Digital versus film. How to reach top quality

It might be thet your digital camera skills need work....

I cant get film to sing (anymore) because.....
My (wonderful) JOBO E6 Rotary tube processor broke, and I cant get parts...

I had to adapt...and move on....

Oh, yes, scanning really stinks.

Curious . . . why does "scanning stink" to you over working on digital shots?

I find that scanning my film (Nikon 9000) and getting the image I seek is is far less time consuming then making my digital images look the way I want. I blow the negatives off with a rocket to get the dust off before I scan, so dust etc is not an issue . . . scan, open the file . . . I usually only need to do a couple adjustments with film . . then print. Sure it takes a few minutes, but as I said, nowhere near as long as making a digital shot look right.

Personally, I want to spend the least amount of time with a computer and more time doing something fun, so none of it is 'really' fun for me.

Bimthecat said:

Oh, yes, scanning really stinks.

Click to expand...

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

I wish there were an "Ignore Rubbish" function on these forums, so we wouldn't have to waste time with nonsense like this!

Bimthecat said:

No debate....film stinks.....
the reason ? Scanning is thankless.
I just did a job to create 120 pages of 10x10 EX AsukaBook editions.
Super high end client. Multi-Million dollar Art collection.
Some of art/sculpture was no longer available to shoot. For these
they provided
(Hel Drum scanned) 8x10 transparency files.
IN EACH and every case, my D2X files/results BLEW AWAY these film scans.
NOT even close. Every adjective you can dream up, the D2X crushed the
scanned sheet film. Smoothness, color accuracy, dynamic range, etc
etc.etc etc

With Photomerge and multiple vertical panels, my wrap around cover
was stunning.

I used film for 30 years, and hold the Patent on which ALL VR pan
heads are based.
My Patent is so old, it's about to expire....

AND....digital is better than film in every single respect.
(with a skilled user, of course !)
The sloppy, bad film photographers turned into sloppy digital
photographers !
If you cant get digital to sing....it's you're fault !

bimthecat-and-glad-film-died

Click to expand...

when it is about showing something (except for few examples of elementary school stitching and photoshop tricks...). It's simple - just go to good book store - New York is perfect place for this, look through some real photography books - I can name a few if you are interested. The web is good place to start learning - but the threshold to get in is too low...

--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov

Let's face it, the scan process is just to get the image data from one format to another. It takes quite a bit of skill to do that properly, but all you've done is to convert image data from one format to another.

It's not a creative process. Creation, by definition, is an additive process. With scanning, you're not adding anything, you're just trying to keep from losing something.

Scanning film is like processing Kodachrome.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

RDKirk said:

Let's face it, the scan process is just to get the image data from
one format to another. It takes quite a bit of skill to do that
properly,...

Click to expand...

Bingo. You said the right thing here. It DOES take quite a bit of skill to do it properly. Not only that, but what works for one type of film or image may not for another. You really do need to engineer your way through the process instead of blindly expecting it to be a PHD (push here dummy) thing.

This is absolutely no different than darkroom work. Very few photographers made good darkroom technicians and very few darkroom technicians made good photographers. For years we heard the same lamenting from photographers how darkroom work stunk. Frankly, most photographers make lousy photoshop users too.

But, let's be carefull about making universal condemnations about a technology just because YOU are unable to make it work for you. Some of us are able to make digital and film work for us.
--

paquito said:

I'm trying to reach this kind of quality (don't laugh!):



How can that picture have such a depth?

Click to expand...

Narrow DOF from large aperture lens (eyes & mouth in sharp focus while side of face, ears and neck soft from bokeh, emphasizing the depth).

Lighting (light coming from both sides, again emphasizing the depth).

Black background and good contrast (causes the main image to "jump out").

ekn said:

This is absolutely no different than darkroom work. Very few photographers made good darkroom technicians and very few darkroom technicians made good photographers. For years we heard the same lamenting from photographers how darkroom work stunk. Frankly, most photographers make lousy photoshop users too.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ greatly, there. Both printing in the darkroom and photoshop work can take creative decisionmaking that adds greatly to the final process.

In the end, good scanning is all about numbers, not creativity--as I said, it's a matter of merely not losing data, not adding creative content. Good scanning is like good transparency processing.

Printmaking and photoshopping are avenues of creative input.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Re: "scanning does suck"

Yes, but so does working with a RAW digital image in a computer (even jpg out of the camera). None of it's great is it? I'm not addicted to computers. Far from it. There are a zillion things I would rather do then stare at a computer inside a building. Ride my motorcycle, play with my dog, hang with my girlfriend etc etc . . . . .

But to me . . quality, or a certain look is worth effort. Many times that means going past 'ease of use'. I'm really sick of that term, as many things suffer these days because people want to go for "ease" rather then quality.

