Does Velvia really hold more detail than other transperency film?

Wow, thanks for that article - I just read the entire thing.
I am now at a loss as to whether or not I should even worry about these things. I mean, the loss of resolution is incredible, every step of the way.

If I really care about this I will have to do one of two things - and both involve not shooting the gear I own now. Either I will have to get Leica or Contax primes in a rangefinder type body and drum scan my slides/negs for final prints, or get a medium format setup...most likely a rangefinder there too for ultimate sharpness.

I can see I will never get the size print and lp/mm that I need with 35mm, though - it just won't happen. Makes me wonder if even 6x4.5 is really enough - I may have to go with a 6x7 and just learn to love it.
Or...I guess I've gone on this long with what I have...you know the saying, ignorance is bliss! Ah, decisions.

Jed

All of Fuji's pro slide films are very high resolution, though I have a personal preference for Provia. I'll tell you this much...everyone who's stated that you have to drum scan to take advantage of the films' resolution is correct. In scanning MF Fuji chromes with a Nikon Super Coolscan @ max resolution, I have never been able to see grain before pixels.

Jedidiah Smith said:

Wow, thanks for that article - I just read the entire thing.
I am now at a loss as to whether or not I should even worry about these things. I mean, the loss of resolution is incredible, every step of the way.

If I really care about this I will have to do one of two things - and both involve not shooting the gear I own now. Either I will have to get Leica or Contax primes in a rangefinder type body and drum scan my slides/negs for final prints, or get a medium format setup...most likely a rangefinder there too for ultimate sharpness.

I can see I will never get the size print and lp/mm that I need with 35mm, though - it just won't happen. Makes me wonder if even 6x4.5 is really enough - I may have to go with a 6x7 and just learn to love it.
Or...I guess I've gone on this long with what I have...you know the saying, ignorance is bliss! Ah, decisions.

Jed

Click to expand...

Jed, I went from 645 (Fuji GS 645) to 6x7 (Mamiya 7 II RFDR) and 6x9 (Fuji RFDR). I love the Mamiya 7 II and the big Fujis.

I also went from 4"X5" to 8" X 10" several years ago.

Jedidiah Smith said:

..
...so even at 5400dpi with the Minolta film scanner, I am still throwing away a ton of the resolution. Well, that's about the best film scanner for any price less than an Imacon or drum scanner.

Click to expand...

From what I know, the Imacon will only scan at approx 200dpi anyway and the minolta won't get 5400. I reserve the right to be completely wrong however..

Tim

Well, that article indirectly made me realize the answer to why so many people consider digital capture "better" with far fewer MPs than a film scan - for example, a 16mp FF shot from a DSLR more than equals a 40MP scan of 35mm film; it is up there with 6x4.5 film scans. With digital capture you are taking out that second lens to print - whether it is a scanner lens or an enlarger lens.
So this begs the question...move up to MF and hope to learn to like it...or wait and add a FF DSLR to the equipment bag.
Jed

If you want to shoot film now and also see an eventual place for some higher-end digital in your work, then consider the 645 afd from Mamiya. There are other options of course, like the ha$$ies, but I'd argue that the Mamiya offers the best bang for your buck, because you can get the superb manual-focus 645 lenses for peanuts and the digital back, brand new, is "only" $7k. Besides being a wee bit bulky, the afd works very much like a 35mm slr- very fast shutter speeds, reasonable fps rate. I am working on a vertical grip for mine, we'll see what happens. I have a few complaints about the afd but all in all, I see it as my future hybrid tool.

Still.... a 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 rangefinder will delight and amaze. I am certainly not alone in thinking that their output presses large format, in terms of detail delivered to slide.

Keith, thank you for the tips - this has been a good discussion for me. I am realizing I have maxed out 35mm film resolution with my technique (always use a tripod, cable release, usually manual focus, etc...) I just like the "style" of a 35mm slr. So I have been looking at that Mamiya 645AFD you are talking about - a very nice rig indeed!
Do the manual focus lenses really work on it? How would that work in the field?
Thanks, I am very interested in this option...film for now...I love it. Maybe digital in the future if I have to go that route. This would allow both to coexist, which is what I really see as the future.
Sincerely,
Jed

Jed the manual lenses are a cinch on the afd, you get focus confirmation in the viewfinder.

Look at the KEH site under mamiya m645, there you will discover all the lenses that also mount to the afd. Bear in mind that you don't have to get an afd body, I have an older af body which was "d" modified.

The m645 lineup includes one fastie, the 80 f/1.9. Not the nicest bokeh wide open (I posted some examples here some time back) but for critical focusing it is very nice. There are several *excellent* and also affordable manual lenses such as the 200 apo. I also have the manual 500 and the AF 300 apo, all of which are very nice. As you can see my interests with 645 tend to the long end, for wide stuff I much prefer the rb system. However there is a nice 35mm lens available in manual form, which is affordable. The AF versions are considerably pricier than the manuals.

Bear in mind that with the manual lenses on the afd, you will do stop-down metering. It's no big deal.

Switching backs with the mamiyas is quite easy. My only complaint is that the back doesn't rotate, and there is no vertical grip, which is a bit of a pain because I usually want to shoot 645 in portrait format.

P.S. As I recall there is now an adapter from mamiya which allowds you to use hassie V lenses on the 645.

Jedidiah Smith said:

Keith, thank you for the tips - this has been a good discussion for me. I am realizing I have maxed out 35mm film resolution with my technique (always use a tripod, cable release, usually manual focus, etc...) I just like the "style" of a 35mm slr. So I have been looking at that Mamiya 645AFD you are talking about - a very nice rig indeed!
Do the manual focus lenses really work on it? How would that work in the field?
Thanks, I am very interested in this option...film for now...I love it. Maybe digital in the future if I have to go that route. This would allow both to coexist, which is what I really see as the future.
Sincerely,
Jed

Click to expand...

And what are you going to scan this film with?

Hi Rob. Hehe...after all this discussion...definately will have to be drum scanned!
I'm thinking I would actually sell my Minolta 5400 scanner (it's dedicated 35mm only) and buy an Epson flat bed or something equivelant for proofing scans and website use. Then the best of the best I would have drum scanned for large prints.

Anyone have a better idea or does that approach sound reasonable? What I'm not sure of is what film is best to shoot in MF...but I will have to experiment a little. I'm sure a nice neutral film like Portra NC or something would capture a TON of information - but whether I could get all of it into a print is another question.

Jed

Since you are in GAS mode, you could always buy a Nikon 9000 ED for a couple of thousand to go with the new mamiya 645

More seriously, if you are going to have to go to drum scanning then is 35mm good enough for the print size you want. I'd say a 7200dpi scan from an ICG would give you almost 30x20 inch print at 360dpi. But if you're having output done to fuji crystal then you need to know the laser output dpi. Depending on which device it is, it would usually be 200, 254, 300 or 400 dpi output, so a drum scan of 35mm neg should be pretty good upto that size. But you need a good scan operator with the right scanner.

Rob, I understand what you mean with getting the drum scans - but it just makes me wonder, if I go to all that work and expense, then wouldn't I get so much more detail (total resolution) out of the 6x4.5 as to make it worth it over the 35mm? I mean, if a 35mm slide drum scanned is good, a MF drum scanned must be incredible.
The only concern for me is size - but I already shoot a pro SLR (Maxxum 9) that is rather heavy w/ the vertical grip, and not that small itself. It seems the Mamiya 645AFD is not that much bigger. Also, 15 shots per roll would be about perfect; as selective as I am these days, 36 shots on a 35mm roll is way too much for an outing.

