Richard Milner
(K=1653) - Comment Date 12/5/2003
|
It's arguable that a digital SLR is better than a 35mm film scan.
Recent tests in the UK's Professional Photographer magazine said that the best current D-SLR could provide images as good as a 35mm slide frame. The digital images had better resolution due to lack of grain, but suffered from aliasing along the edge of straight lines.
The 35mm scans could have been done at higher resolution, producing a biger file, but to an increaing extent this would have started to resolve more grain. The tests were done on the basis of producing images for magazine printing. If the images were needed for large posters, then the higher res scans would have been useful even if the grain was enhanced. The 35mm would therefore move past the digital in terms of quality at extremely large blow-up sizes.
The smallest MF frame is 2.7 times the area of a 25mm slide and thus provides much more film area for scanning without getting grain. The files are correspondingly larger and capable of greater enlargement.
The quality of any film scan naturally depends on the equipment and personnel who do the scanning. High res drum scanners used in professional applications do a better job than desktop units.
One argument for continuing shooting on film is that images can be re-scanned on better equipment when it is produced, whereas digital images are fixed at the resolution they were shot at.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 12/8/2003
|
Jim,
Honestly I think that done right (film, scanner, camera, lens) even a 35mm scan can produce a better image then the current DSLR cameras. Now that said the line is quickly getting closer together and soon the DSLR will surpass a good high quality film scan (some will say it already has). When looking at Medium format, if you?re using a quality camera and scanning with a high-end scanner (Nikon, Imacon.etc) then digital is not even close. The main reason for this in the larger film size affords a better scanned output.
|
|
|
|
Betsy Hern
(K=12872) - Comment Date 12/8/2003
|
I'm not so sure. It depends on who you believe. I've been struggling with this question too, and found a test published on luminous-landscape in January 2003 that concluded that the Canon EOS 1Ds (just one example of a high-end digital camera, results would be similar with others in this same category) produced files with higher resolution and much finer grain than those from the Pentax 67, and by extension all other medium format camera scans (unless drum-scanned). The author concluded that he no longer retained any advantage in shooting medium format film. He stated , "It's more expensive, less convenient and produces lower quality images." However, he also admitted, "The range of lenses available to me is much greater with 35mm digital, including the availability of longer lenses, wider lenses, more zooms, Image Stabilization, wider aperture primes, and tilt/shift lenses. " He based his conclusion on math and empirical numbers, not his gut and was surprised with the final outcome. He also surmised that the capabilites of the highe end digital camera would filter down to consumer-grade equipment over the next couple of years.
I found these statement especially interesting --
" I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. There simply isn't that much more information on film than about 4,000 PPI. Above that we get bigger files, but not much more information. Maybe, 20% more than the 3200 PPI scans that my Imacon Flextight Photo scanner is capable of, but not 2 or 3 times as some inexperienced people presume from the numbers. Also, such scans are huge, 500 or 600MB and almost impossible to work with. Oh yes, these scans cost hundreds of dollars each. How many of these are you going to make on a regular basis?"
"Resolution is but one factor to consider. Noise (grain) is in my opinion of as much if not more significance, and digital files from cameras like the D30, D60, 1D and 1Ds are clearly superior to film in this regard at 100 ISO, and at higher speeds there's no contest ? film loses hands down. "
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 12/9/2003
|
Damn it I am not giving up film! (as I hear that echo thru this emtpy place.. humm am I alone?)
Ok just kidding!
|
|
|
|
Caroline Cohoon
(K=415) - Comment Date 12/11/2003
|
Since 120 neg scanners are hard to come by and expensive I've found the best option is to make a good print, maybe 8x10 size and scan that (this is also true of 35mm). Of course, scanning negs is a way to save time, and a digital SLR even better... if that's what you're going for then nevermind.
Chris- I'M not giving up film either. (I do give in and use digital every now and then, but it's no real comparison)
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
(K=86139) - Comment Date 12/11/2003
|
One approach that hasn't been mentioned is the flatbed scanner with a transparency adaptor and one factor that has only been mentioned peripherally is cost. A really good digital SLR of the kind the Luminous Landscape guy was was comparing is a very expensive beast. Even a modestly priced MF camera combined with a flatbed scanner is a viable alternative that produces comparable quality--and in some respects (dynamic range, for instance) superior. Add to that the complexity of the digital camera and the speed with which it goes out of date, and remember the functional simplicity of (say) a rangefinder MF camera, which has a very long service life, and I think it's a much closer call. There's just so very much more bang for the buck. And besides, to be honest, I LIKE and am very familiar with film. So it's not entirely an objective evaluation (very few are).
|
|
|
|
Cristian Stan
(K=136) - Comment Date 12/12/2003
|
This is my case, I have a flatbed with a medium and large format adaptor and a Seagull camera. I'm very pleased with them. Minimum investment also, compared to a medium format film scanner
|
|
|
|
Jim Ghiringhelli
(K=280) - Comment Date 12/26/2003
|
I use an Epson 3200 Pro and it scans a 48 bit medium format negative at 3200dpi resulting in a file size of 208MB. Lots of detail!!!
I would never scan a photo as you will pick up the surface texture on the scan.
Jim
|
|
|
|
M. Kevin Johnson
(K=19) - Comment Date 1/2/2004
|
Hi, I am kind of late on this one but I thought I would drop a note. For a perfect example take a look at the info on here about file size:
http://aplab.d2g.com/photo_digital_questions.htm
Granted this is info based on 9x9 images but the idea holds true regardless. With digital what you take IS what you got. I have seen great examples of both combined to give a final result but remember your computer screen is only about 120 DPI. Do a print at that res and well........ The scanner we use is a Werhli shown about 1/2 way down:
http://aplab.d2g.com/scanning.htm
A full image at max res is 1.1-1.2 Gigs in color and takes about 45 minutes. The new ones are much faster and can also do a negative but you use what you got. It is rather interesting though.
I still hold more to film myself but then again I use my digital point and shoot a lot because I use it for the flowers I post on the web. It has made it so I do not firget the name of the flower before I post the image. I may feel different after I get a 50" Lamba or similar.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 1/8/2004
|
I would say that for very high end digital equipment (i.e. 1Ds, MF scanning backs) that is true or at least close to being true. Michael Reichman (the Luminous Landscape guy) posted some very convincing photos to this effect. It took a drum scan to pull 6x7 *even* with the 1Ds. Not ahead, just even. The in house scan was clearly inferior.
I have seen comparison scans on other sites where the MF shots seemed to have a bit more detail, but the 1Ds shots were so much cleaner that one would be tempted to pick them any way.
For other DSLR's (the 6 MP APS sized sensor class) I would say no IF we're comparing to high quality MF scans. Not necessarily drum scans, but good scanners. They have surpassed 35mm for the most part, however.
Pixel counts and file sizes are very misleading. There's a lot that degrades an image in a film workflow, starting with film grain and film's MTF response curve (as details get finer, film contrast really begins to suffer). The clean nature and incredible response of a digital sensor throughout its resolution range makes digital images look better than their pixel counts would suggest. Acutance and lack of noise contribute greatly to an image, and are as important as raw resolution.
I don't really agree with the theory that improved scanner technology will pull film ahead again. Film is not a bottomless pit of image detail. Provia 100F is only rated for 60 lpmm in an average contrast scene (roughly 10 MP for the exposed area), and has got a weak response past around 40-45 lpmm (5-7 MP range). It does 160 lpmm with 1000:1 contrast test charts, but what in the real world has that kind of contrast? 4,000 ppi desktop scanners and drum scanners pull out more shadow detail due to better DMAX, but the extra pixels really aren't doing much other than avoiding grain aliasing. Reichman points this out. His drum scanned 6x7 is about the best you can do. It has probably recovered everything possible off the film.
It's fair to point out that you can get a pretty nice MF setup, plus good flatbed scanner, for less money than a 1Ds, and a lot less than a MF scanning back. It would serve you very well.
Also, certain films just have a unique look. Other films have more dynamic range than digital. It really shouldn't be a "digital vs. film" thing. We're all free to shoot both.
