Digital vs. Film prints?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a question...

Recently someone posted a link to one of the following web pages:

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html
http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html
http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_prints.html

The guy who created these pages did an interesting but admittedly
UNscientific comparison of digital vs. film quality. Actually, what he did
was a comparison of digital images to SCANS of film images, even in the
third link above.

My question is, has anyone compared the PRINTED output of a digital image to
a straight film PRINT, without first scanning the film image to create a
digital copy to use as a basis of comparison? It seems like that would be a
useful real-world analysis for those whose ultimate goal is physical prints
on paper.

As I am new to this group (and thus have something like 20,000 back-posts to
wade through), my apologies if this has been thoroughly covered, and feel
free to direct me to any relevant FAQ/webpage!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greg Evans <gregIGNOREevans@charter.blather.net> wrote:
> I have a question...

> Recently someone posted a link to one of the following web pages:

> http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html
> http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html
> http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_prints.html

> The guy who created these pages did an interesting but admittedly
> UNscientific comparison of digital vs. film quality. Actually, what
> he did was a comparison of digital images to SCANS of film images,
> even in the third link above.

> My question is, has anyone compared the PRINTED output of a digital
> image to a straight film PRINT, without first scanning the film
> image to create a digital copy to use as a basis of comparison? It
> seems like that would be a useful real-world analysis for those
> whose ultimate goal is physical prints on paper.

This has been done a little, but is very much complicated by the fact
that most of the printing that is done today uses digital scanners and
digital printers. There are labs that will do you a real hand print
through a real enlarger lens, but these are uncommon.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greg Evans <gregIGNOREevans@charter.blather.net> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:

>>> My question is, has anyone compared the PRINTED output of a digital
>>> image to a straight film PRINT, without first scanning the film
>>> image to create a digital copy to use as a basis of comparison? It
>>> seems like that would be a useful real-world analysis for those
>>> whose ultimate goal is physical prints on paper.
>>
>> This has been done a little, but is very much complicated by the fact
>> that most of the printing that is done today uses digital scanners and
>> digital printers. There are labs that will do you a real hand print
>> through a real enlarger lens, but these are uncommon.

> Interesting, I didn't know that. So do people generally think that the
> comparison I posted the links to is probably a realistic one?

Kinda. His printer isn't the best and using Photoshop bicubic
interpolation to reample isn't a very clever thing to do either.
Astia would probably have been a better choice of film. However, his
results agree pretty well with my and other people's experience.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95B4CD6ECAD05klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> There might be some virtues with photographing all analog,
> from the subject down to the print. But ... the possibilites
>

I think that might be particularly true when working in B&W. I haven't seen
any digital prints in B&W that are as compelling as well done film and
paper.

Especially, as you say, in large format.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Recently someone posted a link to one of the following web pages:
>
>> http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html


Digital in this test looks much better than 35mm film.
However, for me shutter lag delay is still a main concern. I had tried out a
few digital P&S and DSLR at the store, and the delay between photos was just
too unbearable.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Developwebsites wrote:
> Digital in this test looks much better than 35mm film.
> However, for me shutter lag delay is still a main concern. I had
> tried out a few digital P&S and DSLR at the store, and the delay
> between photos was just too unbearable.

Yes, but there are ways round that - pre-focussing and digital motor drive
(for want of a better phrase) of up to several frames per second being
two....

Cheers,
David