Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Film vs digital
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
Orio, welcome back, BTW! Did you shoot any film in Budapest? Just
curious.
Bill


Thanks, Bill. Yes, I shot a lot of film, 14 rolls of slides for the precision - that's an average of more than two film rolls per day!
It will take some days to have them developed, though. The labs are closed for the holidays.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio, wow! I'm looking forward to seeing those! Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
Whew, Carsten, I'm so glad...thought I'd have to turn the hose on both
of you! Laughing


Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
Orio, wow! I'm looking forward to seeing those! Very Happy


Me too, actually! The subjects were fantastic. So I really have a high expectation on the photographs, although to tell you the truth, I shot more like a tourist than like a photographer - this is probably due to the fact that I was with my fiance - to make "serious" photographs one should be either alone, or with another photographer - I was worried to bother Monica too much with my maniacal obsession for photography so I sort of limited myself in many ways - yet, as I said, Budapest was so beautiful that I still hope to have taken good pictures,although of the "tourist" type. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your Epson scanner should do a great job on the medium format slides,
and probably a decent job on the 35mm slides, too. Be interested to
see how much they charge for transparencies. The ma and pa place
where I go charges $8.99 for 24 exp 35mm (mounted) and $9.99 for
12 exp 120, unmounted, kinda 'spensive.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
... shot more like a tourist than like a photographer - this is probably due to the fact that I was with my fiance - to make "serious" photographs one should be either alone, or with another photographer - I was worried to bother Monica too much with my maniacal obsession for photography so I sort of limited myself in many ways...


Oh yes, I know this situation. The same happens to me all the time. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me too, all the time, but sometimes being in snapshot mode is good too, you need to enjoy the place you are visiting, it's no good coming home with prize winning shots if you didn't enjoy the trip because you were too busy taking photos.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holiday is holiday ! I never ever made good shoot on my holidays , just many tourist photos Smile Please publish some today I can't wait ...


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Holiday is holiday ! I never ever made good shoot on my holidays , just many tourist photos Smile Please publish some today I can't wait ...


Here's a special one for you Very Happy



I will send you the full size and uncropped image for printing, as soon as I sort the router problem out (I can only use this laptop computer at the moment, all my ftp stuff is on the main desktop computer).


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look at your forearms, Attila, there you can see the former "Karateka".

This is a great shot, Orio.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:

This is a great shot, Orio.


Thanks. I think this is the Pancolar 1.8/50 lens, or, the Sonnar 2.8/85 (can't remember). Note how well the 400D read the exposure through the lens even with the flash turned on! This is thanks to the chipped adaptor. With a non chipped adaptor the light reading would have been probably wrong.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Orio Smile


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
And if you consider the resolutionwise best DSLR, the EOS 1Ds MII, you will get some 140 lines per mm. You have to look hard to find a film that offers that.


Note that it is 140 lines per mm, i.e. 70 lp/mm, which still exceeds the resolution of any normal film for low contrast targets and is very difficult to achieve consistently under anything like normal shooting conditions - it would require a very sharp lens, perfect focusing at a flat target parallel to the film/sensor plane and a very high shutter speed or bolting the camera down to a block of concrete.

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember that picture quality is not all about resolution. And usually these comparisons are not fair because they are made by scanning the film. So what they really compare is the digital camera vs digital scanner Shocked

I guess the biggest advantage of film is that there is no need for computers at all!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riku wrote:
Remember that picture quality is not all about resolution. And usually these comparisons are not fair because they are made by scanning the film. So what they really compare is the digital camera vs digital scanner Shocked


There is also noise, which is much higher when using film - a dSLR has a much higher dynamic range. As for scanning, really good scanners will extract all usable information from film, at scanner resolutions and noise levels comparable or better than a dSLR and without the problems of Bayer matrixing, which affect also BW photography, by the way. Additionally, unless you have got your own wet darkroom or are prepared to pay exorbitantly to someone to do real optical printing for you, your negatives must be scanned for printing anyway, and the quality of the normal, low-price commercial scanning done in connection with film development is rather mediocre and no good at all for medium format. I don't have a darkroom and I've only got a flatbed scanner. Consequently I can get decent results from film only by using medium format cameras, 35 mm is just a curiosity for me. The last commercial scans of my BW 35 mm negatives where downright miserable - I can do a lot better even with my flatbed, but it's too much effort except for some really good frames, which are few and far between. Anyway, looking at the results I can get with the humble 350D and a pre-WWII, cheap, uncoated lens (see Gallery, Tallinn in BW) and a dry "darkroom", the whole question of relative image quality is rather moot as far as photography is concerned. I can mount a Zeiss or Leitz lens on my 5D and get by luck technically significantly better results, but it doesn't mean the photos are any better - more likely they are just kitsch.

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is also noise, which is much higher when using film


But film grain looks better than digital noise Wink

Quote:
As for scanning, really good scanners will extract all usable information from film


Maybe 99.9% but not all?

Quote:
unless you have got your own wet darkroom or are prepared to pay exorbitantly to someone to do real optical printing for you, your negatives must be scanned for printing anyway, and the quality of the normal, low-price commercial scanning done in connection with film development is rather mediocre


I'm aware of that and that's a good reason to go digital.

By the way, is there somewhere in the internet comparisons between digital prints and optical prints from film? Just out of curiosity, picture quality is not really that important for me.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riku wrote:
By the way, is there somewhere in the internet comparisons between digital prints and optical prints from film? Just out of curiosity, picture quality is not really that important for me.


There is a comparison on a subpage of http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html , which contains a lot information concerning digital imaging, well worth studying in detail.

Veijo