A shoot out of sorts and a call for more

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Scott W, Jun 28, 2005.

  1. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Ok as shoot outs go this one is pretty lame, I am hoping that others
    might post what they have done as well.
    Last summer a fiend of mine bought a film scanner, a Nikon Coolscan V I
    believe. We both wanted to see how his 35mm Nikon would do against my
    Sony F828. When I was in town we went out to take some photos for
    comparison. So here comes part of the lame part, I don't remember
    what film he was using, it was something that he thought would do well
    beyond that I don't know (other then it was print film). At the time
    of this test I did not have a good raw converter for the Sony so I was
    shooting in jpg mode.

    These are the two photos that we got.
    http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Sony F828.jpg

    In the end we both agreed that there was not much to choose between the
    two. We did 8.5 x 11 prints of each and we both thought the print from
    the Sony was just a bit sharper looking, but it was so close as to not
    really matter.

    I now own a 20D which is much sharper then the F828, as well as having
    a lot more dynamic range. I would like to repeat this test with he the
    next time I am in town, but I don't think my friend will have a lot
    of enthusiasm for it as he has pretty much quit shooting film

    So what is the point in this post? People in these groups seem to want
    to argue with words but rarely will show their photos. Spirited debate
    is good, but when it breaks down into flame wars it stops being

    I am sure that someone will say that my example of a 35mm film scan is
    poor, if so I would hope that you would post one that you believe is
    better. I would hope that we might be able to some meaningful
    comparisons between different hardware. This goes beyond digital vs
    film, this includes lenses, scanners, print vs slide film, Fuji film vs
    Kodak, and dare we say it maybe even Sigma vs. Canon. I would also
    love to see a comparison between a number of stitched photos and a 4 x
    5 view camera, one of the questions being how well can the software
    match the effects of the tilt shift lens.

    Ideally we could get people together to shoot the same scenes at the
    same time so we could get a good comparison between, cameras, lenses,
    film, scanners etc. If you are going to tell me how much better your
    lens is then mine I would hope you would be willing to share a photo as
    well as your words.

    If anyone is visiting the Big Island of Hawaii in the future and shoots
    35mm film I would be more then happy to get together and shoot a bunch
    of photos together so we could compare how each camera does.

    Gear is not all there is to photography and it may not be the most
    important part, style and a good eye are important. But there is a
    wide range of styles and it will be futile to try and do any meaningful
    comparisons of style.

    Scott W, Jun 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Scott W

    Mr. Mark Guest

    In the end we both agreed that there was not much to choose between the
    I would have sharpened the 35mm scan before printing. On screen there is
    some digital noise in the 828 image, but not bad.
    Mr. Mark, Jun 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Do you keep your fiends separated from your other pets?
    William Graham, Jun 28, 2005
  4. Good question...

    Ken Nadvornick, Jun 28, 2005
  5. Scott W

    Gordon Moat Guest

    What exactly are you hoping to gain/learn from this?
    The Sony does sharpening in the camera, while the Nikon scanner does not.
    What you are really comparing is the nikon scanner to the Sony camera. The
    difficulty is that the quality of a scan out of the Nikon scanner is
    highly variable. The skill and experience of the scanner operator, and the
    software used for scanning, will affect the quality of the scan. Just
    using the default settings on a scanner rarely gives the best results.
    Why not just test the Sony 828 and Canon 20D on the same scene. Then you
    might find a measurable difference in dynamic range. Or you might find
    that the difference is subtle, and they are close.
    There is not much you will learn from a JPEG on the internet. Perhaps if
    we all photographed or scanned a Kodak Q60 target, or a MacBeth colour
    chart, then we would have a standard of comparison.
    Why reinvent the wheel . . . . . there are tons of comparisons already out
    there. If you get enough magazines for a while, or visit the collection at
    your local library, then you can find many of these comparisons. However,
    many people choose one thing over another either influenced by aesthetic
    choices, snobbery, word of mouth, or just convenience.
    You might find this interesting: <http://www.gigapxl.org/>

