haroldp Posted January 16, 2012 Share #181 Posted January 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you all (especially the hard work of the OP). Interesting, informative, inconclusive though. My colleague at work has an M9 (after years of scanning slides from M7/MP) and we have already reasoned that an extra conversion film via scan must lose something compared to the same glass & mechanics direct to digital. What is on screen is another factor (our work PC's are awful of course). One thing not touched on; to compare a (say) ASA50 slide film taken on a tripod etc etc and projected through the best Leica projection lens, to an M9 direct digi image at native ISO, then projected through the (fabulously expensive) digital projector. Would not that compare apples with apples in the least number of steps? No film conversion, not too much (maybe some) digital reproduction degredation. Better than printing both then going through another scan process, in terms of comparison. If you all club together for my Leica digi projector I am not proud, I freely accept charity.... Not to mention display at 700-800 pix / side on many uncalibrated monitors. I do not see how any broad ranging conclusions can be reached. As was said by one of the early progenitors of digital photography (kite in lightning etc.) Benjamin Franklin: ' In matters of taste there can be no dispute ' Artists learn and work in their chosen medium. Regards ... H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Hi haroldp, Take a look here M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SJP Posted January 16, 2012 Share #182 Posted January 16, 2012 <snip> If you all club together for my Leica digi projector I am not proud, I freely accept charity....Mmmmm, indeed the digital projector, haven't heard about that for quite some time. Are they still made, does anyone use them? I only saw one in action once & it looked quite impressive, although not enough light for a lecture theater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafael_macia Posted January 17, 2012 Share #183 Posted January 17, 2012 A worthwhile test. Most people have used mid level film scanners, like the Nikon Andy used. A $35 drum scan or an Imacon scan would do better with the film ......no question. But on a realistic level the results are accurate. I applaud Andy's efforts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 17, 2012 Share #184 Posted January 17, 2012 One poster admitted to using digital because he was "lazy and impatient". That struck a chord, but I would re-formulate it: I have gone completely over to digital for two reasons, the primary one is because digital is a much more spontaneous medium than film. Because of the digital immediate feedback, I have learned more about photography during the latest six years than I did during the previous fifty. Also, I am much freer when shooting action. That has been liberating. You may curse that rear monitor at your liberty, but you can't learn the small print things until you have learned the big print things. The second reason is eminently practical: Even if I still had the space for a darkroom (I'm sitting in it now) I would not have had the space to store the prints I would have done if I had continued with film. Digital is not a better or worse medium than film. It is different, it has its own set of criteria for the technical side of it, and it should not be asked to mimic film. It has its own 'micro-esthetic'. The old man from the Analog Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 17, 2012 Share #185 Posted January 17, 2012 [...]Such comparisons, and I have so far not heard of any that have been done, I suspect would show how far digital has to go before it will equal film quality much less surpass it. Why do I think this? Because published film data indicates, at least for low ISO speed films, resolution equivalent to about 50 - 60 MB in a digital image. The M9 comes no where near that and neither does the S2. Once scanned, a 35mm image enters the digital realm. I've never seen a quality 50-60 MB image from a scanned 35mm film. That is, about 4000 ppi and the film would have to be about 25-50 ISO to be noiseless/grainless in a 10x enlargement. Alleged 4000 ppi scans look mushy to me. And how large a print would one have to make to exploit a 4000 ppi digital image? Might a lower ppi be better on a reasonable (say, 20" long side) print? In summary, I'm saying that the example you used above is unrealistic in real life (IRL). Regarding QC - well right beside me I have some 20" (long side) full frame prints from the M9 and some from an M7 (tri-x) printed conventionally (Focomat IIa w/Nikkor lens) The digital images are so clean compared to the film images. Clean doesn't always mean better to me, but different and sometimes those grainy film images work better, differentiate textures better. IRL is what matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 18, 2012 Share #186 Posted January 18, 2012 Using words like "better" is such a mistake unless clearly qualified, which does narrow the "better" considerably. On the W/E I am travelling to Antarctica for 3 weeks. I'm taking two digital (M9 &M8) cameras and two analog(film) cameras (M7 & XPan). I have no idea which will be "better" or what minus temperatures I (and the cameras) will experience. Stuart D. Klipper has a well exhibited, well published of work in the Arctic and North Pole. He uses a Linhoff large format, fixed lens super-wide and does very well. Simplify. Surf the net beyond the