I see / hear / read MANY photographers admit film's qualities over digital, yet they say they prefer digital "for ease". For some, that may be fine as they are not shooting for a certain look or feel . . . just taking photos.

But for many, the quality and look of a certain format is well worth whatever effort it may take. For me, the time it takes to run a scan is still shorter then the time it takes me to make a digital shot look right. Once it is scanned I spend far less time tweaking the image with a film scan. Yet even if, for whatever reason a scan takes longer . . . if it's a look / feel I want, it's well worth it.

RDKirk said:

Let's face it, the scan process is just to get the image data from
one format to another. It takes quite a bit of skill to do that
properly, but all you've done is to convert image data from one
format to another.

It's not a creative process. Creation, by definition, is an additive
process. With scanning, you're not adding anything, you're just
trying to keep from losing something.

Scanning film is like processing Kodachrome.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Click to expand...

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

For images that I need to be sharp and with great detail, I use my Hasselblad 2½x2½ camera. I develop the film, scan it and burn it onto a CD or DVD. I find my panoramic shots of city scapes, mouintains, etc. are extremely better than with my EOS 1D Mark II. My digital camera comes close but for the experienced eye, you can see the difference.

The scanned images that are printed on a Canon wide format printer is awesome!

I cannot comment about the Hasselblad digital back yet because I have not used it. I am presuming it to be superior too.

RDKirk said:

I beg to differ greatly, there. Both printing in the darkroom and
photoshop work can take creative decisionmaking that adds greatly to
the final process.

Click to expand...

This is a bogus argument. The majority of working pros do not do any post-production. They shoot and leave the selection and creative manipulation to others. In fact, when the photographer does do some of this, it usually results in unusable images for the final output.

For the "photographer/artist" you are correct, however.

--

ekn said:

This is a bogus argument. The majority of working pros do not do any post-production. They shoot and leave the selection and creative manipulation to others. In fact, when the photographer does do some of this, it usually results in unusable images for the final output.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "vast majority." You must know a different "vast majority" from the "vast majority" PJ, portrait, and wedding photographers I've been familiar with for the last 30 years who do and always have done post production.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

RDKirk said:

I don't know about "vast majority." You must know a different "vast
majority" from the "vast majority" PJ, portrait, and wedding
photographers I've been familiar with for the last 30 years who do
and always have done post production.

Click to expand...

Did I write "vast"????? I don't think so.

But I'm not recalling too many photographers that processed their own color film, printed their own proofs, and made their own enlargements for their portrait and wedding clients. Photojournalists? You really think that the average PJ did thier own darkroom and pre-press work? Get real. Commercial photographers usually shot E-6 and the scanned images were handled by the graphic artists.

Post production has been a very recent activity for the average photographer.
--

Not all scanners are alike or even that good, I haven't read all the posts, but what scanner did you use?
--
Rationally I have no hope, irrationally I believe in miracles.
Joni Mitchell

Bimthecat said:

It might be thet your digital camera skills need work....

Click to expand...

Only the blind would think that a little 12mp sensor can match 8x10 sheet film. You won't find many to agree with you.

As far as my digital quality goes, as I run through tens of thousand of digital files for professional output every year, as well as handling large scale printing jobs for local photographers, I’d say the greater probability is that you either have defective eyesight, or you haven’t really seen a large print from 8x10 (or 4x5 for that matter). It’s the latter that I’d say is more probable.

Well, 350 D is not exactly a professional camera to begin with... But it must be the processing too. How about this? (digital):

http://lordofthelens.co.nz/JAlbum/Portrait/slides/LIDSKI_PORTRAIT%20 (13).html

See more at:

http://lordofthelens.co.nz/

i think a "full frame" digital camera versus a 35mm is clearer but the highlights and shadows the nod probably go to film. Nothing compares in my opinion to large format chrome.

n/t

DGPNM said:

i think a "full frame" digital camera versus a 35mm is clearer but
the highlights and shadows the nod probably go to film. Nothing
compares in my opinion to large format chrome.

Click to expand...

True enough. While I believe that in terms of resolution, a 14-17mp sensor exceeds what 35mm is capable of, it can have a very different look. I still love Tri-X in my rangefinder....even if a DSLR can exceed it's resolution.

I was just in Maui for a week of sun and enjoyed looking at a number of photographs in Peter Lik's gallery in Lahina. Looking at a number of large prints there, the people in these forums would be surprised how bad their DSLRs stack up to these type of prints in medium format. The same can be said of large format film capture in Fatali's gallery I visted in Sedona.

There is need for both digital and film capture for my business. For quality, the nod still goes to medium and large format film....for now.