Digital v scanned negative

[koolzakukumba]

Great link, Mark. Thanks.

Bruce

 

[Jerome Chyurlia]

I use both film and digital. For B&W I'll take film any day of the week!

The trick to film scanning is to scan down to the grain size and then down-sample using cubic convolution.

For fine-grain films (Pan F) scanning at 4800 doi does the trick. For coarser films (such as TriX) scanning at 3200 does it for me.

Note that you should always scan targetting a non-lossy format such as TIFF, TGA,BMP (never scan saving output files as JPEG or PNG).

As far as film vs digital costs go, you must take into consideration that running costs with film are more, but that the depreciation of digital equipment can be even greater. If, say, a $3000 dslr depreciates at $1000 per annum how much film & procesing does this cover ?

 

[Muhaiminur H Aador]

1) film price is rising, due to decreasing production.

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.

i used to buy the cheapo kodak gold for $1.28 just few years ago, and now its $2.50. seems like you were hibernating for a long time & missed Kodak's announcement. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/kodak-to-charge-more-for-film-167755.php

How much is that 22mp back
that is almost as good as my MF 6x7 B&W negs?

again, most of the renowned analysers say, a 11/16 mp HQ 35mm sensor is sufficient to make output as good as or better than MF6x7 negs. So, put the price of an Imacon 343 in the equation, and voila! the cost is same! and the added bonus is, "less hassle", and a RAW file to work with, instead of gamma curve applied tiff/jpeg.

2) you wont get the flexibility of RAW file, from the digitized files.

Odd, my scans of Ilford FP4 and HP5 are 16bit, and offer better
dynamic range than ANY DSLR on the market.

what about changing the white balance in the raw file, or bringing out shadow details by giving a 0.5 EV push, before applying the gamma curve? and there is something called 32bit HDR, implies for both film and digital as a solution for demanding DR situations.

Listen, I was a long time film user too. But with digital, life is a lot more easier and i find the chain of workflow to be a lot more consistent. And, I no longer need to worry about keeping exposed Provia under 25*C, where i'm shooting in 40*C.

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[Scott Eaton]

For fine-grain films (Pan F) scanning at 4800 doi does the trick. For coarser films (such as TriX) scanning at 3200 does it for me.

When I scanned (post tense) B&W film on a drum scanner I preferred to shoot in 6x7 format because that way I didn't have to scan higher than 2000dpi. The quality of 35mm B&W film degrades horribly beyond 2000dpi, unless you're using TechPan or TMX 100.

So, when we put this equation together, you're claiming your 35mm B&W has more resolution than my 6x7 B&W.

Personally if I were forced to use conventional film and required a monochrome product I'd shoot 6x7 chromes and desaturate, and blow you B&W reel flippers into the dirt. We know you aren't capable of producing a color product without a lab tech thinking for you anyways, so you elevate the quality of conventional B&W process far beyond what anybody cares about.

As for depreciation, which is a stupid arguement in general, I've wondered if you've checked the depreciation write off of mini-labs using hundreds of thousands of dollars of film based production equipment. My Canon 10D cost $1400 when I first got it, and it still continues to blow away 99.999% of the 35mm work I see posted in this forum. 100% of Les's work, which as I've seen on Photo.net could be bettered with a 5yr old using a disposable film camera.

One of the laws of photography I've learned is that film users use absurd dpi arguements as a crutch to get around their lack of skill. I know the quality limits of Provia and Velvia when drum scanned because that's what I used to do for a living. I even have a functional MF camera that when loaded with film uttery destroys 35mm formart regardless of scan resolution. Yet I continue to use an outdated 6mp dSLR because film sucks and I don't need an emulsion engineer at Fuji or Kodak telling me how to think. Nor do I waste time shooting resolution tests to make up for my lack of camera skills. I feel sorry for those of you that do.

 

[Scott Eaton]

Odd, my scans of Ilford FP4 and HP5 are 16bit, and offer better dynamic range than ANY DSLR on the market.

Guess you don't know how to use a dSLR then if you're getting more D-range with FP4. I wrote both the process workflow and scan tables for FP4 for a couple professional labs, and this material does not have more dynamic range than a typical dSLR.

If you're also preaching that scanned film has a faster workflow than digital capture you might want to get a job as a Carnival barker because we'd take you more seriously.

Why can't you just admit you can't use a dSLR like an adult?

 

[Muhaiminur H Aador]

the OP was bringing up the issue due to economic reasons. and you are talking about a $5000 scanner and Astia chrome to get the quality attainable with a $700 10mp dslr?

ROFL...

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.

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Why can't you just admit you can't use a dSLR like an adult?

Scott

You are a great photographer, no inadequacies there, but as a person you have the finesse of a street brawler and the rudeness of an ignorant, petulant child.

I often read your posts (I hope some of your points are tongue in cheek) and are amazed by the ignorance and overall lack of knowledge, especially in the field of photo-processing where you seemed to stop learning circa 1987.

Why for once can't you behave like an adult and put your points down without going down to the lowest common denominator?
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

 

[Chris101]

We don't need to read his posts Mark.

--
Read my blog -> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/

 

[The Davinator]

For fine-grain films (Pan F) scanning at 4800 doi does the trick. For coarser films (such as TriX) scanning at 3200 does it for me.

When I scanned (post tense) B&W film on a drum scanner I preferred
to shoot in 6x7 format because that way I didn't have to scan
higher than 2000dpi. The quality of 35mm B&W film degrades horribly
beyond 2000dpi, unless you're using TechPan or TMX 100.

So, when we put this equation together, you're claiming your 35mm
B&W has more resolution than my 6x7 B&W.

Personally if I were forced to use conventional film and required a
monochrome product I'd shoot 6x7 chromes and desaturate, and blow
you B&W reel flippers into the dirt. We know you aren't capable of
producing a color product without a lab tech thinking for you
anyways, so you elevate the quality of conventional B&W process far
beyond what anybody cares about.

You may think so Scott, but your ego doesn't matter here. The scans I get from my Imacon from Pan F developed in Pyro will will slaughter your desaturated Provia, etc. In fact, the resolving power of the B&W film will be far, far greater than the color film....not to mention the fact the spectral response of the color film will look very different to the B&W film.

As for depreciation, which is a stupid arguement in general, I've
wondered if you've checked the depreciation write off of mini-labs
using hundreds of thousands of dollars of film based production
equipment. My Canon 10D cost $1400 when I first got it, and it
still continues to blow away 99.999% of the 35mm work I see posted
in this forum. 100% of Les's work, which as I've seen on Photo.net
could be bettered with a 5yr old using a disposable film camera.

I don't own a mini lab...I own a scanner and film gear. The RB67 I bought 5 years ago may have depreciated by $100. How much has that 10D or 1Ds depreciated the SECOND you walked out the store's door? Ya, thought so. The depreciation on the digital gear pays for my MF and sheet film every year.

One of the laws of photography I've learned is that film users use
absurd dpi arguements as a crutch to get around their lack of
skill. I know the quality limits of Provia and Velvia when drum
scanned because that's what I used to do for a living. I even have
a functional MF camera that when loaded with film uttery destroys
35mm formart regardless of scan resolution. Yet I continue to use
an outdated 6mp dSLR because film sucks and I don't need an
emulsion engineer at Fuji or Kodak telling me how to think. Nor do
I waste time shooting resolution tests to make up for my lack of
camera skills. I feel sorry for those of you that do.

No argument from me about MF beating 35mm. I feel sorry for you if you think your 10D beats out scanned Pan F in 35mm format.

 

[The Davinator]

1) film price is rising, due to decreasing production.

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.

i used to buy the cheapo kodak gold for $1.28 just few years ago,
and now its $2.50. seems like you were hibernating for a long time
& missed Kodak's announcement.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/kodak-to-charge-more-for-film-167755.php

I didn't miss any announcement. Arista B&W film is $1.39 a roll for MF. I looks like you just don't know what you're talking about.

How much is that 22mp back
that is almost as good as my MF 6x7 B&W negs?

again, most of the renowned analysers say, a 11/16 mp HQ 35mm
sensor is sufficient to make output as good as or better than MF6x7
negs. So, put the price of an Imacon 343 in the equation, and
voila! the cost is same! and the added bonus is, "less hassle",
and a RAW file to work with, instead of gamma curve applied
tiff/jpeg.

The 1Ds Mk2 prints I have say different. B&W work I've done with both the Mk2 & B&W film show the B&W film to easily beat out the Mk2 at 20x30 print sizes. Price of the Imacon was $3500. Price of the Mk2 is $8000. So much for your "Voila" comment.

2) you wont get the flexibility of RAW file, from the digitized files.

Odd, my scans of Ilford FP4 and HP5 are 16bit, and offer better
dynamic range than ANY DSLR on the market.

what about changing the white balance in the raw file, or bringing
out shadow details by giving a 0.5 EV push, before applying the
gamma curve? and there is something called 32bit HDR, implies for
both film and digital as a solution for demanding DR situations.

Yes, but I can get 13 to 14 stops of information with TriX....NO DSLR even gets close. There is just no tonal data even at the 10th stop with a 12bit sensor.

Listen, I was a long time film user too. But with digital, life is
a lot more easier and i find the chain of workflow to be a lot more
consistent. And, I no longer need to worry about keeping exposed
Provia under 25*C, where i'm shooting in 40*C.

Whether or not something is easier has NOTHING to do with quality....only quality does!

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[The Davinator]

Odd, my scans of Ilford FP4 and HP5 are 16bit, and offer better dynamic range than ANY DSLR on the market.

Guess you don't know how to use a dSLR then if you're getting more
D-range with FP4. I wrote both the process workflow and scan tables
for FP4 for a couple professional labs, and this material does
not have more dynamic range than a typical dSLR.

If you're also preaching that scanned film has a faster workflow
than digital capture you might want to get a job as a Carnival
barker because we'd take you more seriously.

Why can't you just admit you can't use a dSLR like an adult?

Scott, it is well know than you can get between 13 and 14 stops of data from FP4 using dilute developer solutions and stand development. A DSLR with a 12bit sensor has no tonal data at even the 10th stop. The problem is your Kwiki Mart labs don't know how to process B&W film. People like Bruce Barnbaum are well versed with dragging dynamic range out of B&W film. I learned from his process. Before you spout off like you normally do, I suggest you do some reading on this issue.....because if you think a DSLR can beat out B&W film like Tri-X and FP4, then you been misinformed....greatly.

 

[The Davinator]

Why can't you just admit you can't use a dSLR like an adult?

Scott
You are a great photographer, no inadequacies there, but as a
person you have the finesse of a street brawler and the rudeness of
an ignorant, petulant child.
I often read your posts (I hope some of your points are tongue in
cheek) and are amazed by the ignorance and overall lack of
knowledge, especially in the field of photo-processing where you
seemed to stop learning circa 1987.
Why for once can't you behave like an adult and put your points
down without going down to the lowest common denominator?
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

He's always like that Mark. Even on Photo.net where many, many people in the thread would point out his error, he would just become abusive and vacate the thread.

His is well known for Seagull dropping posts and then never visiting again. Ignore him. His knowledge of film expired years ago. As to great photographer, I've not seen any evidence of that either.

 

[The Davinator]

the OP was bringing up the issue due to economic reasons. and you
are talking about a $5000 scanner and Astia chrome to get the
quality attainable with a $700 10mp dslr?

Nope, I'm talking about a $3500 used scanner and Astia that blows away a $700 DSLR....in fact, still blows away the 5D as well....in fact, holds it's own to an $8000 1Ds Mk2. Anything else?

ROFL...

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.

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[Muhaiminur H Aador]

It's funny how when film is mentioned, the primary concern people
have is the cost rather than the quality.

you never know, to whom which is more important! Try to get mature, being financially solvent, you haven't got a license to deny the fact that, no one should have financial constraints, and should look for quality, regardless of the cost. ..still a child...! Grow Up!

I guess spending multi
thousands on a new DSLR every few years is ignored by them.

I have spent

Maybe
if they concentrated on capturing an image rather than

exactly, what makes you think that you are the only one who does that? silly!

jackhammering a shutter 50,000 times a year to get pictures of
their cats, they could afford the better quality of film.

mind your own business... rather than looking for, what people do with their cameras...!

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[The Davinator]

n/t

 

[Muhaiminur H Aador]

i would rather argue with you when you'll be out of the hangover....

1) film price is rising, due to decreasing production.

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.

i used to buy the cheapo kodak gold for $1.28 just few years ago,
and now its $2.50. seems like you were hibernating for a long time
& missed Kodak's announcement.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/kodak-to-charge-more-for-film-167755.php

I didn't miss any announcement. Arista B&W film is $1.39 a roll
for MF. I looks like you just don't know what you're talking about.

How much is that 22mp back
that is almost as good as my MF 6x7 B&W negs?

again, most of the renowned analysers say, a 11/16 mp HQ 35mm
sensor is sufficient to make output as good as or better than MF6x7
negs. So, put the price of an Imacon 343 in the equation, and
voila! the cost is same! and the added bonus is, "less hassle",
and a RAW file to work with, instead of gamma curve applied
tiff/jpeg.

The 1Ds Mk2 prints I have say different. B&W work I've done with
both the Mk2 & B&W film show the B&W film to easily beat out the
Mk2 at 20x30 print sizes. Price of the Imacon was $3500. Price of
the Mk2 is $8000. So much for your "Voila" comment.

2) you wont get the flexibility of RAW file, from the digitized files.

Odd, my scans of Ilford FP4 and HP5 are 16bit, and offer better
dynamic range than ANY DSLR on the market.

what about changing the white balance in the raw file, or bringing
out shadow details by giving a 0.5 EV push, before applying the
gamma curve? and there is something called 32bit HDR, implies for
both film and digital as a solution for demanding DR situations.

Yes, but I can get 13 to 14 stops of information with TriX....NO
DSLR even gets close. There is just no tonal data even at the 10th
stop with a 12bit sensor.

Listen, I was a long time film user too. But with digital, life is
a lot more easier and i find the chain of workflow to be a lot more
consistent. And, I no longer need to worry about keeping exposed
Provia under 25*C, where i'm shooting in 40*C.

Whether or not something is easier has NOTHING to do with
quality....only quality does!

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[Muhaiminur H Aador]

Nope, I'm talking about a $3500 used scanner and Astia that blows
away a $700 DSLR....in fact, still blows away the 5D as well....in
fact, holds it's own to an $8000 1Ds Mk2. Anything else?

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[The Davinator]

i would rather argue with you when you'll be out of the hangover....

I would rather argue with someone who knows what they are talking about.

1) film price is rising, due to decreasing production.

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.

i used to buy the cheapo kodak gold for $1.28 just few years ago,
and now its $2.50. seems like you were hibernating for a long time
& missed Kodak's announcement.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/kodak-to-charge-more-for-film-167755.php

I didn't miss any announcement. Arista B&W film is $1.39 a roll
for MF. I looks like you just don't know what you're talking about.

How much is that 22mp back
that is almost as good as my MF 6x7 B&W negs?

again, most of the renowned analysers say, a 11/16 mp HQ 35mm
sensor is sufficient to make output as good as or better than MF6x7
negs. So, put the price of an Imacon 343 in the equation, and
voila! the cost is same! and the added bonus is, "less hassle",
and a RAW file to work with, instead of gamma curve applied
tiff/jpeg.

The 1Ds Mk2 prints I have say different. B&W work I've done with
both the Mk2 & B&W film show the B&W film to easily beat out the
Mk2 at 20x30 print sizes. Price of the Imacon was $3500. Price of
the Mk2 is $8000. So much for your "Voila" comment.

2) you wont get the flexibility of RAW file, from the digitized files.

Odd, my scans of Ilford FP4 and HP5 are 16bit, and offer better
dynamic range than ANY DSLR on the market.

what about changing the white balance in the raw file, or bringing
out shadow details by giving a 0.5 EV push, before applying the
gamma curve? and there is something called 32bit HDR, implies for
both film and digital as a solution for demanding DR situations.

Yes, but I can get 13 to 14 stops of information with TriX....NO
DSLR even gets close. There is just no tonal data even at the 10th
stop with a 12bit sensor.

Listen, I was a long time film user too. But with digital, life is
a lot more easier and i find the chain of workflow to be a lot more
consistent. And, I no longer need to worry about keeping exposed
Provia under 25*C, where i'm shooting in 40*C.

Whether or not something is easier has NOTHING to do with
quality....only quality does!

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com

 

[Muhaiminur H Aador]

(n/t)

 

[Muhaiminur H Aador]

--
Regards, Aador.
http://www.thelightcollector.com