"Star" is asking :"How to become an analogue photographer"?

DREW WILEY · Feb 26, 2018

No problem. It's all Darwinian. Everyone with their eyes glued to a cell phone or GPS crossing the street is destined to get run over. I doubt that a densitometer or light meter would be involved. I just try to keep from getting rear-ended on the freeway.

cooltouch · Feb 27, 2018

trondsi said:
Interesting comparison. I generally agree, BUT I think I have noticed one thing that maybe more die-hard film vs digital testers can confirm; the fact that you can make out the grain in the film does not mean that the scanned image is as good as it gets. Grain behave weirdly, and I sometimes notice details that appear "sharper" than the apparent grain.The interaction between scanner and grain can make the film look more grainy than it is under ideal conditions. I also wonder about lens differences here; is it the same or similar lens? Having said that, I don't think film can compete with quality digital cameras in resolving power at this point. So it is quite possible that you're right (that no sharper scan would have produced any more resolution in this case) but I thought I should point it out. I also agree that the film image has a certain charm lacking in the digital image.

I don't know how I managed to miss your response. And to answer: I did the best I could regarding lenses. The original photo was shot with a Canon 50mm f/3.5 macro lens. I don't have one of those anymore. But I did have a Nikon 55mm f/3.5 macro, so I used it, reasoning that it should provide an equivalently sharp image. I probably guessed at the f/stop and used f/8. I positioned the camera/lens as best as I could determine the correct distance away from the subject, but I did not take into account the magnifying effect due to the Canon being a crop body camera. Oh well.

To record the Fujichrome slide into a digital format, I did not use my scanner -- an Epson 4990. It's a good scanner, but Epson's quoted bloated resolution numbers aside, realistically it provides about a 2000 ppi image. Barely adequate. I used instead my Canon DSLR with my Nikon 55mm f/3.5 macro lens to dupe the slide. The Canon has a 10.1mp sensor, which provided about 2700 ppi. Not great, but better at least. And the resolution the Canon provided was sufficient to resolve the Fujichrome 100 slide's grain. Thus I felt I had a valid comparison between a film and digital image. I could try it again, this time taking into account the magnification effect of the crop-body sensor and position it a bit farther away. And these days, I can make a 4000 x 6000 ppi dupe thanks to my newer digital's 24.3mp sensor. I don't anticipate the hi-res dupe providing any more detail, however, and I fully expect the comparison to be the same, even if I shot the pic of the watch using my old 10.1mp Canon, and not my newer Sony's 24.3mp.

trondsi · Feb 28, 2018

Perhaps the best (and most fair) comparison would be to view slide film under the loupe and the digital image on the screen, at roughly the same magnification (but of course you can't do that online ). I recently bought a 22x loupe. I can see the grain very clearly with this one. But judging from what I have seen I am convinced that if I took a modern "flagship" DSLR, made a shot, and used the same lens to make the same shot on slide film, the new DSLRs will blow film out of the water as far as pure image resolution goes. Here's a sample from Nikon's new D850. I have never seen such resolution from a 35mm film camera (I can almost count the small feathers on the bird's head):

https://www.nikonrumors.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/nikon-d850-sample-image-4.jpg

So, when I still shoot film, it isn't really because of resolution. I like the relatively simple old-fashioned cameras, the film grain, and the different colors and textures you get from using different films.

BradS · Feb 28, 2018

trondsi said:
...<snip>...when I still shoot film, it isn't really because of resolution.

BINGO!
I wish more people could grasp this simple concept. All of photography does not boil down to resolution. In fact, resolution really has very little to do with it....yet resolution, megapixels, etc...seems to be the **only** thing that matters in digital photography.

Sirius Glass · Feb 28, 2018

BradS said:
BINGO!
I wish more people could grasp this simple concept. All of photography does not boil down to resolution. In fact, resolution really has very little to do with it....yet resolution, megapixels, etc...seems to be the **only** thing that matters in digital photography.

