gewiz
Member
With top performing scanners dropping in price and film cameras getting cheaper, digitlizing negatives may be the way to go to produce better image quality?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Digital v scanned negative
- Thread starter gewiz
- Start date
Muhaiminur H Aador
Forum Enthusiast
film cameras are cheaper now a days, thats true, but with a digital camera your invesment is one time, where as, with a film camera you will have to spend, each time you shoot!
i don't think its a good idea. 'cos...
1) film price is rising, due to decreasing production.
2) you wont get the flexibility of RAW file, from the digitized files.
3) a digital file produced by the sensor is cleaner (most of the time) than a digital file produced by the scanner.
4) if you shoot a lot, the speed of your workflow will be significantly affected by the aditional step of scanning the negatives.
see this comparison between Provia 100F and 3MP EOS 30D.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com
i don't think its a good idea. 'cos...
1) film price is rising, due to decreasing production.
2) you wont get the flexibility of RAW file, from the digitized files.
3) a digital file produced by the sensor is cleaner (most of the time) than a digital file produced by the scanner.
4) if you shoot a lot, the speed of your workflow will be significantly affected by the aditional step of scanning the negatives.
see this comparison between Provia 100F and 3MP EOS 30D.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com
I'll grant that scanning film is time consuming and tedious. You also have to deal with the issue of dusty/scratched negatives (a huge pain with B&W film).
However, I find that I prefer the characteristics of B&W film. I like film grain, the "tonality" of the result (I understand that's a vague word), and the superior dynamic range that film has. I recently bought a Coolscan 5000ED, and I personally enjoy the slow, relaxing process of digitizing my favorite shots. Shots that would previously be impossible or almost impossible to capture in digital (especially the ones involving lots of snow and direct sunlight) are a joy to behold as they emerge on my screen. And once these have been digitized, you can do the same cartwheels with them in digital space as you do with normal digital camera photos.
Some people see the practice of digitizing film as an unnecessary step, but I choose to think of it in terms of the best of both worlds.
However, I find that I prefer the characteristics of B&W film. I like film grain, the "tonality" of the result (I understand that's a vague word), and the superior dynamic range that film has. I recently bought a Coolscan 5000ED, and I personally enjoy the slow, relaxing process of digitizing my favorite shots. Shots that would previously be impossible or almost impossible to capture in digital (especially the ones involving lots of snow and direct sunlight) are a joy to behold as they emerge on my screen. And once these have been digitized, you can do the same cartwheels with them in digital space as you do with normal digital camera photos.
Some people see the practice of digitizing film as an unnecessary step, but I choose to think of it in terms of the best of both worlds.
Arglebargle
Leading Member
I'm not so sure about the cheaper part of the equation. Film gets expensive.
yesfan02
Leading Member
I'v taken ( between my p/s and Dslr) around 13,000 images over a 3 year period. Divid that by a roll of film and then multiply the cost of the film. High quality film at 10 bucks a roll (36exp.)that's around $ 3600... cheap film at $ 5... is what I payed for my D-slr. that's not including developeing and printing. Film is costly and restrictive...I could bang off 200 shots in a day and not think about it. With film...I couldn't afford it.
--
Soon! Oh Soon the light. Ours to shape for all time, ours the right. The sun will lead us, our reason to be here.
--
Soon! Oh Soon the light. Ours to shape for all time, ours the right. The sun will lead us, our reason to be here.
LesDMess
Senior Member
. . . 4,000dpi scans of various films rank as follows . . .
http://www.fototime.com/83CD0F60DCB3981/orig.jpg
Notice that my 4MP Oly E-10 doesn't even outresolve lossy desktop scanned cheapie high ISO Fuji Superia 1600. Needless to say, how a 3MP Canon D30 can possibly match - let alone outresolve Imacon Flextight Photo scan of ISO 100 Provia 100F is a bit of a mystery . . .
You can review the 100% crops as well as setup information in my Relative Resolution Album at http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6 . Unlike the Luminous Landscape reference you cited, you can actually verify the results for yourself . . . no mysteries here . . .
http://www.fototime.com/83CD0F60DCB3981/orig.jpg
Notice that my 4MP Oly E-10 doesn't even outresolve lossy desktop scanned cheapie high ISO Fuji Superia 1600. Needless to say, how a 3MP Canon D30 can possibly match - let alone outresolve Imacon Flextight Photo scan of ISO 100 Provia 100F is a bit of a mystery . . .
You can review the 100% crops as well as setup information in my Relative Resolution Album at http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6 . Unlike the Luminous Landscape reference you cited, you can actually verify the results for yourself . . . no mysteries here . . .
LesDMess
Senior Member
Is that the criteria of what makes a good shot?
How about this consideration . . . Annie Leibovitz . . . who could afford any camera to use today - probably get it for free from all of these camera makers, uses film . . .
How about this consideration . . . Annie Leibovitz . . . who could afford any camera to use today - probably get it for free from all of these camera makers, uses film . . .
mjsneddon
Well-known member
While I don't disagree with your post, your prices are not realiistic. One can purchase very good quality film (Fujifilm Reala) for $2.49 per 36 exposure roll. I used to buy it from B&H photo in lots of 50 rolls at a time. But I have to admit, I have not shot one roll of film in the last 12 months.
Mike Sneddon
Mattoon, IL
Mike Sneddon
Mattoon, IL
mamallama
Forum Pro
even if your time is worth nothing, which it shouldn't be. Think Again for the long haul.
--mamallama
--mamallama
Muhaiminur H Aador
Forum Enthusiast
I guess, you should not think E-10 gives better output than a D30, just because it has 4Mp sensor, and D-30 has 3Mp. Your E-10 had a 8.80 x 6.60 mm 4Mp sensor as opposed to the 22.7 x 15.1 mm 3Mp sensor in the D30. think about the pixel dimension/pitch and their effect on noise and dynamic range.
I am not advocating for LL/Canon, but it seems to me that, D30 can be more capable than E-10 to challenge Provia 100F, and can bring out closer matches, as MR found in his test.
just my thoughts...
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com
I am not advocating for LL/Canon, but it seems to me that, D30 can be more capable than E-10 to challenge Provia 100F, and can bring out closer matches, as MR found in his test.
just my thoughts...
--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com
1. One of the advantage of digital camera is to preview the shot immediately.
2. If scanners are improving, so are digital cameras.
3. The editing of Raw image from camera (white balance correction, sharpness, contrast adjustments etc.) are effective & easy.
4. And ISO change at the press of few buttons!
Forget about film. It is dead. will be buried soon.
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
yesfan02
Leading Member
I don't know were your going with that statement. You've obviously missed my point.
--
Soon! Oh Soon the light. Ours to shape for all time, ours the right. The sun will lead us, our reason to be here.
Been there, done that and I'm happily sticking with my digital camera.
--
Theresa K
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
In my testing with the same scanner, a 35mm scanned Astia chrome still outresolves my 10mp 400D....albeit with grain. I'd say that most people would find 10mp a good match for 35mm fine grain film.
That said, Reichman's D30 vs Provia is a joke. I own an Imacon and in NO WAY can a D30 do better than 35mm film at 8x10 or higher. At 13x19, the 35mm scan slaughtered the D30. No contest.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
It's funny how when film is mentioned, the primary concern people have is the cost rather than the quality. I guess spending multi thousands on a new DSLR every few years is ignored by them. Maybe if they concentrated on capturing an image rather than jackhammering a shutter 50,000 times a year to get pictures of their cats, they could afford the better quality of film.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Fuji Reala is 2.49 a roll. I can buy B&W MF film for $1.39 or buy 35mm in 100 foot rolls for dirt cheap. How much is that 22mp back that is almost as good as my MF 6x7 B&W negs?
Odd, my scans of Ilford FP4 and HP5 are 16bit, and offer better dynamic range than ANY DSLR on the market.
Digital wins with noise.
LOL....I own an Imacon 343....and Provia in 35mm slaughters the D30 at 8x12 and 13x19.
See reply here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=21685416
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Very good....you just missed the quality part. It's always about how convenient digital is, etc, etc.....let's see a 30" landscape from your DSLR vs my MF film.....then while while you're looking at the soft digital image compared to the sharp film image, you can preach how convenient and cheap your digital file was to create.
LOL.
koolzakukumba
Well-known member
A cheap shot about cats-but an accurate one as well! I can't believe the rubbish that some people post to the forums having spent a lot of money on a DSLR. They could do the same with a point and shoot.
My problem with film is that scanning it seems to emphasise the grain quite a lot. In fact, and I know this shouldn't be the case, but I often get better results scanning lab prints from the negatives. XP2 seems to be the exception here (I shoot mostly black and white).
Bruce
Mark Smith145430
Veteran Member
Bruce
That grain is aliasing or false grain
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
Often this get cited by some as the reason they don't like film because of the grain, when they aren't looking at grain at all but rather digital noise.
I have hand printed A3 size (12x16) from 400 ISO film that is virtually grain free, only to scan the same neg and have it look like the pointillism paintings by George Seurat.
I think the problem is trying to judge a digital file of an analogue original, we must remember that we judge the scanner output as well as the original negative and this is often the weak point in the image chain.
Some scanners have software that reduces this effect like GEM and while a good high res scanner coupled with this type of software helps, you'll still get better results printing on real photo paper and then scanning.
I love both film and digital, but if I had to pick just one it would be film, don't ask me why I just like it
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum