When you have finished testing, you might actually want to go out and take some pictures, post them here, and explain to us how much better they are because of all that testing. Or is it just testing for the sake of testing?
Last edited:
Film vs. Scanning resolution
-
H
- Thread starter grat
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
When you have finished testing, you might actually want to go out and take some pictures, post them here, and explain to us how much better they are because of all that testing. Or is it just testing for the sake of testing?
It just looks like you are in the lab screwing around with your slide rule and arguing about the results. At some point you are actually going to have to go out and make a photograph.
-
- 138S
- Deleted
MattKing
Moderator
For those of us who make use of the ignore function, this thread is surreal.
I might want to mention here that you won't have any of these scanner issues if you don't use a scanner. Sometimes that thought gets lost in all the minutia. If you shoot film, make your own gelatin silver or chromogenic prints. If you don't have the space or ability to do that, and the only option is making digital prints, shoot with a digital camera. I don't know why anyone would want to make the technical quality of their images worse by including a scanner in the pipeline.
Frank, including an scanner is not to damage quality if format is large enough. From MF film you can scan/print really big with no flaw.
If wanting to print larger you always can upgrade the format. At 8x10" even an Epson extracts 300 MPix effective of a 8x10" sheet.
Not always, but film can deliver a distinct aesthetic footprint we may want.
This is 2020 and some Hollywood productions are still shot on film (https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/shot-on-film)
I can tell you that those people have access to digital setups costing hundreds of thousands, but they know why they shot film.
To say an evident example, Schindler's List has a Plus-X & Double-X cinematography that blows miles away anything digital made since then.
Could that be made digital ? perhaps... who knows ? But it was made Plus-X & Double-X. Ask it to Spielberg, Nolan or Tarantino... They master a medium and they make it shine.
How many people are you ? or is it Royal We ? (joking, please take it with humor)
I appreciate your recommendation of shooting digital in BW, many carbon printers do that, but presonally I feel this lacks some romantic "authenticity" for me, a bit I'd I like to follow the way Jim and Vaughn are crafting the images, this is the path I'm following as I can. Of course every one has to follow what he likes, to me your workflow is as good as any other.
Last edited:
The "us" in my post refers to the participants in the thread. Any ""romantic "authenticity"" is negated by scanning film to digital.
Here YMMV. Hybrid may cancel a share of that romanticism, or not. This is a personal feeling.
In any case we have examples of some famous Pro wedding photographers shooting film and scanning:
José Villa http://josevilla.com/
John Dolan http://johndolan.com/portfolios/marriage/
Greg Finck http://www.gregfinck.com/
Noa Azoulay http://www.featherlove.com/
Erich Mcvey http://www.erichmcvey.com/
Braedon Flynn https://braedonphotography.com/portfolio/Weddings/
Liz Banfield https://www.lizbanfield.com/weddings
Judy Pak http://judypak.com/the-details
Sylvie Gil http://www.sylviegilphotography.com/
Ryan Ray http://www.ryanrayphoto.com/
Tec Petaja http://www.tecpetajaphoto.com/
Elizabeth Messina http://www.elizabethmessina.com/#!/i...love/gallery/1
Corbin Gurkin https://corbingurkin.com/
Aaron Delesie http://www.delesieblog.com/
Eric Kelley http://erickelley.com/portfolio
Allan Zepeda https://allanzepeda.com/
Heather Waraksa http://heatherwaraksa.com/
Charlotte Jenks Lewis http://charlottejenkslewis.com/
Leo Patrone http://www.leopatronephotography.com/
KT Merry https://www.ktmerry.com/
People can tell themselves all sorts of things.
I have seen pro wedding photographers work in digital and film. i wasn't very impressed with the quality of the film work. It is not something I aspire to. Maybe the quality of the film work of the pro wedding photographers you listed is better.
Last edited:
Well DXO doesn't seem to think much of the DX 35mm 1.8 either on a DX body. 10 MP is pretty poor for prime on a 24 MP body. Something is awry.14MPix is with an APSC small sensor camera, with a Full Format D850 the 35mm f/1.4G is rated 25MPix, both are totally fair values for the situation IMO. Think that the 35 is a FF lens, optimized for a format that has x2 the area.
View attachment 253883
Those rated 8 MPix effective of the 18-55VR in the D5500 are totally fair, but to get that you have to shot f/5.6 or f/8 and under 28mm to get that, see the performance map:
View attachment 253882
The EXIF of the Melbourne shot says 18mm focal and wide open f/3.5, the focal in good for performance but the apperture is not totally optimal, still not bad. That shot should be slightly under 8MPix effective, but not beyond 8...
This enforces that 2600dpi effective rating,isn't it?
I hope this is not to be irritating also for you...Joking, take it with some humor.
Some get irritated when truth is evidenced... I hope it's not your case.
The crop uses the pixels pretty well. As well as the D850 image I posted a link to earlier.
