Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on July 30, 2009, 02:12:31 pm

Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 30, 2009, 02:12:31 pm
Hi!

I visited a place where I have been taking pictures with my Pentax 67 a couple of years ago and reshot the same subjects with my new Sony Alpha 900. These pictures are a couple years apart but still should give some info on the capabilities of the two media. To make it short, here are my samples (67 on the left Alpha 900 on the right).

[attachment=15800:Default1.jpg]

These images are very small crops. The image from the Alpha 900 was upscaled using bicubic smoother to have the same dimensions as the Pentax 67. The Alpha 900 image may need some sharpening because of the upscaling. A sharpened version is below:

[attachment=15801:Sharpened.jpg]

My take:

In my view the two pictures are about on par. Both can be adjusted significantly. IMHO the 67 image still has an edge in sharpness and maybe color. Both can be adjusted quite a lot, however.

Sample files can be downloaded here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/LLStuff/P67_VS_Alpha900/index.html (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/LLStuff/P67_VS_Alpha900/index.html)

Technical details for 67:

Pentax 67
Fuji Provia 100
Scanned at 3200 PPI on Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro

Provia image has "Landscape sharpening" while Alppha 900 image has default sharpening.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on July 30, 2009, 02:41:23 pm

I think the digital image clearly keeps more detail and texture. Grain on the film version can be interpreted as extra sharpness (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm), but if you look closely you'll see it's just an illusion and the digital camera wins.

Regards.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Gemmtech on July 30, 2009, 02:47:42 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
I think the digital image clearly keeps more detail and texture. Grain on the film version can be interpreted as extra sharpness (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm), but if you look closely you'll see it's just an illusion and the digital camera wins.

Regards.

I had to read the original post twice because for me the image on the right is clearly superior, is this the A900?  No contest.  I guess it's true, "It's all in the eye of the beholder"

Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 30, 2009, 02:49:04 pm
Thanks Guillermo, nice to have you watching over me!

Regarding the issue at hand I may or may not agree with you. My comparison is somewhat sloppy, but I wanted to share my findings ASAP.

The issue is partly that sharpening really matters and the images are different both in tonality, color and size. Your observation is much appreciated, and I'm probably going to revisit the issue in the coming couple of days. As you may have noticed I added a link where the images can be downloaded.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: GLuijk
I think the digital image clearly keeps more detail and texture. Grain on the film version can be interpreted as extra sharpness (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm), but if you look closely you'll see it's just an illusion and the digital camera wins.

Regards.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: MarkL on July 31, 2009, 07:44:09 am
It would be interesting to see if the 6x7 improves much by using an imacon and also a drum scanner.

I've moved over to stitching with my D700 for most landscapes from shooting 6x7 provia. I haven't done any direct comparisons with my own gear but I have to stitich a number of D700 frames togther to feel I'm getting close to my imacon scanned 6x7 film.

Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Anders_HK on July 31, 2009, 10:40:55 am
@ Erik,

Read the post I linked above of my comparison ZD vs. Velvia 50 in Mamiya 7. I am rather certain the ZD at low ISO is more sharp than the Sony. Thus, proper scanned on a drum your 6x7 slide is destined to beat the Sony in resolution, colors etc hands down. Care to make a bet???? It serious would be interested see that slide drum scanned, if original is sharp.

I must honest state that not even my 35mm slides from Minolta Dimage SE were lack of detail as that scan of 6x7.

Above per my honest experience. Thus I shoot more film in addition to digital; now also 4x5.

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 31, 2009, 12:23:49 pm
Hej Anders,

Just a few observations:

1) There is of course the question of weather the 67 slide is critically sharp.
2) The 67 slide is taken with a Pentax 67 with a 90/2.8 lens and it is very well possible that it is less sharp than your Mamiya 7. The tests I have seen on the Mamya lenses were generally excellent while the Pentax is at best middle of the road.
3) The Pentax 67 has issues with vibration from both mirror and shutter, but I controlled this as well I could.
4) The image you see is a very small crop at actual pixels. The original image is about 7000x8500 pixels the crop is about 1000x1000 pixels. Grain is clearly visible, so the scanner has resolved that.
5) The image is shot on Provia not Velvia (Velvia has better grain in my experience)
6) Regarding colors I´d suggest that you are slightly in error. Colors are created both in capture (and determined by the filters in the bayer array) and in postprocessing, where you can essentially achieve any color.
7) The engineers at Fuji developed a color rendition for Velvia which is much liked by many photographers, but far from all. Joseph Holmes does not like Velvia at all, for instance. I'm pretty sure that digital capture can be processed into Velvia like color.

I could unfortunately not find the link to your post, I sure would like to check.

These images were not intended as test images, but I happened to have shot the same subject with the two different systems. A side by side comparison shooting the same subject at the same time may have been less error prone.

A side note, I have noticed that some photographers don't like digital, I have respect for that. It seems that a majority of photographers prefer digital and I also have respect for that.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Anders_HK
@ Erik,

Read the post I linked above of my comparison ZD vs. Velvia 50 in Mamiya 7. I am rather certain the ZD at low ISO is more sharp than the Sony. Thus, proper scanned on a drum your 6x7 slide is destined to beat the Sony in resolution, colors etc hands down. Care to make a bet???? It serious would be interested see that slide drum scanned, if original is sharp.

I must honest state that not even my 35mm slides from Minolta Dimage SE were lack of detail as that scan of 6x7.

Above per my honest experience. Thus I shoot more film in addition to digital; now also 4x5.

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Pete Ferling on July 31, 2009, 01:19:07 pm
No doubt a decent drum scan could yield a different result.  However, Erik's test is here most likely a real case scenario for the majority of us who shoot film and do not have access to expensive drum scanners.
I figured this lesson out when shooting a favorite winter scene of mine, and my film Mamiya froze up on me.  So I dragged out my 40d and performed a 3-pan and stitch.  The 40" wide print was very revealing; just as sharp and detailed of the same scene done earlier with MF film.

However, there are times where I know that a 3pan stitch, including +/-2 stop bracket grouping with digital to preserve hightlights and open shadows, can be nailed with a single shot of MF 160VC.  Of course I'm using a crop sensor and it requires work.  Therefore, sharpness and pixel counts aside.  Do you have any examples in regards to lattitude or range?
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 31, 2009, 02:43:00 pm
Hi,

I am not shooting print film so I cannot speak about that. Regarding slide film I'd say that it has a five stop dynamic range, like two stop + and 3 stop - . The Velvia has a very high density, about 4, meaning that black is 10000 times darker then clear film, that is about 13 stops, but it corresponds to a much smaller dynamic range on the subject side. I guess that both the Imacon and a real drum scanner can extract much more of that dynamic range than a normal CCD scanner. Drum scanners use photo multiplier tubes.

On the other hand I'm pretty sure that noise is going up in the dark areas whatever technology is used.

You may check this article: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/fil...l.summary1.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html)

It's interesting to note that, according to the above article, Velvia is significantly better than Provia that I used in my comparison. I have the same impression. That may contribute to Anders's preference for analogue Velvia, other factors may be better technique, especially in scanning, but also taste. I have seen some of Anders work and find it pretty impressive!

Best regards
Erik




Quote from: Pete Ferling
No doubt a decent drum scan could yield a different result.  However, Erik's test is here most likely a real case scenario for the majority of us who shoot film and do not have access to expensive drum scanners.
I figured this lesson out when shooting a favorite winter scene of mine, and my film Mamiya froze up on me.  So I dragged out my 40d and performed a 3-pan and stitch.  The 40" wide print was very revealing; just as sharp and detailed of the same scene done earlier with MF film.

However, there are times where I know that a 3pan stitch, including +/-2 stop bracket grouping with digital to preserve hightlights and open shadows, can be nailed with a single shot of MF 160VC.  Of course I'm using a crop sensor and it requires work.  Therefore, sharpness and pixel counts aside.  Do you have any examples in regards to lattitude or range?
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Rob C on July 31, 2009, 03:05:11 pm
[quote name='ErikKaffehr' date='Jul 31 2009, 04:23 PM' post='301221']
Hej Anders,

Just a few observations:

1) There is of course the question of weather the 67 slide is critically sharp.
2) The 67 slide is taken with a Pentax 67 with a 90/2.8 lens and it is very well possible that it is less sharp than your Mamiya 7. The tests I have seen on the Mamya lenses were generally excellent while the Pentax is at best middle of the road.
3) The Pentax 67 has issues with vibration from both mirror and shutter, but I controlled this as well I could.




