Scanning vs Digital caputre

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People do seem to have their feathers ruffled very easily..

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Sleet, snow and rain at the freezing point. Ruffled feathers are warmest...

[KevinA]

I see. You are saying film compresses the captured dynamic range. Which does not alter the fact that by scanning film you add the disadvantages of film to those of the digital capture you turn it into. Better to eliminate one quality-lessening step by either cutting out the film part and going digital all the way, or staying with film and paper and leaving out the alien digital process.

 

I think the difference is film gives a natural toe and shoulder curve, digital you have to create that and it's not the same. I don't think digital handles cloud and sun as nicely as film. I was looking at some files from the new Nikon of snow on mountain ridges, even those 25mp don't handle the bright snow to shadow as nicely as film.

My 1DsmkII struggled with really bright days, it would go sort of flat looking, I could never put my finger on it, but sunny days did not look as nice as I thought they should, the smkIII is better (more bits?) in this respect. The toe and shoulder on film compress the ends of highlight and shadow in a non linear way, I think that is films advantage with capturing DR .

Just my observations,no scientific testing or proof on my part.

 

Kevin.

[pgk]

I think the difference is film gives a natural toe and shoulder curve, digital you have to create that and it's not the same. Kevin.

 

Kevin

 

You are right, but... what you describe as 'natural' is actually non-linear. I think that we've simply got used to the way that film loses linearity in highlights and shadows and this is now the accepted way that an image looks, so might be termed 'traditional'. I often use PS's highlight and shadow to readjust highlights to reduce their brightness (remove linearity) and I suppose mimics the film look that I am used to.

 

But, digital is now dominant and I'd hazard a guess and suspect that as new photographers are brought up solely on digital, the 'traditional' look will become less accepted as digital becomes the norm.

 

So I suppose that it might be possible to add to the answer to the original question by suggesting that it might be easier to achieve a more 'traditional' look using film but the M8/8-2 will produce 'sharper' images which can be made to look 'traditional' by post processing.

 

Commenting on Andy Barton's ruffling of feathers, I'd say that there are several fora that I no longer view simply due to the inability of posters to keep discussion impersonal (when their feathers are ruffled that is). This forum is usually excellent in this respect and long may it stay so.

[KevinA]

 

If anyone can be bothered, it should be possible to scan a negative several times at different settings and then do HDR conversion and adjustments to see what if anything can be gained. Of course introducing a scanner inevitably alters everything as it is yet another step in the process.

 

.

 

I think Silverfast will do the multi scans for you and produce a high DR file without you doing the work. I would think it takes a lot longer to scan.

 

Kevin.

[Guest bwcolor]

This is Pete, the poster of the initial entry in this thread.

 

The discussion about the merits of my questions has been very helpful. (The bickering and sharp personal comments, and irrelevant things have not been so enlightening. Sort of sad, some of them.) But on the merits, it appears to me that this is a time for me to move away from the darkroom once and for all. The hassle of the wet processes, even in developing the film which I might then scan, is not very appealing compared to direct digital readouts from the M8/8x. And the comments on scanning black and white negs, without benefit of effective Digital Ice cleanup, seem daunting, and even without this, the time involved and delay in seeing the image, puts scanning in an inferior place. Another major factor is the matter of introducing another set of lenses and handling between the camera image and the print, and the inevitable loss of subtle information in remaking film technology into digital technology.

 

So thanks to all of you for your constructive comments. I'm off to the camera closet to see what I can sell from my past years of film equipment (Hasselblad, Nikons, Leica bodies, one or two Leica lenses, etc.) to raise the money for an M8x.) Wish me well, please.

 

Caveat: But I may go slowly on laying out the big Leica bucks for the new body, since my expectation is that Leica will produce a very modernized version of the M series--better sensor, veiwfinder, etc, within the next 18 months. (I throw this in so as to keep the pot boiling, albeit on a somewhat different subject).

 

A genuine Happy Holidays to all, and wish for a congenial, friendly, gentle and thoughtful new year. Filled with good and exciting new Leica facts and info.

[KevinA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kevin

 

You are right, but... what you describe as 'natural' is actually non-linear. I think that we've simply got used to the way that film loses linearity in highlights and shadows and this is now the accepted way that an image looks, so might be termed 'traditional'. I often use PS's highlight and shadow to readjust highlights to reduce their brightness (remove linearity) and I suppose mimics the film look that I am used to.

 

But, digital is now dominant and I'd hazard a guess and suspect that as new photographers are brought up solely on digital, the 'traditional' look will become less accepted as digital becomes the norm.

 

So I suppose that it might be possible to add to the answer to the original question by suggesting that it might be easier to achieve a more 'traditional' look using film but the M8/8-2 will produce 'sharper' images which can be made to look 'traditional' by post processing.

 

Commenting on Andy Barton's ruffling of feathers, I'd say that there are several fora that I no longer view simply due to the inability of posters to keep discussion impersonal (when their feathers are ruffled that is). This forum is usually excellent in this respect and long may it stay so.

 

Yes I agree to a certain extent but..

Film does it in a gentler way for me, even if you have blown highlights, the path to them is more gradual. As an example the typical digi sunset shot often has blocky colours around the sun, it might have captured detail in areas where the film has not, often it gets ugly at the extremes with digital. It can happen with skin also. highlight to shadow. All the processing you want to do in Photoshop does not get the smooth fall off back, well not when I do it. Most processing in Photoshop is about throwing information away and adding generated information to what's left, that's what taking in digital encourages you (might be just me) to do. Film I'm trying to get the scan to match the film.

 

Cheers Kevin.

[KevinA]

This is Pete, the poster of the initial entry in this thread.

 

The discussion about the merits of my questions has been very helpful. (The bickering and sharp personal comments, and irrelevant things have not been so enlightening. Sort of sad, some of them.) But on the merits, it appears to me that this is a time for me to move away from the darkroom once and for all. The hassle of the wet processes, even in developing the film which I might then scan, is not very appealing compared to direct digital readouts from the M8/8x. And the comments on scanning black and white negs, without benefit of effective Digital Ice cleanup, seem daunting, and even without this, the time involved and delay in seeing the image, puts scanning in an inferior place. Another major factor is the matter of introducing another set of lenses and handling between the camera image and the print, and the inevitable loss of subtle information in remaking film technology into digital technology.

 

So thanks to all of you for your constructive comments. I'm off to the camera closet to see what I can sell from my past years of film equipment (Hasselblad, Nikons, Leica bodies, one or two Leica lenses, etc.) to raise the money for an M8x.) Wish me well, please.

 

Caveat: But I may go slowly on laying out the big Leica bucks for the new body, since my expectation is that Leica will produce a very modernized version of the M series--better sensor, veiwfinder, etc, within the next 18 months. (I throw this in so as to keep the pot boiling, albeit on a somewhat different subject).

 

A genuine Happy Holidays to all, and wish for a congenial, friendly, gentle and thoughtful new year. Filled with good and exciting new Leica facts and info.

 

The scanning thing is a problem when you need to turn around a lot of images in a given time. If it's to be the best quality for a few portfolio or exhibition images it is not such a problem, you will still spend a lot of time with digital getting it right. It depends on what you want to accomplish with either medium, there is no reason not to shoot both.

 

Kevin.

[wparsonsgisnet]

... I may go slowly on laying out the big Leica bucks for the new body, since my expectation is that Leica will produce a very modernized version of the M series--better sensor, veiwfinder, etc, within the next 18 months. (I throw this in so as to keep the pot boiling, albeit on a somewhat different subject)....

 

Pete, waiting won't help you to take pix. If Leica brings out another digi-M, you could use the one you already bot at backup, or sell it.

 

Careful which of the Leica lenses you let go from the closet. You might wish you had them on the M8. They grow a little when they meet the M8.

 

G'luck with your decision. If the M8 shows up under your tree, it'll be a very merry holiday.

[tgray]

I think you'll have a good time with the M8. Keep the Leica lenses though. And if you get a new one, consider the 28 Summicron. It's a fantastic lens.

[charlesphoto99]

This is Pete, the poster of the initial entry in this thread.

 

The discussion about the merits of my questions has been very helpful. (The bickering and sharp personal comments, and irrelevant things have not been so enlightening. Sort of sad, some of them.) But on the merits, it appears to me that this is a time for me to move away from the darkroom once and for all. The hassle of the wet processes, even in developing the film which I might then scan, is not very appealing compared to direct digital readouts from the M8/8x. And the comments on scanning black and white negs, without benefit of effective Digital Ice cleanup, seem daunting, and even without this, the time involved and delay in seeing the image, puts scanning in an inferior place. Another major factor is the matter of introducing another set of lenses and handling between the camera image and the print, and the inevitable loss of subtle information in remaking film technology into digital technology.

 

A couple of points: since when in a traditional darkroom setting didn't one put another lens in between the negative and the print? And a lot of photographers made the mistake of shooting with a $2k lens and then printing through a cheap enlarging lens, thereby eliminating the reason for shooting with the expensive lens in the first place (and lets not even get into mis-alignment of the enlarger).

 

I had to get out of the darkroom for health reasons mostly, and I feel that scanning film is actually in some case better (esp for making larger prints - ie no alignment problems). But one does have to work with an Imacon grade scanner and up, just as one was best off with APO lenses in the darkroom.

 

Honestly, if one has their negs souped at a decent lab and put in proper sleeves then lack of Digital Ice is a non-issue. It generally takes me five - ten minutes at the most to clean up a scan.

 

Bottom line : the prints I make from my M8 are very nice. So are the prints I scan from film with my Imacon (and I prefer Silver Rag, the Ilford and Harmon being too glossy for me and resemble too much RC photo paper). Both film and digital are viable options and being used by pros and artists around the world. Both give different looks.

[pklein]

As much as I like the look of film, the M8 (and occasionally an E510) have pretty much replaced my film cameras. The one exception is when I shoot a classical concert--the M8 is usually too noisy (sound-wise) for chamber music.

 

That said, the dynamic range problem can put most digital cameras in a lose-lose situation. Bright sunshine with deep shadow? The proverbial white bridal dress and black tux? Spot stage lighting with important action in the shadows? It's often too much for most digital sensors--you're going to either blow the highlights or lose the shadows to noise no matter what you do. Scanned negative film can handle this, either by scanning twice and merging, or even some version of HDR from the same scan (such as creating two 16-bit TIFF files with drastically different curves, then painting in the highlights or shadows from one to the other).

 

I still think B&W film is worth shooting for a specific reason--the "look," the grain, the particular response. And I have lots of old negatives and slides, so I'm not selling my film scanner. But most of the time, the convenience of the M8 trumps other considerations, for me.

 

And no, a print from an all-digital workflow usually doesn't look exactly like a chemical print or even one from scanned film. But it can be as beautiful in its own way.

 

--Peter

[Printmaker]

But most of the time, the convenience of the M8 trumps other considerations, for me... And no, a print from an all-digital workflow usually doesn't look exactly like a chemical print or even one from scanned film. But it can be as beautiful in its own way. --Peter

 

I print on a range of papers that mimic everything from cibachrome to hand coated platinum/paladium. In terms of the ability to produce a beautiful print, we've never had it so good. The inks and the papers today offer creative possibilities we never dreamed of twenty or thirty years ago.

 

Yes, I can pull some beautiful prints out of storage that made on Agfa Portriga back in the 60s but I can also pull some prints that I made the other day from M8 files printed on Illford Gold Silk and Cranes Museo that are equally beautiful. The big difference is that in the 60s I might get a good 11x14 while today I get 20x30s with half the effort and time.

 

Quality digital camera files are easier to print in large sizes. They seem to hold up better than scanned negs. Sure, I've got a ton of 4x5 and 8x10 films that look good scanned, but we're talking 35 mm. I can always get a better print from good digital camera file than from a scanned 35 slide or neg.

 

Your Milage May Vary

 

Tom

[Guest stnami]

Conclusion:D

Most stay away from the darkroom as they find it difficult, the same goes with scanning. Scanning is a pain but if one has a dedicated computer for that task, other PP work can be carried out on another computer at the same time, not a problem

[jaapv]

Conclusion

Tsk tsk tsk....

[Printmaker]

Conclusion:D

Most stay away from the darkroom as they find it difficult, the same goes with scanning. Scanning is a pain but if one has a dedicated computer for that task, other PP work can be carried out on another computer at the same time, not a problem

 

I spent my first 20 working years smelling like hypo. It was not difficult but its just not necessary in our digital age. And I use 3 computers. My design computer is attached to an Epson 10,000 scanner, another serves two Epson 9800 and a Xerox 7700 and the third runs two 4x5 scanbacks. That still does not make scanning film any less of a pain in the butt. But having several computers lets me check this forum while prints feed, paintings are being shot or film scans.

 

Tom

 

Kauai's Printmaker