsion enlarged.
Kevin.
-
A 5550 dpi scan of a section of 35mm or a 10x8 is the same as far as grain structure is concerned.
I was not comparing recorded detail just emulsion enlarged.
And that's completely pointless unless you're taking magnification factor between film and print into account. If you're making 20x25" print, the grain structure of an 8x10 negative will be far less prominent in the print than that of a 35mm negative. A 5550 DPI scan of a 35mm negative would print less than 17 inches in the narrow dimension.
-
You're comparing 6x7cm film to a DSLR; the film has nearly 5x the area of a full-frame DSLR sensor. How about comparing 35mm film scan to a DSLR RAW, which was what the OP was asking about. Or better yet, compare your film to a RAW from a Phase One P45+?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=146959\")
an Aptus75s file can probably match up to 6x7 film. I've compared my 100G 6x7 Mamiya 7 files scanned on an Imacon scanner to my Aptus75s. One of my favourite images is shot on a Mamiya 7, underexposed by a stop and a half due to severe lighting constraints (it was raining), and then cropped ALOT to get to this [a href=\"http://superhyperreal.com/SGIdgrass640.jpg]http://superhyperreal.com/SGIdgrass640.jpg[/url]
of course you can't tell from a web image...but it's soooo beautiful when printed.
love my aptus files too but I find that I have to do alot of micro sharpening to come close to the grittiness of a slide film shot. (I admit I like the grittiness of real skin, I'm not fond of plastic.)
And thank you Rob C...for a moment I thought no one else enjoyed the grain of film
btw here in NYC many editorial photographers still shoot film and scan it.
Personally I wouldn't risk shooting film for jobs...just too stressful to take it to the lab and wait for the results. =P
I hope we can appreciate both ends of the arguments, I don't think that one enlarges "better" than another in all situations, but there are some situations where each medium has its benefits.
p.s. just enlarged a 1dsmkii file to 42 x 60 inches at 250 dpi...going through 3 passes of sharpening (1 local contrast,1 very fine radius sharpening and 1 more round of more general sharpening) brought out a very nice gritty texture somewhat film-like!I'm quite pleased.would be nice to have more microdetail on that file but oh well!
-
I hope we can appreciate both ends of the arguments, I don't think that one enlarges "better" than another in all situations, but there are some situations where each medium has its benefits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now here's something I can agree with completely.
-
OK, since I was working on some similarly flavored material, I offer as fodder these 1Ds MkII files - the whole & two 100% crops. Just be gentle, please ...
Full Image (http://improbablystructuredlayers.net/Special/Test1.jpg)
100% Crop 1 (http://improbablystructuredlayers.net/Special/Test1crop.jpg)
100% Crop 2 (http://improbablystructuredlayers.net/Special/Test1crop2.jpg)
Don't know whether they help the discussion or not ....
-
I found a few days ago this interesting comparison by Roger Clark between traditional enlarging and digital printing. I did not want to prolong an infinite discussion but I think this adds to the matter
http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ernclark/digital_advantage.htm (http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ernclark/digital_advantage.htm)
The author of the comparison rightly states that the digital print is, when viewed at distance, superior to the optical enlargement. I think we can all agree with that, I did distance myself a couple of steps from the monitor and I do agree.
Still I would like to say that, when seen from near, digital is blotchy and traditional is continuous, does not fall apart, as is in the nature of the analogic world, "natura non facit saltus".
Now the obvious question arises: Who cares what the effect from near is? The important is what is the effect from a distance which is appropriate to the dimensions of the picture!
I do agree.
I still remember though a photographic exhibition here in Rome - Palazzo delle Esposizioni, pictures from Afghanistan, they were printed so huge one had to stay near the middle of the room to enjoy them. No point in getting nearer, really. Images had their lower end at 1 m high and where probably 2 m high or more (that was in 2002 or 2001 and I can't remember well)..
No point in getting near, but obeying to human nature not just I but every person in the room (also) went near the pictures to put their nose in the texture of the print. That's just inevitable. We human beings want to explore details, we want to put our nose in it, we want to see what the picture is made of. It is like opening the toy to see what's inside, there's no escape.
Well, I shall say, if you don't put an obstacle between the pictures and the observer (if the observer of the large billboard print is free to get near, as he will certainly do) the traditional print looks better to me, because you see tones and not blotches. You would not make a sense of the "tones" as of the blotches, but "tones" are better.
