Film vs Digital

bikinchris · Jul 9, 2007

Barry Fitzgerald Wrote:

Member said:
If you loathe film..no hassles fire away digi like all you want..but my message to > all digi dudes is you are missing out big time...

I did film for a long time. I didn't loathe it. I don't understand why it has to be love hate for you. Lets see what I am missing out on, though:

Load film. Take images. 36 frame later, rewind film. Try no to drop canister or lose it in the bag.

Get home. Go in darkroom. Turn off lights after getting developing tank ready. Break open film canister. Load film on reel. (Steel only BTW, plastic reels are for kids) Snip off tail end. Repeat iff you took more than one roll. If you took 35 rolls of film, you are going to be here a LONG TIME.

Set out chemicals (E6 took 7 different baths, if I remember correctly) and bring them up to temperature (or down to temerature, since I live in Louisiana). Make sure they are perfect, or your film will be ruined.

Develop film. Remove from tank and hang up to dry. Use hair dryer if you are in a hurry and on deadline.
Cut film into strips and lay out for contact print.
Set up trays for printing and bring them up (or down) to temperture.

Set up enlarger to correct height and decide what exposure to use depending on the density of the negative or slide.
Turn off light and load 8x10 sheet in contact with negatives. Expose sheet.
Develop sheet in trays and wash.

Decide if the print has the correct density. If not correct, then make another contact image until you get it right. If you are using the same emulsion of film and paper, this probably will not be necessary.
If correct, edit images with grease pencil.

Set up enlarger and if you need to crop, then adjust height of enlarger and adjust exposure to compensate. Expose and develop print.

One down, many to go.

Lets see- do I miss this? No. Does anyone else?

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

The Davinator · Jul 9, 2007

bikinchris said:
bikinchris said:

If you loathe film..no hassles fire away digi like all you want..but my message to > all digi dudes is you are missing out big time...

Click to expand...

I did film for a long time. I didn't loathe it. I don't understand
why it has to be love hate for you. Lets see what I am missing out
on, though:

Load film. Take images. 36 frame later, rewind film. Try no to drop
canister or lose it in the bag.
Get home. Go in darkroom. Turn off lights after getting developing
tank ready. Break open film canister. Load film on reel. (Steel only
BTW, plastic reels are for kids) Snip off tail end. Repeat iff you
took more than one roll. If you took 35 rolls of film, you are going
to be here a LONG TIME.
Set out chemicals (E6 took 7 different baths, if I remember
correctly) and bring them up to temperature (or down to temerature,
since I live in Louisiana). Make sure they are perfect, or your film
will be ruined.
Develop film. Remove from tank and hang up to dry. Use hair dryer if
you are in a hurry and on deadline.
Cut film into strips and lay out for contact print.
Set up trays for printing and bring them up (or down) to temperture.
Set up enlarger to correct height and decide what exposure to use
depending on the density of the negative or slide.
Turn off light and load 8x10 sheet in contact with negatives. Expose
sheet.
Develop sheet in trays and wash.
Decide if the print has the correct density. If not correct, then
make another contact image until you get it right. If you are using
the same emulsion of film and paper, this probably will not be
necessary.
If correct, edit images with grease pencil.
Set up enlarger and if you need to crop, then adjust height of
enlarger and adjust exposure to compensate. Expose and develop print.

One down, many to go.

Lets see- do I miss this? No. Does anyone else?

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

Oh dear. Poor you. Quality is such a bother! How about this.....drop of E6 film at pro lab and they process it for you. Done.

And just so you know.....you can print film files to inkjet just like digital files.

And, to top it off.....my $300 Mamiya RB67 can produce files with the same quality as an $8000 1Ds Mk2. Darn that pesky film!

Darn these stupid threads!

MusicDoctorDJ · Jul 9, 2007

I love film . . . I love the smell of rapid fix . . . the red of the safe lights . . . making all those prints and proofsheets . . .

I lived in a darkroom for close to 25 years of my life!

But, I have not shot one roll of film since the day I bought my first digital camera!

For those who love film and just can't handle digital . . . please find another forum board (preferably a film forum board) to hang out at and keep your dumb@$$ comments to yourselves!

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator

Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

SLove · Jul 10, 2007

MusicDoctorDJ said:
For those who love film and just can't handle digital . . . please
find another forum board (preferably a film forum board) to hang out
at and keep your dumb@$$ comments to yourselves!

Well, it's not an either or situation. A lot of painters still want to learn and use ancient techniques such as egg tempera, even though it it very difficult and time consuming. Practically all painters still want to learn oil painting technique, although acrylics are much easier to use in most situations.

What many people do not seem to understand is that cameras and their recording mediums, whether digital sensors, slide or negative film, are creative tools. Therefore comparisons to pure storage mediums such as CDs vs. vinyls are meaningless. Heck. people are still using real acoustic pianos, even though practically nobody can tell the difference between an acoustic and a digital piano from a recording.

Now, I know somebody will reply that it is possible to emulate the look of film with Photoshop. Sure it is. It will also possible in the near future to mimic photographs with pure CGI. No actual messy photography with lighting problems or waiting for the right moment will be needed. You can do it all while sitting on your chair. Will that mean that photography as an art form will be dead within the next few decades? I do not think so, but the following the logic of the "digital apostles" it should be so.

The Davinator · Jul 10, 2007

MusicDoctorDJ said:
I love film . . . I love the smell of rapid fix . . . the red of the
safe lights . . . making all those prints and proofsheets . . .

I lived in a darkroom for close to 25 years of my life!

But, I have not shot one roll of film since the day I bought my first
digital camera!

For those who love film and just can't handle digital . . . please
find another forum board (preferably a film forum board) to hang out
at and keep your dumb@$$ comments to yourselves!

It has nothing to do with not being able to handle digital files......it just has everytthing to do with these ignorant "film is so hard" posts that come up trying to exaggerate things to ridiculous levels.

I love using both film and digital. MF and LF film still surpasses the quality of digital files. The are boards for people suffering from denial that I'm sure many in these threads could benefit from.

MusicDoctorDJ said:
--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator

Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

Roger Krueger · Jul 10, 2007

I mean, at least the "true believers" on each side of this debate don't blow things up, but they're still idiots.

Love my 1dsII, love my Cambo Wide 4x5, love my Mamiya Universal 6x9. Each works better for me in certain situations. You don't like it, too freakin' bad. Go shoot something.

CharlieDIY · Jul 10, 2007

Dave Luttmann said:
MusicDoctorDJ said:

I love film . . . I love the smell of rapid fix . . . the red of the
safe lights . . . making all those prints and proofsheets . . .

I lived in a darkroom for close to 25 years of my life!

But, I have not shot one roll of film since the day I bought my first
digital camera!

For those who love film and just can't handle digital . . . please
find another forum board (preferably a film forum board) to hang out
at and keep your dumb@$$ comments to yourselves!

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with not being able to handle digital
files......it just has everytthing to do with these ignorant "film is
so hard" posts that come up trying to exaggerate things to ridiculous
levels.

I love using both film and digital. MF and LF film still surpasses
the quality of digital files. The are boards for people suffering
from denial that I'm sure many in these threads could benefit from.

The Davinator said:

--

Click to expand...

I don't see where bikinchris exaggerated. Film is a lot more trouble, and a lot more waiting, than digital. Period. He (she?) simply presented a step by step list. If that's exaggeration, I must have exaggerated in all the 30 years I spent in a darkroom.

Drop it in a pro lab is another dumba$$ comment, by the way. The closest true pro lab to me is in Richmond, 165 miles away. There are a couple of pretend pro labs only 40 miles away. There is nothing outside of drugstore processing within those 40 miles.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Mark Smith145430 · Jul 10, 2007

CharlieDIY said:
I don't see where bikinchris exaggerated. Film is a lot more trouble,
and a lot more waiting, than digital. Period. He (she?) simply
presented a step by step list. If that's exaggeration, I must have
exaggerated in all the 30 years I spent in a darkroom.

It was a TOTAL exaggeration.

Do you think everyone who has ever used film needs a darkroom?

There a whole different subsets of users both film and digital, my father in law has never owned a darkroom or a computer yet he exhibits his photographs and they are widely acclaimed.
You don't need a darkroom with film- you can scan and print on a ink-jet
You don't need a computer with digital either!

CharlieDIY said:
Drop it in a pro lab is another dumba$$ comment, by the way. The
closest true pro lab to me is in Richmond, 165 miles away. There are
a couple of pretend pro labs only 40 miles away. There is nothing
outside of drugstore processing within those 40 miles.

Well obviously if YOU don't have a prolab near you it was a dumb comment as everyone in the world and all those who post here don't have prolabs either?

I have a good Lab less than half a mile from my house, but I'd be a dumba$$ to suggest everyone has!

--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Erik Ohlson · Jul 10, 2007

bikinchris said:
bikinchris said:

If you loathe film..no hassles fire away digi like all you want..but my message to > all digi dudes is you are missing out big time...

Click to expand...

I did film for a long time. I didn't loathe it. I don't understand
why it has to be love hate for you. Lets see what I am missing out
on, though:

Load film. Take images. 36 frame later, rewind film. Try no to drop
canister or lose it in the bag.
Get home. Go in darkroom. Turn off lights after getting developing
tank ready. Break open film canister. Load film on reel. (Steel only
BTW, plastic reels are for kids) Snip off tail end. Repeat iff you
took more than one roll. If you took 35 rolls of film, you are going
to be here a LONG TIME.
Set out chemicals (E6 took 7 different baths, if I remember
correctly) and bring them up to temperature (or down to temerature,
since I live in Louisiana). Make sure they are perfect, or your film
will be ruined.
Develop film. Remove from tank and hang up to dry. Use hair dryer if
you are in a hurry and on deadline.
Cut film into strips and lay out for contact print.
Set up trays for printing and bring them up (or down) to temperture.
Set up enlarger to correct height and decide what exposure to use
depending on the density of the negative or slide.
Turn off light and load 8x10 sheet in contact with negatives. Expose
sheet.
Develop sheet in trays and wash.
Decide if the print has the correct density. If not correct, then
make another contact image until you get it right. If you are using
the same emulsion of film and paper, this probably will not be
necessary.
If correct, edit images with grease pencil.
Set up enlarger and if you need to crop, then adjust height of
enlarger and adjust exposure to compensate. Expose and develop print.

One down, many to go.

Lets see- do I miss this? No. Does anyone else?

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

You got that right. I don't miss the darkroom (Stinkroom) at all

And Dave Luttmann replied:

bikinchris said:
bikinchris said:

bikinchris said:

Oh dear. Poor you. Quality is such a bother! How about this.....drop of E6 film at pro lab and they process it for you. Done.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bikinchris said:
bikinchris said:

bikinchris said:

And just so you know.....you can print film files to inkjet just like digital files.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah, you can print film files digitally - which just points up how inferior film is to digital.

bikinchris said:
bikinchris said:

bikinchris said:

"Quality is such a bother!"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see this "Quality" anywhere.

I've been digitally printing from a lot of old slides and negs (35mm up to 4x5 negs) am constantly amazed at how poor they are compared to digital. So much so that I've been driven to checking with a microscope to see if it's a scanner problem - it's not. The detail is just not there!

Since these slides were taken with various decent quality cameras - Leica RF, Olympus OM, Pentax Spotmatic, I doubt it's just a bad lens or such, and while I am prepared to attribute it to operator error, no matter how bad I was at focusing etc, you'd think I would have got a good one occasionally just by dumb luck.

IMHO of course, and if you prefer film, go for it! doesn't make you a "bad person" - this is not about personalities as so often seems to be the case.

It's OPINION. And that's mine.

Cheers -Erik

------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you down!------------------------------------------

The Davinator · Jul 10, 2007

CharlieDIY said:
Dave Luttmann said:

MusicDoctorDJ said:

I love film . . . I love the smell of rapid fix . . . the red of the
safe lights . . . making all those prints and proofsheets . . .

I lived in a darkroom for close to 25 years of my life!

But, I have not shot one roll of film since the day I bought my first
digital camera!