I've had a 10D for a few months now and have been amazed at the quality. I've been shooting a ton with it. But guess what I just got off ebay: a Yashicamat 6x6 TLR. It won't see as much use as the 10D I'm sure, but I'm going to enoy it. I can't wait to load it with Velvia 50 or a B&W film.
One last comment: I don't know why people say that digital cameras go out of date, but film cameras do not? If we have to have the latest and greatest technology, most MF bodies are "out of date" before you open the box because 35mm is where the best technology goes. If we're interested in taking pictures, then a D30 is no more "out of date" than a turn of the century view camera. You don't have to upgrade just because a newer model came out. My 10D can record more information than can be laid down in an 8x10 print, and 8x10's are what I normally print. If a 20D comes out, will I increase my paper and ink costs just to try and see a difference?
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 1/8/2004
|
Short correction to my above post...when I was talking about film scanners and Provia I was listing MP ranges for 35mm scans, not MF.
|
|
|
|
Robert Folkerts
(K=15) - Comment Date 1/9/2004
|
I have a question about the number of megapixels needed to match the resolution of film. Before going farther, I will state that I accept that digital images appear cleaner, so I am not trying to talk about a subjective 'image quality'. If we assume that we have a color film that can resolve 40 lp/mm, what is the equiv resoutition?
First, lp/mm means line pairs, so in order to resolve a line pair, you will need AT LEAST 2 pixels, and that puts on the edge of the Nyquest theorem. So, we need something like 80 lines per millimeter. Now, since the image in in color, we need to have 4 pixels to produce color, assuming that we are using a typical Bayer pattern to produce color (2 green, 1 red and 1 blue pixel in a square) So, we need something like 80 * 80 * 4 = 25,600 pixels per square millimeter to match the resolution of film. So, for a modest 35 mm image we have 24 mm * 36 mm = 864 mm^2. So, we would need a digital camera with something like 220 megapixels to get the same resolution.
If we look at a 'modest' 645 medium format camera, we have 60 mm * 45 mm = 2700 mm^2. This is about 690 megapixels.
If we look at a scanner that can scan 4000 lines per inch (160 lines per mm), we see that we should be able to get to the 40 lp/mm limit of the film. I think that when a scanner claims 160 lines per millimeter, that this is for each color.
Am I doing something wrong? I think that the numbers are right. What this tells me is that photographers almost never approach the optical limits of photography. When we factor in focussing errors, mirror shake and so forth, we hardly every approach resolution limits of our glass and sensors. Perhaps if we use critically focused Alpas on heavy tripods, we could be getting this sort of resolution from medium format. But not with an SLR with a big mirror slapping around.
I think I recall reading that in 35mm photography, it is the 5 - 10 lp/mm resolution that has the greatest influence on our subjective assessment of a photo. If we drop from 40 to 10 line pairs per millimeter, we would only need 1/16 of the number of pixels calculated above. This would drop 35mm into the 13 MP range. If anyone sees a huge error in my numbers, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 1/9/2004
|
"Now, since the image in in color, we need to have 4 pixels to produce color, assuming that we are using a typical Bayer pattern to produce color (2 green, 1 red and 1 blue pixel in a square)"
That's incorrect. The Bayer pattern is what allows a single sensor site to detect color as opposed to having 3 sensor sites (RGB) per color pixel. A color filter is placed over the sensor so that each site records either R, G, or B (the grid is actually 4 sites square recording RGBG). By looking at each site's neighbors, the colors for individual sites can be determined. Many people tend to disbelieve that this can result in good, accurate color based on the theory. But the human eye works in a similar manner. Both our vision and digital prints come out fine. (The reasons why have to do with how we perceive color vs. luminance, the latter being much more important in defining detail.)
So with a Bayer filter, one site = 1 color pixel.
"So, we need something like 80 * 80 * 4 = 25,600 pixels per square millimeter to match the resolution of film. So, for a modest 35 mm image we have 24 mm * 36 mm = 864 mm^2. So, we would need a digital camera with something like 220 megapixels to get the same resolution."
No. At 40 lpmm you have: (80 x 24) x (80 x 36) = 5.5 MP.
"If we look at a 'modest' 645 medium format camera, we have 60 mm * 45 mm = 2700 mm^2. This is about 690 megapixels."