I suppose you can create the same effect in digital (continuous tones lacking detail and contrast due to the extreme enlargement) but it could just be a waste of energy.
I think the provocative statement which has originated the discussion might be translated as: conventional printing looks better, if the print is really big and the observer can (and therefore will) get near the picture until he sees the "structure", the atomic components of it.
Cheers
Fabrizio
-
I found a few days ago this interesting comparison by Roger Clark between traditional enlarging and digital printing. I did not want to prolong an infinite discussion but I think this adds to the matter
http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ernclark/digital_advantage.htm (http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ernclark/digital_advantage.htm)
The author of the comparison rightly states that the digital print is, when viewed at distance, superior to the optical enlargement. I think we can all agree with that, I did distance myself a couple of steps from the monitor and I do agree.
Still I would like to say that, when seen from near, digital is blotchy and traditional is continuous, does not fall apart, as is in the nature of the analogic world, "natura non facit saltus".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147028\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMHO, the Lightjet print pretty well matches the drum scan, which shows considerable sharpening artifact. As Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe have shown, it difficult to judge how the print will look from viewing the sharpened image on the screen. Roger has the print and I defer judgement to him.
I do not know when or how the sharpening was applied, but many drum scan operators oversharpen the image. Bruce recommended that one should request no sharpening with drum scans. Sharpening can be applied by analog means, but I doubt that any was applied to the print from the custom lab.
Bill
-
And that's completely pointless unless you're taking magnification factor between film and print into account. If you're making 20x25" print, the grain structure of an 8x10 negative will be far less prominent in the print than that of a 35mm negative. A 5550 DPI scan of a 35mm negative would print less than 17 inches in the narrow dimension.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's film scanned at 5550 dpi, make of it what you like, obviously a 35mm scanned at that resolution will not enlarge as big as larger formats, but it would still be a big file. Perhaps a 24inch or bigger at a guess, the grain on the print will not be anymore noticable than the 6x7 printed at 4ft. I can't print that big from my Canon without some upsizing and mot people don't have 16 million pixels to start with.
The grain argument for digital over film keeps cropping up, but it need not be a factor with the correct choice of film, plus the better gradation of film is obvious from further away at distances you can't see grain or digital artifacts in prints. The smoothness often mentioned in digital files is lack of colour gradation and detail to my eyes, the very things that get watered down when software upsizing is applied in large doses.
You have choices with film, digital you are stuck with a given sensor and it's electronics etc for all your pictures.
Like I said it's film scanned at 5550dpi how that translates to what you or anyone else wants from it is up to the individual. If I know I'm going to print large I shoot film, 6x7 in my case.
Kevin.
-
It's film scanned at 5550 dpi, make of it what you like, obviously a 35mm scanned at that resolution will not enlarge as big as larger formats, but it would still be a big file. Perhaps a 24inch or bigger at a guess, the grain on the print will not be anymore noticable than the 6x7 printed at 4ft. I can't print that big from my Canon without some upsizing and mot people don't have 16 million pixels to start with.
The grain argument for digital over film keeps cropping up, but it need not be a factor with the correct choice of film, plus the better gradation of film is obvious from further away at distances you can't see grain or digital artifacts in prints. The smoothness often mentioned in digital files is lack of colour gradation and detail to my eyes, the very things that get watered down when software upsizing is applied in large doses.
You have choices with film, digital you are stuck with a given sensor and it's electronics etc for all your pictures.
Like I said it's film scanned at 5550dpi how that translates to what you or anyone else wants from it is up to the individual. If I know I'm going to print large I shoot film, 6x7 in my case.
Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sticking with MF for now, something like the mamiya 7, quality lenses, light weight and cheap compared with pro digital DSLR.
Looking at the crop with the speed limit sign in, show me the DSLR file that could be upsized to 48 inches and produce a clearly readable sign in the dark shade like the one I posted. I think we all know it does not happen.
I believe the shot I used was taken on a Plaubel Makina 67.
Kevin.
-
I think you'll find most digital shooters will agree that you can dig much further into the shadows of a digital file than a film scan and extract actual subject-based shadow detail. Film may have more "texture" than digital, but that is hardly the same as actual subject detail. The smoothness of digital files as far more to do with the fact that it isn't capturing a bunch of false grain-based-texture than any inherent superiority of film. Try comparing prints to the original subject instead of preconceived notions of "texture" and you'll see what I mean.
-
Fabrizio
Did you manage to see the Trevi running red?
Vandalism is such a dumb thing; perhaps it was the new Red Brigades!
Ciao - Rob C
-
I think you'll find most digital shooters will agree that you can dig much further into the shadows of a digital file than a film scan and extract actual subject-based shadow detail. Film may have more "texture" than digital, but that is hardly the same as actual subject detail. The smoothness of digital files as far more to do with the fact that it isn't capturing a bunch of false grain-based-texture than any inherent superiority of film. Try comparing prints to the original subject instead of preconceived notions of "texture" and you'll see what I mean.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you honestly think you could enlarge a DSLR file to that size and you think you would see a sharp "5" as is on that sign, you are living in dreamland. I can't believe anyone would argue differently.
Kevin.
-
The only time fim has any parity at all with digital is when it has an imaging area advantage of 4X or more. In the comparison you're making, the film has about a 4.7X size advantage. And while you may be getting a bit more detail doing your appples-to-oranges mismatch, you're getting a lot more noise in the form of film grain to go with it. If you take a 24x36mm crop from your film scan, and compare THAT to a DSLR file, even the 1Ds classic will beat it handily. More detail, less noise, smoother tonality, you name it. Your scan is much softer than a DSLR file, and has much higher noise levels. A DSLR RAW would have to be upsized to nearly 2X its original pixel dimensions to be that mushy, and have to have a lot of noise added or be shot at a much higher ISO to look that grainy.
Try doing a head-to-head comparison shooting the same subject with your 6x7 and 1Ds-II, and post links to the film scan and the RAW, like Michael did with the1Ds and 6x4.5 (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml). You might be surprised at the results.
And yes, I most certainly could get a readable "5" off that sign with my 1Ds, or even my 1D-MkII. It wouldn't have as many pixels, but the pixels it did have would be clearer and less noisy and able to upsize much more than your film scan without falling apart.
-
I find DSLR's struggle with this kind of scene, you to often get a banding somewhere.
After shooting over 120,000 frames with Canon DSLRs in all sorts of conditions, ISO ranging from 100-1600, in studio, outside, you name it, I'd say banding is a non-issue unless you've underexposed more than 1.5 stops. If you're getting banding, either you're doing something wrong, or you have a serious camera problem.
At any rate, I offer this counterexample to your 6x7 film scan (http://homepage.mac.com/kevin_allen/PhotoAlbum15.html), a 1Ds image upsized to 6144x4088. Here is a web-sized version:
[attachment=3620:attachment]
The highlighted area represents the location of this crop:
[attachment=3621:attachment]
A similarly dark area, similarly sized text is just as legible if not more so, even at the top where the lighting is even poorer than in your example.
See any banding anywhere?
-
Dang - mine goes only to 160. Is that a Vette with a Ferrari bear?
-
It would appear the owner has mixed brand loyalties...but a very nice Vette.
-
Hi!
I feel I tend to gravitate in favor of digital. On film I used Pentax 67 with a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and I'm using an Sony Alpha 100 right now. I feel that I may get better image quality from the Sony Alpha then what I can get from the 67 on Provia or Velvia. Not really shure, not having done any "scientific comparisons".
Best regards
Erik
I was recently told by a photographer friend of mine that film cameras are recommended when you would like your prints in large size ; for ex 24" x 30" or more. Compared to film, digital files appear grainy when it is enlarged even though you print at the maximum resolution in a 10 mp camera. The pictures from 35mm cameras can be enlarged and still retain the sharpness of the image.
I'd appreciate if anyone convince me or throw more light on this belief. I own a 10mp digital SLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Jing,
I'm not sure you are scanning your film correctly as I can get a better file with more detail with my mamiya 645 and a minotla multi pro scanner than any 40mp digital back. It will be at least 60mp before digital beats 645. 6x7 should be in excess of 120mp.
Jason
an Aptus75s file can probably match up to 6x7 film. I've compared my 100G 6x7 Mamiya 7 files scanned on an Imacon scanner to my Aptus75s. One of my favourite images is shot on a Mamiya 7, underexposed by a stop and a half due to severe lighting constraints (it was raining), and then cropped ALOT to get to this http://superhyperreal.com/SGIdgrass640.jpg (http://superhyperreal.com/SGIdgrass640.jpg)
of course you can't tell from a web image...but it's soooo beautiful when printed.
love my aptus files too but I find that I have to do alot of micro sharpening to come close to the grittiness of a slide film shot. (I admit I like the grittiness of real skin, I'm not fond of plastic.)
And thank you Rob C...for a moment I thought no one else enjoyed the grain of film
btw here in NYC many editorial photographers still shoot film and scan it.
Personally I wouldn't risk shooting film for jobs...just too stressful to take it to the lab and wait for the results. =P
I hope we can appreciate both ends of the arguments, I don't think that one enlarges "better" than another in all situations, but there are some situations where each medium has its benefits.
p.s. just enlarged a 1dsmkii file to 42 x 60 inches at 250 dpi...going through 3 passes of sharpening (1 local contrast,1 very fine radius sharpening and 1 more round of more general sharpening) brought out a very nice gritty texture somewhat film-like!I'm quite pleased.would be nice to have more microdetail on that file but oh well!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Jing,
I'm not sure you are scanning your film correctly as I can get a better file with more detail with my mamiya 645 and a minotla multi pro scanner than any 40mp digital back. It will be at least 60mp before digital beats 645. 6x7 should be in excess of 120mp.
The original 1Ds (11MP) can beat all but the best drum scans of 645 in terms of noise and overall detail, and closely matches the drum scan. Have a look at this head-to-head comparison:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...1ds-field.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml)
If you think 645 film will outperform a P45+ MFDB you're sadly mistaken.
-
Does it really matter who is "right"?
There´s no point in throwing too many facts and figures around because, at the end of the day, unless we are mega-rich or have an employer/client(s) with big pockets picking up the bills, photography remains, as with everything else in life, a matter of what one can afford.
I have been a successful pro and during those long years I had top-of-the-range tools; now, with the working years behind me, I face a totally different ball-game where justification of expenditure is more strict than ever it was.
Photography still remains the number one consideration in my life - other than family - and I just get on with what I can afford to do. I don´t enjoy it any the less, other than missing the highs of calendar assignments and all that provided, so why really get one´s knickers in a twist about theoretical problems which will probably always remain theoretical throughout one´s life?
Live it to enjoy it; don´t fret about what MIGHT be if you had the funds - perhaps not a lot would change in your work/talent/ equation anyhow.
Rob C
-
You are correct that everyone is limited by what they can afford. But for the majority of people who can afford at least a decent entry-level DSLR, discussing the actual merits and shortcomings of digital and film, as opposed to blindly repeating traditionalistic dogma, can be of benefit to the average joe.
-
You are correct that everyone is limited by what they can afford. But for the majority of people who can afford at least a decent entry-level DSLR, discussing the actual merits and shortcomings of digital and film, as opposed to blindly repeating traditionalistic dogma, can be of benefit to the average joe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This argument has been going on since 2001 or before. I remember having conversations back when I had been using my original Canon D30 in 2001. I had beend using a Hasselblad for the last 15 yrs or so and could not believe how good the prints from the D30 looked at 12x18. I was taken for a heretic or worse. Same thing today. Still have a 4x5 but haven't used it in a couple of years. The latest 10mp crop of dslr cameras from any of the companies will make beautiful prints up to 20x30 compared favorably to anything I shot from the Hasselblad, when viewed from a couple of feet like you DID in the film days[not at 300%+ on a monitor]. What it may lack in Mb size in the file it makes up with just the low noise and tone one once expected from only larger then 35mm film prints back in the day. Jmho...Bottomline if you use film and like it, fine. Continue using it, but for one I will be looking forward to the next generations of dslrs coming out in the future. Would love to have a new Hassy digital but am more then satisfied at even present levels, no replacement for vision and good technique at any cost level...
-
There is an article in the brand new issue of Rangefiner Magazine that is very much on topic with this discussion. Luckily it is online in pdf. Here you go...
http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Oct07/120.pdf (http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Oct07/120.pdf)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This article is a joke. You have to wonder if he just zoomed the window in photoshop for the digital crops. No decent interpolation routine woudl produce that much pixelation. He's also pretty vague about exactly what size he's resizing to, mentioning print size but not PPI.
-
This article is a joke. You have to wonder if he just zoomed the window in photoshop for the digital crops. No decent interpolation routine woudl produce that much pixelation. He's also pretty vague about exactly what size he's resizing to, mentioning print size but not PPI.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi, refering only to the amount of information, the article is right. Even although the interpolated image will look better that the original, the amount of information on it will be, as much, the same.
Manuel
-
Hi, refering only to the amount of information, the article is right. Even although the interpolated image will look better that the original, the amount of information on it will be, as much, the same.
Manuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That doesn't change the fact that the crappy interpolation used presents an unfair portrayal of the digital image. Do you honestly think a 1DsMk2 image would look that bad when printed at 16x20?
-
This article is a joke. You have to wonder if he just zoomed the window in photoshop for the digital crops. No decent interpolation routine woudl produce that much pixelation. He's also pretty vague about exactly what size he's resizing to, mentioning print size but not PPI.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The article seems perfectly straightforward and fair. It is a comparison of the raw output of digital versus film, not a comparison of optimized prints from either source. I presume the digital file was indeed enlarged pixel by pixel in Photoshop, with no interpolation whatsoever. I also presume no noise reduction or sharpening was applied. And it looks like the film was printed directly, not scanned and digitized. Of course further manipulation would improve prints made from both sources, but that's not what this article was about.
-
That doesn't change the fact that the crappy interpolation used presents an unfair portrayal of the digital image. Do you honestly think a 1DsMk2 image would look that bad when printed at 16x20?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my local dealer a few years back they had a 30x20" picture taken with a 1DsII just after it came out. It was of a white tram in bright sunshine and even though the top of the tram wasn't burnt out, you could still make out detail in the shadows under the tram. Dead sharp and no grain. Very technically impressive and way better than any 35mm film could do with that same scene.
To go off at a tangent, when doing smaller images, digital doesn't always fare so well as you usually have to resample down for small sizes. Film at low levels of enlargement or at film size [10"x8" contacts wow] look even better usually. When I had my busines card printed, the idiots at the printers said there was no need to have anything more than 300dpi, not quite getting that it was a minimum suggestion, not a maximum. But resampling down to that dpi made for crappy images and no sharpening would ever make them look good. Resampling them down to 600dpi, produced very acceptable images, but I had to argue with the printers to use that dpi. The cards looked great once printed to my terms and that also included ignoring their monitor profiles as my design looked awful on their screens.
-
That doesn't change the fact that the crappy interpolation used presents an unfair portrayal of the digital image. Do you honestly think a 1DsMk2 image would look that bad when printed at 16x20?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really. I think a fair comparisol can be performed only after both pictures have been enhanced usign the best technology and knowledge one can reasonable afford. That one is important because using the best technology and expertise is beyond my means.
-
Not really. I think a fair comparisol can be performed only after both pictures have been enhanced usign the best technology and knowledge one can reasonable afford. That one is important because using the best technology and expertise is beyond my means.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that that´s a fair way of looking at the question - why would you ever work either system to anything less than your best possible level?
Of course it has to be at a subjective level - there`s no other way where anything else makes sense, for you might as well then start comparing 8x10 transparencies with 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 or anything else that´s around; Olympus with Canon FF etc. etc. (I do have to admit that some here are already doing this, so perhaps the less said the better!)
In the end, unless you have very deep pockets or an ultra friendly dealer who wants to get to know your sister better, you just have to soldier on and make the most of what is.
Enjoy and don´t waste life looking for perfection: it´s an illusion; trust me, I´m unfortunately old enough to have discovered this.
Rob C
-
Getting back to the original question, I'm mainly a digital shooter, although I do enjoy using film when I can afford to. When I'm teaching photography classes and students ask me whether a film or a digital camera is better, I invariably respond that the best camera to own is one that inspires you to get out and make some pictures.
:-)
-
Getting back to the original question, I'm mainly a digital shooter, although I do enjoy using film when I can afford to. When I'm teaching photography classes and students ask me whether a film or a digital camera is better, I invariably respond that the best camera to own is one that inspires you to get out and make some pictures.
:-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wise words. I am sure digital cameras have inspired a whole new generation of brick wall photographers ...
Seriously though, I am sure digital has increased the general enthusiasm for photography.
-
Wise words. I am sure digital cameras have inspired a whole new generation of brick wall photographers ...
Seriously though, I am sure digital has increased the general enthusiasm for photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably true, but do the final images get any more of an airing than they did on paper? Hopefully, not!
Rob C