Erik

I also had a Pentax 67 ll and after a few months decided to let it go. I went back to Nikon. The reasons? Mostly your third point (shutter), and I proved it to myself because with that camera, I only operated it on a huge Gitzo with mu in operation. But I also had issues with the 55mm wide and the fact that 135 film really was a better option for me came with the realisation that I´d changed to 6x7 for the wrong reasons: imagined advantage in the stock world, just as digital was starting to impact! Timing has often let me down. :-(

Rob C
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Anders_HK on August 01, 2009, 09:53:59 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hej Anders,

Just a few observations:

1) There is of course the question of weather the 67 slide is critically sharp.
2) The 67 slide is taken with a Pentax 67 with a 90/2.8 lens and it is very well possible that it is less sharp than your Mamiya 7. The tests I have seen on the Mamya lenses were generally excellent while the Pentax is at best middle of the road.
3) The Pentax 67 has issues with vibration from both mirror and shutter, but I controlled this as well I could.
4) The image you see is a very small crop at actual pixels. The original image is about 7000x8500 pixels the crop is about 1000x1000 pixels. Grain is clearly visible, so the scanner has resolved that.
5) The image is shot on Provia not Velvia (Velvia has better grain in my experience)
6) Regarding colors I´d suggest that you are slightly in error. Colors are created both in capture (and determined by the filters in the bayer array) and in postprocessing, where you can essentially achieve any color.
7) The engineers at Fuji developed a color rendition for Velvia which is much liked by many photographers, but far from all. Joseph Holmes does not like Velvia at all, for instance. I'm pretty sure that digital capture can be processed into Velvia like color.

I could unfortunately not find the link to your post, I sure would like to check.

These images were not intended as test images, but I happened to have shot the same subject with the two different systems. A side by side comparison shooting the same subject at the same time may have been less error prone.

A side note, I have noticed that some photographers don't like digital, I have respect for that. It seems that a majority of photographers prefer digital and I also have respect for that.

Best regards
Erik

Hej Erik,

Here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=20970 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970) or search "MFDB challenge".

"I'm pretty sure that digital capture can be processed into Velvia like color." - Noone yet has to my knowledge succeeded, since it is very difficult to replicate the rendering of Velvia 50 and for various shots in different conditions. And processing with many adjustments are time consuming. On contrary with Aptus 65 and Leica M8 colors are already at a very pleasing departure point already at default settings in e.g. CS3, and such departure point  (though not Velvia like) is something which is unlike any other digital cameras I have used and saves time.  It is true that not everyone likes Velvia, but for landscape photography it has a truly amazing and beloved rendering of colors in a much pleasing way and enhances just the right colors etc, and... low and behold it has black levels. To be frank, contrary to what many think in digital terms, it is pleasing to have a certain level of black levels in a photo, also s digital one!

"I have noticed that some photographers don't like digital, I have respect for that." - So do I and for vice versa, but I think the key thing to realize is that film and digital have a different rendering and it depends also what we shoot. I like both, and in different ways. Yet Velvia has a means of rendering that is truly magic for landscapes! - also to point of pleasingly absorbing and enhancing colors that you barely saw.

"It seems that a majority of photographers prefer digital and I also have respect for that." - Yes, on LL and a number of other forums because it is primarily centered about the latest gear, and frank many of us are sold on that, are we not? Following website have many very nice film images, check threads under "On Photography"; http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/)

As I said, I use both film and digital but for capturing in different ways. Right now I am struck by how amazing simple it is with 4x5, and how accurate one can control the image by taking time and slow for each image, and spot metering accurate. Of course, the last can also be done with digital...  

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Plekto on August 01, 2009, 02:35:10 pm
I still prefer grain over blurring.  The Sony is obviously suffering from a very heavy AA filter.  The film also has better colors, IMO.  But they are indeed very close.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Rob C on August 01, 2009, 05:11:15 pm
Quote from: Plekto
I still prefer grain over blurring.  The Sony is obviously suffering from a very heavy AA filter.  The film also has better colors, IMO.  But they are indeed very close.



Have to agree about grain looking nicer than gloop. Colour depends also on lighting - can´t make a real choice on that score as the light isn´t the same. Snag is, digital is just so convenient...

Rob C
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 01, 2009, 06:44:40 pm
Hi!

Sony is upscaled to same resolution, sharpening matters a lot. I'll probably redo the comparison with another crop and Photokit sharpener applied to both.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Plekto
I still prefer grain over blurring.  The Sony is obviously suffering from a very heavy AA filter.  The film also has better colors, IMO.  But they are indeed very close.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 01, 2009, 06:46:55 pm
Thanks, I recall the pictures!

I even made a raw conversion just to find out that my interpretation was pretty boring!

By the way, Velvia was my choice before going into digital, I liked it a lot.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Anders_HK
Hej Erik,

Here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=20970 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970) or search "MFDB challenge".

"I'm pretty sure that digital capture can be processed into Velvia like color." - Noone yet has to my knowledge succeeded, since it is very difficult to replicate the rendering of Velvia 50 and for various shots in different conditions. And processing with many adjustments are time consuming. On contrary with Aptus 65 and Leica M8 colors are already at a very pleasing departure point already at default settings in e.g. CS3, and such departure point  (though not Velvia like) is something which is unlike any other digital cameras I have used and saves time.  It is true that not everyone likes Velvia, but for landscape photography it has a truly amazing and beloved rendering of colors in a much pleasing way and enhances just the right colors etc, and... low and behold it has black levels. To be frank, contrary to what many think in digital terms, it is pleasing to have a certain level of black levels in a photo, also s digital one!

"I have noticed that some photographers don't like digital, I have respect for that." - So do I and for vice versa, but I think the key thing to realize is that film and digital have a different rendering and it depends also what we shoot. I like both, and in different ways. Yet Velvia has a means of rendering that is truly magic for landscapes! - also to point of pleasingly absorbing and enhancing colors that you barely saw.

"It seems that a majority of photographers prefer digital and I also have respect for that." - Yes, on LL and a number of other forums because it is primarily centered about the latest gear, and frank many of us are sold on that, are we not? Following website have many very nice film images, check threads under "On Photography"; http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/)

As I said, I use both film and digital but for capturing in different ways. Right now I am struck by how amazing simple it is with 4x5, and how accurate one can control the image by taking time and slow for each image, and spot metering accurate. Of course, the last can also be done with digital...  

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Plekto on August 02, 2009, 02:08:19 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

Sony is upscaled to same resolution, sharpening matters a lot. I'll probably redo the comparison with another crop and Photokit sharpener applied to both.

Best regards
Erik

I'd almost rather see a 1:1 crop of each, because I've found that sharpening and tweaking in most programs does far more harm than good.  That said, I wish there was a way to turn it all off on the Sony, but as mentioned in previous threads, there is some software AA going on as well as a fairly heavy AA filter as well.  The photos out of the A900 look smooth and clean.  Very much so.  But it's because it's effectively down-sampling/glossing over resolution until you get about the same results as a 16MP or so DB.

Now, for a use and forget about it camera, that's great.  Less processing and tweaking - just drop in a raw converter and tweak the levels a bit - done and off to the client or emailed off to the editing department.  For speed and production work, this is probably a great thing.  But for artist types, where we're squeezing every pixel, it's a bit of a letdown.  

That said, I still am firmly of the camp that thinks that Bayer patterns are the major problem now.  It was a kludge to begin with that worked for many years, but now it's holding everything back.  But nobody is making an alternative that competes.  9-10MP equivalent isn't close, though.  I keep waiting but so far... yeah... always "next year"
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 03, 2009, 12:21:24 am
Hi,

I'll fix another crop, partly because there is something odd with the detail I choose. I can make 1:1 crops, without scaling. I don't think that there is software AA on the Sony, as raw processing was done with Lightroom. Regarding the issue Gabor Reported I don't think it is relevant in this context, it's more related to the handling of very dark pixels.

Regarding resampling the Sony image was not downsampled but upsampled. I would say that the comparison was tilted in favor of film, except capture.

Some sharpening is always needed. The ideas whit using Photokit Sharpener is that it has among other things well tought out sharpening for film. I'd certainly use it for film.

Best regards
Erik  

Quote from: Plekto
I'd almost rather see a 1:1 crop of each, because I've found that sharpening and tweaking in most programs does far more harm than good.  That said, I wish there was a way to turn it all off on the Sony, but as mentioned in previous threads, there is some software AA going on as well as a fairly heavy AA filter as well.  The photos out of the A900 look smooth and clean.  Very much so.  But it's because it's effectively down-sampling/glossing over resolution until you get about the same results as a 16MP or so DB.

Now, for a use and forget about it camera, that's great.  Less processing and tweaking - just drop in a raw converter and tweak the levels a bit - done and off to the client or emailed off to the editing department.  For speed and production work, this is probably a great thing.  But for artist types, where we're squeezing every pixel, it's a bit of a letdown.  

That said, I still am firmly of the camp that thinks that Bayer patterns are the major problem now.  It was a kludge to begin with that worked for many years, but now it's holding everything back.  But nobody is making an alternative that competes.  9-10MP equivalent isn't close, though.  I keep waiting but so far... yeah... always "next year"
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: barryfitzgerald on August 03, 2009, 08:25:04 am
Interesting post.

However as is always the case, so many variations that make life hard, type of film used, processing, scanner, software for scanning.
At the end of the day 1:1 crops will never reveal why some of us like film, it's not something you can "test" just a love of the "look" you get.

Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Hank on August 03, 2009, 11:49:32 am
There's a huge difference for us in the photo business, even with comparable results.  In the days of yore we spent between $25,000 and $30,000 a year on film and processing.  Last year we bought and processed a little less than 100 sheets of 4x5 film and no 120, 220 or 35mm film.  The $27,500 savings (by actual accounting for 2008) went into our pockets.  We reserve film use to 4x5 only, which we use on jobs that require the movements of the camera rather than the film itself.  Give us an affordable digital camera with movements and our film use will be exactly 0.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Rob C on August 03, 2009, 01:10:04 pm
Quote from: Hank
There's a huge difference for us in the photo business, even with comparable results.  In the days of yore we spent between $25,000 and $30,000 a year on film and processing.  Last year we bought and processed a little less than 100 sheets of 4x5 film and no 120, 220 or 35mm film.  The $27,500 savings (by actual accounting for 2008) went into our pockets.  We reserve film use to 4x5 only, which we use on jobs that require the movements of the camera rather than the film itself.  Give us an affordable digital camera with movements and our film use will be exactly 0.




Hank, does that 27,500 dollar saving include the time/expense of doing the digital "processing" instead, or have you not put a price against that in the calculation?

Rob C
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Hank on August 03, 2009, 01:53:01 pm
Good question Rob. It's not included simply because the time commitment is similar between the two.  In our studio shooting all photo sorting had to be done on the light table and negatives had to be mounted and cropped before shipping to the lab, which was in fact much more time consuming than review of positives on the monitor and subsequent digital image processing.  We're also able to transmit files directly to our lab rather than mailing negatives for further cost savings as well as faster turn around.  Those shipping savings are not in the $27k either.  

We also aren't scanning, then processing for digital uses.  In fact, in our experience the comparison of scanned film files versus original digital capture makes film cameras suitable for use as boat anchors in our business.  Without a heckuvalotta work on the scanned files from a very high end scanner, film capture just doesn't measure up.  And with our commercial/industrial/scientific/aerial clients, we're able to get the photos into their hands in hours rather than the sometimes weeks required for them to wait for us to ship out the film for processing (we're in a remote location), get it back and mount it in sheets, then ship it out to them.  That capability alone has increased our contracting in those venues.  With the capability of onsite review rather than waiting for film, we also bracket less and have experienced almost no reshoots which we have to pay for... a HUGE savings in worst cases.

And from a purely business standpoint, the lag we used to experience between original film capture and portfolio review with the client was hugely costly.  In the interim they lost the "spirit" generated in the session and had time to consider their print purchases a week or more "in the cold hard light of day," and make much more conservative purchases.  With digital capture we reserve time between sessions for immediate portfolio review and on-the-spot ordering, which has resulted in much freer spending.  Call it "impulse buying" and you'd be accurate, but the switch to digital capture punched up our print sales the first year by about 35% for the same volume of shoots.  Online viewing of private portfolios has probably quadrupled our "aftermarket" sales to distant family members too.  When working with albums of printed proofs which family members mailed to Aunt Susie in Susquehanna, it was almost not worth our effort, much less the long waits.  Yet we had to do it at client request.  On average we now generate aftermarket sales adding up to around 30% on top of the original print orders by the initial client.  It seems "sexy" or hi-tech to clients to email the site address and password to distant family and friends for their viewing pleasure and print purchases, I guess.  But they love being able to do it and it generates significant additional income to us for the small effort and expense of posting and maintaining the online portfolios at a host site.

We had a funny (odd) experience last year in the shaky economy.  Even though our client load was down around 20%, our gross only dropped 3%.  Sales were fewer, but almost without exception the clients we did have come through the door spent more.  I can't explain it.  But if you delve a little deeper and look at our net last year, per-client income using digital capture was still up more than 50% over our best-ever year in 15 years of film capture.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: feppe on August 03, 2009, 02:08:27 pm
Quote from: Hank
Good question Rob. It's not included simply because the time commitment is similar between the two.  In our studio shooting all photo sorting had to be done on the light table and negatives had to be mounted and cropped before shipping to the lab, which was in fact much more time consuming than review of positives on the monitor and subsequent digital image processing.  We're also able to transmit files directly to our lab rather than mailing negatives for further cost savings as well as faster turn around.  Those shipping savings are not in the $27k either.  

We also aren't scanning, then processing for digital uses.  In fact, in our experience the comparison of scanned film files versus original digital capture makes film cameras suitable for use as boat anchors in our business.  Without a heckuvalotta work on the scanned files from a very high end scanner, film capture just doesn't measure up.  And with our commercial/industrial/scientific/aerial clients, we're able to get the photos into their hands in hours rather than the sometimes weeks required for them to wait for us to ship out the film for processing (we're in a remote location), get it back and mount it in sheets, then ship it out to them.  That capability alone has increased our contracting in those venues.  With the capability of onsite review rather than waiting for film, we also bracket less and have experienced almost no reshoots which we have to pay for... a HUGE savings in worst cases.

And from a purely business standpoint, the lag we used to experience between original film capture and portfolio review with the client was hugely costly.  In the interim they lost the "spirit" generated in the session and had time to consider their print purchases a week or more "in the cold hard light of day," and make much more conservative purchases.  With digital capture we reserve time between sessions for immediate portfolio review and on-the-spot ordering, which has resulted in much freer spending.  Call it "impulse buying" and you'd be accurate, but the switch to digital capture punched up our print sales the first year by about 35% for the same volume of shoots.  Online viewing of private portfolios has probably quadrupled our "aftermarket" sales to distant family members too.  When working with albums of printed proofs which family members mailed to Aunt Susie in Susquehanna, it was almost not worth our effort, much less the long waits.  Yet we had to do it at client request.  On average we now generate aftermarket sales adding up to around 30% on top of the original print orders by the initial client.  It seems "sexy" or hi-tech to clients to email the site address and password to distant family and friends for their viewing pleasure and print purchases, I guess.  But they love being able to do it and it generates significant additional income to us for the small effort and expense of posting and maintaining the online portfolios at a host site.

We had a funny (odd) experience last year in the shaky economy.  Even though our client load was down around 20%, our gross only dropped 3%.  Sales were fewer, but almost without exception the clients we did have come through the door spent more.  I can't explain it.  But if you delve a little deeper and look at our net last year, per-client income using digital capture was still up more than 50% over our best-ever year in 15 years of film capture.

That is perhaps the most intriguing look at the business side of high-volume photography business I've read here. It's nice to see some pros in the business seeing financial benefits from digital.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 03, 2009, 03:27:14 pm
Hi,

And you even save some nickles on Polaroids...

Erik

Quote from: Hank
Good question Rob. It's not included simply because the time commitment is similar between the two.  In our studio shooting all photo sorting had to be done on the light table and negatives had to be mounted and cropped before shipping to the lab, which was in fact much more time consuming than review of positives on the monitor and subsequent digital image processing.  We're also able to transmit files directly to our lab rather than mailing negatives for further cost savings as well as faster turn around.  Those shipping savings are not in the $27k either.  

We also aren't scanning, then processing for digital uses.  In fact, in our experience the comparison of scanned film files versus original digital capture makes film cameras suitable for use as boat anchors in our business.  Without a heckuvalotta work on the scanned files from a very high end scanner, film capture just doesn't measure up.  And with our commercial/industrial/scientific/aerial clients, we're able to get the photos into their hands in hours rather than the sometimes weeks required for them to wait for us to ship out the film for processing (we're in a remote location), get it back and mount it in sheets, then ship it out to them.  That capability alone has increased our contracting in those venues.  With the capability of onsite review rather than waiting for film, we also bracket less and have experienced almost no reshoots which we have to pay for... a HUGE savings in worst cases.

And from a purely business standpoint, the lag we used to experience between original film capture and portfolio review with the client was hugely costly.  In the interim they lost the "spirit" generated in the session and had time to consider their print purchases a week or more "in the cold hard light of day," and make much more conservative purchases.  With digital capture we reserve time between sessions for immediate portfolio review and on-the-spot ordering, which has resulted in much freer spending.  Call it "impulse buying" and you'd be accurate, but the switch to digital capture punched up our print sales the first year by about 35% for the same volume of shoots.  Online viewing of private portfolios has probably quadrupled our "aftermarket" sales to distant family members too.  When working with albums of printed proofs which family members mailed to Aunt Susie in Susquehanna, it was almost not worth our effort, much less the long waits.  Yet we had to do it at client request.  On average we now generate aftermarket sales adding up to around 30% on top of the original print orders by the initial client.  It seems "sexy" or hi-tech to clients to email the site address and password to distant family and friends for their viewing pleasure and print purchases, I guess.  But they love being able to do it and it generates significant additional income to us for the small effort and expense of posting and maintaining the online portfolios at a host site.

We had a funny (odd) experience last year in the shaky economy.  Even though our client load was down around 20%, our gross only dropped 3%.  Sales were fewer, but almost without exception the clients we did have come through the door spent more.  I can't explain it.  But if you delve a little deeper and look at our net last year, per-client income using digital capture was still up more than 50% over our best-ever year in 15 years of film capture.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Hank on August 03, 2009, 03:32:24 pm
Quote from: feppe
That is perhaps the most intriguing look at the business side of high-volume photography business I've read here. It's nice to see some pros in the business seeing financial benefits from digital.

Thanks.  My wife would probably spank my hands for saying so much if she read this.  And I guess that's the point, since she's the professional business manager.

In her words:  "A photography business is 5% photography and 95% business."  

Those boring things such as business plans, cost analysis, investment strategies, amortization schedules, advertising budgets, and service to client needs have a much greater impact on business success than your sentiment and the brand label on your gear.  We're in business, and the venue happens to require use of cameras.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: feppe on August 03, 2009, 03:57:33 pm
Quote from: Hank
Thanks.  My wife would probably spank my hands for saying so much if she read this.  And I guess that's the point, since she's the professional business manager.

In her words:  "A photography business is 5% photography and 95% business."  

Those boring things such as business plans, cost analysis, investment strategies, amortization schedules, advertising budgets, and service to client needs have a much greater impact on business success than your sentiment and the brand label on your gear.  We're in business, and the venue happens to require use of cameras.

That's what I've gathered over the years. And that's why I don't seriously consider going pro - photography is a way to occasionally get away from business, which as a finance pro is my daily work life.

Of course having someone else to do the business side would be an option...
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Hank on August 03, 2009, 04:57:08 pm
Quote from: feppe
Of course having someone else to do the business side would be an option...




That is unless they have veto power!  You should hear our discussions when I tell my wife we need the latest Jones-pacing camera, lens, car or computer.  I've grown to hate those "business" discussions, even as I fully appreciate their financial benefits.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Rob C on August 03, 2009, 05:28:13 pm
Quote from: Hank
Those boring things such as business plans, cost analysis, investment strategies, amortization schedules, advertising budgets, and service to client needs have a much greater impact on business success than your sentiment and the brand label on your gear.  We're in business, and the venue happens to require use of cameras.




And that, Hank, has been my ruination ever since 1966!

Accepted all the above points you made - even if from within my film context - but the heart simply refused to listen to the head. I lived in a whisky-producing culture but took to shooting girls. Even I can´t go figure, as they say. Others took to shooting bottles etc. but strangely, most of them went down a long time before I retired (the people, not the bottles). There doesn´t seem to be much logic about that, other than the fact that a one-man show can weather some types of storm that a large studio can´t. Perhaps the worst option is a medium-sized outfit.

Thanks for you considered response; nice when those come along!

Rob C
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: feppe on August 03, 2009, 06:15:26 pm
Quote from: Hank
That is unless they have veto power!  You should hear our discussions when I tell my wife we need the latest Jones-pacing camera, lens, car or computer.  I've grown to hate those "business" discussions, even as I fully appreciate their financial benefits.

Oh, I can imagine fully. My dayjob is doing exactly that in a bit different business environment. But I used to be a fincance controller / producer at an ad agency, so I was the guy telling the director "no, we can't build a custom rig to flip the stuntman 360 degrees since it costs twice as much as the budget for the entire ad," while keeping the professional (and personal) relationship healthy. For the record, I managed to do that.

Being at the receiving end of such discussions would be... a humbling experience.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Fine_Art on August 07, 2009, 01:03:17 am
Quote from: Plekto
I'd almost rather see a 1:1 crop of each, because I've found that sharpening and tweaking in most programs does far more harm than good.  That said, I wish there was a way to turn it all off on the Sony, but as mentioned in previous threads, there is some software AA going on as well as a fairly heavy AA filter as well.  The photos out of the A900 look smooth and clean.  Very much so.  But it's because it's effectively down-sampling/glossing over resolution until you get about the same results as a 16MP or so DB.

Now, for a use and forget about it camera, that's great.  Less processing and tweaking - just drop in a raw converter and tweak the levels a bit - done and off to the client or emailed off to the editing department.  For speed and production work, this is probably a great thing.  But for artist types, where we're squeezing every pixel, it's a bit of a letdown.

Thats a strange claim. What do you have to back it up?

Imaging Resource gave it a very high resolution. Even that was done with in camera JPG.

"The chart above shows consolidated results from spatial frequency response measurements in both the horizontal and vertical axes. The "MTF 50" numbers tend to correlate best with visual perceptions of sharpness, so those are what I focus on here. The uncorrected resolution figures are 2,340 line widths per picture height in the horizontal direction (corresponding to the vertically-oriented edge), and 2,298 lines along the vertical axis (corresponding to the horizontally-oriented edge), for a combined average of 2,319 LW/PH. Correcting to a "standardized" sharpening with a one-pixel radius increased both vertical and horizontal resolution significantly, resulting in an average of 3,397 LW/PH, one of the highest resolutions we've seen yet.

To see what's going on, refer to the plots below, which show the actual edge profiles for both horizontal and vertical edges, in both their original and corrected forms. Here, you can see that there is fairly conservative in-camera sharpening applied (only slight bumps at the top ends, and no noticeable bumps at the bottom ends of the black edge profile curves). Imatest reports that the horizontal direction (vertical edge) is "undersharpened" by 15.4% while the vertical direction (horizontal edge) is undersharpened by 14.5%. Professionals and serious amateurs prefer this to oversharpening, and the A900's images respond very well to the use of strong/tight sharpening post-exposure in Photoshop or some other image editor. (That said, you should be able to extract still more fine detail if you begin with a RAW file, rather than a JPEG.)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900IMATEST.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900IMATEST.HTM)
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Plekto on August 07, 2009, 01:17:24 am
Quote from: Fine_Art
"The chart above shows consolidated results from spatial frequency response measurements in both the horizontal and vertical axes. The "MTF 50" numbers tend to correlate best with visual perceptions of sharpness, so those are what I focus on here. The uncorrected resolution figures are 2,340 line widths per picture height in the horizontal direction (corresponding to the vertically-oriented edge), and 2,298 lines along the vertical axis (corresponding to the horizontally-oriented edge), for a combined average of 2,319 LW/PH. Correcting to a "standardized" sharpening with a one-pixel radius increased both vertical and horizontal resolution significantly, resulting in an average of 3,397 LW/PH, one of the highest resolutions we've seen yet.

The problem is that despite artificial "sharpness" being applied, it looks like the whole thing is a tiny smidge out of focus due to the processing and filter that's built *into the camera*.  IIRC, there was a thread about this a long time ago here and how the A900 really wasn't turning off the AA even when you told it to do so.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Fine_Art on August 07, 2009, 01:43:23 am
Quote from: Plekto
The problem is that despite artificial "sharpness" being applied, it looks like the whole thing is a tiny smidge out of focus due to the processing and filter that's built *into the camera*.  IIRC, there was a thread about this a long time ago here and how the A900 really wasn't turning off the AA even when you told it to do so.

Thanks for the reply. I was fairly sure you were mistaken based on reading the following before in the D3x review at Popphoto.

"IMAGE QUALITY

The D3X produces truly stunning pictures. Let's start with resolution, the chief benefit of that full-frame 24.5MP Sony-made CMOS sensor. At its lowest standard sensitivity of ISO 100, the D3X captured an off-the-charts Excellent 3180 lines. The only DSLR to beat it: Sony's own Alpha 900, whose 24.6MP sensor tested at 3230 lines. In real-life shooting, you'll barely see the difference."

I couldnt find where I read it. Here it is.
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Ni...D3X-Camera-Test (http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Nikon-D3X-Camera-Test)

DPR also rates the A900 over the D3x at low ISO. D3x takes it at high ISO.


