What constitutes highest quality? 35mm still rules digital - don't get that started

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by sobolik, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. sobolik

    sobolik Guest

    What constitutes the highest quality? 35mm still rules over digital
    (don't get that started again) Just to make 35mm lovers feel goo
    again.

    What constitutes the highest quality according to Arizona highways
    http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=About_Submissions_Photo

    Thank you for your inquiry regarding photography in Arizona Highways
    Although the magazine and our Related Products (calendars, books
    cards, etc.) are all planned many months ahead, we welcome photographi
    submissions of original transparencies and 35mm slides that exhibit th
    high quality that we demand from our professional contributors.

    In order to achieve the high-quality reproductions in our publications
    we prefer large format (4x5) transparencies, especially for the larg
    scenic landscapes that we are famous for. We will use medium format an
    35mm transparencies that display exceptional quality and content. Som
    subjects such as wildlife and people are best suited to 35mm, but i
    order to achieve high-quality reproduction they must be shot o
    fine-grained color slide film (100 ISO or slower). NO PRINTS
    NEGATIVES, DIGITAL-CAPTURE PHOTOGRAPHS, OR DUPLICATE TRANSPARENCIE
    WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW BY THE PHOTOGRAPHY EDITORS. Edit you
    photos carefully before submitting. More is not necessarily better
    Submit only the images that are as good as or better than those you se
    in our magazine, books, and calendars. Midday light is the worst fo
    photography of any kind, but especially bad for landscape photography
    Try to be original, and avoid visual clichés like saguaro silhouette
    at sunset
     
    sobolik, Jan 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. sobolik

    Skip M Guest

    Hmmm, they've lowered their standards, they didn't used to accept 35mm.
     
    Skip M, Jan 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. sobolik

    Scott W Guest

    But then you read something like this
    http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_AskPhotog&nav=photo
    " If you can move up to a digital camera of at least 8 megapixels,
    I'd probably make the switch."

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 26, 2006
    #3
  4. sobolik

    chrlz Guest

    Yawn.

    Nobody (at last nobody I know) disputes that a well-shot Velvia or
    Kodachrome transparency outdoes a digital image for resolution, given
    the same format. But even the very best 35mm transparency film is
    borderline for a pin sharp magazine-size page anyway - as they allude
    to in their statement. It is no wonder they will only accept 35mm
    trannies (and MF for that matter!) IF they are 'exceptional quality'.

    That is just one, high-end, landscape, photography magazine. And did
    you notice they will NOT accept negatives??? If we widen the scope a
    little to include other photography, how many 35mm wedding and portrait
    photographers (let alone 'normal' amateurs) do you know that only shoot
    on transparency film? (O:

    So yes, if you have extremely good 35mm film equipment and push it to
    the limit, and *only* shoot b&w or transparency - then digital won't
    quite match the quality.


    Yet.
     
    chrlz, Jan 26, 2006
    #4
  5. sobolik

    Annika1980 Guest

    Nobody (at last nobody I know) disputes that a well-shot Velvia or
    You need to widen your circle of friends.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 26, 2006
    #5
  6. I didn't know folks did anything else -

    I think the idea of shooting 35mm color negative film
    and getting drugstore prints back is recent - early 70's?.
    The first time I used 35mm CN film was '86; we chartered
    a sailboat in the Caribbean so it sticks in my head.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jan 26, 2006
    #6
  7. They're dinosaurs, is what it is. Looks to me like they've got a
    workflow based on transparencies and aren't willing to adjust it.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Professionally speaking, it probably wasn't very popular before
    Ektacolor Professional film. I used that in the early 70s, don't know
    when it was released.

    But for snapshots, lots of people used Kodacolor much earlier (and in
    other cameras, including 127 roll-film and such).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 26, 2006
    #8
  9. sobolik

    Mike Guest

    _Resolution_ is the key. 35mm Velvia has more *resolution* than your
    D20...there is no disputing that unless your circle is bull-headed and
    naive.

    But I'm not saying resolution is all that matters. In other aspects
    (noise, grain, color, etc), the D20 image is better.
     
    Mike, Jan 26, 2006
    #9
  10. sobolik

    Scott W Guest

    Not so much anymore, they need to up date their web page.
    This link gives an insight to their current thinking.
    http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk1105&nav=photo

    For the above link
    "Granted, mainstream digital images have surpassed 35 mm film and are
    gaining on medium-format film."

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 26, 2006
    #10
  11. sobolik

    Mike Guest

    You need to define digital. Medium-format still rules over Canon 1Ds
    Digital. This is a nice comparison:

    http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/

    However Canon 1Ds Digital surely rules over 35mm
     
    Mike, Jan 26, 2006
    #11
  12. sobolik

    Norm Dresner Guest

    When was the last time you looked at an issue of AH?

    From the mid '70s when I lived in AZ, their photo reproductions have
    been superb and the pictures they reuse in their calendars even better.

    Norm
     
    Norm Dresner, Jan 26, 2006
    #12
  13. I know they're one of the top photo markets, best reproduction, etc.,
    if that's what you mean.
    Sure. And you can certainly produce that kind of work with
    transparency film.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 26, 2006
    #13
  14. sobolik

    Skip M Guest

    The film may have more resolution, but whether it is available, due to a
    variety of factors, to the user is what is arguable. Also, see this graph:
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
    As you can see, Bret's 20D has the luminance resolution that is equal to
    that of K64, my 5D equals the luminance res of Velvia, and a 1Ds mkII equals
    the color res of Velvia. So a sweeping statement that "Nobody (at last
    (sic) nobody I know) dispute that a well shot Velvia or Kodachrome
    transparency out does a digital image for resolution, given the same
    format," is certain to bring on an argument.
    And calling someone "bullheaded" who does dispute this is no way to keep the
    discussion on a civil level.
     
    Skip M, Jan 26, 2006
    #14
  15. sobolik

    Skip M Guest

    Film may, or may not, have more resolution, but whether it is available, due
    to a variety of factors, to the user is what is arguable.
    Also, see this graph:
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
    As you can see, a 20D has the luminance resolution that is equal to that of
    K64, my 5D equals the luminance res of Velvia 50 and color res superior to
    K64 and E100, both of which are transparency films, last I checked, and a
    1Ds mkII equals the color res of Velvia and the overall res of Tech Pan. So
    a sweeping statement that "Nobody (at last (sic) nobody I know) dispute that
    a well shot Velvia or Kodachrome transparency outdoes a digital image for
    resolution, given the same format," is certain to bring on an argument. A
    well shot digital image, given the same format, seems to be fully the equal
    of any film on the market (Velvia 50 is as gone as Ektar 25...) Look at the
    line at 6x4.5cm for Velvia, Hassy and Mamiya's 39mp cameras are firmly in
    the luminance res range, if not color res. Judging by Roger's graphing, the
    1Ds mkII comes in close to E100 at 6x4.5, and the 5D is very close behind.
    It's only when you get to large format that there aren't any digital cameras
    that can keep up.
    It looks like "Yet" is here...
     
    Skip M, Jan 26, 2006
    #15
  16. sobolik

    Skip M Guest

    That would be a valid comparison, except that the 1Ds is a long discontinued
    camera, and both the 5D and 1Ds mkII surpass it in resolution (11mp vs. 12.8
    for the 5D, 16.2 for the 1Ds mkII.) In fact, the betting is that the 1Ds
    mkII is due for replacement later this year, 22mp (twice what the 1Ds had)
    is the figure being bandied about.
     
    Skip M, Jan 26, 2006
    #16
  17. sobolik

    chrlz Guest

    Why only luminance? (O:

    Roger himself says that Velvia is (roughly) between 10-16Mp equivalent
    - isn't the 20D an 8? Other sites (eg Norman Koren's) refer to other
    films, eg Provia 100F as requiring in excess of 12Mp to equal, even
    when only scanned at 4000 dpi..

    But I agree, it is not all that relevant or critically important. The
    point I was trying to get across is that *neither* your average to
    above average digital *OR* film SLR in 35mm format, is a particularly
    good choice for pin-sharp enlargements for double magazine page spreads
    of landscapes. And if you throw typical negative films into the mix,
    then the equation gets worse.

    FTR, it wasn't me who said 'bullheaded'!
     
    chrlz, Jan 27, 2006
    #17
  18. sobolik

    Skip M Guest

    Nope, Mike said "bullheaded," you didn't. ;-)
    Roger also says that it's "fuzzy," that 10mp can be as little as 8, as much
    as 12 in the final analysis. I think that Koren is being unnecessarily
    strict in his standards, Provia hasn't been shown to be that sharp by
    anybody else. I know the few rolls I shot of it, I wasn't that impressed.
    Of course, I learned on K25...
    The reason I mentioned the 20D is that the guy I sent that reply to (Mike)
    said that a Kodachrome tranny will exceed the res of _any_ digital camera,
    which, according to Roger's graph, isn't true. The 20D exceeds Ektachrome
    100 and equals the luminance, if not the color, res of K64. The 5D exceeds
    the color resolution of both.
     
    Skip M, Jan 28, 2006
    #18
  19. sobolik

    tbv Guest

    _Resolution_ is the key. 35mm Velvia has more *resolution* than your
    D20...there is no disputing that unless your circle is bull-headed and
    naive.

    But I'm not saying resolution is all that matters. In other aspects
    (noise, grain, color, etc), the D20 image is better.[/QUOTE]

    Color? Color??? Talk about a misprint. You can't seriously think that
    you can get better color out of a digital image than Velvia.
     
    tbv, Feb 4, 2006
    #19
  20. sobolik

    Scott W Guest

    And why not?
    Velvia tends to be very saturated, which you can do with digital as
    well if you wish.
    For my tastes Velvia is too saturated.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 4, 2006
    #20
    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.