Reading mode: Light Dark

Velvia 50 35 mm.. 120..4x5 in against D 700 and Hasselblad H3 31

Go to last post
Barrie Davis said:
ludwig100 said:
Your knowledge was proven again and again to be limited, and yet, it doesn't stop you from having this arrogant display of "Those of us that know better can only chuckle".

...and yes, "those of us that know better can only chuckle" when you claim to be an expert.
Barrie Davis said:
Check your 4x5 sheet with an 8x loupe to see if indeed that tree is in focus. I'll bet it isn't! And as I said, if it is in focus, I'll be happy to do a proper scan.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I have found much to disagree with in Dave Lutterman's previous comments to this site, but this time he is quite right . There is something very wrong with both 120 and 5x4" samples. They are showing far less resolution than would be appropriate....

.... but I cannot tell you whether the loss has ocurred at the shooting stage, or when scanning.... (my guess is the latter.)
Click to expand...
true Barrie. No one will ever agree on absolutely everything....and we all have much to disagree about as all of our expereinces are our own....and different.

That said, I'm certain that when the OP views the film through a loupe, he will be able to see that indeed the issues are a combination of focus and DOF....and I think primarily DOF.

That is why I posed Charlie Cramer's test comparison. Bill Atkinson is superb at running a scanner....and Charlie is a well known photographer in both digital and film circles.

If the differences where minor, as they actually are in real life, then I would agree fully with this comparison....but as they are obviously flawed....especially to those of us using both digital and film capture, I think the discrepancies need to be investigated.

There is nothing personal here....I just hate bad science!

Regardless, I'm hppy to redo the LF and even the medium format scans . But I still think the major issue is DOF....but abtter scan of the 4x5 may be the issue as well.
Barrie Davis said:
--
Regards,
Baz
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Peter for a very interesting thread. As you can clearly see from the comments, most of us appreciate and applaud your efforts.
Such a pity that Dave Luttmann said:
I mean nothing negative.....it's just that when we see comparisons like this, those of us that know better can only chuckle at all the flaws in the comparison process.
Click to expand...
Dave, If you mean not to be negative, perhaps you should try a bit harder not to come across as so rude and smug.
 
John Motts said:
Thanks Peter for a very interesting thread. As you can clearly see from the comments, most of us appreciate and applaud your efforts.
Such a pity that Dave Luttmann said:
I mean nothing negative.....it's just that when we see comparisons like this, those of us that know better can only chuckle at all the flaws in the comparison process.
Click to expand...
Dave, If you mean not to be negative, perhaps you should try a bit harder not to come across as so rude and smug.
Click to expand...
And if I showed a Nikon D3X image to be outresolved by a 110 instamatic camera, people would flock here to claim there was a flaw....and rightly so.

That said, regardless of how funny this comparison looks to those of us who do know better....your point is well taken. My apologies to the OP....and I really would like to assist in this comparison if I'm permitted.

Best regards!
 
Anyway you look at the photos that's pretty revealing. I was going to do the same test with my Hasselblads and my D700, but now I don't need to. :-)

Makes me want that Hasselblad H-series, but I'll need to win the lottery first.
 
The Davinator said:
That said, regardless of how funny this comparison looks to those of us who do know better....your point is well taken. My apologies to the OP....and I really would like to assist in this comparison if I'm permitted.

Best regards!
Click to expand...
well a funny comparison .... I said I am not 100 % sure about the 120 results

so I redone that with a different body this time with Velvia 100 and the 100mm lens so we will see . I also asked a friend to lend me the hand with a Mamaya

RZ 67 proII so I will also look and check with that. I will also have a drumscan made
of a new photo to doublecheck that. I do not see any DOF problem in the
picture but with trees you never know if they move.. but houses do not !
The problem is the non corresponding focal lengths.
i also rescanned the picture and the same result comes out.

But the funny thing is that if you are in the knowing just offer to scan my picture
because you think my Imacon does bad work or i cant focus..... well
You must also have all the equipment that you are so proud of mastering

show us the results of your look ats .... ! I am mainly doing that for myself because
i need to know....
Peter
 
John Motts said:
Thanks Peter for a very interesting thread. As you can clearly see from the comments, most of us appreciate and applaud your efforts.
Such a pity that Dave Luttmann said:
I mean nothing negative.....it's just that when we see comparisons like this, those of us that know better can only chuckle at all the flaws in the comparison process.
Click to expand...
Dave, If you mean not to be negative, perhaps you should try a bit harder not to come across as so rude and smug.
Click to expand...
Bravo!!!
Well said.
 
rayman 2 said:
rayman 2 said:
That said, regardless of how funny this comparison looks to those of us who do know better....your point is well taken. My apologies to the OP....and I really would like to assist in this comparison if I'm permitted.