For those who love film and just can't handle digital . . . please
find another forum board (preferably a film forum board) to hang out
at and keep your dumb@$$ comments to yourselves!

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with not being able to handle digital
files......it just has everytthing to do with these ignorant "film is
so hard" posts that come up trying to exaggerate things to ridiculous
levels.

I love using both film and digital. MF and LF film still surpasses
the quality of digital files. The are boards for people suffering
from denial that I'm sure many in these threads could benefit from.

CharlieDIY said:

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't see where bikinchris exaggerated. Film is a lot more trouble,
and a lot more waiting, than digital. Period. He (she?) simply
presented a step by step list. If that's exaggeration, I must have
exaggerated in all the 30 years I spent in a darkroom.

It is exaggerated. I don't own a darkroom....but I do use film. How does that fit in his workflow? Yup, it doesn't. Drop off the film, get it back and scan. Pretty easy workflow, don't ya think? Then I print to an Epson 7600, HP DJ 130, or Canon 9900. No enlarger.....and get better color prints then Frontier or R to boot!

CharlieDIY said:
Drop it in a pro lab is another dumba$$ comment, by the way. The
closest true pro lab to me is in Richmond, 165 miles away. There are
a couple of pretend pro labs only 40 miles away. There is nothing
outside of drugstore processing within those 40 miles.

I live in Victoria, BC. The local labs....yes, a few of them, either process themselves, or send it in their bag delivery to the custom labs in Vancouver. Maybe that's different in your area and I understand that. But I find it odd that there are no labs surviving in London UK, and yet many in cities a fraction of the size throughout the USA and Canada.

You see, the film workflow actually is no big deal. Is it as easy as a DSLR....no way!!! But then again, some of us make our decisions based upon quality as opposed to who can spit out the output in 5 minutes. I don't use MF & LF film because they are convenient.....I use them because they excel in terms of quality.

CharlieDIY said:
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

The Davinator · Jul 10, 2007

Erik Ohlson said:
Erik Ohlson said:

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

Click to expand...

You got that right. I don't miss the darkroom (Stinkroom) at all

And Dave Luttmann replied:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Oh dear. Poor you. Quality is such a bother! How about this.....drop of E6 film at pro lab and they process it for you. Done.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

And just so you know.....you can print film files to inkjet just like digital files.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah, you can print film files digitally - which just points up how
inferior film is to digital.

Umm, exactly how does inkjet printing relate to the technology of film for capture? Oh, it doesn't. I think you've got a bit of reading to do!

Erik Ohlson said:
Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

"Quality is such a bother!"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see this "Quality" anywhere.

I've been digitally printing from a lot of old slides and negs (35mm
up to 4x5 negs) am constantly amazed at how poor they are compared to
digital. So much so that I've been driven to checking with a
microscope to see if it's a scanner problem - it's not. The detail is
just not there!

Really. Your DSLR is better than 4x5 film. Could you point out your DSLR to us? And what were you scanning the film with? The most recent tests posted between the 39mp digital backs.....with about 50% more than the best DSLR, still don't equal 4x5 sheet film.

Besides, I've got 30" print samples from both my 1Ds Mk2 and 4x5 Astia F scanned on an Epson V700......the film destroyed the 1Ds Mk2.

Erik Ohlson said:
Since these slides were taken with various decent quality cameras -
Leica RF, Olympus OM, Pentax Spotmatic, I doubt it's just a bad lens
or such, and while I am prepared to attribute it to operator error,
no matter how bad I was at focusing etc, you'd think I would have got
a good one occasionally just by dumb luck.

IMHO of course, and if you prefer film, go for it! doesn't make you a
"bad person" - this is not about personalities as so often seems to
be the case.

It's OPINION. And that's mine.

Cheers -Erik

------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you
down!------------------------------------------

Matt McCarthy · Jul 10, 2007

Oh dear. Poor you. Quality is such a bother! How about this.....drop of E6 film at pro lab and they process it for you. Done.

That's fine if you actually HAVE a pro lab nearby. And that's generally limited to major metro areas. Most folks only have MallWart and one-hour places where the odds are about even that some kid will screw up your work, and they only care about pounding out the pictures fast.