Hope you can accept this one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/13379...x2N-Ee32Hx-2ejCKzT-2nVAFc-5Zkxbs-BRFZ8p-7Mgfr
Here is approximately the same angle of the tower taken with a D810, one of the best contemporary FX zooms @ f13.
If that is not good enough for you, I don't know what is?
Although, as shown in the second image, with the two photo details scaled to the same number of pixels and superimposed (org. Minolta scan and the D810 image) the digital photo has the clock face approximately x 1.5 times larger, so please take that into account.
Also again, take into account that this is an evening shot, so contrast is higher and the air is cooler so arial perspective (haze) is lower.
I'd say at the most this is only the predictably 1/2 time better, if that.
Not the ca. four times better predicted by the DXO calculator.
Again notice the bayer artefacting and the wild guesses from the edge contrast enhancement.
Please view the images full screen or zoomed in because the higher contrast (mostly due to the lighting and lack of haze) can be deceptive at smaller sizes.
The earlier digital/analog composite for comparison.
Last edited:
How about they (the film makers) just appreciate the characteristics of film?
Nolans use of 70mm and Real IMAX assures that he will be able to rescan it to ridiculous resolutions and that he will be able to actually have his film, and not have it erased by a cyber attack, neglect, cosmic radiation etc.
Last edited:
Scanners needn't be bad.
They have just happened to be up to this point.
Well to start with... you responded to my statement.
I received comments from three people, two of them in private messages, and one public-- So I responded publicly to that person.
The only emotion in my case is irritation that as expected, a useful thread has disintegrated under the weight of egos. And that probably includes me. Part of my irritation is based on the fact that I've seen this particular flame-fest before, and it was considerably nastier then.
It may surprise you that one of your comments was phrased in such a way that I had to restrain myself from expressing my opinion of you, and your probable ancestry-- but that wouldn't have been civil (or useful).
Telling other people how you think their mind works, as a rule, says more about you than it does them, and in some cultures, will offend. As it's very easy to be misunderstood in text, especially when crossing cultural and linguistic barriers, I've developed a habit of erring on the side of caution, and try not to treat others in a way I would object to being on the receiving end of.
That sounds like one of the truisms a mom would say to her child, that turns out to be at best a half truth when you are grown.
Cultures (or at least the ones likely involved here) in this day and age are remarkably homogenous and knowledgable about each other. Mostly due to life long normalisation through pop culture including the last twenty or so years of internet communication.
When you are telling the other person "how you think his mind work", you are in essence in a shorthand form telling him about the general impression he made on you and how you felt about it.
That is very valuable to both parties, if they are civil and intelligent enough to not let it escalate.
The old dichotomy between emotions/feelings on one hand and rationalism/facts on the other, supposedly inherited from the classical period Greeks, is not only very likely a modern era missappropiation of the greek philosophers, but also completely bogus in a general sense.
I appreciate the characteristics of film. That's why I don't run my negatives through a scanner and make digital prints from them.
Because they want to share images online?
Because they want to print images in a magazine or book instead of one print on the wall?
Because a client "wants film" but needs digital?
Because the image requires adjustments that would be impossible in the darkroom?
Because sometimes scanning is just a better choice for the print?
Because it's fun?
I'm sure there are many more but the bottom line is analog and digital photography are both great and we can happily use both as needed.
In some cases the technical quality of a print scanned from film is a better choice and higher quality compared to full analog, especially when considering scanning large negatives and using them to make very large color prints. It's all about choosing the right tool for the job, and sometimes a 4x5 or 8x10 negative for instance, scanned, is the most cost effective and highest quality way to get to a six foot tall color print if that's what you need. I know someone that does this regularly and the prints (portraits that are larger than life size) are stunning.
Eggzacatally. You do the best with the gear (and film) that is available at the moment. Was true in St. Ansel's day and is still true today. For best results, spend the extra money for top quality equipment, be it film or lenses or DSLR bodies or even scanners!!
Otherwise all this "pixel peeping" by another name gets tedious after about 100 messages or so.
cut and paste from 2018 lazy, lazy, lazy
https://www.largeformatphotography....ernity-photography-using-Chamonix-45N-2/page3
I don't participate in that forum being a smaller format guy, but I poked around and found basically this same scanning thread, with some of the same participants as here, barking at each other the same way.
It's like there is a parallel universe I just tapped into. I'm feeling a little lightheaded and need to sit down.
Not lazy, it took me some effort to gather it. This is my list of favourite (active) wedding film photographers and I'm proud to show it because it contains nice references.
It's not the first time I share it, and probably not the last one, I hope it can be nice for some to explore it.
Film or digital are no better or worse, but when some seller of Digital MF cameras says that film makes no sense then this list shows that YMMV.
https://judypak.com/the-details.
Those few people still make a living from 35mm and MF film, and until I know some are doing quite well, covid apart.
In general they process hybrid, with the scanning making total sense.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |