higher dynamic range overall? No, film has more dynamic range if you take info account highlights.
I’ve stopped engaging with 138S in these matters.
He clearly has a hoppy horse he has to go ride till it drops and then beat with a stick some more.
Even if said horse is a figment of his own imagination.
Let me just suffice to say buyer beware.
That is, don’t buy his BS and FUD.
But one cannot always shoot fine-grain film. I have obtained excellent results with a Nikon D800, making 20x20" piezography prints that are better than what I could achieve making optical prints from 35mm film with the same equivalent ISO.Anyway, in staying on topic I will state that I have seen consistantly better results from dedicated professional scanners using fine grain, professional quality films than I have from digital cameras.
It's more about how well the image presents the reality of what it captured than the far less meaningful technical arguments that are exhaustively bandied about.
In short,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’d be interested where you think you see those stops you count in the data sheet?I like film as much as you do, but you are wrong here. No need to argue over something manufacturers are publishing, just count stops on your film datasheets, then look up BSI CMOS specs adjusted for noise. https://www.photonstophotos.net/ has a nice database which is actually quite conservative as he subtracts noise quite aggressively, most would agree to add 1-2EV to his charts, especially if you're comparing to a grainy ISO400 film. It's not even hard to prove it using your own tools. Try making a C41 negative (or B&W, doesn't matter) which will cover 100% of the histogram if you camera-scan it. It won't be even close.
Moreover, high DR on film (even if existed) wouldn't even be usable in practice, as DR of photo paper is abysmal and sensors used in film scanners are junk from 20 years ago.
You are your own “mild personal attack”.Helge, I am not a newbie that you can get nervous with a mild personal attack, if we go to the technical discussion I make you look ridiculous.
This is what film does, if any doubt:
http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
One of the things you don't catch is that film resolving power depends on if you test the ultra fine crystals that are sensitive at +6 overexposure (1000:1 contrast test) or the coarser crystals that are sensitive at +/-0 or -2.
You have been missleading yourself by not catching that a lab test and real photography are different things.
The other thing you don't catch is that most of us don't shot film because of resolving power, at 8x10" format I can tell you that I've no flaw in Image Quality. We shot film because we master a crafting delivering the aesthetics we love.
I’d be interested where you think you see those stops you count in the data sheet?
You are your own “mild personal attack”.
That is, don’t buy his BS and FUD.
“Passive aggressive”‽Where I think I see? This passive-aggressive tone is not how you ask a stranger to teach you something, Helge.
Moreover, high DR on film (even if existed) wouldn't even be usable in practice
Вormental, negative film is designed to record an insane amount of Dynamic Range, well beyond monitors or paper may show.
At mid and high frequencies film is superior. But the sensors used in digital cameras show greater sensitivity at low frequencies.
The dynamic range of the original capture medium is of greater importance than that of a scan or print.
How exactly would that work? Low frequencies are the easiest.At mid and high frequencies film is superior. But the sensors used in digital cameras show greater sensitivity at low frequencies.
Of course, film shines in the highlights, digital shines in low light conditions.
How exactly would that work?
Sorry, but your lack of self-reflection is... rare. May i ask you what is your profession? How old are you? I am just curious.. excuse the off topic.“Passive aggressive”‽
It often becomes a question of tone when argument ability lapses.
I ask you where you think you see it, because I don’t think I see it on the data sheets.
Actually, low speed, fine grain film outperforms digital for low light captures.
Вormental, negative film is designed to record an insane amount of Dynamic Range, well beyond monitors or paper may show.
Kodak and Fuji both disagree with you, as they publish different information in the data sheets for the films they sell. The only advice I can offer is "go and study". And as you'll be learning about DR, stick to just film and sensors, leave monitors for a later time (you're not up to date on monitors as well).
Yes... but.. how fine ? what speed ?
Ektar 100 is an upper end example of such a film.
Both it and Pan-X (50 ASA) have given me the best nighttime pictures I have ever taken.
Kodak and Fuji both disagree with you, as they publish different information in the data sheets for the films they sell. The only advice I can offer is "go and study". And as you'll be learning about DR, stick to just film and sensors, leave monitors for a later time (you're not up to date on monitors as well).
OK, but Ektar is less sharp than a D850, for the same format, even with at 30:1 "micro-contrast". Once you go to low contrast (the most common situation in textures) film lowers the yield a lot, while the sensor holds a similar performance. If going to extreme contrasts say (300:1) not usually found in scenes then Ektar perhaps may beat that sensor.
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?