Film scan vs Digital Capture

[Lifethruleica]

I currently shoot 35mm, primarily B/W and recently had a 100mb file created from a scanned negative for a 20x30 print...it looks really really good!

My question is about transitioning to a 35mm size Digital SLR, but it seems that the file size won't approach the file sizes from the drum scan that I can get. Can I have smaller file sizes from a digital SLR but yet retain the same quality/resolution as I seem to get from the drum scan of my negatives? (I'm considering getting a Nikon D800)

Thanks...Frank

 

[lenny]

Frank,
It depends on what you want in your print. Generally speaking, a drum scan will beat digital camera, hands down.... More sensitivity, sharper, etc., etc. Of course, if you like developing Tri-X in Rodinal, there won't be much difference. If you print very contrasty it doesn't help to have better quality - you're essentially tossing the extra tones-between-the-tones. If you like delicious mid tones and want to make an exquisite print - then a drum scan is in order and the D800 won't have a chance of meeting the quality.

FWIW, I generally scan 35mm at 500mb. 100mb would be too small for me.

Lenny

 

[Lifethruleica]

Thanks Lenny

 

[OzJohn]

Based upon years of printing both B&W and colour in a darkroom, I have to say that it takes an exceptional 35mm neg to print at 20"x30" even when viewed at what is termed "normal viewing distance" i.e. not eyeballed from 12 inches. Put prints of this size originated using the best 35mm camera/lens you can find and any decent quality medium format camera/lens side by side and the difference is startling.

Scanning, irrespective of the scanning technique or device, cannot produce more definition, resolution or tonality than already exists in the neg without resorting to digital manipulation similar to that used to create a bigger image from, say, a small camera generated file. However, not all scanners are made equal and I agree that drum scanners will generally get the most out any piece of film as long as the information is there in the first place - anything else is just making up new pixels for the sake of file size. But you are never going to get a better quality print from a scanned negative that would be possible by printing the neg in the traditional way.

Digital cameras capture images quite differently to film - most importantly digital is not a negative/positive process - but they are each capable of producing high quality images within the limitations of each process. One of the outstanding advantages that late model, full frame, DSLRs have over their film counterparts is their capacity to capture more useable image information in a wider range of lighting conditions than any piece of film the same size can manage. I own a D800 and I'd back it against any 35mm camera/film combination to deliver the best 20x30 prints. I produce them regularly using the same prime lenses that I used to use on my Nikon film cameras. OzJohn

 

[selmslie]

I currently shoot 35mm, primarily B/W and recently had a 100mb file created from a scanned negative for a 20x30 print...it looks really really good!...Thanks...Frank

You will get lots of arguments on either size with proponents arguing about resolution and color rendition, but both methods can produce comparable results and you would have to look very close to see the difference.

It really boils down to a few considerations:

1. Convenience - Digital is clearly more convenient for capturing an image; no film, developing or scanning. But after you scan, the work flow is the same.
2. Cost - After the dust settles it looks like a tossup, it depends on how you shoot. If you take hundreds of pictures at a time and throw away most of them, digital is cheaper. If you are thoughtful and selective, film is less expensive. The problem with digital is that you are constantly tempted to upgrade your equipment. The cost of obsolescence is high. With film, a 15-50 year-old camera will do a great job.
3. Range - Although you can change ISO from one shot to the next with digital, film is more forgiving and has a wider dynamic range. Even though digital can go higher, high ISO does not work well with either medium.
4. Rendition - Some film/developer combinations can be grainy. This can be suppressed with post processing if you wish. It can also be added to digital images since it is not altogether undesirable.

And if you are really serious about higher resolution and large prints, just move up to medium format. You can do this with used MF film equipment for less than the price of a D800 body.

 

[lenny]

I've seen 60 inch prints, made by Aztek, from a 35mm chrome. I'm not suggesting it for everyone, but there are scans, and then there are scans... one has to be able to resolve a lot to make things work. Good negatives definitely help. Most scanners can't do it.

selmsile makes a good point, no, make that a great point. I started with a 35mm camera, just like everyone else, as a student. They are quite easy to use, small, etc. Leica's are beautiful and the lenses are truly sharp. However, if you want quality, moving to med format (or 4x5) is a stunning. When you consider the area of film, 35mm is 1.5 square inches and 6x7 cm is 6.1875 inches. That's 4 times the size, 4 times the tonal information, etc.

It makes a huge difference, whether you are scanning or printing in the darkroom, as anyone who has moved up will tell you. My personal favorite for med format is the Mamiya 7 II. The lenses are incredible, sharp like Leica lenses. The camera itself is lighter than the larger 35's. When I'm not using my 4x5 these days, I carry this around. I have a very lightweight (piece of junk) monopod that weighs nothing. It does the trick. One day I will get one of the ones that auto-extends at the push of a button.

It's true, I wish Mamiya would make a version of this with a back like the 645 that I could change out to swap film but the alrge negative that this camera produces (or any other med format) will take one's quality through the roof when compared to 35mm.

I have always felt, whether doing darkroom work or hybrid, that when one works with 35mm you start out with two strikes. Of course, there are certain genres. such as street shooting, where the image is about something else and a Leica M3 would be perfect... but then we wouldn't be talking about print quality... just image quality...

Lenny

 

[L Gebhardt]

I find that the D800E and good lenses produces digital images with more detail than drum scanning Acros or Tmax 100 shot with the same lens. Some of this could be that the LiveView feature of the D800 makes getting perfect focus very easy. It's much harder with the film cameras and the issues of autofocus or the the focus screen. I'm comparing the D800 and the F100 with my ScanMate 5000 scanner at 5000ppi. In fact I think the D800 gives me better results than I got scanning 6x4.5 film from the Mamiya 645. I find I really need to go to 6x7 or 4x5 to significantly see better results than the D800E. The Mamiya 7 is truly special as Lenny has noted.

Of course, having said that, there is more than absolute resolution. I almost always find I like the drum scanned film better than the D800E file when converted to black and white. There's something about the film grain and way it records the scene. I don't think it's the midtones like Lenny is talking about since the D800E is exceptionally smooth through the whole range with well separated values. But still the optical prints and film scans please me more. For color it's the opposite, and there I find the D800E rendering is usually more pleasing compared to color negative film.

Also, the ability to apply black and white contrast filters after the fact instead of at taking time is one advantage of the DSLR over scanning of black and white film.

 

[lenny]

It's true. Talking about resolution is a waste of time. It's all about film real estate. Here's my thought experiment: consider a telephone pole, with all sorts of reddish brown creosote tones in it. If you shoot it with a 4x5 and the telephone pole is 1/4 inch wide, a 1/4 square will have a certain number of tones you can reproduce. Consider how much more information is on an 8x10 - the same square at the same size of image would be an inch square. That's a lot more info on the film. If you look down to a 35mm form factor, let's say its 1/4 of the size of a 4x5, for round numbers, then the square would be a 1/64 inch sliver. No matter how good one's film and lenses were, that's a lot less texture you can pull out of there. The edge of the pole would still be sharp, in all 3 cases. However, when you want textural information, you are going to get a lot more out of a larger piece of film, or a larger sensor.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Way back in the last century, I was scanning 4x5 negatives for digital negatives. I don't know how much things have changed in scanning, but I remember spending a huge amount of time correcting negatives in photo shop. Dust, hair, scanning artifacts and all the other things LF photographers learned to live with until digital came along. That was one of the things that drove me to full digital - no more spotting.

 

[lenny]

Spotting might take ten minutes... Everything is very simple with the new Photoshop features (the magic fixer thing) and a tablet. I get a 320 megapixel image from a 4x5. I prefer it to the 39 or so I would get from digital.

Lenny

 

[selmslie]

Spotting might take ten minutes... Everything is very simple with the new Photoshop features (the magic fixer thing) and a tablet. I get a 320 megapixel image from a 4x5. I prefer it to the 39 or so I would get from digital.

Lenny

Ditto on the spotting, even for medium format.

Digital does not eliminate spotting. Dust (and oil) on the sensor is one of the joys of digital cameras, no manufacturers excepted. If you are lucky you can reach the sensor to clean it, but if the lens cannot be removed you are screwed.

At least with film the spots show up in a different place with each frame so it does not get boring removing the same dust spot from every frame.

 

[Pioneer]

My question is about transitioning to a 35mm size Digital SLR, but it seems that the file size won't approach the file sizes from the drum scan that I can get. Can I have smaller file sizes from a digital SLR but yet retain the same quality/resolution as I seem to get from the drum scan of my negatives? (I'm considering getting a Nikon D800)

Thanks...Frank

Short answer is...Yes. The D800E will provide you with all the detail you can get from a 35mm scan. Your large drum scanned 35mm frame will not break down into pixels as soon, but it will just begin to turn to mush as you reach a point where the film has no further resolution or detail to provide. There will be other differences but primarily the film will appear grainier and the D800E image will seem cleaner (less visible grain). They will both enlarge about the same and provide you with very similar prints

Ignoring the archival advantage of a true negative, the primary advantage to film in my opinion is in the tonality, not necessarily the resolution. To me this is very obvious in black and white images, and you will tend to see a more gradual change in tones when looking at the film scan as opposed to the digital image. However, the D800E is alleged to provide some very, very good images, so the difference may not really be as obvious as I imagine it would be. After all, I do not have a D800E to compare to.

I don't see as big of a difference when working with color. My M9 color images look very good compared to good scans of Portra 400 (my primary color film.) But, of course, the D800E has far better resolution than my M9 so your mileage may certainly vary. However I can't believe that it would be worse then the M9 rather then better.

 

[lenny]

Short answer is...Yes. The D800E will provide you with all the detail you can get from a 35mm scan. Your large drum scanned 35mm frame will not break down into pixels as soon, but it will just begin to turn to mush as you reach a point where the film has no further resolution or detail to provide. There will be other differences but primarily the film will appear grainier and the D800E image will seem cleaner (less visible grain). They will both enlarge about the same and provide you with very similar prints.

This has not been my experience. What drum scanner did you use? Was it a Premier, or ICG 380 or above? Theya re the only ones that have a 3 micron engine...

Ignoring the archival advantage of a true negative, the primary advantage to film in my opinion is in the tonality, not necessarily the resolution.

This I can easily agree with.

Lenny

 

[Lifethruleica]

Thanks

 

[federico9001]

Properly shot film is always sharper (look at the Hollywood movies...), and it's more sensitive to the very subtle differences of tonality and lightness.

If correctly drum-scanned it can provide still unbeatable results:

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

All sizes | (CROP,100%), Ph. Roger Wagner©, 3 Gb Drum Scan by CastorScan | Flickr - Photo Sharing!