3 sites couldnt rate the resolution so high if there was a strong AA filter. I dont think you can turn off the AA filter. Its a physical thing attached to the sensor. I think you are referring o the noise processing. Yes the Sony high ISO NR sucks. Im sure you can turn it off though. I have turned it of on my A350.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 07, 2009, 07:49:15 am
Hi,

AA is an actual physical device, normally a double bifringent crystal, you cannot turn it off. Regarding noise reduction there is some spacial noise reduction above 1600 ISO, than can be turned off. Now Gabor (Panopeeper) has found some phenomena which is present at low ISOs, the effect is there for sure, but it is not clear that it is noise reduction. Anyway NR has very little to do with AA-filtering. The thing Gabor found shows up as blochiness, not softness or unsharpness.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Plekto
The problem is that despite artificial "sharpness" being applied, it looks like the whole thing is a tiny smidge out of focus due to the processing and filter that's built *into the camera*.  IIRC, there was a thread about this a long time ago here and how the A900 really wasn't turning off the AA even when you told it to do so.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Gandalf on August 15, 2009, 02:16:42 pm
Getting back to the original question, I definitely prefer the MF film capture and I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints. I recently moved to the Sony A900 and the captures are very good, but far from MF.

@Fine_Art I'm guessing Plekto's claim comes from use. I would say the Sony may be about on par with an older 12-bit 16 MP MFDB like the Kodak. A more modern back that shoots a 16-bit capture will wipe the floor with the Sony, regardless of megapixles. There is a lot more to digital capture than pixels. Sensors are important, but IMO ADCs are real story.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 15, 2009, 03:43:18 pm
Hi,

How are you comparing MF and digital? Are you comparing scanned film or prints? If you compare with scanned film, what scanner do you use? What is your workflow?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Gandalf
Getting back to the original question, I definitely prefer the MF film capture and I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints. I recently moved to the Sony A900 and the captures are very good, but far from MF.

@Fine_Art I'm guessing Plekto's claim comes from use. I would say the Sony may be about on par with an older 12-bit 16 MP MFDB like the Kodak. A more modern back that shoots a 16-bit capture will wipe the floor with the Sony, regardless of megapixles. There is a lot more to digital capture than pixels. Sensors are important, but IMO ADCs are real story.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Fine_Art on August 15, 2009, 07:50:19 pm
Quote from: Gandalf
Getting back to the original question, I definitely prefer the MF film capture and I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints. I recently moved to the Sony A900 and the captures are very good, but far from MF.

@Fine_Art I'm guessing Plekto's claim comes from use. I would say the Sony may be about on par with an older 12-bit 16 MP MFDB like the Kodak. A more modern back that shoots a 16-bit capture will wipe the floor with the Sony, regardless of megapixles. There is a lot more to digital capture than pixels. Sensors are important, but IMO ADCs are real story.

I agree. I still use film myself. The 16 bit scanning is a big part of why.

Im sure the manufactures will dole out the 16bit, HDR, etc in dribs and drabs to get more money each time.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Anders_HK on August 15, 2009, 08:53:47 pm
Quote from: Gandalf
I personally have never see a DSLR capture that can match a MF film capture. MF digital can. It's not about 100% crops, it is about overall tonality and prints.

Shooting both MF digital and MF film I have to disagree. They are different medias with a different look. It all depends on what we shoot and prefer.

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ashley on August 20, 2009, 02:24:22 pm
Both of them look pretty close to me in real terms. I'd give the edge here to the 6x7 film for detail, but I suspect the smoother feel of the digital would probably render a more pleasing final image in print. It's pretty subjective though. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this discussion though is just how far digital has come in a few short years bearing in mind that we are comparing a 35mm DSLR here against a 6x7 film camera. Several years ago when I was shooting film just about every job was shot on the Hasselblad because clients demanded the extra quality of medium format but we can now match that with a relatively compact DSLR and see the results in minutes.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: georgl on August 20, 2009, 03:23:21 pm
Never had a Pentax 67, but these 6x7-scans look awful and I don't think they do the mdium film justice! A 6x7-slide/negative has to resolve only about 40lp/mm to match a 24MP-DSLR!
This one looks better: http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/ (http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/)

"...the D3X captured an off-the-charts Excellent 3180 lines. The only DSLR to beat it: Sony's own Alpha 900, whose 24.6MP sensor tested at 3230 lines...an average of 3,397 LW/PH..."

What are they measuring here?    

P.S. The theoretical (unreachable) max. resolution of the D3X/A900 is 3024 linepairs!!!
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 20, 2009, 04:35:42 pm
Hi,

You may stop thinking about resolution and start thinking about sharpness. These terms are loosely related. The reason is that what human eye and brain perceive as sharpness is the difference in dark and light on tiny details. A good measure for that is MTF. It seems that much research suggest that an MTF of around 50% is pretty relevant of for our perception of sharpness.

Now, according to data from Fuji and others Fujichrome Velvia (which happens to be the sharpest slide film for common use ever made) achieves about 50 lp/mm at 50% MTF, this is pretty close to the 40 lp/mm you mention. Now, multiply this with MTF for the lens. Leica has a design  target 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm. If we multiply 50% with 50% we get just 25%. So we could suggest that a well designed Leica lens achieves at least 25% MTF at 50 lp/mm, because MTF drops rapidly with increasing lp/mm we may assume that a Leica lens may achieve 50% MTF at 40 lp/mm. So if you take the best lenses, designed for 135 and the best slide film you may get to 40lp/mm. A medium format lens designed for film may not get even close!

Sorry this is simple math.


You may check Norman Koren's website for more information, it's really excellent: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html)

The situation may be somewhat different with print film or black and white. Especially T-MAX 100 has excellent MTF characteristics and T-MAX 100 with the very best lenses may achieve phnatastic sharpness. But this comparison is Velvia on a Pentax 67 agains full format digital.

Now, that awful scan will probably enlarge just fine to something at 70x100 cm, I know because I have done it. It's good enough to impress professionals who have worked with every format from 135 to 8x12". (I have two good friends who have worked at two of Swedens top professional photo labs and they are impressed). The print I made were printed on Durst Lambda at 200 LPI, which the lab recommends above A3 size prints.

The scanner I use is known for a bit harsh reproduction characteristics. There is a special adapter made to make it softer.

Regarding 3180 lines I don't know. If you are looking at resolution charts they can have something called false resolution, or contrast inversion wich give to high values. This is related to aliasing. If a program like Imatest is used it may indicate that MTF is above 50% at the Nyquist limit. the figures I have achieved are:

Sony Alpha 900, with SONY SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA at f/8 and 100 ISO:  2890 LW/PH at 50% MTF
Pentax 67 with Pentax 90/2.8 at f/8 on Velvia with Vuescan and sharpening: 2127 at 50% MTF

Based on film characteristics and MTF data on MF lenses it seems that the 67 figure is in the ballpark. That calculation ignores MTF in scanner and shrapening, however.

Here are my complete findings: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-sony-alpha-900 (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)

Please note that the above are based on a different shot with Velvia 100.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr


Quote from: georgl
Never had a Pentax 67, but these 6x7-scans look awful and I don't think they do the mdium film justice! A 6x7-slide/negative has to resolve only about 40lp/mm to match a 24MP-DSLR!
This one looks better: http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/ (http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/)

"...the D3X captured an off-the-charts Excellent 3180 lines. The only DSLR to beat it: Sony's own Alpha 900, whose 24.6MP sensor tested at 3230 lines...an average of 3,397 LW/PH..."

What are they measuring here?    

P.S. The theoretical (unreachable) max. resolution of the D3X/A900 is 3024 linepairs!!!
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: georgl on August 20, 2009, 05:26:12 pm
High contrast up to high frequencies is one of the biggest advantages of digital and therefore sharpness perception. But these 6x7 don't seem to contain much information at all, not even at low contrast!

Very problematic for those comparisons is the fact that the negative/slide itself isn't usable, you need another optical/chemical process to create a print or a "digital camera" like a scanner. It's MTF is multiplied with the source-MTF in results in a lower MTF in the end.

But when properly done and processed, a scan from modern film is capable of much more than 6MP @ 24x36mm or 24MP @ 6x7, which is well shown in several scans also available on the net.

Here is one of those (but done with a tiny Minolta-lens): http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_..._resolution.htm (http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_resolution.htm)
40lp/mm easily resolved!

Modern Leica-lenses resolve about 80% contrast at 40lp/mm, high-quality medium-format lenses a little bit less (60-70%) but as I said, I have no idea what this Pentax is capable of!? But we should be careful making general assumptions "film vs. digital", it's sad to see that powerful tools like medium-format-cameras aren't appreciated because of that.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 20, 2009, 06:19:44 pm
Hi!

A few comments:

1) Leica has a design target of 50-50-50. I know that 50-50 stands for 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm, but not what the last figure stands for.
2) Here is the best info I have on MF lenses: http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html (http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html)
They don't have Pentax 80/2.8 but the Pentax 645 75/2.8 is like this:
http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/Pe...75_28-631.shtml (http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/Pe645SMC-A75_28-631.shtml)
It achieves about 70% at 40 lp/mm on axis but falls rapidly off axis, this is fairly typical, even if some lenses perform better.
3) 50 lp/mm is significantly more than 40 lp/mm
4) Norman Koren shows an MTF curve for Velvia here, it's about 50% at 50 lp/mm here: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html)

I have shot some new images and did different comparisons: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-sony-alpha-900 (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)

In the above article I also measured MTF with Imatest and arrived at about 2300 LW/PH at 50% MTF. I estimated about 2700 LW/PH at 30% MTF from MTF data for film and lens, on axis, and the measured figure is quite close.

Images made with my Pentax 75/2.8, Dimage Scan Multi Pro, Vuescan and tools produce 70x100 cm (27 x 39") prints that impress experts with experince from working at the best professional labs of Sweden, and yes they look awful when displayed actual pixels. I did not make any big prints from my test images.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: georgl
High contrast up to high frequencies is one of the biggest advantages of digital and therefore sharpness perception. But these 6x7 don't seem to contain much information at all, not even at low contrast!

Very problematic for those comparisons is the fact that the negative/slide itself isn't usable, you need another optical/chemical process to create a print or a "digital camera" like a scanner. It's MTF is multiplied with the source-MTF in results in a lower MTF in the end.

But when properly done and processed, a scan from modern film is capable of much more than 6MP @ 24x36mm or 24MP @ 6x7, which is well shown in several scans also available on the net.

Here is one of those (but done with a tiny Minolta-lens): http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_..._resolution.htm (http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_resolution.htm)
40lp/mm easily resolved!

Modern Leica-lenses resolve about 80% contrast at 40lp/mm, high-quality medium-format lenses a little bit less (60-70%) but as I said, I have no idea what this Pentax is capable of!? But we should be careful making general assumptions "film vs. digital", it's sad to see that powerful tools like medium-format-cameras aren't appreciated because of that.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Anders_HK on August 21, 2009, 12:01:36 am
Quote from: georgl
Never had a Pentax 67, but these 6x7-scans look awful and I don't think they do the mdium film justice! A 6x7-slide/negative has to resolve only about 40lp/mm to match a 24MP-DSLR!
This one looks better: http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/ (http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/)

... and that was on an Imacon, not a high quality drum scanner...  

@ Erik, I am Swedish. Lets face it, our country is a small one with 9 million people.... Back in 2003 (when more people shot film in Sweden) I had several 35mm Velvia 50 slides scanned in one of the top labs in Goteborg - results were not good, including they had problem with the colors...

Although I no more live in Sweden, how then do the labs in Sweden nowadays stack up to professional labs in big metropolitan areas in the world where there is still some market left for film? Unfortunate, per my own experience there are not that many professional and capable labs for film even in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Seoul nowadays - this is the unfortunate downside of film, but some labs do exist.

The positive side of film is that the images do not cease to impress people. Now that the world is digital that is perhaps even more true..., because different but at very high quality.  

With a Leica M8 and Leaf Aptus 65 I still shoot film... perhaps I should have stayed with it? The reason to switching digital in first place was that a "professional lab" in Busan South Korea in 2005 handed my three Velvia 50 slides back with fine scratches running across them...

Depending on subject, light etc, quality scanned 6x7, 617 and 4x5 beats my Aptus... as for which one is best... film and quality digital are different. Yes, at times I might like a shot from my Aptus better than from my 6x7, but far from always. The argument of 24MP dslrs beating 6x7 seem very lame... I cannot even say my Aptus does, and the 24MP DSLRs are of lesser quality...

Or to be more fair in comparison... instead of basing on substandard scanning, how about projecting the digital image from a dslr on a wall to compare with a quality shot and processed 6x7 slide with a pro 6x7 projector? I bet you $$$ on the slide will win.  

If Epson update their V750 I will buy one.  

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 21, 2009, 12:41:24 am
Hi Anders,

I'm not making an argument that 24 MP is better than 67. I just published two images shot significant time apart. That said, I had done some more tests and also done some more "math" and may now have an opinion of my own.

Regarding what you write I don't have any issues with the point you make. Except perhaps mentioning that I have a professional 67 projector, a Götschman 67 with a Schneider 150/2.8. I see more detail (and aberrations) on the scan than on the projected image. Image flatness is an issue in projection even using all glass mounting in GP-slide mounts. Doing a projection comparison is not possible because to my best knowledge there are no LCD projectors having 6000x4000 resolution. So it leaves us with comparing on screen and print.

Resolution/sharpness is just one issue. Visual impact is another. You have experience of high end digital and high end scanning and are in the position to make judgments most of us can't.

I have some more testing here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-sony-alpha-900 (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)

I'm pretty sure that there are some issues. The lens I have on the Pentax is for sure not one of the best ever built. The Pentax is old and focusing has not been calibrated. Film flatness is always an issue on 120.

Regarding my own experience with scanned 67 film it's essentially is that:

- It enlarges well
- But is noisy. My scanner is known to enhance grain patterns.
- My scanner cannot handle the desity ov Velvia


Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Anders_HK
... and that was on an Imacon, not a high quality drum scanner...  

@ Erik, I am Swedish. Lets face it, our country is a small one with 9 million people.... Back in 2003 (when more people shot film in Sweden) I had several 35mm Velvia 50 slides scanned in one of the top labs in Goteborg - results were not good, including they had problem with the colors...

How then do the labs in Sweden nowadays stack up to professional labs in big metropolitan areas in the world where there is still some market left for film? Unfortunate, per my own experience there are not that many professional and capable labs for film even in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Seoul nowadays - this is the unfortunate downside of film, but some labs do exist.

The positive side of film is that the images do not cease to impress people. Now that the world is digital that is perhaps even more true..., because different at very high quality.  

With a Leica M8 and Leaf Aptus 65 I still shoot film... perhaps I should have stayed with it? The reason to switching digital in first place was that a "professional lab" in Busan South Korea in 2005 handed my three Velvia 50 slides back with fine scratches running across them...

Depending on subject, light etc, quality scanned 6x7, 617 and 4x5 I shot beats my Aptus... as for which one is best... film and quality digital are different. The argument of 24MP dslrs beating 6x7 seem very lame... I cannot even say my Aptus does, and the 24MP DSLRs are of lesser quality...

Or to be more fair in comparison... instead of basing on substandard scanning, how about projecting the digital image from a dslr on a wall to compare with a quality shot and processed 6x7 slide with a pro 6x7 projector? I bet you $$$ on the slide will win.  

If Epson update their V750 I will buy one.  

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 21, 2009, 01:38:44 am
Hi,

This excellent article by Reichmann, Atkinson and Cramer is still relevant:

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

Best regards
Erik
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ashley on August 21, 2009, 04:09:36 am
I must have heard these debates about sharpness, resolution and means of measurement a thousand times but maths has never really been my strong point. You can't look at an image with a calculator and the idea of physically trying to measure these things rather bemuses me. Surely the only real measure is what it looks like when published in the chosen media? This may be subjective, but to me that is the only worthwhile comparison that exists.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Anders_HK on August 21, 2009, 04:34:54 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
The lens I have on the Pentax is for sure not one of the best ever built. The Pentax is old and focusing has not been calibrated. Film flatness is always an issue on 120.

Regarding my own experience with scanned 67 film it's essentially is that:

- It enlarges well
- But is noisy. My scanner is known to enhance grain patterns.
- My scanner cannot handle the desity ov Velvia


Best regards
Erik

Hej Erik,

In all politeness, in order to compare 6x7 to your Sony, then you should show each to their best. Above does not speak for the best of the 6x7... thus it is not a comparison on equal terms and does not tell correctly of digital vs. film.

F.w.i.w. I have never experienced issue with film flatness on 6x7 but it might be a camera issue. If I recall correct the Pentax 67 is a very reputable camera, but when a camera is old or after much use it may be require a check up and adjustments?

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 21, 2009, 05:20:02 am
Hej Anders,

In all politeness, I agree on doing the best. But..

The Pentax has a good reputation but if you check out the old photodo site it seems that Pentax lenses do not belong to the best, there are no tests on Pentax 67 lenses but I looked at 645 lenses. I have also seen some tests in Color Photo long ago which indicated that the Pentax lenses were OK but not as good as the best MF lenses. There is a lot of development in MF, like the new HC-lenses for Hasselblad and "digital" lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock. I presume that many of the new lenses are better than my than the Pentax 90/2.8 lens which probably was designed in the seventies.

All my Pentax lenses have significant CA except the one I'm using for the test. I also spent significant effort on looking for errors and also did some MTF measurements using Imatest, which indicates that my results are about what could be expected from Velvia (ignoring scanner MTF and sharpening).

Velvia 50 has an MTF curve like this: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_Velvia.gif (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_Velvia.gif) it drops rapidly at around 50 lp/mm. So in all probability Velvia itself limits sharpness. Resolution may be high but tonal separation gets poor. So putting a Rodenstock Digitar in front of Velvia may not improve resolution a lot. If the "Digitar" has better MTF at low frequencies it may make the picture much sharper.

Here is an interesting comparison between Leica M7 and M8:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page22.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page22.html)
One observation may be that choice of film matters. The author of the above article is Erwin Puts, he seems to do a lot of lens evaluation work for Leica. He is always a good but not necessarily easy read.

Regarding my test and comments:

- I point out possible problem areas, that is not to say that I'm sloppy.

- That film flatness is an issue has been known for long time. Contax even had a vacuum plate to keep the film flat.

- I try pretty much not to "tilt" the comparison.

A question:

Why don't you yourself post some comparison images between film and digital? You are using both.


Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Anders_HK
Hej Erik,

In all politeness, in order to compare 6x7 to your Sony, then you should show each to their best. Above does not speak for the best of the 6x7... thus it is not a comparison on equal terms and does not tell correctly of digital vs. film.

F.w.i.w. I have never experienced issue with film flatness on 6x7 but it might be a camera issue. If I recall correct the Pentax 67 is a very reputable camera, but when a camera is old or after much use it may be require a check up and adjustments?

Regards
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: georgl on August 21, 2009, 06:31:53 am
Never heard of the "Leica design-target 50-50-50", propably it means 50% image height because all modern Leica lenses achieve significantly higher contrast?
The Rodenstock Digaron-W-lenses have similar MTFs as Leica-lenses but they also show the response for 80lp/mm and have a image circle large enough for 6x7! But I don't know how they perform on film, Schneider offers an additional glass to "simulate" the cover-glass of a sensor with film.

They achieve 70% over 6x7-image-height at 40lp/mm and nearly 50% at 80lp/mm!

As I see it, it's a test of a Pentax 67 + lens + consumer-scanner, not film & digital per se.

I had a 35mm-Pentax-system, the lenses were mush in comparison to my Leica-lenses, how much does vibration of the 67 affect IQ (does it even have mirror-lock?). I have many bad scans of slides/negatives, only a few show the potencial of this medium.

Norman Koren has an interesting site and even he claims an MTF50 of Velvia with over 56lp/mm!



Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 21, 2009, 11:29:33 am
Hi,

There are some sample images in the first article. Sorry about the math. If you look at the images, please keep in mind that you see very small crops. The images would be about 1.5-2 m wide, that 4.5-6 feet. So we are pixel peeping. The best way to compare is probably to make prints, about 70x100 cm, but prints are not easily shared.

One reason for the math is to check if the equipment is close to specifications or not.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: ashley
I must have heard these debates about sharpness, resolution and means of measurement a thousand times but maths has never really been my strong point. You can't look at an image with a calculator and the idea of physically trying to measure these things rather bemuses me. Surely the only real measure is what it looks like when published in the chosen media? This may be subjective, but to me that is the only worthwhile comparison that exists.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ashley on August 21, 2009, 11:35:43 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

There are some sample images in the first article. Sorry about the math. If you look at the images, please keep in mind that you see very small crops. The images would be about 1.5-2 m wide, that 4.5-6 feet. So we are pixel peeping. The best way to compare is probably to make prints, about 70x100 cm, but prints are not easily shared.

One reason for the math is to check if the equipment is close to specifications or not.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,
I hope you didn't think I was criticising your efforts. That was not my intention at all 8-) I was merely trying to say what you have just pointed out, that this really is just pixel peeping and that the real test comes from prints but of course that is not really practical on the internet. Many of the perceived differences seen on screen between one digital camera or another or even film V digital will often be totally invisible once the image is printed.

Ashley
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 21, 2009, 12:02:41 pm
Hi,

I read about the 50-50-50 target in one of Erwin Puts articles, but I cannot find it. I may use it in the wrong context. Now to your comments.
[Update]
This is the statement, I believe. Leica themselves have designed the whole system for a 50 lp/mm at 50% contrast, the benchmark value for excellent imagery.
It is about Leica M8, so it is out of context. Still it indicates that 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm is a very good value:
The article is here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page20.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page20.html)


The figure for Velvia having an MTF is taken from the Norman Koren page, http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_Velvia.gif (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_Velvia.gif) , it's quite obviously 50% at 50 lp/mm.
MTF values can be multiplied. So if you have 70% MTF at 50 lp/mm for lens and 50% MTF for film you end up with 35% MTF. If you enlarge this with a very good enlarging lens having 70% MTF at 50 lp/mm you and up with 0.7 * 0.5 * 0. * 100 = 24.5% MTF at 50 lp/mm. This all assuming that lens and focusing device is in perfect alignment.

With digital workflow you loose MTF in scanner but can regain some with sharpening.

The scanner I use is not really a low end device, here is a comaprison with Imacon:

http://web.tiscali.it/saphoto/scancomp.html (http://web.tiscali.it/saphoto/scancomp.html)

and comparison images here:

http://web.tiscali.it/saphoto/scanimages.html (http://web.tiscali.it/saphoto/scanimages.html)

You are of course right on the issue that it's a Pentax 67 + lens + scanner combination compared to a Sony + lens combination, but that applies to pretty every comparison. I may also suggest that probably more people have Pentax 67 and CCD film scanners than those have Rodenstock Digarons and drum scanners.

There are a lot of QA issues in medium format, you may check this article:

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)

The same applies to DSLRs, for sure.

By the way, you would not consider posting some comparison images yourself? Sure it would be appreciated!

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: georgl
Never heard of the "Leica design-target 50-50-50", propably it means 50% image height because all modern Leica lenses achieve significantly higher contrast?
The Rodenstock Digaron-W-lenses have similar MTFs as Leica-lenses but they also show the response for 80lp/mm and have a image circle large enough for 6x7! But I don't know how they perform on film, Schneider offers an additional glass to "simulate" the cover-glass of a sensor with film.

They achieve 70% over 6x7-image-height at 40lp/mm and nearly 50% at 80lp/mm!

As I see it, it's a test of a Pentax 67 + lens + consumer-scanner, not film & digital per se.

I had a 35mm-Pentax-system, the lenses were mush in comparison to my Leica-lenses, how much does vibration of the 67 affect IQ (does it even have mirror-lock?). I have many bad scans of slides/negatives, only a few show the potencial of this medium.

Norman Koren has an interesting site and even he claims an MTF50 of Velvia with over 56lp/mm!
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 21, 2009, 12:16:22 pm
Ashley,

Nope, no issue with me. On the contrary I agree with your points. I actually feel bad about math, in this context. As I said, there is some need to verify that the tests are not fooled up. Lot of things can go wrong. Comparing measured data with expected may indicate if there are gross errors. I would love to send around my large prints, but it's unfortunately not easily doable.

I'm in the process of publishing a longer article: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-sony-alpha-900 (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)

My own findings are mixed. On the page mentioned above I look at some very small detail and there the Pentax is better. The scanned image is quite noisy, but some noise/grain/structure is a characteristic of film. That article is ongoing. I'll probably also add some more images in the future.

One of the interesting things is that testing does not always come out as expected. When I got my new Alpha 900 I did some comparison shooting with my Alpha 700. When pixel peeping the Alpha 900 images just blew away the Alpha 700. When I printed in A2 from Lightroom I could not tell them apart! That comparison is published here:

Actual pixels of image:
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107619976/original (http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107619976/original)
Actual pixels 300 PPI scan of print:
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107823207/original (http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107823207/original)

Scans were also made at 600 PPI but those files were just to impractical. The prints hade smaller visible differences than the scans.

I hope that my response was not rude, it was not my intention. But I may have been in some hurry.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: ashley
Hi Erik,
I hope you didn't think I was criticising your efforts. That was not my intention at all 8-) I was merely trying to say what you have just pointed out, that this really is just pixel peeping and that the real test comes from prints but of course that is not really practical on the internet. Many of the perceived differences seen on screen between one digital camera or another or even film V digital will often be totally invisible once the image is printed.

Ashley
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: georgl on August 21, 2009, 01:03:49 pm
I have some 6x7-velvias, but they're completely unsharp because they were made with a rented RB67, what a lousy camera - no mirror-lock -> work of two days ruined!
I tried a real half-way scientic comparisons but all I got from the guy who scanned them with his imacon were unsharp results (I have no idea what he did to this ppor machine!) - I'll try to make a new one within the next months.

Anyway, here's a Imacon-scan from a Velvia-slide (made with 35mm Summicron Asph) which I printed and was very happy with the result:
[attachment=16158:duisburg3.jpg][attachment=16159:duisburgcrop.jpg]

 It looked different than my M8-files, but no way less sharp! Older Ilfochromes had a great look, but they looked terribly soft!

Don't you think a decent 6x7-velvia with 4.5times this size should look much better?

And here's a 3200ppi-Imacon-scan from the same series shot with my belove Hassi 501CM + 80mm Planar (which is not as sharp as the Summicron) :[attachment=16160:duisburg2.jpg][attachment=16161:duisburg2detail.jpg]

I simply think it's strange that so many different "scientific comparisons" floating around the net, Mr. Reichmann even claimed his 11MP 1ds would be as good as drum-scanned 6x7, that would mean a 24x36mm-slide is about as good as a 3MP-DSLR...! New DSLRs are better than Velvia, no better than 645, better than 6x7, better than 4x5inch!
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 21, 2009, 01:22:51 pm
Hi,

No, because we are looking at actual pixels. The Leica Lens is probably much sharper than my Pentax 67 90/2.8. The pixels are probably the same size as both you and I scan at 3200 PPI. I just have 4.5 times as many of them. One issue that I sharpened the slide image using Photokit Sharpener which has setting for medium format film.

The idea was to use the same sharpening I'd use for that kind of subject and with film it would be Photokit Sharpener and with digital "Landscape".

Thanks for publishing samples!

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: georgl
Don't you think a decent 6x7-velvia with 4.5times this size should look much better?
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 22, 2009, 01:25:20 am
I found the the reference to 50-50:

This is the statement, I believe. Leica themselves have designed the whole system for a 50 lp/mm at 50% contrast, the benchmark value for excellent imagery.
It is about Leica M8, so it is out of context. Still it indicates that 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm is a very good value:
The article is here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page20.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page20.html)

There may be other references which I have not found.

You may find this article interesting: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page22.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/M8/M8/page22.html) , BTW.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: georgl
I have some 6x7-velvias, but they're completely unsharp because they were made with a rented RB67, what a lousy camera - no mirror-lock -> work of two days ruined!
I tried a real half-way scientic comparisons but all I got from the guy who scanned them with his imacon were unsharp results (I have no idea what he did to this ppor machine!) - I'll try to make a new one within the next months.

Anyway, here's a Imacon-scan from a Velvia-slide (made with 35mm Summicron Asph) which I printed and was very happy with the result:
[attachment=16158:duisburg3.jpg][attachment=16159:duisburgcrop.jpg]

 It looked different than my M8-files, but no way less sharp! Older Ilfochromes had a great look, but they looked terribly soft!

Don't you think a decent 6x7-velvia with 4.5times this size should look much better?

And here's a 3200ppi-Imacon-scan from the same series shot with my belove Hassi 501CM + 80mm Planar (which is not as sharp as the Summicron) :[attachment=16160:duisburg2.jpg][attachment=16161:duisburg2detail.jpg]

I simply think it's strange that so many different "scientific comparisons" floating around the net, Mr. Reichmann even claimed his 11MP 1ds would be as good as drum-scanned 6x7, that would mean a 24x36mm-slide is about as good as a 3MP-DSLR...! New DSLRs are better than Velvia, no better than 645, better than 6x7, better than 4x5inch!
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: georgl on August 22, 2009, 03:42:44 am
I think we can compare two things:

MTF from sensor + processing vs. MTF from film + scanner-MTF - the lens doesn't matter here anymore, but we have to use the same lens in this comparison.

The 35mm-Velvia is scanned with 6300ppi, therefore you watch crops from a 50+MP-file!

Anyway, I think if we want to have serious conclusions, we'll have to change certain things ;-)

By the way, I just noticed that my Hassy-shot isn't ideal, I used hyperfocal distance...

Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ashley on August 22, 2009, 04:47:25 am
At the risk of taking this discussion in a different direction, in real world situations we don't often get to compare two different versions of an image side by side unless we are pixel peeping. As Erik pointed out earlier, he once compared his A700 to the A900 and on screen the A900 looked hugely better but in print he could not tell them a part. It is the medium of print which is the great leveller here so even if one medium has a huge theoretical advantage over another in practice it will be null and void in reality.

My take on this now is that if you can produce a good looking final print of your chosen subject it doesn't matter in the slightest if you shot film or digital. Overall I think 6x7 film is probably still capable of producing finer detailed big prints than a 35mm DSLR when everything is perfect and pushed to the limit but far too often the set up is not perfect and the differences will be so close that you might just as easily prefer the digital.

Reasons for shooting with the Pentax or the Sony would be better seen in the context of which was the more suitable tool for the job at hand. For example I generally don't much like the proportions of 35mm and much prefer medium format in that respect. I used to work with my Hasselblad 501CM and have two little red lines drawn on the viewfinder screen to indicate 645 proportions which were perfect for the magazines. There is no way that the Pentax could be used as quickly as the DSLR though and it can't show a client images within a couple of minutes either. There are so many variables involved in the processing and printing of an image that both film and digital can either look wonderful or terrible.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 22, 2009, 09:11:51 am
Hi,

Well said!

Erik

Quote from: ashley
At the risk of taking this discussion in a different direction, in real world situations we don't often get to compare two different versions of an image side by side unless we are pixel peeping. As Erik pointed out earlier, he once compared his A700 to the A900 and on screen the A900 looked hugely better but in print he could not tell them a part. It is the medium of print which is the great leveller here so even if one medium has a huge theoretical advantage over another in practice it will be null and void in reality.

My take on this now is that if you can produce a good looking final print of your chosen subject it doesn't matter in the slightest if you shot film or digital. Overall I think 6x7 film is probably still capable of producing finer detailed big prints than a 35mm DSLR when everything is perfect and pushed to the limit but far too often the set up is not perfect and the differences will be so close that you might just as easily prefer the digital.

Reasons for shooting with the Pentax or the Sony would be better seen in the context of which was the more suitable tool for the job at hand. For example I generally don't much like the proportions of 35mm and much prefer medium format in that respect. I used to work with my Hasselblad 501CM and have two little red lines drawn on the viewfinder screen to indicate 645 proportions which were perfect for the magazines. There is no way that the Pentax could be used as quickly as the DSLR though and it can't show a client images within a couple of minutes either. There are so many variables involved in the processing and printing of an image that both film and digital can either look wonderful or terrible.
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: Anders_HK on August 22, 2009, 11:36:41 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
A question:

Why don't you yourself post some comparison images between film and digital? You are using both.

Erik,

... I did. Same as thread linked #11 above http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&pid=153549 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&mode=threaded&pid=153549)

Mine was comparing each to its best - first the ZD images, my processing and raw's for posters to process, last drum scans of 6x7. Post #64 in that thread summarize by stating basically same observation as I made of test prints at high resoution; "The film scans have a real wonderful quality to them. While looking at these last 100% crops, I find that I'm really drawn to them and the ZD images that looked so great before look lifeless in comparison."

At high ISO I am sure the 20+MPs dslrs beat ZD, but not at low..., different sensor designs, different sensor sizes/formats.

 

Rgds
Anders
Title: Digiatl vs. film another comparison
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 22, 2009, 01:47:29 pm
Anders,

I have seen the images but never knew that you also shot on film. I guess that drum scanning really can extract lot of detail that a CCD scanner can't. Whatever the media very good pictures.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Anders_HK
Erik,

... I did. Same as thread linked #11 above http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&pid=153549 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&mode=threaded&pid=153549)

Mine was comparing each to its best - first the ZD images, my processing and raw's for posters to process, last drum scans of 6x7. Post #64 in that thread summarize by stating basically same observation as I made of test prints at high resoution; "The film scans have a real wonderful quality to them. While looking at these last 100% crops, I find that I'm really drawn to them and the ZD images that looked so great before look lifeless in comparison."

At high ISO I am sure the 20+MPs dslrs beat ZD, but not at low..., different sensor designs, different sensor sizes/formats.

 

Rgds
Anders