gtownby Posted December 25, 2008 Share #1 Posted December 25, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm a committed M8 user but added an MP to the arsenal last year. During that time, I've taken my Tri-X to a specialty (one-man) lab in Los Angeles for development, proofs, and prints. So, I've never actually seen my film shots on the computer monitor. Last week, I decided to simply take my roll to Samy's for a quick Develop & Scan. Though I asked for "high-resolution" scans, they made an error and gave me med-res scans (approx 624 kb each). I was curious to see how they turned out, especially since I shot my subject with the M8 in the same session. Anyway, I was completely shocked at how good the med-res scans looked on the monitor. In fact, it took quite a bit of work with the digital files for them to approach the effect of the film. So here are the results. First, the digital version (ISO 320), converted with Silver Efex Pro, neutral film effect. Next, the med-res Tri-X. Both with a 50 mm Summicron. (Don't pay too much attention at the much better "eyes" of the film shot, that may just be a difference in the reflector position.) In the end, I shoot film because I like to have gelatin silver prints for certain subjects. But I think I will now be adding scans to the mix. . . . 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/72292-first-time-dev-scan-blown-away/?do=findComment&comment=757492'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 25, 2008 Posted December 25, 2008 Hi gtownby, Take a look here First Time Dev & Scan - Blown Away!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MPJMP Posted December 26, 2008 Share #2 Posted December 26, 2008 Every time I contemplate selling my MP and reinvesting the funds in a nice digital rig I just look at some of my Tri-X scans and the urge instantly subsides. You can spend a lot of time and effort trying to simulate the real thing, or you can just use the real thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted December 26, 2008 Share #3 Posted December 26, 2008 Convincing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted December 26, 2008 Share #4 Posted December 26, 2008 Gordon very nice...film just has that look due to it being well,,,,film. enjoy andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 26, 2008 Share #5 Posted December 26, 2008 Hello Gordon, LOL.. Im totally with you on this one, I started taking my film to Samy's for process and high-rez scan. Totally blown away by the output. I know there is more in the negatives when I inspect them, but I mostly really like the look of the image straight off the disk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted December 27, 2008 Share #6 Posted December 27, 2008 Gordon, I fear that you may be comparing too many variables here, oever which you have no control. ie. The level of sharpening and contrast control exhibited by the scanner of your film. The degree of PP you performed on the M8 file. What I am seeing is a marked difference in contrast and sharpness between the two, which could also be due to slight mis-focuss on one shot. Not trying to detract from your film enthusiasm here, I share it, but always be careful of the "apples & oranges" comparison. Persist with you parallel shooting and see if the same differences occur over a larger sampling with time. Either way, enjoy both media. They are both useful and fun. And now it's the holidays and I am going to leave the computer world for a bit and fire up my darkroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted December 27, 2008 Share #7 Posted December 27, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) could You try to describe what looks better about the scan? I'd prefer the digital shot but would be interested in Your opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtownby Posted December 27, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted December 27, 2008 Hey Guys - Thanks for all the useful comments. Yes, I'm trying to not get too carried away here about film vs. digital. But the film scans had a more discernible "pop" versus the converted digital files. (I focused on the eyes, which were sharp in both images, though they don't look sharp in the digital posting -- probably because there is less light entering them.) Having said that, I'm betting that more time and experience in digital post-processing could reduce the difference to virtually nothing. Besides, nothing can compare to what one can do to make a less-than-perfect RAW file into a superb finished product. I have a lingering theory, though, that for B&W photography, a capture system that registers only black, whites and what's in between (film) starts out with an advantage over a system that is built to accurately gather millions of colors (digital). Again, it was fun to share this experience with you all. Best wishes to all of us getting the photos of lives (in whatever format) in the New Year! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.