(80 x 60) x (80 x 45) = 17.2 MP
However, it needs to be pointed out (and almost never is) that these basic calculations are an over simplification of how film records information. Film does not record details at 40 lpmm with the same clarity as 20 lpmm. The higher the resolution, the lower the contrast on film until lp can no longer be distinguished. When you look at any film's MTF curve, you find that details at higher resolutions aren't recorded well at all. Mix in grain and you have to seriously question how much real and beneficial information is recorded at higher resolutions.
Provia 100F actually does pretty well up until the 40 lpmm mark, and has a limit of 60 lpmm (this is recording a scene with average contrast). Velvia holds up well until 50 lpmm, and is limited to 80 lpmm. Other color films are generally likely inferior; some B&W films are probably better.
Digital sensors record with extreme clarity right up until their resolution limit. 60 lpmm is recorded much more clearly on a DSLR sensor than on Provia film. This signal-to-noise factor is a big part of the reason why digital files are comparable to film scans even when the film scans have far more total pixels.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 1/10/2004
|
Numbers, too many numbers! :-) Final answer is, if you have 5k or more to spend by a 1ds from Canon or D1X from Nikon and be happy, or if you have more to spend by a Blad H1 digital. Digital well be better then the best film (it may already be) but at a huge cost. If your pocket book can handle it then go for it.
|
|
|
|
John Molligo
(K=414) - Comment Date 2/4/2004
|
Sorry to use your forum to not answer your question, but I had to respond to Chris. No you are not alone. I'm a FILM photographer, and I like LP's better than CD's too (if you listen real close LP's do sound better).
|
|
|
|
Paul F.C.
(K=15) - Comment Date 2/6/2004
|
My apologies that this reply does not answer to the original question.
I find Daniel's question rather interesting. He said, "One last comment: I don't know why people say that digital cameras go out of date, but film cameras do not?"
The reason why digital cameras go out-of-date is because, digital cameras come wholesale with fixed built-in non-interchangeable and non-upgradable CCDs and processors. An improved/new/upgraded model will definitely out-do and out-date the previous model unless the CCDs & processors of the older model can be swopped and upgraded at home economically and conveniently.
Unlike film cameras, it does not become out-dated easily because the camera is merely a film housing with built-in functions. The quality of the image is reliant on the film & developing processes. When newer, better films, improved developing and printing technologies are introduced, one only has to switch the generic "CCD" and "software" rather than the whole camera. The previous film and developing techonology gets out-dated, not the camera.
The film camera remains only as a housing with built-in functions that has provisions for a constantly upgradable and swoppable "CCD" and "software". Whereas, a digital camera at this present moment is a fixed component.
Technically speaking, you can upgrade the digital camera partially but at great expense. Therefore, it makes more economical sense to upgrade the whole block when a new one is developed, which inevitably makes the previous model out-dated.
|
|
|
|
Richard Milner
(K=1653) - Comment Date 2/10/2004
|
Slightly off topic but last week one of my colleagues shot some still pictures of a voice over artist at work. He used a Canon AE-1 with 50mm, f/1.8 lens, and available lighting supplemented by one 300W floodlight. The film was Fuji NPZ 800, rated at 800 ISO. The film was professionally processed and scanned to CD-ROM for a 16-MB file size, which cost £26.
The clarity and sharpness of these images is eye-opening. You can zoom in and see individual strands of hair before you notice serious grain. (Unfortunately I can't post any because they are copyright.) But seriously, the quality you can get on 25 year old manual equipment, using modern film and scanning, is marvellous.
|
|
|
|
Barrie Cranston
(K=172) - Comment Date 2/23/2004
|
I saw an advert for a new £3500 digital camera that boasts the best image quality. I downloaded the sample shots, zoomed in so that the photo would have been around 1.5m x 1m in size. Very impressive. I went to the Focus exhibition 22/2/4 and tried the same camera for myself. I took the photo in fairly poor lighting (30th sec at 400asa). I looked at the preview screen, enlrged the image to about the size of a postcard and it was filled with noise. The rep tried this and that with similar results every time. The camera wasn't faulty. It was just that the conditions were not controlled. The point I'm making is that in controlled conditions (studio) or in bright light that allows fast shutter speeds you'll get great results. I saw and I know I'll be scanning my neg's for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Geoff Stairmand
(K=15) - Comment Date 3/28/2004
|
I agree if you are looking at dedicated 6x6 scanners. Flatbed scanners are now catching up quickly - Epson have just launched their 4870 Perfection flatbed scanner which gives 4800 ppi and creates 6x6 scans at 180mb enlargeable to 28"x28". I hope soon to get one but I have friends who have just bought so I will wait for comment
|
|
|
|
E A
(K=727) - Comment Date 3/30/2004
|
I just got an order back from West Coast Imaging of 645 and 67 images run through a drum scanner. The shadow detail is phenominal. Check my portfolio for the Moeraki photo with the split boulder - on the slide, that interior bowl is near to black, and in the scan, I was able to with Photoshop extract detail down to grains of sand - amazing. And the image posted was a horizontal cropped as a vertical; so it's essentially a 645 image. The noise threshold of a serious professional scanner is an amazing thing.
|
|
|
|
Thomas Papa
(K=15) - Comment Date 4/11/2004
|
I'm in the same position trying to decide between DLSR (Canon 1Ds, Kodak SLR/c, Canon IDMk II) versus H1 and a scanner, most likely the Epson 4870. My reasoning is that the H1 will not go out of date and can be used digitally. Waiting for the price of a digital back to come down, scanning in the meantime, seems like a more 'rational economic' decision than $8000 for a body alone that will be out of date and not upgradeable, essentially living as long as the shutter cycles. I'm trouble by the lack of repair or upgrade ability to these DSLR's.
The quality of a 3200dpi scan on med format film and the cost plus the 'upgradeability' just make sense. Add to that my opinion that techology has peaked in terms of what can be done within a 35mm body/sensor and it seems to me (jmho) that medium format will be the future in terms of size of sensors. That logic leads me to choose med format today and 'go digital' when the value is there for my use.
Logical? Irrational? Analysis by paralysis?
thank
tom
|
|
|
|
Andrew Michael
(K=86) - Comment Date 4/27/2004
|
I shot three sessions side by side with a Fuji S2 and an RZ67, and even my wife, who knows little of photography, preferred the scanned images. While the Fuji is an excellent camera, the aspect ratio of the chip compared to the large transparency is the primary reason for the difference in sharpness. This will change with time and technology.
Despite the inevitable ascendency of digital in the commercial realm, I still don't understand why this has to be an either / or proposition. For the artist, the more tools the better, and I simply won't limit myself to one medium. This includes other art forms. When acrylics proved superior to oils in the art world, nobody stopped oil painting, although use of oils dropped off considerably in the commercial sector. Others will no doubt point out that in photography, there is still a sizable group of people doing cyanotypes, gum bichromate, platinum/paladium and the like. One excellent photographer/artist is currently doing daquerrotypes!
|
|
|
|
Jeff
(K=499) - Comment Date 5/2/2004
|
I agree. There are some great shots taken with digital cameras by good photographers. But put a manual camera in some of there hands and tell them to take the same shot. A lot of people our buying digital and forgetting the importance of learning the art photography. I will try to stick to film until at least get the basics down pat.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Kevin Saitta
(K=77) - Comment Date 5/17/2004
|
This is something I hear all the time. Put it this way it you want to make 8x10 and 11x14 prints stick with digital if you want to go large film is the only choice. I shoot digital as well as film and from testing, 1Ds, D2H compared to film on large prints films wins hands down if you want to get up close and personal with the large print. Digital just does not hold together as good as film when printed large 20x24 and greater.
I know what I see and that is how I compare not be reading but by actually taking each of the high end digital camera and taking the same shot on 35mm and mf film camera printing to the same sizes and comparing. I am still unimpressed with digital.
I use digital everyday for my work but for my artwork film cannot be beat especially if you shoot BW.
Shoot film print digitally. Best of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
Arthur John Grossman III
(K=1214) - Comment Date 5/19/2004
|
It has been a long time since I visited this site and put anything in words in the forums, but I had to add my thoughts on this one.