    Anyway, the biggest issue between scanning and single capture is that
    objects in real scenes often move. Some early high resolution direct
    digital involved scanning cameras, or scanning backs. Better Light still
    make a scanning back for 4" by 5" large format cameras. Capturing the
    images needed for stitching is time consuming at larger sizes. There is
    also an issue of the lens direction affecting the rendering of a scene
    near the edges, since the angle of the lens to the various areas of the
    scene changes.
    Some people likely do that, though many just are not that into their gear.
    I don't list the gear information on any of the images on my website,
    because the results are more important to me than the technology. Quite
    often the differences are very slight, or almost not noticeable. The
    subtle differences sometimes are enough for one person to choose something
    over another item.
    Isolated environment. My guess is that even if you found something vastly
    better, it might not be convenient enough for you to use it. It would
    surprise me if you had many good lab choices, or even much selection of
    good films.
    Not at all. A comparison of style is basically like the history of
    photography. The differences in style are why we see some photographers
    images in print more often than others. Henri Cartier Bresson was not in
    print and books because he used a Leica rangefinder, but due to his style;
    in fact many of his images are technically not that great, but the style
    is compelling. Robert Capa got some shaky images of D-Day, and then his
    lab proceeded to damage some of the film, yet we still find those images
    interesting because they give us a feeling of being there.

    Gear is a choice to express your creative vision. The ergonomics comes
    into play, as does the viewfinder. The best camera is one that gets used,
    and does not hinder a creative vision.
    Gordon Moat, Jun 28, 2005
  6. Scott W

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    In the end we both agreed that there was not much to choose between the
    I have no idea what people like you are trying to prove with ridiculous
    nonsense such as this. It seems that you're trying to justify the expense to
    yourself by "proving" digital has some kind of advantage over film apart
    from convenience. I personally use film, I've been using it for years and it
    has improved much over the last 15 years, therefore I see no reason to stop
    using it, film does what I need it to do and then some, the quality
    satisfies me and I'd don't find the format inconvenient in terms of cost or
    availability of processing/printing, so what is my incentive to ditch film
    in favour of electronic photography, there is no incentive. If your happy
    with film use it, if film doesn't do it for you use electronic capture, but
    please stop with these ridiculous outdated pseudo-comparisons.
    Joseph Kewfi, Jun 28, 2005
  7. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Most of the film vs digital tests that I have seen have had both parts
    shot by the same person. Whereas these comparisons are useful the
    claim of bias is often raised, which is most cases is going to be true
    to some degree. We have seen many augments about the relative quality
    between digital and film, but rarely do the people making these
    augments offer examples backup their point of view.

    We have comparison made of the same scene such as this one
    In looking at these image one could come to the conclusion that the 1Ds
    can make as sharp an image as a 4 x 5 camera, I suspect that there are
    many out there who could get a whole lot more detail out of a 4 x 5

    Then we have this rather nice collection of scans

    This is useful but we are lacking comparisons between two (or more)
    cameras of the same scene.

    There are a number of good sites that compare the differences between
    digital cameras, looking at the same scenes, this is very useful but
    still somewhat flawed in that the reviewers will often not use raw
    files and when they do it is not clear that they are taking the time to
    process the raw files for the best image.

    I think this is a pretty useful comparison
    But here again there are complaints that he did not scan it right, or
    maybe he did not use the right film or maybe the right exposure, and
    there could well be true any or all of those complaints.

    Head to head competition is going for a number of reasons, it can
    remove bias. If you believe it film you are going to do your best, in
    the selection of film, in the optics you use, in the setting for the
    exposure and in the scanning. If you believe in digital you are also
    going to do your best, shooting in raw and doing your best at
    processing the raw file. Choosing the best optics for the shot, and the
    best camera settings.

    Competition also pushes people to get the most out of there media, and
    the information about how they do that can be of use to all of us,
    whether it be better methods of scanning film or better ways of
    processing raw files. Competition also will give all sides a chance to
    see that all media, when used with skill can produce good results.

    As people compete for the best images that they can get we might get
    other insights, perhaps 35mm film can do better then say a 1Ds, but
    only if you do a drum scan with oil.

    There are a lot of areas beyond film vs. digital that could benefit
    from some competition, such as the people who believe that optical
    prints will be better then a scanned and printed negative.

    Scott W, Jun 28, 2005
  8. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    If you are happy shooting film I think that is great, and I would not
    try to talk you out of using it. But then you are simply saying that
    film suits you fine and that if others want to shoot in a diffent media
    that is fine with you.