My biggest question would be to shoot slide or neg film in a 6x4.5 setup. I always found the grain of the negatives to be too objectionable in 35mm, and slide film just seemed to enlarge so much nicer for me. I suppose that could be down to my scanner and technique, though. I wonder if moving up into the MF range would cut the grain in the negs quite a bit, and therefore make them a better choice because of the exposure latitude (i.e. greater detail capture). The question is, can you get all that into a print? If not, shooting slides is just easier.
Sincerely,
Jed

Hi again Rob,
I have just had all my Minolta equipment out to look at it again...man, I must be sentimental or something. I am going to have a hard time parting with all this to go with the Mamiya gear. Do you really think a drum scan of 35mm film would work? What scanning place would be the best to try and do a test...we could figure out the needed scan dpi and I probably should pony up for a scan before I get too hastey here...
Thanks,
Jed

You will see a substantial difference between 35mm and 645. Not as big a difference as 6x7 or such, but fear not, MF will not disappoint.

Yes, of course you should drum some 35mm slides to see what that brings. I will refrain from saying what I think you will discover; these are things that you must do for yourself. Do also get your hands on some well executed MF slides and compare.

As keith says, you must try for yourself. But you will see a marked improvement with a good drum scan over your minolta, especially if it is wet mounted which is often the case with smaller format negatives. Yes, a larger format will improve it further but how far do you want to go and how big do you actually want to print and how often.
I'm not saying you shouldn't goto medium format, but I am pointing out that if you do, then you are committing to drums scans which are pricey and losing your 35mm scan ability if you sell that kit. Or you are commiting to a flatbed scanner which is of lower quality than your minolta scanner and so how much gain will there be? I don't know.

And don't judge by what you see on the lightbox. It's the actual print where you need to be able to see the difference if there is one.

AND you can get some drum scans done of some good and really sharp 35mm chromes before you part with anything which will help you make a decision or not.

Have a look at this thread over on the Large Format Photography Forum.

It should give you some clues about scanning different film formats and print sizes.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=36237&highlight=drum+scan

Let me just point out that drumming is certainly not the only way to get effective prints from colour slides. Colour slides have, arguably, more high-quality output options than any other capture medium, I am serious! A few options:

(1) enlarge the [colour] slide to paper and contact print that; beware that the paper won't see much of the reds but for some things this is fine, and you can retouch the paper neg and get some very nice b&w results;

(2) akin to (1) but enlarge to a film like tmax which will give you a better tone scale into the red, and again you can contact print for b&w, here is an example. This was a massive crop into a blah quickie capture on fuji 64T roll film, flatbed scanned and sent for an LVT (though I get similar results form enlargement to 5x7 tmax, it was just an LVT experiment). Here is the fujichrome source file. Resolution schmesolution, does the print work or not?

(2b) you could also enlarge to c41 film and make ra4 prints- why not;

(3) ciba/ilfochrome still exists, why not use it while you can (these words spoken by someone who hasn't actually done it yet for lack of time!)

(4) you can get yourself a daylab or similar 5000K head and enlarge or contact print to polaroid (while stocks last!) or to 4x5 fuji instant film. The latter produces wonderful emulsion lifts and you can do transfer with it as well (though my own success with that hasn't yet been so good). Anyway Dead Link Removed is an example of a quick fuji emulsion lift and here is an emulsion transfer;

(5) there is direct positive paper with which you can produce b&w prints from colour chromes, I just started playing with that;

(6) and of course you can also scan and print on lightjet or whatnot. Here is the positive thing about drumming: it will force you to think much more selectively about what you print. I would say, don't think about the cost of the scan itself, independently; rather, think about the cost of a top-notch print. If you put the cost fo the drum and the print together and then realize what the final print is worth, then the cost of the drum won't seem so excessive. I have to chuckle when people hastily point out that a drum scanner costs >$10k. Look I am only shooting maybe ~500 colour shots a year and maybe a dozen or two of those wind up being printed so what do I care if I spend $50-100 to get a shot professionally drummed when the cost of the print plus framing is well into the hundreds? :rolleyes: Perspective, people! <end of minirant>

(7) How about enlarging a colour slide a generation or two (e.g. take 645 to 4x5 or 5x7 or 8x10) b&w and making cyanos or whatever. Think outside the box!

(8) You can get wonderful results from dedicated medium format film scanners; who says you need to blow everything up 20x anyway. The irony, to me, is that a lot of folks get into larger MF and LF thinking that this will enable them to make ginormous bajillion pixel prints... and then they wind up waxing poetic about how beautiful the much smaller contact prints are. I admit that I fall into this category, in the case of b&w. I find the combination of uncompromising tonality + fibre matte paper texture + intimately sized prints to be truly powerful. For colour I freely admit that I do like to take big slides to the max with a drum, I haven't ougrown the wow factor and may never outgrow it.

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, DO NOT SELL THE ELITE 5400!

This scanner is capable to resolve 70 line pairs/mm with color slide and 80 line pairs/mm with b&w negative film, according to a Popular Photography test. This is below its theoretical limit of 108 line pairs/mm, but hardly any lens is capable to transfer contrast at an useful level.

I had a 35 mm negative (Fuji Superia 100), which I scanned at 5400 dpi resolution, blown up to 66 x 99 cm at 200 dpi on a Durst Lambda laser printer.

Please keep in mind that film resolution is measured with superimposed grids, giving 100 % contrast. In practice, resolution is lower. Most modern slide films, such as Sensia 100 or Elite Chrome 100, have an even finer grain than Velvia 50 and give similar resolution and detail sharpness. Their gradation is however smoother. Unfortunately, Kodak doesn't give resolution data any more.

Consumer flatbed transparency scanners such as the Epson V750 achieve a resolution of 2400 dpi (as tested in the German magazine "Publishing Praxis"), which is nice for medium format slides, but for 35 mm, there isn't anything better than the (vintage!) Minolta scanner with VueScan. So keep it!

... or if you want to sell it, sell it to me!

Oh boy, this is getting more complicated as always.
I am just really attached to this 35mm gear, so I am going to pay for a drum scan of some of my best slides first, and see what the output looks like at 12x18 and at 20x30. Then I will have to decide from there...if not satisfied, MF it is.
Yes, the Minolta 5400 is a good scanner - possibly one of the best with the exception of drum scanning. Will be interesting to see how much difference in detail capture exists between the drum scan and it.
Jed

I just want a lens that I can mount on the scanner, so I can scan the landscape directly at 4800dpi, 8.5"x11".

Hmm...view camera with a flatbed scanner as a digital back...I wonder if it could be done...talk about long exposures, though...and *big* files.

Nah, I think I'll just play with 120 for a while.

KD5NRH said:

Hmm...view camera with a flatbed scanner as a digital back...I wonder if it could be done...talk about long exposures, though...and *big* files.

Click to expand...

google: flatbed scanner camera

You can do some interesting things with moving objects.

Lee

Jedidiah Smith said:

Yes, the Minolta 5400 is a good scanner - possibly one of the best with the exception of drum scanning. Will be interesting to see how much difference in detail capture exists between the drum scan and it.
Jed

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think you will be seeing much difference in resolution captured from a 35mm slide on a good film scanner like the Minolta 5400, or something like a drum or Imacon scanner. There is just going to be a difference in the "nature" of the image, as, in the article reference that I posted, you can see that drum scans are capable of "hiding" grain structure by adjusting some of the optical components, while for example your 5400 and an Imacon scan at high (> 2400 up to 8000 ppi for Imacon) WILL show grain.

Personally, I think scanning 35mm ISO 100 film at anything more than about 4000 ppi is useless, as there simply is no more information captured on the film. You're just adding grain structure... See the article again as to the reasons (grain, lens limitations, motion blur)...

And maybe this page I setup is of some help too:
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_optimalscanningresolution.htm