Best regards!
Click to expand...
well a funny comparison .... I said I am not 100 % sure about the 120 results

so I redone that with a different body this time with Velvia 100 and the 100mm lens so we will see . I also asked a friend to lend me the hand with a Mamaya

RZ 67 proII so I will also look and check with that. I will also have a drumscan made
of a new photo to doublecheck that. I do not see any DOF problem in the
picture but with trees you never know if they move.. but houses do not !
The problem is the non corresponding focal lengths.
i also rescanned the picture and the same result comes out.

But the funny thing is that if you are in the knowing just offer to scan my picture
because you think my Imacon does bad work or i cant focus..... well
You must also have all the equipment that you are so proud of mastering

show us the results of your look ats .... ! I am mainly doing that for myself because
i need to know....
Peter
Click to expand...
Did you look at the tree area with a loupe as I had requested? It is not necessary for you to do another photo as we can find out what the problem is by simply analysing the current sheet of film. As well, we can see if my scan of the MF film exhibits the same artifacts near the window

As to scanning, I have regular access to an Imacon 848 which can scan the 4x5 film at 2040ppi…..enough for a file that is over 10,000 pixels wide. I can always, if preferred, have a friend scan the sheet at West Coast Imaging on their Tango drum scanner. That said, I would look at the sheet of film with a loupe first to decide if focus and DOF is the issue.

As to what I do, I’ve already posted a comparison by two very reputable people in scanner and capture. The results are vastly different from yours, and mirror my own experience…..that is the reason I first posted.

So, if you’re willing, as I said, I’ll be happy to check the film and scan it for you at no cost. If you’re only interested in questioning other people’s motives, and diverting attention away from the original shots, without directing your attention to the discrepancies that have been mentioned, then I’m not really interested.

In the meantime, take a look at the link I provided and ask yourself why the results are so vastly different. That is how all of us learn.
 
Would be interesting to see this comparison with a Mamiya 7II MF rangefinder. Not having a separate film back excludes another variable.
 
Dave Luttmann said:
rayman 2 said:
The Davinator said:
That said, regardless of how funny this comparison looks to those of us who do know better....your point is well taken. My apologies to the OP....and I really would like to assist in this comparison if I'm permitted.

Best regards!
Click to expand...
well a funny comparison .... I said I am not 100 % sure about the 120 results

so I redone that with a different body this time with Velvia 100 and the 100mm lens so we will see . I also asked a friend to lend me the hand with a Mamaya

RZ 67 proII so I will also look and check with that. I will also have a drumscan made
of a new photo to doublecheck that. I do not see any DOF problem in the
picture but with trees you never know if they move.. but houses do not !
The problem is the non corresponding focal lengths.
i also rescanned the picture and the same result comes out.

But the funny thing is that if you are in the knowing just offer to scan my picture
because you think my Imacon does bad work or i cant focus..... well
You must also have all the equipment that you are so proud of mastering

show us the results of your look ats .... ! I am mainly doing that for myself because
i need to know....
Peter
Click to expand...
Did you look at the tree area with a loupe as I had requested? It is not necessary for you to do another photo as we can find out what the problem is by simply analysing the current sheet of film. As well, we can see if my scan of the MF film exhibits the same artifacts near the window

As to scanning, I have regular access to an Imacon 848 which can scan the 4x5 film at 2040ppi…..enough for a file that is over 10,000 pixels wide. I can always, if preferred, have a friend scan the sheet at West Coast Imaging on their Tango drum scanner. That said, I would look at the sheet of film with a loupe first to decide if focus and DOF is the issue.

As to what I do, I’ve already posted a comparison by two very reputable people in scanner and capture. The results are vastly different from yours, and mirror my own experience…..that is the reason I first posted.

So, if you’re willing, as I said, I’ll be happy to check the film and scan it for you at no cost. If you’re only interested in questioning other people’s motives, and diverting attention away from the original shots, without directing your attention to the discrepancies that have been mentioned, then I’m not really interested.

In the meantime, take a look at the link I provided and ask yourself why the results are so vastly different. That is how all of us learn.
Click to expand...
funny that all the links that we get here somehow lead back to luminous landscape
nobody else doing comparisons ?
The link that you gave us just quotes a test they made and when I go back to
the original post i am at the main page.
We had 2 tests the past 6 years that showed 39MP backs comparable with 5x7 in
and that was in Profi Foto and the old one was from Arbeitskreis digital
a few years back even showing prints at the Photokina that also showed
the 25 Phase one backs near 5x7....
Thats not that much off.....

second i believe that there are other people in my town that still can scan some film .

looking at it with the 10 xl oupe which i do all the time shows grain but no out of focus
Peter
 
rayman 2 said:
Dave Luttmann said:
rayman 2 said:
rayman 2 said:
That said, regardless of how funny this comparison looks to those of us who do know better....your point is well taken. My apologies to the OP....and I really would like to assist in this comparison if I'm permitted.

Best regards!
Click to expand...
well a funny comparison .... I said I am not 100 % sure about the 120 results

so I redone that with a different body this time with Velvia 100 and the 100mm lens so we will see . I also asked a friend to lend me the hand with a Mamaya

RZ 67 proII so I will also look and check with that. I will also have a drumscan made
of a new photo to doublecheck that. I do not see any DOF problem in the
picture but with trees you never know if they move.. but houses do not !
The problem is the non corresponding focal lengths.
i also rescanned the picture and the same result comes out.

But the funny thing is that if you are in the knowing just offer to scan my picture
because you think my Imacon does bad work or i cant focus..... well
You must also have all the equipment that you are so proud of mastering

show us the results of your look ats .... ! I am mainly doing that for myself because
i need to know....
Peter
Click to expand...
Did you look at the tree area with a loupe as I had requested? It is not necessary for you to do another photo as we can find out what the problem is by simply analysing the current sheet of film. As well, we can see if my scan of the MF film exhibits the same artifacts near the window

As to scanning, I have regular access to an Imacon 848 which can scan the 4x5 film at 2040ppi…..enough for a file that is over 10,000 pixels wide. I can always, if preferred, have a friend scan the sheet at West Coast Imaging on their Tango drum scanner. That said, I would look at the sheet of film with a loupe first to decide if focus and DOF is the issue.

As to what I do, I’ve already posted a comparison by two very reputable people in scanner and capture. The results are vastly different from yours, and mirror my own experience…..that is the reason I first posted.

So, if you’re willing, as I said, I’ll be happy to check the film and scan it for you at no cost. If you’re only interested in questioning other people’s motives, and diverting attention away from the original shots, without directing your attention to the discrepancies that have been mentioned, then I’m not really interested.

In the meantime, take a look at the link I provided and ask yourself why the results are so vastly different. That is how all of us learn.
Click to expand...
funny that all the links that we get here somehow lead back to luminous landscape
nobody else doing comparisons ?
The link that you gave us just quotes a test they made and when I go back to
the original post i am at the main page.
We had 2 tests the past 6 years that showed 39MP backs comparable with 5x7 in
and that was in Profi Foto and the old one was from Arbeitskreis digital
a few years back even showing prints at the Photokina that also showed
the 25 Phase one backs near 5x7....
Thats not that much off.....

second i believe that there are other people in my town that still can scan some film .

looking at it with the 10 xl oupe which i do all the time shows grain but no out of focus
Peter
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then the scan is out of focus. An easy fix is to have it rescanned with them providing additional detail to the focus stage.

As to questioning the work of Charlie Cramer and Bill Atkinson....that's a road you better left untravelled, as they are considered experts in their field....far beyond any of us on this forum.

I'll await the rescan results.

Regards,
 
glacierpete said:
Would be interesting to see this comparison with a Mamiya 7II MF rangefinder. Not having a separate film back excludes another variable.
Click to expand...
True....and the lenses for the Mamiya are considered some of the best out there. That said, regardless of the optical quality, focus and DOF at the capture stage and scanning misfocus would negate any differences....and I beilve that is the problem here.
 
rayman 2 said:
nobody else doing comparisons ?
Click to expand...
I have a comparison scene both shot with Kodachome 64 (35mm and 120 film) and one with a Hasselblad 553 with a 120mm lens at its best aperture and a Nikon with a 85mm f/1.8 at its best aperture. I can go back to the scene and shoot the same with the exact same 85mm lens with my D700. I can scan the slides and wet mount the 120 film, but I'd be using an Epson V750 which isn't considered the sharpest in the world. I was able to make a 30"x30" print with the setup that looked really good.

Let me know if anyone wants me to do that. It's not scientific, so I don't want to hear "it wasnt' taken on the same day with the same blah, blah, blah." I normally do that for my own purposes.
 
nathantw said:
rayman 2 said:
nobody else doing comparisons ?
Click to expand...
I have a comparison scene both shot with Kodachome and one with a Hasselblad 553 with a 120mm lens at its best aperture and a Nikon with a 85mm f/1.8 at its best aperture. I can go back to the scene and shoot the same with the exact same 85mm lens with my D700. I can scan the slides and wet mount the 120 film, but I'd be using an Epson V750 which isn't considered the sharpest in the world. I was able to make a 30"x30" print with the setup that looked really good.

Let me know if anyone wants me to do that. It's not scientific, so I don't want to hear "it wasnt' taken on the same day with the same blah, blah, blah." I normally do that for my own purposes.
Click to expand...
I'll be doing the same thing. I was going to set up a shot of Victoria's inner harbour and scan 35mm Ektar 100, MF 6x7 Astia, 4x5 Fuji ProS160, and my Canon 7D, both single shot and doing a stitch to provide a 40mp equivalent.
 
Interesting as I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about this subject not 24 hours ago. Both of us in the business for 20 plus years each. For my part I mentioned that when I did drum scans of 4x5 film for film out put ( to a chrome) the file clocked in at around 80 mg. I remember since it fit nicely on a scitex disk. A scan of any greater resolution was just scanning grain not detail. So current FX cameras should have no problems competing with a medium format film scan. As the test showed. I will also add the the grain structure on 4x5 film is not the same as medium of 35mm film of the same asa, we knew this before there were even scanners. So the idea that a FX camera with a good lens may be close to 4x5 film scan is not that great a surprise to me. I appreciate the effort taken to do the test. It supports my own experience. There is no argument really since no professional is going back to film anyway.

--
Enjoy the Day

Paul Guba New Jersey Photographer
http://www.gubavision.com
 
80mb? That would be less than a 1600ppi scan in 8 bit. Hardly enough to pull all the information from 4x5....which benefits upwards of 2600-2800ppi. As an aside, even the 21mp 5D2 is just over 63mb in 8 bit....so in other words, it would resolve less than a 1600ppi scan of 4x5.

That said, on a print of 16x24 for example, the differences are minimal.
 
here is the field of view of the 4x5 inch camera with the 150 mm.

you see how small the details is that we are looking at compared to the size of the full frame and also which parts of the film its from



Peter
 
I based my comment on what I did working for clients. This was before digital cameras. This was to output to ektachrome without loss. What did you do 12 or so years ago when you output ecktachrome?

--
Enjoy the Day

Paul Guba New Jersey Photographer
http://www.gubavision.com
 
Bill Fagan said:
Thats all fine, but make some 45x60 inch prints. Make sure the lab has a real enlarger as film was not actually intended to be scanned. I find it ultimately disappointing when a comparison of film to digital is made when the film is digitized. That, begging your pardon, is assinine.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it's asinine depends on the context. There are plenty of pros, particularly in the wedding industry who claim to prefer the look of 35mm film, even though they get it scanned (as opposed to properly enlarged), at which point it's a compromised digital format. If you're debating with those people, this is HIGHLY relevant. The scans these wedding pros get are not best available scans, because they are having several hundred done in a batch, so they are definitely average to slightly above average on the scale of what is possible... Also, even the serious film shooters are more likely to scan than enlarge, though they might get it done on a drum scanner, etc, that is beyond us mere mortals.

--
David Hill
http://www.sfbayweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco, CA | Austin, TX
Certified Wedding Photography Junky™
 
em_dee_aitch wrote:

Also, even the serious film shooters are more likely to scan than enlarge, though they might get it done on a drum scanner, etc, that is beyond us mere mortals.
em_dee_aitch said:
--
David Hill
http://www.sfbayweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco, CA | Austin, TX
Certified Wedding Photography Junky™
Click to expand...
The Imacon was sold as a kind of drum scanner and isnt very far away from

a good drum scanner like the crossfields. It just doesnt use a photomultiplier.. but

a ccd line. so the difference is more noticeable in the tonal range then in the resolution.But its not much... But yes also in resolution in a drum scan.....
 
rayman 2 said:
Also, even the serious film shooters are more likely to scan than enlarge, though they might get it done on a drum scanner, etc, that is beyond us mere mortals.
rayman 2 said:
--
David Hill
http://www.sfbayweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco, CA | Austin, TX
Certified Wedding Photography Junky™
Click to expand...
The Imacon was sold as a kind of drum scanner and isnt very far away from

a good drum scanner like the crossfields. It just doesnt use a photomultiplier.. but

a ccd line. so the difference is more noticeable in the tonal range then in the resolution.But its not much... But yes also in resolution in a drum scan.....
Click to expand...
Whilst all my wedding and event work is digital I do LF art prints typically B&W and I print them with an enlarger, why add a quality reducing and indeed time consuming step film was designed to be printed and with regards to LF B&W prints i have not seen any digital alternative that gives the same quality
Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Martin Ocando
Ok, this is going to be a long one...
7 8 9
Replies
166
Views
377K
ahaslett
ahaslett
D
Sigma 300-600 4 DG OS Sports – Review After 14 Days of Testing
Replies
1
Views
19K
jerste
J
Truman Prevatt
GFX100RF - a review of RAW samples
Replies
14
Views
5K
barkleytom
B
B
4x5 Velvia.
Replies
11
Views
473
NickZ2016
N
R
Finding Atlantis (2020 i9 iMac w/5700XT, Mushkin REDLINE, Delidded, vented, copper foam sinks)
Replies
0
Views
7K
RLight
R

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top