    It is natural that many of us would be interested the old with the new.
    Part of this is just curiosity and part of it is to see if we have
    missed something with one or the other media. I have a very large
    vested interest in film as I have a lot of both slides and negatives in
    film. I don't mind showing what I am getting, in either film or
    digital, and asking what others are getting.

    This is an interesting time in photography, we are seeing the first
    large change in many years and it is natural to ask the question how is
    the new technology stacking up?

    I am also very interested to know how much more there might be in my
    film shoots that I am not getting.
    As an example I did this scan on my scanner, a Minolta, this is a crop
    scanned at 2820 dpi.
    http://www.sewcon.com/photos/50 iso film 1401.jpg
    I then shipped the slide to a friend with a better scanner, a Nikon,
    this is what he got, scanned at 4000 dpi.

    The negative clearly has pickup a lot of dirt, all the black specks,
    but it is also clear that there was in fact detail in the slide then
    was my scanner was picking up.

    Saying that there is no point in comparing digital to film is like
    saying there is no point in comparing two films. Or comparing slides
    to negatives. It might not matter to you but it does to others. And
    it is not just a matter of "is film better then digital" but also
    what digital do you need to be as good as film. My wife shot film for
    years, scanning the negatives was a pain in the ass so I wanted to have
    her go digital but I did not want to lose anything that she was use to,
    either in the quality of the photos or in the feel of the camera, for
    us this meant a 20D. Discussions on this and other news groups
    comparing film to digital help in choosing the 20D.

    So no, I don't believe that on going comparisons between digital and
    film cameras is pointless. What I do think if pointless is
    discussions where people are unwilling to show what they are getting
    for photos.

    Scott W, Jun 28, 2005
  9. Scott W

    Ryadia Guest

    Stand by for some revealing comparison between 35mm film and DSLR
    images. I dumped my MF gear last year when I went 100% digital. I just
    purchased some 35mm cameras which will work with my Canon mount lenses
    and I've done some serious evaluations in the past few weeks of what you
    can do with both.

    None of this unequal comparison stuff, no scanning film and expecting it
    to match digital... I cleaned all the cobwebs off my Durst print centre
    and chemical lab. It's fired it up with new lamps and chemicals.

    A client with an old (as shot in 1966) negative of the town he has
    changed the face of in subsequent years wants a wall size poster from a
    negative and an identical size one shot from the same position today,
    for display in his foyer.

    I printed the negative at A4 size (about 8"x11") and scanned it at 4000
    dpi with a flatbed scanner. Basically I got an image much like you'd get
    from an anti aliased sensor. I'm still working on interpolating the
    image to wall size (I've bought a new dual CPU workstation to process
    these monster files) but already it is proving that the upper limits for
    film enlargement may not be as clearly defined as previously thought.

    In a week or so when I've gotten over these printing tasks, I'll post
    some results from the EOS 5 made to complement the film used and the 1D
    II at it's best. Maybe it will change some people's minds... maybe not
    but in any case the evolution back to film (for me) will continue. My
    sights are set on a Toyo 45 field camera!

    Ryadia, Jun 28, 2005
  10. Scott W

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Sure, usually the bias tends towards the more expensive gear. ;-)
    The problem is limits of trying to show examples, in many cases a dumbing
    down of the film results. You want to see what is on film, then use a
    really powerful loupe, or ideally a microscope. However, the trick after
    that is how does one get all that information off the film.
    I have problems with that particular comparison, namely that he could have
    done a much better job. At a request of the local Digital Arts Group, I
    have attended a couple meetings and spoken with a few people involved in
    digital imaging. What I usually get out of this is that most are not at the
    level that the average graphics and printing professionals are at, and a
    few too many still see some things as "magical". Of course, even some
    imaging professionals are limited in knowledge.
    I actually think Rafe is doing a good job with this, though it is true that
    direct comparisons are tough. There is a nice grouping of various scans of
    the same image, which is nice for comparing scanners. However, what is
    really needed to evaluate those images is not merely to look at them, one
    needs to download the samples, open in PhotoShop, look at Histograms, and
    sample various parts using the colour picker (eyedropper tool). The numbers
    of investigating these samples reveals much more than what you are looking
    at on a monitor.
    I think DPReview has some good image samples. Again, they need to be
    downloaded and evaluated, but it is possible to compare different cameras.
    The resolution chart is useful, and the other good choice is the MacBeth
    colour chart. One thing not compared is lenses, and how they affect each

    Roger has some very useful information, though some of us think he could
    have done a better job. The drum scanner used is very old, so a question of
    calibration and user skill come into play. However, there are still some
    good comments, and useful results. People should not expect one person to
    be the beginning and end of all possible comparisons, nor the only

    <http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/density_range.htm> This statement
    might answer one of your questions.

    <http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/downtown.htm> Same site, and some
    comparison of the same piece of film on different scanners. Even as JPEGs,
    it should be obvious that the drum scan is better.

    <http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/Scanner_Intro.htm> The main page
    for those links above. The drum scanner used in this came out in 1996. It
    should be obvious that newer drum scanners, like an ICG, should do slightly
    I guess I don't fit into that then. I choose my films due to their
    particular colour response, tonality, and contrast. Those characteristics
    are very subjective, and more a matter of taste or style.

    My camera gear is chosen for expressing a particular creative vision. The
    ergonomics are really the biggest issue, then the quickness of shutter
    release, then the ability to compose in the viewfinder. I have a bias
    towards using an SLR, but I also use a few rangefinder and viewfinder
    cameras. I do not own any zoom lenses, since I feel my fixed focal lenses
    give better results, and are lighter on the camera (ergonomics again),
    though that choice might be technical.

    I could be just as creative with a direct digital SLR, but I have some
    problems working with them. First is the ergonomics of most, though a
    digital back on a medium format camera gets around that a bit. Second is
    that most have really squinty viewfinders with low magnification. Third is
    that the shutter lag is much slower than what I am used to, so it changes
    my pace of shooting. After those, I complain about colour problems, and
    needing to spend too much time on a computer to get something close to what
    I wanted, or envisioned.
    Perhaps. If there was a digital Holga, what would happen then?
    Maybe if I was shooting resolution charts and colour targets, then I might
    be interested in "competition". About as close as I get is competitive bids
    for work projects, and juried art exhibits.

    <http://www.allgstudio.com/fine_art.html> Click on "Exhibitions" to see my
    recent exhibit history.

    I show lots of Polaroid manipulations, so obviously I am not that
    interested in the technical superiority of certain imagery. All Polaroid
    manipulations are small and low resolution. Some are even slightly muted
    colours. Funny thing is that people enjoy looking at these things.
    Sure, and scanning is often much more variable. There are even fewer places
    doing optically enlarged chemical prints, with most places having more
    automated gear that scans and then produces a chemical print. I don't think
    that is bad, since I am largely getting better prints from transparency
    film currently, than I did from colour negative in the past.
    About the only optical prints I still find that often are B/W, usually done
    one at a time by hand. I still like the look of a saturated black and clean
    white area on a silver print much more than the same image in a book, and
    even more so than from an inkjet. The quality of the enlarger, skill of the
    operator, and choice of paper will affect the end results. Once again we
    are still left with the reality that there might be lots of information on
    film, but there are even more opportunities to lose that information.

    Well, I hope you find something interesting out of all this. Even if
    someone bought the exact same things I use, that is no guarantee that their
    images would look the same, even if that person stood next to me. Maybe you
    wonder why I still shoot film and scan it . . . . . . . . to me, that
    choice still works well and gets the end results I expect.


    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html> Follow some of the article
    links for more.
    Gordon Moat, Jun 28, 2005
  11. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Yup, this is a big part of it. There is the question of what is on the
    film and then there is the question of what are people getting off of

    I think clearly he could have gotten more out of the 4 x 5, my point is
    that comparisons done by just one person will tend to be baised.
    Well, since I am mostly interested in one of two things, a print or a
    photo I can view on my computer, I tend to both look at the scans and
    also print them out.
    This is not so clear, as the images are presented it looks like the
    drum scan has far more detail in the shadow, but adjusting both with
    level show about the same level of detail in each, this is hard to tell
    because the jpg compression seems pretty high.

    I think a lot of this depends on the model that you are looking at, a
    1Ds uses the same viewfinder that the other Canon SLR cameras do, you
    can put the one of your choice on. Shutter lag is not a problem when
    compared to a film SLR (I am thinking about my 20D here). Not knowing
    your work flow I can speak to the time spent on the computer, I spend a
    lot of time getting a scan right whereas the digital image is pretty
    much what I want right out of the camera.
    I think there are some digital cameras that are not that far off from a
    excpet nobody likes them, for whatever reason there are lots of poeple
    who like the Holga.
    I am alway intested in knowing why someone either stays with film or
    why they move to digital, or in some cases shoot both. Up to about a
    year ago I had two friends who both shot film and felt that they would
    be lossing quaility.

    For myself I bought a film scanner thinking it would blow away my
    digital photos, and it sort of kind of did, I was using a Nikon 3.2 MP
    camera at the time and so it was pretty easy to get more resolution out
    of the scanner then I was getting from the digital camera. But it was
    hard to get the colors right and the dynamic range always seemed a bit
    poor, this was a HP film scanner, it broke a few years later and I
    replaced it with the Minolta, which I am coming to realize has pretty
    much no dynamic range. The cost to get a good scanner would seem to be
    more then the cost to get a good digital camera, so that is what I have
    ended up doing.

    I still am keeping an eye open for a better scanner, one that has much
    better dynamic range is what I mainly need, I still have a LOT of
    scanning to do and getting the scans right takes a lot of time.

    It would appear that I have a limited amount of time to get my scanning
    done, the negatives are deteriorating and already a fair number of them
    are junk.

    Scott W, Jun 29, 2005
  12. The density of color negative film is not all that large. Just scan a negative
    as slide and it should be obvious.

    The comparison was done with an LS-2000. The latest generation of scanners
    will be a bit better than that.

    The post processing does not appear to be very consistent. The sharpened
    LS-2000 scan has a different contrast compared to the original scan.
    The contrast in the drum scan is again quite different.

    If you want compare different (digital) images for resolution or color
    accuracy you have to make sure that the saturation, color balance, and
    contrast are more or less equal. Otherwise, post processing choices may
    affect apparent image quality.
    Philip Homburg, Jun 29, 2005
  13. Scott W

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Unfortunately, the JPEGs hurt the comparison a little. It is simply not
    practical to post very large original files on the internet. Can you imagine
    what I would pay for hosting or bandwidth if I had that 76 MB original file
    posted from that one sample I listed . . . besides, a really large file just
    will not fit on most monitors.

    Recall that PhotoShop is destructive editing. Almost any adjustments remove
    information. The best is to get as good a source as possible, and not need
    adjustments. An ideal scan will have the adjustments done at the scanner
    interface level, giving you a scan that is ready to print as captured.
    I tried out the two recent models of 1D and 1Ds. Much better than the majority
    of digital SLR bodies is the viewfinder area, though I would like more
    magnification. Unfortunately, the bias has gone more towards eye relief than
    magnification, perhaps due to the steadily ageing photographer population, or
    more photographers who wear glasses . . . hard to tell why the manufacturers has
    nearly all gone this direction.
    Compared to very modern gear, I think you might not find much difference. What I
    am using in 35 mm SLRs goes around 27 msecs, and the various rangefinder and
    viewfinder cameras are less than half that. It changes the way you photograph,
    though it should be possible to get use to more shutter lag, and try to
    anticipate and time your shots.
    I think you echo what many have found, and something I have stated often; direct
    digital is easier for most people. What I do as workflow involves making a
    living as a creative imaging specialist. Few on this news group would have a
    workflow anything like what I do, so I don't expect others to understand why I
    have some biases.
    Just fun having a limit on how you take photos, a different sort of challenge.
    You can try something similar with lots of old cameras, even old Polaroid or
    medium format folding cameras. Some produce amazingly good images, though the
    limitations are in how you use them.

    I have better luck getting interesting people shots with my old folder cameras
    than any other gear I own. People get interested in the cameras, and really want
    to know how they work, and how the images will turn out. I can pull out an old
    folder camera in a crowd, and people will give me room to take the shot I want.
    Using one in public is almost like performance art . . . quite fun. :)
    I do shoot both direct digital and film. The digital work is now through rental
    gear, since the costs are too high for continuous purchase and replacement. If I
    did a higher volume, I might consider leasing a digital back for medium format.
    Once most photographers try a medium format digital back, they rarely consider a
    direct digital SLR. Most digital backs have better noise reduction, giving
    better results. Again I should mention that the differences are sometimes very
    subtle, and not immediately obvious. Viewing examples on the internet, it would
    be rare to see much difference.

    The majority of my work on film is scanned. That includes the recent B/W work I
    did that has yet to have any silver prints done from any frames, though nearly
    three dozen were scanned and commercially printed.

    I choose films much as I would choose paints, probably not too surprising
    considering that my speciality in college was oil painting. The differing
    results come down to subtle differences in most comparisons, something probably
    lost in viewing my images on the internet. Other than B/W images, the majority
    would have trouble figuring out what film I used for what images. There is more
    of a variety of subtle renderings with film than with direct digital. This also
    follows with my wanting to get everything right "in-camera", rather than in post
    processing. I have done some very complex composite imaging for some design
    projects, but I consider that more photo illustration than photography.
    The problem with scanners is that the middle ground is gone on pricing.
    Professionals often go towards the high end, and enthusiasts often go for the
    low to mid range. Unfortunately, even the mid range is not much of a step from
    the low end, and the price to enter into high end gear makes a Canon 1Ds Mark II
    look affordable. The cost at the high end needs to be recovered by offering
    scanning as a service, which is the only way the high prices makes sense.
    You could try getting a used production level scanner from a good company. I
    have a couple links to companies that provide good gear at reasonable prices.
    The other thing would be to use SilverFast Ai with your Minolta scanner, which
    should be a noticeable improvement. If you have lots of scans to do, the cost of
    SilverFast Ai would not be too much of a step.
    This problem is one of the other reasons that mounted slides hold up better.
    They are easier to box and store than negatives. You could cut and mount your
    negatives, but that would take lots of time.
    Gordon Moat, Jun 29, 2005
  14. Scott W

    Gordon Moat Guest

    I would certainly hope so. I still think this comparison stands up well, since
    the drum scanner was made in 1996. Both drum and CCD film scanners have improved.
    Also, most of the comparisons I have seen compare brand new CCD film scanners to
    five or more year old drum scanners. At some point, a film scanner should improve
    to get closer to drum scanners of the past, and some of the high end, like Fuji
    Lanovia Quattro, Dainippon Screen Cezanne, and creo iQSmart and EverSmart, are
    indeed quite close to drum scanner abilities. Unfortunately, no enthusiast
    comparisons exist using the latest ICG drum scanners.
    There is only so much we can tell from JPEGs. Personally, I think JPEG
    comparisons on the internet will always be slightly flawed, but it is just not
    practical to have large files available. It is not practical to post really large
    files on the internet.
    Sure, but I think ANY posting on the internet is going to be pulled apart on some
    flaws. Roger Clark is held up as an authority by many on news groups, yet a few
    people are critical of what he has done. Even with criticism, there are valid
    uses for the information he has posted. It is the same situation at
    MarginalSoftware.com, in that some of the information is of use, yet it falls
    short of being an authority. I really don't think we will EVER find one
    authoritative imaging site on the internet, which is why I urge people to find as
    many as they can, then make their own conclusions.

    Just for fun, check these out:

    <http://www.porteous.net/test/digi.html> Really interesting, since it shows a
    slide re-photographed through a microscope, and then compared against the same
    slide scanned on two consumer level scanners. Not scientific, but interesting.

    Of course, we could envision a really weird workflow for consumer scanners. Using
    another camera hooked onto a microscope, we could make several copy images across
    a full 24 mm by 36 mm slide. Then those images could be scanned and stitched
    together on consumer scanners, and come up with a higher optical resolution
    digital file. It could be even faster with a direct digital SLR hooked onto a
    microscope. ;-)

    <http://phot.epfl.ch/workshop/wks99/2_1.htm> Horrendously technical article on
    scanning and imaging film. The comment about resolving near 1/2 of a pixel for a
    line pair is interesting. Unfortunately this article is better left to engineers,
    or math enthusiasts.
    Gordon Moat, Jun 29, 2005
  15. Scott W

    Matt Clara Guest

    I've a better idea. Make an 8 x 10 print from the negative (not from a scan
    of the negative), and an 8 x 10 print from the jpeg, and compare those.
    Matt Clara, Jun 30, 2005
  16. Scott W

    Owamanga Guest

    Although I can see where you are coming from, this isn't fair at all.

    The digital image will be significantly superior to the film one for
    any of the following reasons:

    * Levels & curves can be applied to the digital image.
    * Sharpening can be applied to the digital image.
    * Color correction can be applied to the digital image.
    * Visual imperfections or distractions can be removed from the digital
    * The digital 8x10 will be printed using digital laser wet-print,
    technology and the negative based enlargement will likely be optical.

    It comes down to custom digital darkroom improvements vs dumb
    automated enlargement. Not fair.

    One could argue that you should disallow any digital adjustments for
    the comparison, but then it becomes a fruitless exercise, because
    anybody who cares about their pictures *will* do digital darkroom
    adjustments to ensure the print looks great.

    I think the OP's approach is best: scan the neg and then let them
    follow the same digital darkroom and printing path. The coolscan +
    35mm Nikon costs around the same $$ as a 20D, so the 'capture'
    device/system are roughly on par with each other.
    Owamanga, Jun 30, 2005
  17. A 1 Mpixel 16-bit/ch TIFF is 6 MByte. It shouldn't be that hard to put a
    couple of those on a web-site.

    I don't know why, but my ISP moved to unlimited traffic usage for ADSL
    connections. Putting up a couple of gig should be no problem (though I
    would have to look into traffic shaping to keep the link useful for
    interactive traffic).
    Very impressive.
    Another approach would be to try to fit another lens in an LS-8000...
    That looks like an interesting paper.
    Philip Homburg, Jun 30, 2005
  18. Scott W

    ian lincoln Guest

    Whereas everyone using the f828 will get much more uniform results. The
    problem i have with film is that maybe in ideal conditions it may be better
    it never really happens. The lab used will affect the outcome, your choice
    of scanner and use of scanner. Taking images direct from the camera will
    produce much more consistent results which you enables you to learn the
    characteristics and adjust your shooting style accordingly.
    the 20d will be faster. Less image noise. Lower lag times. more
    continuous frames. Less chromatic abberration. On the other hand is
    heavier and more expensive.
    I saw the chromatic aberration surrounding the floodlights straight away
    however when the picture finished downloading and shrank to fit the screen
    it was no longer noticeable.
    Again it comes down to reading about it. arguing over it or going out there
    and seeing for yourself.

    Criticisms of equipment can be too lenient too harsh or just plain biased.
    Which unfortunately is mark against film and a mark for digital. People who
    have been consistently been let down by labs are the most likely to be
    persuaded into digital.
    ian lincoln, Jul 1, 2005
  19. Scott W

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Consistent might be a better term than "uniform".
    I would hesitate to call my results ideal, but I have rarely ever had problems.
    Of course, that comes from a great deal of experience. Most people really want
    something very easy, which is why P&S cameras have always been more popular
    than SLRs.
    Which is something I have stated many times, direct digital is easier for many
    The last statement being the most important; convenience beats technology in
    almost any comparison. Of course, cost is definitely an issue, and likely why
    camera phones are now far outselling P&S digital cameras.
    You could just go to <http://www.dpreview.com> and download the test images for
    each camera. You could even load them into a PhotoShop document on separate
    layers, and compare them.
    Cost is the biggest problem with trying it yourself. Few people can afford to
    buy a few things, nor can many find several cameras to borrow. So unfortunately
    we are often left with only reading about differences. Hopefully the more
    intelligent individuals will know to read from many sources, and then make
    their own conclusions.
    Sure, which is why I always urge people to investigate more, and read more.
    Sure . . . . how many places could there be on the island of Hawaii . . . . I
    cannot imagine he has many choices. B/W film can be done easily enough at home,
    but few ever want to do that, and even fewer want to attempt processing colour
    Sure, and it is a great reason to do so. I guess for those living in small
    towns without good labs, or isolated islands, then the choices are very
    limited. At least these people still have an interest in photography.
    Gordon Moat, Jul 1, 2005
  20. Scott W

    Matt Clara Guest

    Ok, take the negative to a pro lab and ask them to work it up as best they
    can. I didn't explicitly say take it to walmart for an enlargement (or
    insert the dumb automaton center of your choice).

    Also, even if the capture systems are roughly on par with eachother, there's
    the inherent degredation of making a copy of the negative via scanning which
    is not there in the direct digital capture of the digi camera.
    Matt Clara, Jul 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.