Irwin Puts on Film vs Digital and Printing

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mr Puts says..

"It is clearly visible that even a 100ISO film has more reproduction capabilities than a 10 Mp sensor, specifically at major enlargements. Film holds fine detail to a larger extent than digital does and can indeed reproduce this detail in print (at least at 15+ enlargements).
Other experiments (see the Zeiss site) indicate that the differences between a 12 Mp and a 24Mp sized sensor are less significant than often assumed.
So we need at least a 40Mp sized sensor to visibly surpass the 100ISO film emulsion properly exposed and printed on paper"

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/styled-3/

 

I've enjoyed his prose, and exactness lately. 

 

Any comments on his full article commentary??

 

Cheers Dave S  
 

Edited May 15, 2015 by david strachan

[wildlightphoto]

Use color film instead of B&W or a B&W sensor instead of a Bayer filtered sensor for comparable results.  When I compared K25 with the 10 MP DMR the difference was very clear and I was glad I had no more K25.

 

Same results for E100G and Provia 100F vs. the DMR, on screen or in a print, and this was with the DMR at ISO 400; I am much happier with my larger prints from the DMR than any of my prints from fine-grain color films.

Edited May 16, 2015 by wildlightphoto

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

 

 

I've enjoyed his prose, and exactness lately. 

 

 

Lately?  The article you linked is 6 years old.

 

Try this one instead, which also addresses the Monochrom….

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-11/

 

Jeff

[wildlightphoto]

Lately?  The article you linked is 6 years old.

 

Try this one instead, which also addresses the Monochrom….

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-11/

 

Jeff

 

I question Erwin's use of the phrase 'slight difference in quality'.  The difference I see is what I'd call more than 'slight'.

[david strachan]

Lately?  The article you linked is 6 years old.

 

 

Jeff

I've just recently lately had the pleasure of finding this page...I guess it's still relevant??

cheers  Dave S

[Jeff S]

His new site…with some old links...

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/index.html

 

Read away…the earlier articles have been discussed here many times (search box).

 

Jeff

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mr Puts says..

"It is clearly visible that even a 100ISO film has more reproduction capabilities than a 10 Mp sensor, specifically at major enlargements. Film holds fine detail to a larger extent than digital does and can indeed reproduce this detail in print (at least at 15+ enlargements).

Other experiments (see the Zeiss site) indicate that the differences between a 12 Mp and a 24Mp sized sensor are less significant than often assumed.

So we need at least a 40Mp sized sensor to visibly surpass the 100ISO film emulsion properly exposed and printed on paper"

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/styled-3/

 

I've enjoyed his prose, and exactness lately. 

 

Any comments on his full article commentary??

 

Cheers Dave S  

 

Thanks Dave

Best

Henry

[david strachan]

Thanks Dave

Best

Henry

 Truly amazing results, I'd say.  A huge difference. The chemical process is totally smooth through the gradations.  I see he ... scanned at 2400 resolution with the Epson V700.. a not very expensive scanner.

 

Anyway, I thought a pretty profound essay  especially remembering I used to use FP4+ and Multigrades.

Love your images  on the Forum.

All the best Dave S    

 

[tobey bilek]

I respect Irwin, but disagree.  

 

35 mm color film compared to my M9  is perhaps even.   Just got some 8x10 from 25 MP Nikon D750, 400 iso laser printed on Fuji crystal archive photo paper.    Beautiful, sharp, detail in little girls dresses all there.   Better than I ever saw with film.  A small contrast curve added,  a small bit of noise reduction , light smart sharpen, and it looks better that quality medium format.

 

Now if we talk monochrome where he always brings out the microfiche film,  I will concede he is right.   If we talk Delta 100, perhaps a toss up.

[Jager]

I enjoy reading Erwin, but take his conclusions with a grain of salt.  Both his testing methodology and his commentary often seem somewhat arcane.  (Noting that English is not his native language).

 

I do agree with Erwin that a physical print is the ultimate expression of a photographic image, and is how we should judge pictures that matter.

 

My own experience indicates that high-end 35mm digital vastly outperforms 35mm film, with detail and print fidelity much more akin to what you see from medium format film.  Raw file images from the Monochrom I would rate even higher, producing prints more like what one gets from 4x5 film.

 

I still love film, and shoot it quite a lot.  But I do so because of its unique look and nuanced benefits (like the gradual rolloff of highlights) and because the process of shooting film is more measured and thoughtful.  Not because it makes better prints.

 

It doesn't.

[Doc Henry]

Dave , just to tell you I develop in my home lab pictures on Ilford paper (silver) and I appreciate with great pleasure enlargement of some mountain landscapes pictures I shot recently ... some pictures are better reproduced in paper than in scanner (for posting in Leica Forum) specially for the deep black

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2830703

I enjoy my Focomat enlarger versus inkjet printer through my computer.The "silver" paper gives an undeniable plus and without appeal to the images printed on inkjet , really sharper and with deep black and gray scale

Best

Henry

Edited June 12, 2015 by Doc Henry

[david strachan]

Hi Henry

Yes I miss the luscious rich blacks of Ag-Gelatine.  After similar using Ilford FP4 135 and 4x5 and Multigrade papers...it's something about the gelatine with random fragments of silver, makes a nicer image...almost seems to add depth from the gelatine layer

All best Dave S

[colonel]

There is a difference between a large (say A3 or more) print and merely looking at the pixel level on a monitor

I think for printing Erwin has valid points, but IMHO the APS-C Sigma SD1 and some other FF cameras such as the D800e/810, 5DSr, A7R and A7Rii might surpass this 6 year old analysis now.

However for cropping and/or editing for sharpness on a computer its hard to agree with this. Although I shoot more film then digital these days, if I want pin sharp with minimal grain for editing for screen and in lower light situations, digital is clinically far superior.

For me its not a competition.I enjoy my film images more, but if I was a (successful!!) top end wedding photographer I would probably have a bunch of guys/girls with D810s, 1 with film Leicas using 35mm and 1 with digital Leicas using a Noctilux.

Otto has retired now but he's still my favourite:

http://ottoschulzephotographers.com/

Edited June 29, 2015 by colonel

[tobey bilek]

Use color film instead of B&W or a B&W sensor instead of a Bayer filtered sensor for comparable results.  When I compared K25 with the 10 MP DMR the difference was very clear and I was glad I had no more K25.

 

Same results for E100G and Provia 100F vs. the DMR, on screen or in a print, and this was with the DMR at ISO 400; I am much happier with my larger prints from the DMR than any of my prints from fine-grain color films.

 

Ektar 25 was really good and rivaled MF.  Sadly did not last long.  Discontinued 1975?   It made K25 look sick.

 

I did a iso 800 from a D750 and made an 8x10.  Beautiful.

 

I did a vertical from a horizontal M9 image.  Made a super nice 5x7.     Well everyone screws up once in a while.  Think I did this one before in 1965.

[tobey bilek]

Use color film instead of B&W or a B&W sensor instead of a Bayer filtered sensor for comparable results.  When I compared K25 with the 10 MP DMR the difference was very clear and I was glad I had no more K25.

 

Same results for E100G and Provia 100F vs. the DMR, on screen or in a print, and this was with the DMR at ISO 400; I am much happier with my larger prints from the DMR than any of my prints from fine-grain color films.

 

You probably forgot Ektar 25 color neg.  YUMMY.     This was the best film I ever used.  25 too slow I guess.

[pico]

Once an image has been digitally rendered, whether it has been manipulated or not, it has exited the traditional.

.

[menos I M6]

Once an image has been digitally rendered, whether it has been manipulated or not, it has exited the traditional.

.

I think painters have said the very same some 100 years ago when photography got a hold with a broader audience.

 

"Once an image has not been rendered by the touch of a paint brush, whether it has been manipulated or not, it has exited the traditional."

 

The means how an image is created are irrelevant. The amount of deviating from the original image by means of processing, altering the image after it has been taken are relevant.

For some this means one should shoot in JPG and have set white balance and exposure to perfection in camera, for others it simply means that cloning heads, erasing content and altering the meaning of an image are passé.

[pierovitch]

Reminds me of the logic behind digital output record players. Technically possible but still a digital reproduction. The old logic vs passion equation[emoji848]

[jaapv]

Isn't this discussion quite mouldy and far past its sell-by date? IMO it already was when Erwin wrote that article, let alone now.

I think consensus is that resolution- and detail-wise 35 mm is at least comparable to medium format film, however there are aesthetic -thus subjective- reasons to prefer film.
Reducing the whole debate to a personal preference.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear