jonoslack Posted January 5, 2010 Share #21 Posted January 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Andy You're a braver man than I am! I'm sure we can all take Andy Barton's point, and there will always be those who like film better (my son being one of them). When I see these comparisons, I always wonder about the response if the boot was on the other foot - i.e. if the film examples were digital and vice versa. I wonder who would still be touting digital then? On the other hand, I don't think a proper comparison can really be done on the internet, It seems to me that the best comparison is an A1 print from digital with the M9 against an A1 chemical print from film - I don't suppose that the result would be so very different, but at least the playing field would be more even. Me? I spent a month in 2007 shooting exclusively film (40 rolls). I scanned them, thought about it and decided that I'll never shoot a roll of film again; sure, it has it's charms, but so do typewriter ribbons the beegees and smokes . . but I don't indulge in them anymore either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
smb Posted January 5, 2010 Share #22 Posted January 5, 2010 Thank you for a very good comparison. It is easily understood. It appears that the noise on the M9 is very lower than film when viewed on a monitor. Have you printed any of the images digital v. analog for further comparisons? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 5, 2010 Share #23 Posted January 5, 2010 I scanned them, thought about it and decided that I'll never shoot a roll of film again; sure, it has it's charms, but so do typewriter ribbons the beegees and smokes . . but I don't indulge in them anymore either. Why do you have to say this? It takes skill to get the most out of any medium and talent to elevate it to beyond tests, the other things you mention are near useless where as film is not. I'm sorry, but how can you expect anyone to respect you when you put down a fine medium like that.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted January 5, 2010 Share #24 Posted January 5, 2010 I personally found it easier to give up the Bee Gees than my pipe! Come to that I haven't quite given up the Tri-X, but that's mostly for the love of the M7, and the sheer thrill of chemical processing. I loathe scanning, but it's better than dusting off the enlarger etc. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell Posted January 5, 2010 Share #25 Posted January 5, 2010 Film scanning is a tricky business. Film flatness, scanner resolution, grain diffuser, etc... It's really what the one poster said. You'd need to make an A1 print from each source and then check. (Of course the film flatness will rear it's ugly head again in the enlarger and easel. Which was one of the big reasons I wanted to switch to digital to get past that) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share #26 Posted January 5, 2010 The funny part to me is wondering how many folks actually went out and bought a big bag of trimax after reading Put's article. Well, I went out and bought a big bag of: NPZ, Tmax100, Ektar 100, Tmax3200 etc. etc. As the thread shows.... Borrowed an M3, too (the only film Leica body I could track down for temporary use). __________________ Someday, I'd like to see a real head-to-head-to-head between the Nikon and Imacon scanners and a drum scanner. I keep hearing about how much better a drum scan is (Heck, I've worked at newspapers that used Hells and Crossfields, but who can tell anything from newsprint reproduction), but I'm just one of those "show me" people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 5, 2010 Share #27 Posted January 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Film scanning is a tricky business. Film flatness, scanner resolution, grain diffuser, etc...It's really what the one poster said. You'd need to make an A1 print from each source and then check. (Of course the film flatness will rear it's ugly head again in the enlarger and easel. Which was one of the big reasons I wanted to switch to digital to get past that) not realy, with a professional scanner (Heidelberger or Linotype), you will get much better results......but this was not Andys idea behind the test I think... . here we see a comparison between the normal equipement and film, most people use.... Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 5, 2010 Share #28 Posted January 5, 2010 Well, I went out and bought a big bag of: NPZ, Tmax100, Ektar 100, Tmax3200 etc. etc. As the thread shows.... Borrowed an M3, too (the only film Leica body I could track down for temporary use).__________________ Someday, I'd like to see a real head-to-head-to-head between the Nikon and Imacon scanners and a drum scanner. I keep hearing about how much better a drum scan is (Heck, I've worked at newspapers that used Hells and Crossfields, but who can tell anything from newsprint reproduction), but I'm just one of those "show me" people. I saw it Andy....it is a far better result..........and my Imacon do a better job than the Nikon 5000.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 5, 2010 Share #29 Posted January 5, 2010 If you want to split wood, don't use a pocket knife. If you want to paint the house, don't use a toothbrush! Which is better, the film or the book? Film or digital! Why not both? We all know that but "which is better" always arises from comparisons for some reason. Comparisons should be used to select the better option for a given application which in no way should impune the other option. In a bit over a week, I will be heading to Antarctica. I intend taking two digital (M9 & M8) and two analog (M7 & Xpan) cameras. I don't have any intention of proving one better than the other, but rather hope to use them for their individual characteristics which are quite different. I am expecting the digital gear to be my principal equipment with the film stuff primarily as backup, but as long as it's there I will seek a different look from it regardless. Whether the film is scanned or printed direct in my darkroom will be decided after the event. Any comparison may or may not be interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2010 Share #30 Posted January 6, 2010 Andy, this is a scan done with my Imacon.... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! (second is 100% of the picture) regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! (second is 100% of the picture) regards, Jan ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108756-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos/?do=findComment&comment=1176134'>More sharing options...
adan Posted January 6, 2010 Author Share #31 Posted January 6, 2010 Jan: Thank you. Out of curiosity, which film? Not that it matters much - it would pretty much take Ilford Pan F to get that amount of smoothness out of the Nikon, I'm afraid. As to drum scan - still waiting for "show me." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2010 Share #32 Posted January 6, 2010 Jan: Thank you. Out of curiosity, which film? Not that it matters much - it would pretty much take Ilford Pan F to get that amount of smoothness out of the Nikon, I'm afraid. As to drum scan - still waiting for "show me." Andy this is T-max 100......developed in T-max....and I love my Imacon for this quality... regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted January 6, 2010 Share #33 Posted January 6, 2010 Wow, Jan, that's quite a testament to your Imacon! I wish you hadn't posted that. I still love film, but don't shoot enough of it to justify springing for something that expensive. But, being one of those guys who do a hybrid workflow when shooting film - I develop it myself but then scan the film for printing - it's nice to know that kind of quality is out there. Andy, thanks for the effort and for the thread. For those of us smitten with the M9, it sure points out some of the reasons why... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2010 Share #34 Posted January 6, 2010 Wow, Jan, that's quite a testament to your Imacon! I wish you hadn't posted that. I still love film, but don't shoot enough of it to justify springing for something that expensive. But, being one of those guys who do a hybrid workflow when shooting film - I develop it myself but then scan the film for printing - it's nice to know that kind of quality is out there. Andy, thanks for the effort and for the thread. For those of us smitten with the M9, it sure points out some of the reasons why... Jeff the M9 is a great performer, i had it for testing from Leica for some days... ..and it is hard do get closed to the results with film......but I'm a professional photographer with lot of experience in b/w, so I think I can get sometimes very closed to the M9... ..but to top it..?..no go!.,,my 1600 ASA-3200ASA shots perhaps?..... sorry for my english! regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 6, 2010 Share #35 Posted January 6, 2010 Jan, I acknowledge the apparent superiority of the Imacon over the Nikon but I am curious to know if it is suitable for quantity scanning as from a large shoot. Clearly the Nikon is better suited for bulk handling but my interest is how you find real time managing the Imacon for a batch of negs or slides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted January 6, 2010 Share #36 Posted January 6, 2010 I use an old coolscan LS30 which gives high resolution but generates more grain enhancement than the later coolscans. I now only scan Technical Pan film or Rollei ATP 1.1. The results are virtually grain free and the tonal rendering is something I like. but it does pick up micro dust and scratches so retouching is laborious. I did a research project at RMIT University back in the early 70's with Agfa Copex blue which gave 5x4" quality and was passed as a large format assignment. recently I have been using a slide duplicator - digital camera and - Leica macro lens which is my preference for slides and colour negatives. HDR can be applied to Kodachromes to bring out noise free shadows. Just think of it as a Leica diffusion enlarger printing to a chip. Dig out the Visoflex and bellows and have some fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smb Posted January 6, 2010 Share #37 Posted January 6, 2010 I do not think that Adan was attempting to prove that the M9 was better than film. He did say that the film was scanned. The experiment demonstrates that if you are going to convert film to digital for posting then the M9 has less image loss. It did not prove producing paper prints one system was better than the other. The nice thing is that at the higher ISOs the M9 was a quality performer...an important demonstration, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2010 Share #38 Posted January 6, 2010 Jan, I acknowledge the apparent superiority of the Imacon over the Nikon but I am curious to know if it is suitable for quantity scanning as from a large shoot. Clearly the Nikon is better suited for bulk handling but my interest is how you find real time managing the Imacon for a batch of negs or slides. I'm old fashion......less is more......normally I do not much pictures in shootings... ..and I do digital shootings for "mainstream" jobs... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidERuck Posted January 6, 2010 Share #39 Posted January 6, 2010 @telewatt What size film is that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2010 Share #40 Posted January 6, 2010 I do not think that Adan was attempting to prove that the M9 was better than film. He did say that the film was scanned. The experiment demonstrates that if you are going to convert film to digital for posting then the M9 has less image loss. It did not prove producing paper prints one system was better than the other. The nice thing is that at the higher ISOs the M9 was a quality performer...an important demonstration, IMHO. If you read all my comments here, you will see I'm on the same way.......the biggest problem is my english!...... I love the M9 too!......and the most important is.....to do good pictures!... Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.