Additionally to the point is the fact that in spite of all the huffing and puffing about resolution, until and unless a set of pixels [GRGB] are the size of film grain, the resolution can not be better than film. Period. Now add to that BradS's statement.

faberryman · Feb 28, 2018

Oh brother. When will it ever end? Seriously, who cares? Buy and shoot what you want. It is the final image that counts.

trendland · Feb 28, 2018

BradS said:
BINGO!
I wish more people could grasp this simple concept. All of photography does not boil down to resolution. In fact, resolution really has very little to do with it....yet resolution, megapixels, etc...seems to be the **only** thing that matters in digital photography.

Resolution is a concept with giant enlargements. Without good resolution it will not work. With bad photography it will also not work. On smaler scale enlargements you have not to care about resolution.
with regards

PS : High resolution, extra sharp pictures, smalest grain, grainy look etc.
make no good photography when it stands allone.
But perfect photography with technical failures make it not more perfect.
I guess this should be common sence since decades.

tomfrh · Feb 28, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
until and unless a set of pixels [GRGB] are the size of film grain, the resolution can not be better than film. Period.

If digital captures more fine detail than film then it has greater resolution.

removed account4 · Feb 28, 2018

tomfrh said:
If digital captures more fine detail than film then it has greater resolution.

ican never figure out why people are always talking about resolution ...
most of the people who use this as some sort of argument don't enlarge their negatives very large
10x8 max size for 35mm after that its all mush i have heard, or they use slide film and project on a screen
which isn't very clear..
im happy for these people because i have something to think about when i enlarge my 110 film to 16x20
or make 11x14 / 16x20s from 35mm negatives &c .. none of these things have to do with being a "real analog photographer"
or a "real photographer" of any type .. they just have to do with personal taste. being a "real photographer" just means someone who
uses a camera, any kind .. and a real 'analog photographer" just means they use a camera that takes film or paper or something else ...
and in the end, who cares about these labels ... its all done to divide and conquer

DREW WILEY · Feb 28, 2018

Who cares? Just use bigger film. Well, then some Bozo replies that he can spend three months stitching seven hundred DLSR frames together and get an even bigger file. But by the same token, someone could stitch together 700 shots on 8X10 film. Astro observatories and NASA even routinely upstage all of us. Go spend a few billion dollars if you want to keep up with the Jonses'. As for me, the best camera is always the one I'm carrying at the moment.

Sirius Glass · Feb 28, 2018

tomfrh said:
If digital captures more fine detail than film then it has greater resolution.

But it does not because it cannot physically be smaller than grain in today's technology.

Theo Sulphate · Feb 28, 2018

Isn't Adox CMS 20 developed in Adox developer the highest resolution film ever produced? Supposedly having resolution beyond what most lenses can deliver? If that's true, then a 24x36mm frame of such film would exceed the resolution of today's full-frame (24x36mm) sensors - which are about, what, 56MP?

Not that any of this pixel peeping has anything to do with the value of a photograph.

tomfrh · Feb 28, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
But it does not because it cannot physically be smaller than grain in today's technology.

Film does not have grain sized resolution. You need many grains to record detail.

Modern 35mn significantly outresolves 35mm film.

DREW WILEY · Feb 28, 2018

Adox CMS 20 finest? Hahahahaha! Not even close. Hint - not all films are sold to ordinary people.

removed account4 · Feb 28, 2018

DREW WILEY said:
Who cares? Just use bigger film. Well, then some Bozo replies that he can spend three months stitching seven hundred DLSR frames together and get an even bigger file. But by the same token, someone could stitch together 700 shots on 8X10 film. Astro observatories and NASA even routinely upstage all of us. Go spend a few billion dollars if you want to keep up with the Jonses'. As for me, the best camera is always the one I'm carrying at the moment.

yes drew, who cares ?
i use 8x10film and 11x14 ( and bigger ) paper negatives routinely and who cares
its not like people routinely enlarge most of any of what they photograph.. most of what people do
is 72dpi and on a computer screen, or small reproductioins in a darkroom
otherwise unless they are a "pro: they make large prints" ..
regular people are not nasa or some 5000$/day commercial photographer
people have better thngs to waste their time and efforts thinking about ...
than the resolutoin of a digital file they are going to share with their co-worker or family member
sure ther are dentists lawyers and "artists" who care but most people just are coat tail riders
and say they care when they don't have a clue

DREW WILEY · Feb 28, 2018

Most doctors and lawyers wouldn't know the difference between a good print and a mud pie. They're more interested in being able to afford some gold-digging blonde.

tomfrh · Feb 28, 2018

DREW WILEY said:
Adox CMS 20 finest? Hahahahaha! Not even close. Hint - not all films are sold to ordinary people.

Adox cms 20 is much finer than the films most people use. Even adox cms 20 isn’t really a fair comparison, let alone whatever films you’re referring to.

A fair comparison to consumer digital would be consumer films like tmax or provia.

George Mann · Feb 28, 2018

tomfrh said:
If digital captures more fine detail than film then it has greater resolution.

Greater resolution of fine detail or not, I have yet to see a digital image that looks as realistic as film!

Theo Sulphate · Feb 28, 2018

jnanian said:
...
its not like people routinely enlarge most of any of what they photograph..

A few of my prints on the wall are 16x20 and others are 8x10, but they're a small fraction of all my prints.

Most are 4x6 and 5x7. Some of my favorites are soft images made with my pinhole camera or Pentax 110; I have more of those prints on my wall.

Stephen Gandy's quote below accurately expresses my feelings.

tomfrh · Mar 1, 2018

George Mann said:
Greater resolution of fine detail or not, I have yet to see a digital image that looks as realistic as film!

I wouldn’t argue there.

trendland · Mar 1, 2018

tomfrh said:
If digital captures more fine detail than film then it has greater resolution.

Exactly - so if a shot comarison between digital and film would identifie smal details in a background (the time of the famous tower clock) with digital AND on film you just identifie : "There might be something like a tower"
Your digital shot is more resoluted - of coures it is !!!!!
But how to compare ? On a screen it is THE advantage of digital ( because you have not to tranfer the medium ).
Every test of both with final results on paper : Digital on a print / Film on a print via optical enlargement is the minimum standard to compare.
( often it isn´t a minimum parameter standart in tests - caused from higher costs of optical workflow with film )

with regard

PS A shot with fine details of a TOWER CLOCK ISN´T THE BETTER SHOT IN GENERAL - but sometimes is a question of intention.

trendland · Mar 1, 2018

George Mann said:
Greater resolution of fine detail or not, I have yet to see a digital image that looks as realistic as film!

George "as realitic ", " realism " or " realistic look " is a term that might be cause more confusion here- as we see meanwhile/ up to now.
Because this all might be questions of conceptional intentions in photography - or isn´t this true.?
If you use HDR for example it is way of composition ( it is also possible with film - by the way ) - to higher technical parameters. But at the same time it is a tool of becoming a style
of artificial looks. A tool to have " unrealistic " conception in photography.
HDR is a good example from my point to cover out - NO DIFFERENCE OF DIGITAl and FILM.

with regard

PS : IF anybody uses the term " analogue HDR " now - I´ll shot him soon

faberryman · Mar 1, 2018

Is digital bashing allowed in an Analog thread? Now that the subject has veered off, do we need to have the moderators move this thread?

trendland · Mar 1, 2018

faberryman said:
Is digital bashing allowed in an Analog thread? Do we need to have the moderators move this thread to Digital?

You did it one time - I remember well...

with regards

PS . No intention to bash anybody is a good intention ( just from my point )

trendland · Mar 1, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
A few of my prints on the wall are 16x20 and others are 8x10, but they're a small fraction of all my prints.

Most are 4x6 and 5x7. Some of my favorites are soft images made with my pinhole camera or Pentax 110; I have more of those prints on my wall.

Stephen Gandy's quote below accurately expresses my feelings.

Now something becomes more and more clear to me Theo - you did it with pocket 110....

with regards

PS : One of the very very exceptions of 110 format - this extrem nice Pentax110. I was interested to buy this Pentax in 1980 or 81 ? Because of the lenses and smal dimensions.
But it was a little expensive that time - later much more expensive because of iconic image and pure rarity

"Star" is asking :"How to become an analogue photographer"?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency