For this, forget about an F5 and go straight to medium format. Doesn‘t need to be expensive: something like a Rolleicord or Yashicamat can get you started for pretty much the same price as an F5. 1 lens, waist-level finder, 12 pics per roll, and the gorgeous looks of medium format will slow you down (in a positive sense) It is a completely different approach to photography! EnjoyI know, and that's the issue I'm fighting with. I nearly bought an F5 the other day, and then hesitated and didn't. I told myself that I can do anything I wanted/needed to do with the gear I have. But every now and then I like to go slow, think about my shot, and shoot a roll.
If your goal is maximizing resolution, than the best approach is to work entirely within one type of workflow - either all analogue if your final output is to be analogue, or all digital if your final output is to be digital.
know that's a very generic question, because preferences will differ from person to person, and the end justifies the means, but from a quality perspective what are the differences?
Platinum and palladium prints are going to be contact prints. It's true that you can make them with digital negatives, however, platinum and palladium are capable of tremendous resolution. So by printing them from a digital negative, you'll be exposing the dpi limits of your printer. Not that that would make them useless. It's just that that would be an expensive way to print photos that would probably not look any better than what you'd get from an inkjet printer directly onto photo paper, in terms of resolution and tonality. Of course, there are other qualities that you may be after that would make those printing chemistries worthwhile.My ultimate goal is to build a portfolio that is all analog prints... however I get there. I've been investigating platinum palladium prints and I'm really drawn do it. This is something that I could make work in my current living situation, as a traditional dark room is out of the realm of possibilities right now.
I shoot FF digital, and I'm learning about printing digital negatives etc. A question that I have though is, what are the differences between a scanned 35mm negative, and a full frame digital file? Why would someone prefer to start with a scanned digital file, instead of a straight digital file?
I know that's a very generic question, because preferences will differ from person to person, and the end justifies the means, but from a quality perspective what are the differences?
I shoot FF digital, and I'm learning about printing digital negatives etc. A question that I have though is, what are the differences between a scanned 35mm negative, and a full frame digital file?
My ultimate goal is to build a portfolio that is all analog prints... however I get there. I've been investigating platinum palladium prints and I'm really drawn do it. This is something that I could make work in my current living situation, as a traditional dark room is out of the realm of possibilities right now.
I agree. Digital has a very clean and clinical look, like a digital soap opera show. Film is more loosey goosey, organic, hard to explain. Film also slows me down.. The contemplation creates different and I think better work, at least for me. In the end, content, composition and light make the day regardless of the way you get there. If it doesn;t have that, it won;t matter what equipment you use. If it does, you're golden.For me B&W film has a look I can't get from a digital camera. I use digital for a lot of stuff, am far from "afraid of it". I shoot with a D4 and a D800 regularly, especially for semi-pro event shooting I do. But I still find B&W film unique, and the same can be said for slide film.
Another 1000+ thread which been tossed at many other forums long time ago. ex-APUG is at least decade behind.
If you are blind, then here is no difference between digital and film. Scans, prints doesn't matter. It is so obviously visible. Size of digital sensor is totally irrelevant. If it is then you are blind.
Just grow already to realize they are different. Not better, not worse, just different. Here is no VS. It just so not smart, to be polite.
It's taken me nearly a week to clean up, clean off, and consolidate two drives that I've had since about 2009. I deleted over 433,800 files, I'm down to about 15K, and I still have the 500gb hard drive from my old iMac to go through.
It was much easier to go through the binder and box of negatives that I have though.
thats partially because you’re not maintaining files as you go. .
Yeah... after the two weeks it took to get organized, I bet you I don't do THAT again! In fact, when I have shot digital in the last few weeks, the first thing I do is cull and "remove from disk". I've probably deleted good images in addition to the junk, but I've only kept a single frame of whatever the subject was.
Hi,Basicly she departed from bare hand cut glass plates and simple chem,
Digital is better, obviously.
Higher resolution, higher sensitivity, lower grain/noise, more shadow detail, higher dynamic range overall, no reciprocity failure, possibility for live-view to zoom in on an image and really fine-tune the focus.
This defines better only for you!
btw, the endless struggle to save the highlights in digital and the many digital images where that did not happen would suggest that your statement of "higher dynamic ranges" in digital is BS.
Robert
Hi,
Would you please explain this to me as I'm confused. She used to make silver prints from wetplate negatives, what did she do differently?
Thanks,
Robert
The digital vs film debate is over. Regarding image quality, in general, FF has better optic image qualty than film since around 10 years ago, but film MF today surpases in image quality any Pro digital camera, including digital back costinf $40k.
Beyond image quality, there are other concerns were digital or film are superior. Digital is neatly superior in low light situations, film is neatly superior in sunlight, specially for portraiture.
Films like Portra 160 are still conserving detail by +5 overexposure !!! detail in the highlights is usually way more important than in the shadows because glare texture allows he mind to make an interpretation of the volumes.
Of course if the photographer doesn't know how to take advantage of highlight texture or the scene is dull then this is no advantage...
Another film strong point is that you have a dedicated sprectral response for each situation, Velvia 50 and Portra 160 have each very different interpretations that are top-notch and special for their intended applications. Instead sensors are for general usage...
Canon sensors are slightly better for skin tones, while Nikon sensors are slightly better for the rest, this is from the RGB dyes on the pixels, you always can adjust in Ps, but each sensor have an slightly better potential for one thing or the other. In the film case there is no slight difference... Portra is a totally powerful tool for portraiture, blowing miles away anything digital if the photographer is a master of his tools, and a Velvia 50 8x10" slide blows anything else out of orbit for landscape... there is no fight or rivalry, they play in different divisions.
Of course today film is not much a Pro tool today, photography work is cheap, film is slow and counter productive, and expensive if you shot Pro a lot... and market won't value much the film nuances, people are used to Nose jobs made with the smatphone selfies...
________
Then we have grain. Grain is not only a technical defect !!! in the 1980s Kodak planned to discontinue Tri-X because TMax had less grain. Photographers rebelled and assembled a riot aganist Kodak and finally they gave up their plans. Today, some 4 decades later, Kodak still makes profits from that product !!!
Grain structure has an aesthetic impact that has its roots in the ancient photographic culture. Grain usage has evolved during a century and a half, films and photographer made a co-evolution, a bit like electric guitars and amplifiers, you don't want a perfect linear amplifier !!!
_______
Finally, you may want authenticity, a grain in the film has received a photon that came from (perhaps) the sun an your subject reflected reaching the crystal you see developed, this may have no importance for some, but it sports a kind of purity that many artists value.
Recently Sally Mann made an exhibition with the most impressive prints many have ever seen on a wall. Basicly she departed from bare hand cut glass plates and simple chem, and never complained if a lens had an extensive crack in the middle... to end in those top notch silver prints (No AF... no zoom...), a great photograph may have many ingredients, but sometimes authenticity is the most powerful tool.
http://www.thermojetstove.com/Tonality/
To me the microscope crop image at the end, compared to the size of the whole frame, looks like at the very least 70MP equivalent, if not quite a lot more.
That’s just slide.
Negative film is higher resolution still.
Well... in that link it says "The scans were done on a Plustek 7200i. This is an extremely high resolution film scanner, able to resolve up to 7200 dpi. 7200 dpi works out to be just about 70 megapixels for a full frame, 35mm slide."
But the plustek does not deliver 7200 effective but 1/2 linear or 1/4 area of that, (https://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7600i.html#Bildqualitaet) so the plustek scan would be limited to 70/4 = 17.5MPix effective. Perhaps 12 effective in practice, what a Nikon D3200 yields.
Here you can see well made ratings by Mr Parkin
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Also I would recommend you next information:
http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf
Ancient VR100 consumer film is what rocks regarding resolution, it introduced Tabular crystals in color emulsions. At one point all CN films were optimized to be scanned in high production digital minilabs, at least the Frontier scanned with an area sensor...
To avoid color noise, reportedly, color clouds were made larger when CN films were re-engineered, slide films were not modified, if you see the rating in the linked document Velvia is sharper, but it always depends on density, film resolving power is very complex.
______
Anyway, if you download the Porsche slide here: http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/
Enlarge the glass lettering on the right headlight...
Yes... it's painful agfa copex microfilm... but... amazing !!! I guess they used a good lens...
2004 Pakon standards.
DSLR scanning is as you know not one thing.
the positively soft 850
I tested the two 4x5 holders that came with my Epson V850 Pro. There are five stops of height adjustment. I found on one of the holders, the middle slot was the best focus. On the other it was the slot between the middle and bottom. The difference was fairly apparent when comparing unsharpened scans.The pakon is inferior to the plustek, IIRC.
The focus, the stitching, the color inversion, dust...
The epson detects/corrects dust in the infrared dedicated channel working perfect specially for color film.
This is a urban legend, coined by people not knowing how to focus the epson and having little skills in image edition.
With a 1.2mm curling the Epson losses half of its performance, see this graph, resolution falls from 7 microns to 14:
View attachment 249008
New ANR glass holders allow perfect flatness and adjustable focus, allowing a proficient user to make totally Pro scans, specially for MF and LF, for LF it shines.
Needless to say, you should test the heights for best focus when you buy one of these scanners.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?