So let me get this straight.
To get the film scans to look as good as the images on my SD card going straight to my computer will set me back $2,000 a roll…?
No. Your film scans won't look as good as the Leica+Zeiss digital images -- ever. It won't happen. And that is because of how you are looking at these things - not because of what they are. You are assessing them on digital ground, where that Leica clearly has the advantage.
Stuff a roll of film in the Leica and see how well it enlarges optically once developed. Oh, wait....
So let me get this straight.
To get the film scans to look as good as the images on my SD card going straight to my computer will set me back $2,000 a roll…?
You can't get the film scan from a 35mm frame as good as a 24MP digital camera. I found 35mm film is only equivalent to about 12MP digital sensor.
So let me get this straight.
To get the film scans to look as good as the images on my SD card going straight to my computer will set me back $2,000 a roll…?
I found 35mm film is only equivalent to about 12MP digital sensor.
You can't get the film scan from a 35mm frame as good as a 24MP digital camera. I found 35mm film is only equivalent to about 12MP digital sensor
You can stop wasting your time right now by shooting slide film (preferable Ektachrome with you Nikkor 50mm f2), and view it directly with a high quality loupe.
You are never going to get the results you are looking for with a scan.
My last ten rolls of Ektar 100 were optically developed at Blue moon…!
You mean that scans of 35mm are only good for less than 20mpx of useable resolution.
I prefer photos to details and don't see much point assessing the "quality" of an image at any magnification higher than the final print size. If it looks good on a piece of 8x10 paper, it looks good. If I want a photo of a pine needle, I won't take a photo of a tree - let alone of a forest.
It's pretty easy to go well beyond the scan's resolution by zooming in. I quit getting scans from the lab years ago because ALL of them ALWAYS suck. Because I'm not charging by the hour, I can put in a lot more time and care than any lab technician can and so I get much better quality from my own $300 Epson flatbed than I ever got from a lab. Also, film image quality when using a tripod beats the pants off when not using one, especially when you zoom in.
So basically, I'd say what you're seeing results from 3 points in your work flow - no tripod, storebought scans, and zooming in.
My last ten rolls of Ektar 100 were optically developed at Blue moon…!
But were they shot in your digital Leica?
Oh, my god. Ektar 100 in 120 on a tripod. Life doesn't get much better than that. Now you got me thinking I should start shooting color again!
I can remember my first time using the digital format and inserting the SD card in the computer.I like how scientific sometimes these comparisons can get. Most of the time people would just upload full res tiff and raw file of a shot taken with same lens somewhere. This thread takes it to another level, though...
I'd never have believed that "SD straight to computer" thing has gotten so good by now...!
I can remember my first time using the digital format and inserting the SD card in the computer.
Since I was just shooting film before I didn’t know what to expect.
The first shots from the Leica, SD card took a long time to download being RAW.
As soon as the images were displayed on my screen I found myself staring at them for hours and it became an obsession because of how beautiful they looked…!
Must be nice to be completely independent of others to have a nice conversationI like your use of…!
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?