Digital sensors in contrasty conditions.

[jvo]

Are most people doing the majority of their editing of RAW files in Camera RAW?

i'm a newbie to digital, after 40 years in the darkroom... i only shoot RAW.

i'm sure some will disagree, but i think it has been more "forgiving", (boy, remember that when talking film developer combinations?), and provided more latitude as i'm learning this new technology!

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Pentax, Sigma, and Sony, my first generation Sigmas only shoot raw, I use Sigma's proprietary editing software which does a pretty good job of processing, then I convert to JPEG and use Corel to crop if needed. The Sigma SD 15 I shoot in raw. In most cases I use the Sigma for landscapes so shoot on a tripod and bracket whenever possible. On the other hand I use the Sony A900 and A77II for sports and wildlife and generally good JPEG. The Pentaxs, I use 64 and 32 GB cards and shoot both Jaw and Jpeg and underexpose 1/2 to 1 stop depending on the light.

 

[Jman13]

No it’s not.
The data sheets are not lying. Even with modest contrast film still out-resolves sensors.
The problem is the scanners.
Look at film in a microscope if you can’t do huge magnification crops in the darkroom.

Remember sensors are also made with an analog photographic process (albeit quite different from silver halide).
The challenge with sensors is the weighing between big enough sensor sites as capacitors of the photoelectric effect and resolution.
That process has more or less run into diminishing or no returns for many years with the current “paradigm” of process and materials.
What’s left to optimize is software and to a lesser extent sensitivity. But that is also a game of give and take.

For 35mm? Not a chance. 35mm film was outresolved by the best digital cameras starting around 2005. Today's DSLRs and mirrorless cameras massively outresolve 35mm film. Doing high resolution scans yields maybe 10-12 megapixel equivalent levels of detail in low grain films like Ektar 100...maybe as high as 16MP. And that's just for the very fine grained films. As soon as you go to ISO 200 or higher, the deficit becomes even larger. Compared to a modern high end camera like a Sony A1 or A7R IV, Canon R5 or Nikon Z7/Z9, 35mm film is way, way behind with regards to resolution. Now, medium format can rival high end digital in resolution, especially 6x6 and 6x7, which I see close to 50MP equivalent levels of detail, perhaps slightly higher with the very finest grained films...but 35mm isn't close.

As has been mentioned, DR is actually pretty close, or slightly in favor of digital at this time too, but the curve is inverted. Digital you need to expose for the highlights, and bring up shadow detail later, while film you expose for the shadows, and the highlights are recoverable. I shoot predominantly digital, but have been shooting a lot of film this year, and after about 8 rolls of 35mm, mostly low ISO fine grained film, I had to move to medium format because the quality just wasn't nearly what I am used to.

For detail, here is a crop of 35mm Ektar 100, which has been downsampled from a 40 megapixel scan, compared to a shot from the same position (though about an hour later, which is what accounts for the color differences), same lens, same focal length and aperture, compared to an entry-level full frame mirrorless camera (Canon RP). This is Ektar 100 vs a fairly old 26MP digital sensor...my R5 would absolutely trounce the RP in this case. With all that said, there's still a different look with film, and it still can be enlarged very nicely when shot with good glass.

 

[Helge]

For 35mm? Not a chance. 35mm film was outresolved by the best digital cameras starting around 2005. Today's DSLRs and mirrorless cameras massively outresolve 35mm film. Doing high resolution scans yields maybe 10-12 megapixel equivalent levels of detail in low grain films like Ektar 100...maybe as high as 16MP. And that's just for the very fine grained films. As soon as you go to ISO 200 or higher, the deficit becomes even larger. Compared to a modern high end camera like a Sony A1 or A7R IV, Canon R5 or Nikon Z7/Z9, 35mm film is way, way behind. Now, medium format can rival high end digital in resolution, especially 6x6 and 6x7, which I see close to 50MP equivalent levels of detail, perhaps slightly higher with the very finest grained films...but 35mm isn't close.

As has been mentioned, DR is actually pretty close, or slightly in favor of digital at this time too, but the curve is inverted. Digital you need to expose for the highlights, and bring up shadow detail later, while film you expose for the shadows, and the highlights are recoverable. I shoot predominantly digital, but have been shooting a lot of film this year, and after about 8 rolls of 35mm, mostly low ISO fine grained film, I had to move to medium format because the quality just wasn't nearly what I am used to.

For detail, here is a crop of 35mm Ektar 100, which has been downsampled from a 40 megapixel scan, compared to a shot from the same position (though about an hour later, which is what accounts for the color differences), same lens, same focal length and aperture, compared to an entry-level full frame mirrorless camera (Canon RP). This is Ektar 100 vs a fairly old 26MP digital sensor...my R5 would absolutely trounce the RP in this case:

A 40MP scan with what scanner?
There is a huge difference between optical resolving power and specmanship sensor resolving power.
Ektar is not the highest resolving film either. Among C-41 Portra 160 and Fujicolor 100 has higher resolving and with better micro contrast.
Chromes is another deal altogether. Likewise with B&W.
But still, that scan is not emptying out a well exposed Ektar frame, made with a good lens on a tripod.

Let me just haul this tired old chart out (from a very reputable tester).
Remember it's not about the film format in the below but the resolving power per millimeter.

 

[Jman13]

The format makes a huge difference. all you have to do to see that is see the massive difference in the shots you've shown between 4x5 and 6x7....and 6x7 is hugely larger than 35mm.

 

[MattKing]

We have a rule here on Photrio prohibiting digital vs. analogue arguments. If this continues, this otherwise useful and interesting thread will be closed.

 

[Jman13]

We have a rule here on Photrio prohibiting digital vs. analogue arguments. If this continues, this otherwise useful and interesting thread will be closed.

Sorry about that, I was not aware. Everyone should enjoy shooting whatever the want to!

 

[Helge]

We have a rule here on Photrio prohibiting digital vs. analogue arguments. If this continues, this otherwise useful and interesting thread will be closed.

Well, this is fundamentally more a film scanner vs digital thing. Which is I think pertinent or tangent to the OP.
But I’ll stop.

Feel free to delete the whole string of reply’s though. Making sure to get the root comment also.

It’s a pity, vexing and ultimately harmful to let little stabs, like the original post I replied to, get away with murder, and make part of the background noise of this and other fora.
Posters which clearly references such halfbaked old sites as Norman Korens, and “personal experience” (with all the inherent problems of that).

But please, let me just correct one last misunderstanding in the interest of clarity:

The format makes a huge difference. all you have to do to see that is see the massive difference in the shots you've shown between 4x5 and 6x7....and 6x7 is hugely larger than 35mm.

There are a few interesting points to derive from the chart.

One is the implied absolute per millimeter vs dpi resolution of the film compared across formats and film types, which of course is the same from format to format.

Another is comparison between the different dpi scans (with a drum scanner) and the view through the microscope.

A third is the comparison to the 80MP “medium format” sensor.

These are just facts, and doesn’t constitute discussion, or anything controversial.

 

[amam]

IDGI