m8 or 35mm scans? better resolution

hello everyone, this is my first post here... just a bit about me, currently using a leica m6 and scanning with an epson v500. the other day, someone on APUG posted a message about what would give a better result, but the admins there thought it would start an analog vs digital feud so the thread was ended. i for one would have like to hear opinions, so i will ask it here.

the question is, assuming the m8 gives 10 meg files, would scanning a 35mm neg with a nikon coolscan 5000ed at 16 bits give a better output. the other poster was concerned with larger prints of 17" X 22" from an epson 3800. the nikon cs would give output files of 30 meg plus. but, would the actual scan include more details, or just grain(noise) ?

thanks for your inputs

Hi

I'll start with my short answer, and justify it below. If you've already got a 35mm camera (and especially if you use black and white) then if you're not in the business of turning around images for clients within hours then stay with film and get the Nikon LS-4000 / LS-V or LS-5000 scanner. The epson will not be competitive with it in speed, D-Max, focus accuracy or ICE (on chromogenic B&W, E6 or colour negative film).

I've got a Nikon LS-20 (which I bought quite some years ago) and Epson 3200 and 4870 scanners. I've used LS-30 LS-40 and LS-4000 scanners. The LS-30 sucks so badly I did not trust ICE for ages after the LS-40 came out.

What seems like decades ago (but was only 2001) I put up this page, which (on one of the links) shows that 2700dpi scans were not obtaining as much detail as I could see on the film (blurrily captured down the eyepiece of a Pentax x30 microscope). I think that 4000 goes close.

I've since put up a lot of stuff on my pages which you might find worthwhile reading. For example:
(note: I try to keep composition the same in each comparison because I don't think that the crop provided by smaller than 35mm sensor issue means that I will use a 80mm lens when I would have wanted a 50. I believe that if I wanted to use more telephoto and then stitch then I'd just do that with the film too ... that argument never ends, as I can use my 6x9 film camera and stitch together 3 images from that ... )

• comparison of 20D to 35mm (same angle of view in image provided by 17-55mm zoom on the 20D and EF50 f1.8 on the 35mm. Film used = 200 iso negative)
• 10D to 35mm film. This test tries to keep field of view close but using a prime lens (to avoid the issue of cheap zooms not being as sharp as primes. I have not got a 38mm (to equal 50mmm) so I chose an EF 24mm on the 10D and EF 50 on the 35mm {thus comparing 38mm with 50mm which isn't so far away}).
• some of the issues with epson scanners (this is a seach on my blog so its not ordered)
• not my test but if you look at the bottom of this page you will see the comparison of a 10D vs 35mm with the same lens used on each. I think you'll find that even there the film has better details than the digital.

Digital has the advantage for commercial operations of speed ability to proof on spot and repeatability. Do not get confused by manufacturers spec sheets and facts. If you believe that those portable carry on your shoulder music machines put out the same 1800 watts that the Yamaha stage amplifiers put out then good for you.

Same goes for the Epson. I've got mine because I scan 4x5 (and now also 120 film, for which I find them slightly limited) for 35mm ... don't even bother unless you're easily pleased.

HTH

oh ...

athena19fxx said:

hello everyone, this is my first post here...

Click to expand...

and (how rude of me) I totally forgot to say "welcome aboard"

I might have mis-read you post as I thought you were considering an M8 and also comparing it to what can be done with film (in your existing Leica)

take what I wrote from that perspective.

to answer more directly is there more in the scanned digital output than the M8 digital capture perhaps the answer is not much. Does that make the M8 worth it? Well, that's your call.

keep also in mind that the nature of capture of film (negative in particular) is non-linear (unlike a sensor). With a negative you can tune the exposure up a little (to bring up the shadow detail) while not blowing the highlights. This is not required in digital as the shadows are handled so well anyway, eg:



provia on the left and 10D on the right

Slide (in my opinion) gives you all the restrictions of digital exposure and none of the advantages of film (with the hassle of scanning tossed in for good measure). If I'm working in a low contrast environment (usually I'm not) then slide is beautiful .... otherwise....

