I like film...(open thread)

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is an interesting table, Henry, but I don't think one can compare various film/sensor formats like that, at least not in a meaningful way, in order to prove that film or digital is better than the other. Note that the table includes large format film as well (8x10 and 4x5). I realise this veers perhaps a bit off the topic of your post (apologies) but these are my thoughts. 

 

Fundamentally the file size and image resolution needed will depend on what the image is to be used for, particularly how large it is to be projected or printed.

 

That said, it seems to me that for sheer resolution "full frame" digital (24x36mm sensors) has had the advantage over small format (24x36) film since a few years for two reasons:

 

1) because manufacturers develop full frame sensors with ever more pixels (in addition to models with better small sensors and full format sensors with lower pixel count but large pixels), and

 

2) because most film users do not have access to scanners capable of pulling each little detail out from a negative/positive.

 

Re no. 2, inflated dpi numbers of consumer scanner makers do not normally correspond to real image information so to reach very high resolution with a 24x36 frame one needs specialised scanners. They are for instance drum scanners or one of the old professional flatbeds (Creo, iQ Smarts etc). These scanners are large and heavy, technologically quite obsolete (many use SCSI connections and repair is difficult) and slow to operate. Also, because of how drum scanners function they require a competent operator to get the best possible results. Only true enthusiasts and certain pros use them today.

 

Ironically, one of the best scanning solutions today is to digitize using a full frame SLR (or a smaller sensor SLR and stitch) and a good lens.

 

With the last models of the Nikon Coolscans it's possible to scan at close to 4000 "real" dpi worth of image information. For my purposes that is usually completely unnecessary. Even though the files will contain more actual image information than the 2000 dpi I normally scan with, I don't need that info for web presentation or even prints up to A4. So I choose not to scan at that level to save time and hard drive space. But I am quite sure (because I have tried this myself when I owned the Canon 5D2) that I could today set up a digitzation solution with a used 5D2 and a makro lens for much less than what the used Coolscans cost and still get scans of comparable (if not sometimes better, depending on the image in question) quality to my Coolscans. And the process would be a lot faster too.

 

For me personally, however, all the above is actually completely irrelevant because I use film for all the other qualities that film has and digital lacks.

 

Anyway, for some interesting scan vs digital comparisons have a look at these sites:

 

http://zeux.zlakfoto.ch/scanvergleich/index.html

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/#

 

br

Philip

 

Philip Interesting  reasoning , I agree what you said.

 

I have to find the post or posts of Chrism , that you know,  who told us about the size

after scanning MF negative in relation to printing.

As a scanner , he had an Imacon and it exceeded more than 7500 or even 9000 MO

more than enough for large format printing in comparison with Hasselblad digit camera.

 

The best and you admit with me is print from the negative through an enlarger and

compare the same picture with digital, without the disadvantages of digital.

 

Anyway , I see it when I enlarge my photos in comparison with digit inkjet print .

 

Best

Henry

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[Doc Henry]

Thanks for the compliments and comments.

 

It is pretty "wild." I do not know that I would make it a daily use film, but I ordered a few more rolls. I intend to keep it loaded in at least one camera. Having the benefit of being a witness to the original scenes, and the aftermath of use between the VC Color Skopar and the LTM 28 Summaron, I think there is some property to the film that allows it reflect, to a greater degree than normal, the optical differences in the lenses. With the Summaron, the film seems to render a more- to quote Henry- "impressionistic" result; with the Skopar, the strength of grain is increased in such a way that it appears, for all practical purposes, that you overlaid a normal photograph with a layer of grain.

 

OBTW, and this may be of special interest to Henry, of the scarce, specific claims ADOX makes about the film, they do stipulate that it is especially effective in enhancing reds.

 

Best,

 

Wayne

 

Thanks again.

 

Wayne,anyway, the old Summaron 28 still have a lot of surprise (ask for it Ian-Wattsy)

It's better to keep and use this treasure than to sell it  ! 

Best

Henry

 

[gnuyork]

I have to say I am not against shooting digital, I very much enjoy it (sorry Henry ), but maybe not as much as film (lately) for various reasons. I do think digital gives me a more clean (and dare I say true to the scene) look than film. Film to me is more like art and each different film interprets a scene differently and usually rendered more beautifully.

 

For the resolution conversation... I did some scans for large prints all based on 35mm Kodachrome and Ektachrome and I was surprised at how big I could go. Most of my prints were 18x24 with so little grain you would have to put you nose right up to the print to even see it (if that). A couple of the prints I made even bigger. I wanted to see just how far I could push it.

 

This one is 44 inches wide, (sorry not a great example) a scan from Kodachrome. It's not quite as grainless as my 18x24" prints, but at a normal viewing distance you wouldn't notice anything detracting. (and let me say, for the record, I like grain, it just depends. Maybe not so much in my transparencies, but B&W and even Portra have some beautiful grain). I'm impressed with what I can eek out of my scanner with 35mm chromes. There is no way I could get prints this large and of this quality with my 5DII. No way.

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by gnuyork

[gnuyork]

That being said (to throw a wrench in it)... I do have a very special digital camera (a point and shoot at that, and no it's not a Leica) that does give me results that are close.

 

These are 24x36" prints and tack sharp without a trace of noise. Any noise you see is due to my X1 camera (at 1600 ISO) that I used to capture these pics of the print.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by gnuyork

[Keith (M)]

Direct comparison - both full-frame i.e. M240 & 35mm film (albeit the film one has been cropped for aesthetic purposes). Both 50mm lens - but note one is a 2015 Summilux-M ASPH, the other a 1951 5cm Summicron Collapsible.  Conclusion?

Both are pictures of a tree!

 

 

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!

[Doc Henry]

Direct comparison - both full-frame i.e. M240 & 35mm film (albeit the film one has been cropped for aesthetic purposes). Both 50mm lens - but note one is a 2015 Summilux-M ASPH, the other a 1951 5cm Summicron Collapsible.  Conclusion?

Both are pictures of a tree!

 

 

First thanks Keith for this comparison that I expect from all of you

 

At first sight, apart the lens difference, but it's fine like this :

photo 1 seems more impressive, more catchy with contrasting clouds,

a dark sky (blue I think)

Photo 2 gives a more natural sky, less impressive

In the shadows, the details trunk of the tree is more homogeneous on photo 2,

less homogeneous on photo 1

I think the 1 comes from the M240 and in color converted to b&w isn't ?

 

In conclusion, both photos are pretty, but my preference goes for the 2 , maybe

more true, more natural. The 2 can be corrected to have the same effect as the 1

especially for clouds and sky , but for me it is not the original

In both cases , I do not seek the sharpness or edge cutting at any price ,

this is not what side I'm looking for

Best

Henry

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another direct comparison taken with same cameras/lenses etc etc on the same walk.  It will be very interest to read which people think is which!

Edited to add:- and which do you prefer? 

 

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!

Edited February 8, 2017 by Keith (M)

[Doc Henry]

That being said (to throw a wrench in it)... I do have a very special digital camera (a point and shoot at that, and no it's not a Leica) that does give me results that are close.

 

These are 24x36" prints and tack sharp without a trace of noise. Any noise you see is due to my X1 camera (at 1600 ISO) that I used to capture these pics of the print.

 

 

 

 

 

GNU thanks for your post and interesting pictures.

I agree with you too for digital use immediate and fast result but the problem is "aproximate" color

recognized by sensor manufacturers (see link below * ) and many other problems not solved in digital

like "special effects" (moiré, aliaising ,banding etc ...)

 

* http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3206514

Approximate why ?  because the electrical signal converted in color design with 1 and 0 , by an electronic machine is not in point !  also square pixels with electric signals and analysis with algorithms , one layer with Bayer filter with more Green than Red and Blue pixels etc....

I see it when I compare the 2 types of color photos that I have often shown you here. I still have my 2 digital M that I keep to compare  and as back up but I do not use them.

 

The day when the sensor gives colors like the film , I will begin to remove what I say on the digital.For the moment this is not the case.

I see that Leica and other brands produce about every 3 years a new camera with a new sensor.It proves that it seeks something better from what is presently imperfect. The M10 has not yet arrived IMO.

 

GNU about your (crop) picture the grains are missing, it's a shame 

Best and thanks again

Henry

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Suede]

Rogue film... it means I don't know what film it is but well past its use-by date...  and very grainy. I'm not sure about the colours but the scene itself was striking. The picture was there for the taking. Too easy.

 

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!

 

[gnuyork]

Another direct comparison taken with same cameras/lenses etc etc on the same walk.  It will be very interest to read which people think is which!

 

 Both so close, but I'm going to say top one of the film shot.

[Guest]

Another direct comparison taken with same cameras/lenses etc etc on the same walk. It will be very interest to read which people think is which!

 

Top one is film, I'd say. Ric

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Keith (M)]

 Both so close, but I'm going to say top one of the film shot.

 

 

Top one is film, I'd say. Ric

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks, chaps.  I should have added "and which do you prefer." !   (Now added to original post).

Edited February 8, 2017 by Keith (M)

[Guest]

Thanks, chaps. I should have added "and which do you prefer." !

Wot? On *this* thread? I'd be roasted whatever I said.

 

:-)

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[gnuyork]

GNU thanks for your post and interesting pictures.

I agree with you too for digital use immediate and fast result but the problem is "aproximate" color

recognized by sensor manufacturers (see link below * ) and many other problems not solved in digital

like "special effects" (moiré, aliaising ,banding etc ...)

 

* http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3206514

Approximate why ?  because the electrical signal converted in color design with 1 and 0 , by an electronic machine is not in point !  also square pixels with electric signals and analysis with algorithms , one layer with Bayer filter with more Green than Red and Blue pixels etc....

I see it when I compare the 2 types of color photos that I have often shown you here. I still have my 2 digital M that I keep to compare  and as back up but I do not use them.

 

The day when the sensor gives colors like the film , I will begin to remove what I say on the digital.For the moment this is not the case.

I see that Leica and other brands produce about every 3 years a new camera with a new sensor.It proves that it seeks something better from what is presently imperfect. The M10 has not yet arrived IMO.

 

GNU about your (crop) picture the grains are missing, it's a shame 

Best and thanks again

Henry

Doc, when I realized Kodak announced the end of Ektachrome E100VS, my go to color film, I started looking which digital cameras can get me close to slide film colors. I have a few digital cameras, all pretty good, but not getting me the look that I really want. I finally arrived at the Sigma Merrill cameras with their Foveon sensors. It's not a typical Bayer interpolated sensor, but more true RGB color. Because of this, I am able to make large prints without noise or artifacts, and the color from these files is quite a step up from my Canon DSLR or even the Leica X1 I have (though I do enjoy that camera).

 

With Digital, I enjoy the post - working with RAW files in Lightroom. I equate it to seeing that print come out of the tray in the darkroom. It's exciting to see what you can get from those files. And yes there is the convenience of immediate feedback, histograms, EXIF, yadda, yadda... but also there is something very special about doing it the old way, taking experience and applying it to exposing your film. Then (if you're like me) hoping it comes out. With Digital, there's not much hoping or anticipation, so some of the excitement is lost. Also I do think film gives a certain character to an image...I've been especially aware to that fact with some of the Portra 400 and Ektar 100 shots I see in this thread. I know there are simulations for these films, but nothing beats the real deal.

 

Several things that bother me about digital...

 

1. the cost of the cameras vs how long it is before the next greatest thing comes out. I can't keep up with the charade. I'd rather buy older more interesting film cameras (like my recent Rolleiflex).

 

2. And I say this with a grain of salt, but it seems like with the invention of the digital camera, EVERYBODY and their uncle is now a photographer, and you don't even have to know what you're doing when you could use the auto and programs modes, autofocus and get relatively good stuff. Makes it harder to stand apart from the crowd when it's so big.

 

3. Sometimes shooting digital to me seems too easy. I like a bit of a challenge (like shooting with my 4x5 and spot meter). Sometimes my results are disappointing, and if I had been shooting digital I would have walked away with something useable. But I get way more satisfaction carry around my M6 and (hoping I get a frame or two of something compelling).

 

And when it comes to LF, all bets are off. I know a Landscape photographer that shoots 8x10 Fugi Astia and Velvia and prints 4x5 feet or larger from drum scanned chromes and printed on Fugi crystal archive metallic paper. These are stunning prints (if you like that sort of postcard landscape thing). He has recently started shooting with the Phase One DB, and I can tell a difference in his prints shot on the DB in his gallery from across the room. This photographer labels his prints with what gear he uses and the shutterspeed and F stop settings in a little note below the print. I was with a friend of mine walking through the gallery, and I was calling out (successfully) which of the few prints were shot digitally with the phase ONE. To my eyes these images just did not have the punch and depth of the 8x10 shot images. Many probably could not tell or even care, but I could see it glaringly.

 

Anyway, just some of my thoughts and opinions. Every time I get a craving for one of the new digital M bodies (and boy do I), I come back to this thread and meditate, lol.

Edited February 8, 2017 by gnuyork

[Suede]

Another direct comparison taken with same cameras/lenses etc etc on the same walk.  It will be very interest to read which people think is which!

Edited to add:- and which do you prefer? 

 

 

Keith, I prefer the top photograph of the two.

[gnuyork]

Keith, I prefer the top photograph of the two.

I think I do as well.

[Guest]

Same here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[S/W]

Men at work (USA, CA, St. Barbara, Pier)

 

Leica M7 * Leica Summarit 2.5/75 * Adox Silvermax 100 * Adox Silvermax 1+29 * Nikon Coolscan V ED

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gsgary]

Paris is awash with bikes, and bicycles, as Henry's recent shot shows.

This from Blvd Beaumarchais, while I was scouting out some camera shops, and my wife visiting an old friend at Atelier Autrefois, do a search on that name, there's a few references to him, but no real website, but he IS amazing, truly.

 

M6

35 Summicron

T-Max100

R09 1:50

Plustek 8100

Gary

Quite a few Triumphs there

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[Guest JMF]

My daughter playing on the beach in December

 

Flickr

Provia 400X 80 Planar

 

 

Stunning shot !