link above for more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 18, 2012 Share #187 Posted January 18, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Pico, nearly two years on from when I wrote what you quoted, I still don't know which is "better"! Interestingly, the first framed large prints from that trip I hung were all (bar one) B&W prints from the M7 film (Delta100). The choice was based solely on the images I liked. Not which medium was used! The one digital image is a colour print that is totally B&W except for the bleached faint timber colour of the water carrier in the foreground. It is a boat for transporting water barrels to whaling ships. It is 3/4 buried in snow. The whole image looks like a pencil sketch. I am about to hang a colour set of icebergs, but I still don't know which is best. Film or digital? Truth is, ............ both are fantastic, for different reasons. "Better" doesn't come into it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
itai Posted January 18, 2012 Share #188 Posted January 18, 2012 Film should be judged at full frame, zoomed out. The grain is part of the whole image. Film often looks better than digital, because it renders light more naturally. The problem with these grainless digital devices is that they are boring... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith Posted January 18, 2012 Share #189 Posted January 18, 2012 It is interesting that one of Lars' reasons for going digital was to abandon prints. My reason for going digital was so that I could make prints even though my retirement house is too small to have a darkroom. I had been restricted to slides for some years and missed making prints. Alwyn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 18, 2012 Share #190 Posted January 18, 2012 Film should be judged at full frame, zoomed out. The grain is part of the whole image.Film often looks better than digital, because it renders light more naturally. The problem with these grainless digital devices is that they are boring... That is purely opinion, to which you are entitled. My opinion is that the situation is far more complex than you make out. That is why my decision is still being formed. I think any 'decision' is doomed to failure because we all assume conventional parameters. P.S. Welcome to the forum, and don't be shy about expressing other opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafael_macia Posted January 18, 2012 Share #191 Posted January 18, 2012 Digital is simply a new way to create an image. If it does that: it works. Someone once described digital images as being like; "a man with shaved legs .... smooth, .... but somehow unnatural". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted January 18, 2012 Share #192 Posted January 18, 2012 Film should be judged at full frame, zoomed out. The grain is part of the whole image.Film often looks better than digital, because it renders light more naturally. The problem with these grainless digital devices is that they are boring... Odd, considering that one of the primary drivers in film chemistry for its 140 years of being the dominant (and only) photographic medium was to reduce grain at any given sensitivity. This is what the chemists at Eastman, Agfa, Fuji etc. spent their time on. I often tolerated panatomic X at ISO 25 (tripods etc), and others carried 8 X 10 cameras so that grain could be reduced. I also used a lot of Tri-X when I had to. I personally find that while grain in B & W is a useful and sometimes interesting artistic chice in the look, grain in color (try kodacolor 800) simply looks bad to me. Others are clearly entitled to their own choice. I also personally find thast being able to print a 400 mpix panorama with no visible 'grain' and detail that just appears finer as you get closer to be far from boring (to me), and to the people who request prints. These are all artistic choices, and I am glad that I have them available to me. As a prior poster said , 'better' is not a part of this. Regards ... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drstefanlenz Posted January 19, 2012 Share #193 Posted January 19, 2012 hello, amazing but comparing is how the human mostly works. you can see it everywhere. the psychological effect called anchoring is so strong, it is often hard to tell the truth when talking strategies e.g. in economics etc, my brother is into hifi and there analog against digital especially in the upper class prevails all the time. what i am saying is what comes out here in a interesting way again that almost everything depends on the eye of the beholder. i saw a documentation of one of the most sucessful photgrafers nowadays in the usa, martin schoeller and was amazed he still only uses analog;). for me unthinkable, but always curios to find out the point of view regards stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 19, 2012 Share #194 Posted January 19, 2012 Stefan, your observation is confirmation that the result is more dependent on the artisan than the equipment! I happily agree with your observation. Interestingly, I am currently re-introducing myself to a variety of my film cameras in an effort to revive the belief that I can take good pictures without relying on my digital cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anasebi Posted January 19, 2012 Share #195 Posted January 19, 2012 Well, in regards to the original thread; Great post. Gotta say thanks for taking the time to make the comparison shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.