Once you've got an image scanned and you've set your levels for black and white points for each channel and then tamed the colour / tones to how you like it then perhaps there is no real need to keep the image as 8bits and you can save space by dropping down from 16.

You say

assuming the m8 gives 10 meg files

Click to expand...

do you mean 10 megapixel files, as if you're talking JPG or RAW then that figure is rather meaningless. If you are talking pixels then once you've scanned your film (including a little mush arounds the edges) you can rescale it back to 4000 x 3000 pixels (or 12Megapixels) and you'll be ball park.

remember, a scanner like the LS-4000 is 4000 dpi so scanning 35mm film gives you something like 5000 pixels by 3900 pixels (which is 19 megapixels). Scale that back to the 3936 x 2630 which is the Leica M8 and they'll look close ... or heck, keep it that way and have better enlargements.

I've found that high quality digital images can tolerate enlargement a little more than I'd give a film scan. I've just had some 30x45cm enlargments done from my 10D. I reckon that a digital printed at 180dpi looks as good as a scan printed to 300dpi. So I set my dpi on the digital image to 180, then upres to 300.

Fiddle around with it in your editor and see what you like on the screen. I preview at 50% as this matches (on my screen) more or less what I see on a print. I can't look at my screen as closely as I can a print because it doesn't have the dot pitch, so by looking at 50% (not 100%) I see more or less what I get when I hold a print 25cm from my nose.

BTW ... a 40cm wide print isn't normally held that close ;-)

My friend sent me some images from the M8.2. Absolutely fantastic for a digital camera, really. But too small and not upgradeable for my gusto

If your clients don't press you into fast turnarounds, stick to film. I use a Nikon Coolscan LS 5000 for my 35 mm slides and a Nikon LS 9000 for my 120 slides. Always scan @ 4.000 ppi @ 48 bit.

The results are awesome, even compared to the M8.2 (ok, to be honest, I use only ZEISS lenses for serious work).

Just a couple of days I've posted something in another forum which might help you a bit:

--------------------//--

Some math to make the point clear:

The new Canon 5D MKII delivers images at a size of 5.616 x 3.744 pixels.
5.616 / 300 ppi = 18.72 inches or 47.55 cm
3.744 / 300 ppi = 12.48 inches or 31.17 cm

If you want larger prints, you either lose sharpness or have to use an ugly interpolation.

A 6x9 slide scanned @ 4.000 ppi (just a medium resolution) delivers an image of 12.900 x 8.600 pixels.
12.900 / 300 ppi = 43 inches or 109.22 cm
8.600 / 300 ppi = 28.67 inches or 72.81 cm

A 8x10 inch slide scanned at 4.000 ppi (just a low resolution) delivers an image of 40.000 x 32.000 pixels.
40.000 / 300 ppi = 133.33 inches or 338.67 cm
32.000 / 300 ppi = 106.67 inches or 270,93 cm

Now compare the tiny Canon 5D MKII format to the others. I guess you can figure out the result if you will drum scan the 6x9 or the 8x10 slides with a resolution of 8.000 ppi on a Heidelberg Tango or a similar device.

And I think everybody can imagine how blocky and pixelated a digital image of the above Canon would look if it will be enlarged to the same size as the film images with a resolution of 300 dpi in the printing process...

--------------------//--

The real catch here is that even the Canon 5D doesn't do 300 ppi, just 180 or 240 ppi max with a 'full size sensor'. The Nikon LS 5000 delivers 5.550 x 3.700 pixels @ 48 bit. If you want even more, but I always crop the slides a bit. That's slightly less than the Canon 5D XYZ.

Last week I had been on an assignment with a friend and co-worker. Same location, same light, he digital with a Canon 5D Whatsoever, me with a Contax G2 and an Arca Swiss. I thought the Arca Swiss with 6x9 would the only winner, but no, the Contax G2, ZEISS lenses and a Fuji Provia 100 F beat the Canon 5D XYZ in tonal range and sharpness in the final print @ 60x 90 cm. Of course he was a bit frustrated and sad, but since we are working together he usually shines in different disciplines where the image size is A3 max. OK, I don't want to talk about his ranting because of the dust on his sensor, that's another story and experience.

If you'd ask me - go for film and a first class scanner. New emulsions are constantly developed, that means as soon as you pop a new film into your camera you'll enjoy a free upgrade without having to kick the 'old' body and invest into a new one

And grain, well, you can see it on your screen, but not in the final print, not even if you use a Lambda or LightJet for your prints. Film has soul, and that's what I sell to my clients. To answer your question: no, I don't even own a digital camera, not even a cell phone with some digital plastic lens.

The image below is a nice example for a 35 mm scan on a Nikon LS 5000. I've shot it with a Rollei 35s, placed onto the top of the counter in a bar (ZEISS lens ) and scanned it with 48 bit.

Hi

while in general I agree with you whole heartedly I have a few small questions on your maths (or more specifically on you qualitative points).

jens g.r. benthien said:

Some math to make the point clear:

The new Canon 5D MKII delivers images at a size of 5.616 x 3.744 pixels.
5.616 / 300 ppi = 18.72 inches or 47.55 cm
3.744 / 300 ppi = 12.48 inches or 31.17 cm

If you want larger prints, you either lose sharpness or have to use an ugly interpolation.

A 6x9 slide scanned @ 4.000 ppi (just a medium resolution) delivers an image of 12.900 x 8.600 pixels.
12.900 / 300 ppi = 43 inches or 109.22 cm
8.600 / 300 ppi = 28.67 inches or 72.81 cm

A 8x10 inch slide scanned at 4.000 ppi (just a low resolution) delivers an image of 40.000 x 32.000 pixels.
40.000 / 300 ppi = 133.33 inches or 338.67 cm
32.000 / 300 ppi = 106.67 inches or 270,93 cm

Click to expand...

To be sure some drum scanners can go to higher resolutions than 4000dpi but I question that 4000dpi for 6x9 is medium resolution and certainly for 8x10 it is not low. I'd seriously doubt that many / any would have access to lenses that would allow that on a 8x10 system.

Further handling the sheer data levels of a 4000 dpi scan of 8x10 is beyond many computers as the image will be around 10Gig even if you only scan in 8 bits.

I guess that (in this day and age) the reason most use large formats like 8x10 is not to have enormous images but to have better tonality and access to ready scanners, as even an Epson V750 will have the ability to generate quite usable files with a modest investment (once considered enormous with 300 being normal and 800 being high).

But I don't think that the OP'er is interested in moving towards larger formats.

Yes, I wrote that I had posted this in another forum. Of course it had a different topic.

And I said **Some MATH**, not what is feasable, just to compare the resolution part.

I consider 2.400 ppi a low res for 6x9, 4.000 a medium and a drum scanner with 6.000 a high res. MHO.

You are right on the 8x10 in terms of photography - file size, tonal range, etc. But I think the point I've made is clear - even a tiny Rollei 35s is capable to deliver fantastic images and that there is no need for digital if the image is your goal.

Hi

jens g.r. benthien said:

Yes, I wrote that I had posted this in another forum. Of course it had a different topic.

Click to expand...

sorry if I sounded pedantic ... its like I said at first:

in general I agree with you whole heartedly

Click to expand...

jens g.r. benthien said:

But I think the point I've made is clear - even a tiny Rollei 35s is capable to deliver fantastic images and that there is no need for digital if the image is your goal.

Click to expand...

I agree ... I recently bought a friend a Trip 35 as a "rugged backpacking camera for all occasions" (including whoops I forgot to charge the batteries). We scanned the 200 ISO 35mm neg at a humble 2700dpi I fiddled briefly in Photoshop and printed at a bureau (fotonetti.fi) and it gave him 30 x 45 cm print he'd never thought were possible. Now if only he'd taken that camera up Mt Blanc with him ;-)

If only we didn't have client pressure for deadlines (well, I no longer do) and people understood their systems better I think we'd all be much better off with 90's technology (film) than early 21st century technology (DSLR's) {though I must say that compacts like the Panasonic G1 are really appealing}

I agree with this. Scanning a MF negative at 2400 spi will not pull all of the detail out of a good MF negative. My Mamiya 7 negatives often have as much as 90 l/mm, which requires a scan with effective resolution of close to 5000 spi. I also have a Fuji GW690III and it gives great results.

Not sure about the Leica M8 versus 35mm. For B&W I would bet on the 35m, if using a fine grain film. For color, I think it would be very close, with the smoothness of the digital file perhaps trumping the higher resolution of the film.

Sandy King

jens g.r. benthien said:

Yes, I wrote that I had posted this in another forum. Of course it had a different topic.

And I said **Some MATH**, not what is feasable, just to compare the resolution part.

I consider 2.400 ppi a low res for 6x9, 4.000 a medium and a drum scanner with 6.000 a high res. MHO.

You are right on the 8x10 in terms of photography - file size, tonal range, etc. But I think the point I've made is clear - even a tiny Rollei 35s is capable to deliver fantastic images and that there is no need for digital if the image is your goal.

Click to expand...

I've done quite a lot of comparisons with 35mm scans on both a decent film scanner (Konica 5400II and a Howtek 4500 drum scanner) and digital output from an M8 and from a Canon 5D. The short answer is, it depends on what film you're shooting and what your subject matter is. On 35mm Adox CMS, I can get a significantly better file than I can from my M8 - hands down; everytime. However, this relies on an excellent imaging chain for the film - Leica body and the best Leica or Zeiss glass (there's not a lot of difference in measurable resolution), tripod etc (it's extremely slow film). Once you move into the realm of conventional emulsions, things get a lot closer and factors like the ability of scanner operator and your file preparation skills start to make very significant differences... I shoot both 35mm film and a Leica M8 (as well as other digital cameras) for differing reasons. And it has nothing to do with either medium having "soul" or whatever. I prefer to look at tangibles.

If resolution and ultimate image quality are key to what you're doing, 35mm film or an M8 are the wrong tools. Likewise, great images are not always completely reliant on optimal capture medium.

sticking with film @ scanner

thanks everyone for all your replies, i was out of town yesterday, so i couldnt reply. i mostly photograph for the actual owners of old industrial plants (layouts and machines), usually in b&w. these guys really arent in a rush for the prints, and these prints are more like 'one of' prints used as gifts. they give me standard schedules with plenty of time to deliver.

i read this question in the other forum..... and what got to me was the argument that the m8 image is an original... and the scan was a copy of the original, hence you would naturally lose detail. thats why i wanted to get opinions from actual users of scanned images. to what degree does the scan lose image detail, and as you guys mentioned, 10 megs is really a small file for enlarged prints.

this and the cropped sensor really decided it for me, not to mention what jen stated about new film emulsions always coming out , my m6 'technically' will be updated continuously while sensor cams are set to what is the best at the time of mfg. i think from the samples provided, i will be staying with film and purchasing the cs5000, at least for the time being.

thanks again, i really appreciate all your replies

athena.

To the Original poster

Donsta has summarised what I was initially trying to convey (and what I think everyone who's contributed here so far was meaning too)

Donsta said:

I've done quite a lot of comparisons with 35mm scans ... it depends on what film you're shooting ... On 35mm Adox CMS, I can get a significantly better file than I can from my M8 ... this relies on .. imaging chain for the film... factors like the ability of scanner operator and your file preparation skills start to make very significant differences...

Click to expand...

when you throw in the archival nature of black and white film VS the issues of archiving digital materials I think that you have another advantage of film. I've got tri-x and kodak safety film (my father photographed in 1954) which I can still scan.

just a thought

yes i understand that

pellicle said:

To the Original poster

Donsta has summarised what I was initially trying to convey (and what I think everyone who's contributed here so far was meaning too)



when you throw in the archival nature of black and white film VS the issues of archiving digital materials I think that you have another advantage of film. I've got tri-x and kodak safety film (my father photographed in 1954) which I can still scan.

just a thought

Click to expand...

yes pellicle, i have taken that into consideration. i have to mention to all of you, that i really did not intend to bash digital or the m8.

however, with new films coming out, and possibly new scanner technologies, using film is really openended in terms of improvement. which is really quite odd in a way. film is the upgradable sensor that they got right the first time around ! truely an analogue sensor to capture an analogue reality.

you could argue, that a 50 year old film camera can take better pics today with new films than it did when it first came out. you cant do that with your digicam. i would think the chips in digicams gradually degrade through usage in terms of the quality of captures. maybe not by much, but still noticable.

im sticking with my m6 and possibly get a MP in the future.

athena19fxx said:

however, with new films coming out, and possibly new scanner technologies, using film is really openended in terms of improvement.

Click to expand...

New emulsions may perhaps offer some marginal improvements over the next few years - however, I wouldn't hold my breath either - spending chunks of R&D on new film development seems, frankly, unlikely. Kodak have improved a bunch of their emulsions (small changes in every case) over the past two years and introduced a new 35mm emulsion (Ektar100) and I personally think it's unlikely that we'll see any other positive changes to their line-up. I can't honestly remember when Ilford last introduced a new film product... Fuji have made some minor improvements to their product line over the past few years too - again, I suspect that most of their focus on R&D will not be in the anlogue domain.

I think it's extremely doubtful that we'll see any significant improvements in scanning technology for the forseeable future. The development of desktop film scanners seems to have ground to a complete halt in the past few years, drum scanning technology has absolutely stopped moving and the huge changes in the prepress industry would suggest that even high end flatbeds are really already legacy items.

The past 3 iterations of Epson flatbeds have yielded only tiny improvements over previous models - I don't see any new technology which is likely to change that at all.

My own opinion (just an opinion) is that conventional 35mm films are what they are and the technology for both recording and extracting as much as possible from these films already exists and it's very unlikely that either will change at all in the future. At this "finite" point, there are some excellent arguments for adopting a purely digital workflow instead, especially if one's output is going to be digital. And, of course, there's a whole market which seems to have the same opinion - you only need to look at the sales of 35mm film bodies and emulsions. If you're making a decision based upon future improvements in emulsions and scanning technologies, I really do think that you may end up making a decision upon a flawed basis. There are some good reasons to be shooting 35mm film, but I don't believe that these are two of them.

Donsta, new emulsion can suddenly emerge in a R&D department. Currently they are experimenting with some sort chlorophyl mix - like in Norway, where a company develops 'soft disks' which are based on chlorophyl in extremely thin layers. These soft disks already have a multiple capacity of a normal 500 GB hard disk in the size an thickness of a credit card. It's amazing.

On the other hand: as long as Hollywood will shoot film, the R&D on emulsions will proceed. If Hollywood will switch to digital, there will be Bollywood in India, which already churns out more films per year than Hollywood.

The European Community just passed a project to archive data from museums, libraries and archives on - you've guessed it - film! Reason: the costs to keep electronic archives up to date are too high and the future of data storage is uncertain - if the magnetic field of the globe should switch (which already happened several times in history), most of the digital stuff will be unusable.

Engaged in this project are Fuji, Kodak and several B&W film manufacturers. Now imagine what will happen the next years - the demand for film will increase again (ok, not as much as if all consumer would purchase film again), and I would bet my b*tt that something will evolve during the efforts to archive all data on new emulsions.

10 years ago I've already heard that film is dead, is no longer developed, etc. But - oh wonder - Kodak came up with new emulsions, Fuji as well, and several small niche marketers and manufacturers especially in Europe.

Compared to the bare fact that Canon Japan and several other digicam manufacturers canceled their plans for new production facilities in Far East this is the best news and it's very encouraging.

Currently - especially with the economic crisis - the market for the hype products is over saturated. So the industry needs to come up with some reliable, new products. And the chances for film are just great.

Just my 2 cents.

jens g.r. benthien said:

Donsta, new emulsion can suddenly emerge in a R&D department. Currently they are experimenting with some sort chlorophyl mix - like in Norway, where a company develops 'soft disks' which are based on chlorophyl in extremely thin layers. These soft disks already have a multiple capacity of a normal 500 GB hard disk in the size an thickness of a credit card. It's amazing.

On the other hand: as long as Hollywood will shoot film, the R&D on emulsions will proceed. If Hollywood will switch to digital, there will be Bollywood in India, which already churns out more films per year than Hollywood.

The European Community just passed a project to archive data from museums, libraries and archives on - you've guessed it - film! Reason: the costs to keep electronic archives up to date are too high and the future of data storage is uncertain - if the magnetic field of the globe should switch (which already happened several times in history), most of the digital stuff will be unusable.

Engaged in this project are Fuji, Kodak and several B&W film manufacturers. Now imagine what will happen the next years - the demand for film will increase again (ok, not as much as if all consumer would purchase film again), and I would bet my b*tt that something will evolve during the efforts to archive all data on new emulsions.

10 years ago I've already heard that film is dead, is no longer developed, etc. But - oh wonder - Kodak came up with new emulsions, Fuji as well, and several small niche marketers and manufacturers especially in Europe.

Compared to the bare fact that Canon Japan and several other digicam manufacturers canceled their plans for new production facilities in Far East this is the best news and it's very encouraging.

Currently - especially with the economic crisis - the market for the hype products is over saturated. So the industry needs to come up with some reliable, new products. And the chances for film are just great.

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

2 cents indeed.

I think you're being very hopeful based on very little data outside of the odd news article (remember those sell news stories, not film....). Real data like small format film sales, 35mm camera body sales, sales of photo chemicals and processors, Kodak's stated direction in relation to digital imaging and film etc. strongly support my view.

It sounds like you're really trying to hard to justify your own choices. You don't have to. I shoot film for a variety of reasons, but the future of scanning technology and the potential of future, as yet, un-invented 35mm film emulsions certainly aren't two of the reasons.

I think Ron Mowery posted some information at one point on APIG the state of film and digital in terms of their ultimate potential. What the information indicated was that film was near the end of its cycle, digital just beginning. Of course, there could always be some major imaging advancement that would make film dramatically more competitive but the chances are probably slim.

So what I think we can expect over the next decade is that there will be some modest improvement in film, especially for scanning purposes, but rather dramatic improvement in digital imaging technology. We already have 21-24 mp DSLR cameras for around $3k, in five more years I predict we will have DSLRs with 2X - 3X that mp count for less than $2k.

Right now film is still great value for the amount of image quality you can get out of it, and it also has significant archiving advantages. However, the workflow is quite a bit more time consuming than digital so a lot of commercial photographers have already abandoned film.

Sandy

Donsta said:

2 cents indeed.

I think you're being very hopeful based on very little data outside of the odd news article (remember those sell news stories, not film....). Real data like small format film sales, 35mm camera body sales, sales of photo chemicals and processors, Kodak's stated direction in relation to digital imaging and film etc. strongly support my view.

It sounds like you're really trying to hard to justify your own choices. You don't have to. I shoot film for a variety of reasons, but the future of scanning technology and the potential of future, as yet, un-invented 35mm film emulsions certainly aren't two of the reasons.

Click to expand...

Dead Link Removed

http://www.aphog.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=277&Itemid=1
(only in German, but it says that more than 23 new films have been introduced at Photokina 2008 - more than ever before in a time span of 2 years...)

In Europe more professional photographers use more film or return to film for a bunch of reasons.

Finally, as long as I can't get a similar small product like a Contax G2 system with all the fantastic lenses and a 'full frame sensor' (or even a Rollei 35s with a ZEISS lens) digital still has a long way to go.

For me it does make a difference between carrying a huge Canon XYZ or a tiny, unobtrusive Contax. I don't live on the fast lane and I don't want to waste my time at a computer to correct CA, lens distortion, color correction, etc. - I prefer to take some images.

If you live in Andalucia I can understand the part about the fast lane. I don't, however, understand, the logic of wasting your time at a computer. A film work flow for me results in a lot more time at the computer than would be the case if I switched entirely to digital.

Sandy King

jens g.r. benthien said:

Dead Link Removed

[For me it does make a difference between carrying a huge Canon XYZ or a tiny, unobtrusive Contax. I don't live on the fast lane and I don't want to waste my time at a computer to correct CA, lens distortion, color correction, etc. - I prefer to take some images.

Click to expand...

That depends. I just scan the slides and sometimes crop the images or scale them to fit a layout for a brochure.

I just wanted to say that I wouldn't like to run an image file through some weird programs to correct lens distortions, perform a 'final' exposure if working with RAW and all the nine yards.

Even if I would live in a mega city like NY, LA, HKG or any other I'd use film, particularly the larger formats. My images are finished when I trip the shutter, not after hours of post processing in PhotoSoup & Company. I'm a designer and photographer, not a computer operator (which doesn't mean I don't use computers - I do, but not for wasting my time on working on pixels to transform them into images). OK, a bit sarcastic, but that's the way I approach it.

jens g.r. benthien said:

Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

If you start to subtract the discontinued emulsions that the "new" Kodak "improved" versions replaced, the numbers don't look nearly as attractive - using their math, Kodak introduced ten new films - and simultaneously discontinued ten old films (the emulsions they replaced) - pretty pathetic reporting really. Not to mention that they introduced Ektar 100 and discontinued Kodak HIE... Makes sense that this little journalistic gem didn't make it into an English translation anywhere.

jens g.r. benthien said:

In Europe more professional photographers use more film or return to film for a bunch of reasons.

Click to expand...

Perhaps in the world according to Jens - data from the real world suggests definitively otherwise.

jens g.r. benthien said:

Finally, as long as I can't get a similar small product like a Contax G2 system with all the fantastic lenses and a 'full frame sensor' (or even a Rollei 35s with a ZEISS lens) digital still has a long way to go.

Click to expand...

That's entirely your opinion and you make your choices for your own reasons. I shoot a bunch of 35mm gear (including Rollei 35s and Leicas), some digital cameras and LF gear. Unlike yourself, I believe that there is plenty of place for all of these tools in the creative process.

Hi

athena19fxx said:

i have to mention to all of you, that i really did not intend to bash digital or the m8.

Click to expand...

personally I did not interpret anything you said as doing that. Seemed healthy and sensible questions to me

jens g.r. benthien said:

Currently - especially with the economic crisis - the market for the hype products is over saturated. So the industry needs to come up with some reliable, new products. And the chances for film are just great.

Click to expand...

Well here are my 2 cents:

Film sales will continue to decline world wide this year especially due to the world economic situation.

Commercial photographers will continue to use digital imaging by a wide margin over film this year and in the future.

I've heard these yearly predictions about the rebirth of film for at least the past 6 or 7 years and they haven't been true - not even once!

Do I like using film? Yes!

Am I a luddite who thinks that digital photography is on the ropes? Or that post exposure processing of film is faster than post exposure processing of digital captures? Or that wedding photographers spend hundreds of hours editing files on their computers for the weddings they shoot?

Well No! A BIG NO!

Don Bryant

jens g.r. benthien said:

Dead Link Removed

http://www.aphog.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=277&Itemid=1
(only in German, but it says that more than 23 new films have been introduced at Photokina 2008 - more than ever before in a time span of 2 years...)

In Europe more professional photographers use more film or return to film for a bunch of reasons.

Finally, as long as I can't get a similar small product like a Contax G2 system with all the fantastic lenses and a 'full frame sensor' (or even a Rollei 35s with a ZEISS lens) digital still has a long way to go.

For me it does make a difference between carrying a huge Canon XYZ or a tiny, unobtrusive Contax. I don't live on the fast lane and I don't want to waste my time at a computer to correct CA, lens distortion, color correction, etc. - I prefer to take some images.

Click to expand...

You use a lot of half-truth and anecdotal "evidence" to justify your use of film. I too use film but I don't feel any compulsion to trash digital, or use half-truths to somehow "prove" film is "better".

As to "wasting time behind a computer"? Yea, yea you are so right...that "stupid idiotic" Ansel Adams also "wasted" tons and tons of time too. In the wet darkroom.

Well, if Ansel is a time wasting slacker, then I plead guilty too. In the wet and dry darkroom.

Just shoot film if that is what you like, and be happy. No need to trash, defame, and slander digital. And by the way, digital IN FACT does NOT have "a long way to go" to produce high quality pictures.