If you do have a pro lab nearby where they actually care about doing good work, and you prefer film, then by all means, continue with it.

But if you have no one nearby who gives a damn, then it's better to have complete control over your own stuff, from shot to print. Digital offers that from start to finish in both color and B/W.

You can mail out your stuff - sure. Not good if you're on a tight deadline.

CharlieDIY · Jul 10, 2007

Dave Luttmann said:
You see, the film workflow actually is no big deal. Is it as easy as
a DSLR....no way!!! But then again, some of us make our decisions
based upon quality as opposed to who can spit out the output in 5
minutes. I don't use MF & LF film because they are convenient.....I
use them because they excel in terms of quality.

Tell me how easy it is, and how quality is of top importance. I had shot a lot of film, some years ago, to illustrate one of my books. Then I blew out a knee and got behind schedule, but my publiisher absolutely insisted he had to have all prints, fortunately b&w, in two days. At that, turning out over 260 prints in two days standing on a concrete floor with fresh knee surgery created problems that still exist, including some of the crappiest prints I ever turned out. I had warned him that when you had to choose pain and pills, neither was conducive to good work, but he wanted it THEN, and my book looked like junk because of it.

Digital? I could have sat on my butt and post processed 750 or 900 frames in that period of time, with no discomfort at all.

Yes, it's an unusual situation, but looking back over more than 40 years of making at least part of my living with a camera, unusual situations were fairly common.

Do you spend time in the darkroom after you've been hit by a sliding motorcycle in a race? You bet, if you're on deadline.

Sorry. Don't talk to me about quality and how great film is. Film did the job, and can still do it. Digital does the same job, does it with less effort, and lower cost. IMO, that's no contest.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Scott Eaton · Jul 10, 2007

The Davinator said:
The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

Besides, I've got 30" print samples from both my 1Ds Mk2 and 4x5 Astia F scanned on an Epson V700......the film destroyed the 1Ds Mk2.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

(1) nobody in this forum believes you own a 1DsMk2

(2) if you do, you obviously don't know how to use it. given the digital work I've seen you post, that's highly likely.

(3) the Espon flatbeds you keep raving about make the junk at the Walmart Kiosk look professional. At least start drum scanning your 4x5 or using a Nikon 8000/9000 rather than embarrasing yourself with such a toys r us scanner.

The Davinator · Jul 10, 2007

Scott Eaton said:
Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Besides, I've got 30" print samples from both my 1Ds Mk2 and 4x5 Astia F scanned on an Epson V700......the film destroyed the 1Ds Mk2.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

(1) nobody in this forum believes you own a 1DsMk2

(2) if you do, you obviously don't know how to use it. given the
digital work I've seen you post, that's highly likely.

(3) the Espon flatbeds you keep raving about make the junk at the
Walmart Kiosk look professional. At least start drum scanning your
4x5 or using a Nikon 8000/9000 rather than embarrasing yourself with
such a toys r us scanner.

Another uninformed post from Scott Eaton. Yes Scott, the 1Ds Mk2 doesn't hold up in resolution to 4x5 film.

1) Don't really care.

2) Being that I own one & you don't, let's leave your silly assumptions to yourself. Unless you're somehow claiming the physically impossible.....that somehow 4x5 for you is outresolved by the DSLR.

3) I suggest you check out the Large Format photography forum and the tests they did there. I do have drum scans made.....my point is that my Epson slaughtered the 1Ds Mk2. And your silliness about not being able to get the resolution from the RAW file is ignorant rubbish. Capture One Pro and CS3 pulls the same amount of detail from the file....whether YOU process it or I do.....so please stop your ridiculous posts about people not knowing how to use the camera. That's a red herring you've been using for far too long! And until you review in excess of nearly 100,000 RAW files every year like I do, you're in no position to question the knowledge of anyone.

The most readily available test is yours to review from the luminous landscape. Check out their 1Ds Mk2 and P45 vs 4x5 film. Maybe you'll learn something so you won't post uninformed nonsense in the future. MR is a digital lover.....so if the digital files outresolved film.....he'd shout it from the mountain tops.

Oh, and running an E6 lab has nothing to do with anything.....always amusing how you through that out though.

Erik Ohlson · Jul 10, 2007

Dave Luttmann wrote:

(in part, replying to me although he clipped the name but not the signature - I'm clipping a lot, too per the Forum rules request)

The Davinator said:
The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

Click to expand...

You got that right. I don't miss the darkroom (Stinkroom) at all

And Dave Luttmann replied:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

Oh dear. Poor you. Quality is such a bother! How about this.....drop of E6 film at pro lab and they process it for you. Done.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

.

The Davinator said:
The Davinator said:

Yeah, you can print film files digitally - which just points up how
inferior film is to digital.

Click to expand...

Umm, exactly how does inkjet printing relate to the technology of
film for capture? Oh, it doesn't. I think you've got a bit of
reading to do!

The Davinator said:
The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

"Quality is such a bother!"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see this "Quality" anywhere.

I've been digitally printing from a lot of old slides and negs (35mm
up to 4x5 negs) am constantly amazed at how poor they are compared to
digital. So much so that I've been driven to checking with a
microscope to see if it's a scanner problem - it's not. The detail is
just not there!

Click to expand...

The Davinator said:
The Davinator said:

Since these slides were taken with various decent quality cameras -
Leica RF, Olympus OM, Pentax Spotmatic, I doubt it's just a bad lens
or such, and while I am prepared to attribute it to operator error,
no matter how bad I was at focusing etc, you'd think I would have got
a good one occasionally just by dumb luck.

IMHO of course, and if you prefer film, go for it! doesn't make you a
"bad person" - this is not about personalities as so often seems to
be the case.

It's OPINION. And that's mine.

Cheers -Erik

------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you
down!------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

******************************************************

The Davinator said:
Umm, exactly how does inkjet printing relate to the technology of
film for capture? Oh, it doesn't. I think you've got a bit of
reading to do!

Did I mention inkjet? NO. But I DID mention resorting to a Microscope to check the sharpness of the slides & Negs - not "Reading".

The Davinator said:
Really. Your DSLR is better than 4x5 film. Could you point out your
DSLR to us? And what were you scanning the film with? The most
recent tests posted between the 39mp digital backs.....with about 50%
more than the best DSLR, still don't equal 4x5 sheet film.

Also didn't mention dSLR. Have none, want none. 4x5 film actually is in a league with digital, and I just recently did some 4x5 & didn't like it any more than I did 50 years ago.

It doesn't matter what I'm scanning with: as I said, I've checked the quality with a microscope:

The detail simply is not there. Full stop.

I re-iterate, this is about Opinion, and that's mine - but from actual usage, not reading.

I do not expect to change your mind. I fear nothing could.

Just my Two cents, Cheers -Erik

------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you down!------------------------------------------

bikinchris · Jul 10, 2007

Erik Ohlson said:
Did I mention inkjet? NO. But I DID mention resorting to a Microscope
to check the sharpness of the slides & Negs - not "Reading".

Erik Ohlson said:

Really. Your DSLR is better than 4x5 film. Could you point out your
DSLR to us?

Click to expand...

No, I don't really think that a DSLR will outresolve a 4x5, but I think that you could show unlimited detail when you splice DSLR images together! There was a guy here that did a waterfall with many D2Xs images to wall size.

Erik Ohlson said:
Also didn't mention dSLR. Have none, want none. 4x5 film actually is
in a league with digital, and I just recently did some 4x5 & didn't
like it any more than I did 50 years ago.
I do not expect to change your mind. I fear nothing could.

I don't have much use for a 4x5 on the sidelines. But for your use, I can see how a 4x5 would do well. Some of the weston and Adams prints i have seen are amazing. The one with the birch trees is a good example.

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

The Davinator · Jul 10, 2007

Erik Ohlson said:
Dave Luttmann wrote:

(in part, replying to me although he clipped the

Erik Ohlson said:
name but not the signature - I'm clipping a lot, too per the Forum
rules request)

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

Click to expand...

You got that right. I don't miss the darkroom (Stinkroom) at all

And Dave Luttmann replied:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Oh dear. Poor you. Quality is such a bother! How about this.....drop of E6 film at pro lab and they process it for you. Done.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

.

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Yeah, you can print film files digitally - which just points up how
inferior film is to digital.

Click to expand...

Umm, exactly how does inkjet printing relate to the technology of
film for capture? Oh, it doesn't. I think you've got a bit of
reading to do!

Click to expand...

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

"Quality is such a bother!"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see this "Quality" anywhere.

I've been digitally printing from a lot of old slides and negs (35mm
up to 4x5 negs) am constantly amazed at how poor they are compared to
digital. So much so that I've been driven to checking with a
microscope to see if it's a scanner problem - it's not. The detail is
just not there!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Erik Ohlson said:

Erik Ohlson said:

Since these slides were taken with various decent quality cameras -
Leica RF, Olympus OM, Pentax Spotmatic, I doubt it's just a bad lens
or such, and while I am prepared to attribute it to operator error,
no matter how bad I was at focusing etc, you'd think I would have got
a good one occasionally just by dumb luck.

IMHO of course, and if you prefer film, go for it! doesn't make you a
"bad person" - this is not about personalities as so often seems to
be the case.

It's OPINION. And that's mine.

Cheers -Erik

------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you
down!------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

******************************************************

Erik Ohlson said:

Umm, exactly how does inkjet printing relate to the technology of
film for capture? Oh, it doesn't. I think you've got a bit of
reading to do!

Click to expand...

Did I mention inkjet? NO. But I DID mention resorting to a Microscope
to check the sharpness of the slides & Negs - not "Reading".

Erik Ohlson said:

Really. Your DSLR is better than 4x5 film. Could you point out your
DSLR to us? And what were you scanning the film with? The most
recent tests posted between the 39mp digital backs.....with about 50%
more than the best DSLR, still don't equal 4x5 sheet film.

Click to expand...

Also didn't mention dSLR. Have none, want none. 4x5 film actually is
in a league with digital, and I just recently did some 4x5 & didn't
like it any more than I did 50 years ago.

Then what digital are you mentioning? It has already been pointed out that the 39mp P45 digital back cannot outesolve or show more detail than scanned 4x5 film....so what digital then are you using. And please don't mention stitching files.....I can do that with 4x5 film as well.

So you see, this isn't about opinion.....show me the digital you use to outresolve 4x5 film. I'm truly interested in seeing it.

Erik Ohlson said:
It doesn't matter what I'm scanning with: as I said, I've checked the
quality with a microscope:

Hmmm,

How did you check the quality with a microscope if you were scanning? Ya, I thought so. Maybe next time when you claim to do something, you check what others have said first. You can't check the scan with a microscope.....so either your mistaken, or......

Erik Ohlson said:
The detail simply is not there. Full stop.

I re-iterate, this is about Opinion, and that's mine - but from
actual usage, not reading.

I do not expect to change your mind. I fear nothing could.

I won't believe something that isn't possible. Opinion has nothing to do with it.

Erik Ohlson said:
Just my Two cents, Cheers -Erik

------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you
down!------------------------------------------

Thisjustin · Jul 10, 2007

I don't miss E-6 or C-41 but I still do B&W and i dont have to turn out the lights, i use a dark box and a sink in the basement, i have a 7 reel rolling tank and a red light an enlarger for printing. I still find it fun. A big box fan in the window gets rid of the smell of sepia and selenium(fix doesn't bother me.) I find the processes fun and i personally don't like digital B&W all that much. The noise in most camera's seems to be patterned if you have any empty space and the shoulder is too abrupt, the highlights blow out too quickly... Its not so bad on the screen, but Inkjet just doesn't hold a candle to Fomapan 200 dev. in diafine and printed on Iford MGFB (fiber based) Warm tone paper. The closest i've found was from my Panasonic L1 on a well adjusted Fuji Frontier machine, i wish i could get my hands on one of those...

VincentJ · Jul 10, 2007

Blah! This argument has been beaten to death in all its four thousand reincarnations. Who cares?

Film vs Digital

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts