jaapv Posted January 7, 2010 Share #101 Posted January 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Tango Sample below: M9 gives you a 3472 x 5212 pixel file, approximately 11.5 x 17 print size at 100% I made a tango scan of an Ektar 100 frame, 3503 x 5232 pixels, 11.52 x 17.21 print size at 100%, approximately 3670 dpi scan, 1210% enlargement. First image below is the full frame image, the other 3 are 100% crops from various parts of the frame. No fancy Photoshop work, just set the highlight and shadow points and slight color adjustment. And no sharpening at all, not in the scanner and not in Photoshop. I'm not sure these are very convincing examples. Very bad contrast through veiling flare and underexposed in the shadow areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Metin Posted January 7, 2010 Share #102 Posted January 7, 2010 I'm not sure these are very convincing examples. Very bad contrast through veiling flare and underexposed in the shadow areas. I picked this frame because I wanted to show the range you can get with film. I know It can be scanned a bit better and the contrast can be improved with some Photoshop work, sharpening etc. I don't have M9 but I know I cannot take this shot with my DMR and have as much shadow detail as I have here. Yes, exposure could have been better, bad habit left over from shooting slide film. It was shot with Leica R6, 35mm Summicron, 1/500 f:5.6 or 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_dernie Posted January 7, 2010 Share #103 Posted January 7, 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) I agree that the only fair test is to compare completely chemical prints against fully digital prints, at large sizes. This will show the true potential differences between the processes in resolution, dynamic range and grain. This is a way to show the overall total potential. The differences in these samples are not subtle though, unlike the frequent analogue/digital debate in audio. The digital is vastly superior IMO. On the other hand there is more to it than just the technical potential. The ability to push and pull for unexpected light levels and dynamic range of the original film/file, since the print has less dynamic range than either a wide dynamic range in the original gives more flexibility at the print stage whether an enlarger or computer is being used. I am afraid digital has the superior potential in both these nowadays too. Personally I only used film in recent years for MF, Mamiya 7 and Rolleiflex, and my xPan. I am beginning to think I don't need these anymore now I have an M9. When I heard Kodachrome was to be discontinued I checked and found I only had one roll left. Before buying more I decided to shoot the roll in my R8 then compare the results with the DMR with same camera and lens and similar subject. After using film for 50 years I have to say I shall not be buying more. Sad but there it is. For me. Frank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted January 7, 2010 Share #104 Posted January 7, 2010 OK, OK, here's my contribution to this always entertaining debate. I've spent some time over the last few years recovering a modest set of film skills (so the kids will know what a negative is...). I'm operating at the level of one-spouse discretionary investments for personal satisfaction. E-Bay Xpan and Hasselblad 500 C/M and an Epson V500 scanner ($160) with a strip of anti-Newton's rings glass to keep the film flat ($30). Horizontally the XPan with a Fujinon 45mm lens covering a 66mm wide frame is about equivalent to an Elmarit 24mm covering the 36 mm of the M9's sensor. Scanning the XPan at 2400 dpi, I can get 6600 pixels across its image. So here are two shots of the construction site for our new department building, taken about a week apart: First the XPan frame, reduced to 1200 pixels wide (probably f/5.6 at 1/500 on Provia) then the M9 (ISO 160, f/5.6@1/700): now a crop from the XPan scan (done at 2400 dpi) and the same from the M9 at 100% I was closer in the second (M9) picture. Both, printed at reasonable size, are crisp and sharp. Provia runs out of dynamic range when the M9 is still digging detail out of the shadows. I'd love to try some Ektar, but it is a little hard to find around here. HP5+ and FP4 in the Hasselblads makes wonderful pictures, and the extra fussiness of the MF cameras can add an element of ceremony which is sometimes valuable in people pictures. And composing with the XPan's wide frame is an intriguing challenge. (Josef Koudelka and Carl Weese, very different photographers, both do wonderful things with this format.) Those are my reasons for exploring film, not resolution. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 7, 2010 Share #105 Posted January 7, 2010 The xpan image has lovely colors and depth while the M9 is definitely flat. Also, you can't possibly compare a Epson V500 scan to any digital native file. It just cannot be done. Yes, for ease of use and practicality, digibob cameras are definitely better, no contest. Hence the "film is dead" reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2010 Share #106 Posted January 7, 2010 Hence the "film is dead" reality. That's funny. I have just been up to my elbows in FX39. I wonder what it was that was in the tank... Film isn't dead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share #107 Posted January 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unfortunately, if one really wants to know the state of film, it costs a lot of money to find out the true figures: Report: Photographic Supplies (BIZ00358) from ReportBuyer.com Amazon.com: The 2009 Report on Photographic Film and Video: World Market Segmentation by City: Icon Group International: Books - but they are probably a better guide to sustainability than personal anecdote. I will be the first to stand up and say (as I have many times), that quality images are more important than image quality. Not only that, but the highest quality images often have had pretty poor image quality (think Capa from D-Day). To borrow the words of Bill Pierce, "Never confuse "sharp" with "good" - or you'll find yourself shaving with an ice cream cone, and licking razor blades." But if anyone believes quality images can only be produced with film - or with digital - it ain't so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 7, 2010 Share #108 Posted January 7, 2010 Unfortunately, if one really wants to know the state of film, it costs a lot of money to find out the true figures: Report: Photographic Supplies (BIZ00358) from ReportBuyer.com Amazon.com: The 2009 Report on Photographic Film and Video: World Market Segmentation by City: Icon Group International: Books - but they are probably a better guide to sustainability than personal anecdote. I will be the first to stand up and say (as I have many times), that quality images are more important than image quality. Not only that, but the highest quality images often have had pretty poor image quality (think Capa from D-Day). To borrow the words of Bill Pierce, "Never confuse "sharp" with "good" - or you'll find yourself shaving with an ice cream cone, and licking razor blades." But if anyone believes quality images can only be produced with film - or with digital - it ain't so. yes!..... Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 7, 2010 Share #109 Posted January 7, 2010 That's funny. I have just been up to my elbows in FX39. I wonder what it was that was in the tank... Film isn't dead. I know film is not dead... That's why i put it in quotes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 7, 2010 Share #110 Posted January 7, 2010 "Film is not dead, it just smells funny." (Frank Zappa) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 7, 2010 Share #111 Posted January 7, 2010 I will be the first to stand up and say (as I have many times), that quality images are more important than image quality. Absolutely - if the image is good then nobody cares about the IQ, and if the image isn't good, then nobody cares at all. . . . . Oh, except me, and I rather like the few good images I take to have good IQ as well, but that's the 'craft', and it doesn't have much to do with 'art' (or with anyone looking at the images either). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 7, 2010 Share #112 Posted January 7, 2010 . . . . . . and I think that woman over there is prettier than the one next to her! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted January 8, 2010 Share #113 Posted January 8, 2010 Andy, this is a scan done with my Imacon.... regards, Jan Gah! Don't post things like that! You're only succeeding in making me want something I'll never be able to buy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #114 Posted January 8, 2010 Well, I don't expect anyone to respect me! However, I was talking personally - I thought I'd made that clear by saying that film had it's charms, (I also don't think that the other things are useless). I Understand that the Nikon 5000 scanner is not the best thing to use (it's what I was using too). My decision not to use film again was a practical one rather than an aesthetic one. I also suggested that the only real comparison was to look at prints created using the best of each technology, something I don't have the time/resource to do (perhaps Mr Puts technique here is the best option if you have to display it on the web). I took up photography because I didn't have time to carry on with my painting, not because it was better. I've espoused digital at least partly because of time constraints. I'm sorry to make you mad though . . . perhaps this will have made it worse! I just do not see why people must often use analogies like horse drawn carts, typewriter ribbons, 8-tracks and the like when you can just say you are doing something other than film. It's insulting to people who use film proudly and hold it in high regard. That's what made me mad, I get tired of it. I get tired of the digital hype and the absolute cr@p images people make with it and then put the good name of film in a bin of has beens. I spent 8 hours in white out conditions last night shooting a magazine article. The story is about a rough around the edges community of ski bums and Mtn. folk who live in teepees and ratty cabins with wood burning stoves above the place of billionaires in a ski town. In the Winter, they have to use snowmobiles to get to their homes. In some cases, they ride the ski hill gondola with groceries and ski down into their little hidden part of paradise. I used a 500 C/M with a 50, 80 and 180, Ilford 400 and 3200. The editor *loved* the look and said it was refreshing to see film again. I can take those negatives and go into my darkroom and make *hand* made prints, not digital ones. It's just the way I want to work now, after 16 years of digital. Yes, the resulting image matters, and some of us are going to travel a different journey to arrive there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 8, 2010 Share #115 Posted January 8, 2010 Gah! Don't post things like that! You're only succeeding in making me want something I'll never be able to buy! ...is it not the game of all?!.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 8, 2010 Share #116 Posted January 8, 2010 Yep! Even "the chain" has been successfully replaced by a button, but that does not stop any old chain from operating effectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #117 Posted January 8, 2010 Yep! Even "the chain" has been successfully replaced by a button, but that does not stop any old chain from operating effectively. My chain is a cable release.. We all reach our boiling point..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 8, 2010 Share #118 Posted January 8, 2010 So that would be "a chain" with a button on the end? That boiling point may be useful on your present/recent assignment to keep the chill at bay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted January 8, 2010 Share #119 Posted January 8, 2010 Where real money is at stake film still rules. In spite of it's long flirt with the digital, Hollywood still bets on film acquisition. More and more flicks are shot digitally (mostly those heavy on SFX) but the majority is still old celluloid. And it is not because of lack of adequate cameras. Since postproduction is almost always digital intermediate at 4k resolution it is not difficult to compare the two acquisition methods. In fact on many flicks they mix, eg. cinematography Oscar winner Slumdog Millionaire had sequences shot on Silicon Imaging camera (the slums paradocumentary bits). But the medium of choice was film. The news of film's death in Hollywood are...chutzpah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 8, 2010 Share #120 Posted January 8, 2010 I just do not see why people must often use analogies like horse drawn carts, typewriter ribbons, 8-tracks and the like when you can just say you are doing something other than film. It's insulting to people who use film proudly and hold it in high regard. Isn't what you say insulting to people who still smoke, ride horse drawn carts and like the Beegees? It was a flippant remark, and actually only a quote from what someone else said. That's what made me mad, I get tired of it. I get tired of the digital hype and the absolute cr@p images people make with it and then put the good name of film in a bin of has beens. Now you are doing the same thing the other way around, only intentionally and a great deal more directly - even using bad language to drive your point home: Insulting people who use digital. In my post I made it quite clear that film 'has it's charms' - which seems to me to be fairly even handed - you, on the other hand simply insult people who use digital, which, for those of us who use digital proudly and hold it in high regard . . . I never intended to insult anyone who uses film, in fact, I don't think I've criticised it at any point - you chose to be insulted. However you are directly insulting people who use digital. Now I'm mad:mad: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.