I started shooting Polaroid when I was about 8 or 9. I then graduated to a Canon AE-1 around the age of 11 or 12. I shot that thing to death!
Around 2001, I paid $3000.00 for the Canon D30 digital SLR, and I used quite a bit and still use it today. However, when the decision came to either upgrade to a better digital SLR or invest the money in a MF film kit plus scanner, for me, it made the most sense to go with MF film.
I began to see paid assignments for commercial advertising clients coming my way, and 9 times out of 10, the clients wanted MF film. I took the money I had been saving for the Canon 1D Mark II or Kodak SLR/c and bought the Mamiya RB67, lenses and accessories, and the Epson 4870 scanner. I still have quite a bit of money left over, and in my humble opinion, I can meet or beat the quality of the best digital SLRs on the market currently. Quality is a personal thing, just like a lot of aspects of photography.
To me, it comes down to the right tool for the job. So, I shoot both film and digital. I've seen how my D30 has become somewhat obsolete, especially with the recent release of the new Canon RAW converter software and its complete lack of support for either the D30 or the D60 cameras. I just did not feel confident plunking down $4-$8k for a digital SLR that might not be supported in a few years.
Just my $.02 added to the mix.
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
(K=86139) - Comment Date 5/22/2004
|
My take on this is a little different from most because I like taking panoramas, and I prefer using film. From cropping wide-angle (21mm FL) shots on 35mm film to panorama format, I went to a Widelux (24mm x 59mm image) to a TX-1 (24mm x 65mm image). The quality improvement at each step was very noticeable. The larger negative area made an enormous difference.
However, there are trade-offs. I can get a complete 36-exposure roll of standard 35mm film scanned at a local store within an hour or so at a very reasonable price. Quality is fine for the web, and for prints up to 8 x 10". My non-standard negs I have to scan myself on a flatbed scanner. That becomes quite a chore.
Now I've moved up to medium format, 6 x 9cm for 180-degree panoramas, 6 x 18cm for 360 degrees, using a rotary camera.
I don't expect digital cameras to offer the kind of quality I can produce from film with this equipment any time soon--at least, not at a price I can afford. And now I see that Epson has announced a scanner that will scan 6 x 18cm negatives or transparencies in one go. Definition is 3,200dpi--fine for poster-sized prints from my larger negatives. And far from paying US$100 each or more for drum scans, I'll be doing my scanning on a US$500 scanner! I think this makes digital irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
t chamberlain
(K=638) - Comment Date 6/10/2004
|
No one has really mentioned output:
B&W Fibre Hand Print Vs. LightJet Print......
Hand-Printed every time!
|
|
|
|
Carlheinz Bayer
(K=14220) - Comment Date 6/10/2004
|
I like to add a few words to that resolution debate and draw the attention to a different angle of view.
When you compare analog/digital (especially when you want to buy a camera) no matter which format, you should ask yourself a few questions.
What am I going to shoot with the camera?
Which techniques am I going to use?
If you work on some fields, off the beaten path, you HAVE to stick to analog.
e.g.
-Infrared (please don't tell me with filters and PS you come close to a real analog IR)
-Low light conditions (3200-6400); digital noise is just nasty. Grain can be beautiful.
-X-processing (I did use all kind of PS plug-ins; forget about that)
-pinhole, LOMO, Holgas etc. etc.
If you do mainly e.g. studio shoots, daylight landscapes or portraits, you will find a good partner in an digital camera. But there are still thousands of good reasons to use an analog camera.
I admit there are also thousand of reasons to switch to digital; it all depends on how you going to use your tools.
I know I didn't answer the initional question, but I think the resolution is not everything when compare analog/digital.
Cheers! Carlheinz
|
|
|
|
luke devey
(K=17) - Comment Date 6/21/2004
|
Has anyone tried an Epson 4870 yet? They look good on paper but seem to get a slightly mixed press in the forums.
Luke
|
|
|
|
Simon White
(K=52) - Comment Date 8/2/2004
|
I've said this elswhere and I'll say it again here with the caveat that this whole Digital vs Film thing largely depends on the type of photography you are engaged in. I shoot Landscapes and reportage fairly exclusively and the aesthetic of film as well as the workflow of film are a massive part of my love for it. Having said all that, the barometer for me is what the top professionals in the Landscape field are doing and I don't see any of them shooting digital, yet. Infact the large majority are shooting with Large Format Field cameras on 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film.
I'm still shooting film in 35, 120 and am now branching into 4x5 LF. Personally I think there is allot more to this film vs digital debate that involves intangibles so difficult for Digital to define in the competative stakes when up against film. There is a magic to film that I don't believe Digital will ever be able to capture. I'm not anti Digital by any stretch but I am happy shooting film and see no reason to move to any other system for my needs.
Personally from what I have seen I still think film defeats Digital in terms of overall quality.
|
|
|
|
Billy Cobb
(K=436) - Comment Date 8/5/2004
|
Here's another Epson 4870 review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm
Although it's *possible* to generate FAR more resolution from medium format film than from any of the currently available dit cameras it's beyond the capability of *most* of us to do so without the use of a service bureau ... :-(
FWIW ... I shoot 645 and 67 FILM
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 8/5/2004
|
t chamberlain has made a very good point :-)
|
|
|
|
Tegwin Deacon
(K=224) - Comment Date 9/11/2004
|
There is nothing better than film!!! Long live my Hassel
|
|
|
|
David Millard
(K=735) - Comment Date 9/26/2004
|
A minor digression, but one that I think is worth noting . . . I use a 40 year old Linhof Technika body with 6x9cm (56x84mm actual film size) backs, and a Minolta Scan Multi Pro scanner. This setup allows me to use a wide range of vintage and contemporary lenses (16mm Zeiss Luminar to 270mm Nikkor). The greatest advantage is the opportunity to adjust the lens and film plane position when desired to control the resulting image. I'm very happy with the results, and at a fraction of the cost of getting equivalent images with a digital back!
|
|
|
|
Adam E. J. Squier
(K=9803) - Comment Date 9/27/2004
|
One thing I haven't seen in this thread is the topic of time. Yes, time. How long does it take for you to get your proofs to your client? Shooting weddings on MF will usually take at least a few weeks (unless rushed). I'm talking a normal, not rushed, workflow. One that you'd use for most of your clients.
Or forget weddings, how about portraits? Taking a portrait and the order on the same visit? Sure it's possible with MF (I've had it done myself) but it's still slower.
Digital allows me to take more photos, miss less due to film loading/rewinding, and lets me upload all the proofs to a Web site and have a proof magazine back within 2 weeks. On a normal workflow. If rushed, I can bring that down to less than a week.
People nowadays are more concerned with time than anything else. Sure, you "might" get better quality with your Hassies or RZs, but I doubt you'd notice much.
Using a 6MP digicam I can get 30x40 printed without resampling (on my end, at least) and it looks fantastic. Sure it's a little soft, but so are most prints that size from a 6x7 neg. And most folks aren't looking at large prints that closely unless they're trying to find fault with it. There's usually a couch in the way. ;-)
There is no "pat" answer to this question. If you want optimal quality and are willing to pay for it (in time, service bureau scans, and film costs) you might be better off with film. If you want a fantastic quality print for your client quickly, digital is a good choice.
|
|
|
|
Siddharth Siva
(K=3327) - Comment Date 11/1/2004
|
if one of the major factors for digital winnong over film scans is grain...what about noise generated by digital cameras at higher ISOs or longer exposure times? to my mind, i find film grain far more acceptable to digital noise. is that just conditioning or do a lot of people feel that way?
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 11/1/2004
|
I will agree with Adam that speed is an issue when shooting MF especially at wedding and portraits. When shooting weddings I inform the client that I will be shooting film and I give them the reasons why (mostly for the enlargement quality). I will shoot the ceremony on usually on35mm (sometimes on 6x4.5) but all formals are shot on 6x7. Film also has a look to that I prefer and I am finding that my clients prefer it as well. As for speed I get my MF proofs back in 4 hours (this is not a rush service but the labs normal service) and I them start the scanning process. Under normal circumstances I will have the proof book back to the client within two weeks of the event. Now I must state that I don?t shoot a lot of weddings, this is a personal reason as I will turn away client and refer them to another photographer I know.
|
|
|
|
