Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dramatic evidence - film v digital

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:32 AM

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

How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
file?

Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
comparisons made for the Internet are biased.

Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
What do you think?
http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm

Douglas
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

No, you have a very complicated film camera, wait a month for the film to be
fully exposed, then wait two days for it to be processed, then throw away
most of the photos.Or alternatively, buy a cheap, simple digital camera, see
immediately your photos on its tiny screen, and keep only the best, and
download directly to your computer.That would be a fair comparison.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:42b6ad57$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
digital
> file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
each
> produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
Certainly
> comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
>
> Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size
source.
> What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
> Douglas
>
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

>Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b6ad57$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
digital
> file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
each
> produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
Certainly
> comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
>
> Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size
source.
> What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
> Douglas
>
>
There are different aspects of the mediums that must be considered. Just a
couple examples: Color negative film has a wide exposure tolerance (wide
dynamic range) and doesn't blow out highlights as easy. Digital SLRs can
make higher ISO images with less graininess (noise) than film.

For me, I'm finished with film. I have no compelling reason to ever use the
medium any longer. I stopped using film after I bought my first digital SLR
a year and a half ago. It is a 6mp camera and now, the technology is further
along.
-S
Related resources
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

Ryadia@home wrote:
> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
> file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
> produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
> comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
>
> Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
> What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
> Douglas

I think your film example is not representative of what a good film
shot can do, but I do think it is representative of some of the things
I have gotten back from the mini-labs and so there for what a lot of
people see in their photos.

I did a challenge with a friend of mine who believed in film, we both
shot the same scene and then did 8 x 10 prints. When looking at the
prints even he had to admit the digital photograph looked both clearer
and more life like. When zoomed in at the pixel level he had a bit
more detail, but this detail was so small and low contrast that you
could not see it in the final print.

In the end there was little to choose from between his print and mine,
but he had to be very careful about how it took his shot and how he got
it processed. I did not have some much trouble.

The comparison we did was when I was using my Sony F828, with the 20D I
think it is very hard for a film print to look as good. It takes a lot
of skill in scanning the film and getting the color right as well as
adjusting the curves. He shot negative film, I understand that a lot
of people feel they get much better results from slide film, but for me
I hate the small range that slide film gives me.

I always fleet with film, either slide or negative, that it was a
constant battle to get good quality out of the film.

Let's face it 35mm photography has always been more about convenience
then quality, if you really care about quality then you would shoot MF
or LF. So I find it odd that there are people who think that you
should be drum scanning your 35mm film when comparing it to digital
cameras, if you are going to the work and expense of drum scanning you
really should be shooting MF.

35mm better then MF for many forms of wild life photography because a
telephoto lens is easier to deal with, but this is where digital really
works well, since you can bump the ISO up to 800 you can shot a very
fast shutter time.

Scott
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b6ad57$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
digital
> file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
each
> produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
Certainly
> comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
>
> Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size
source.
> What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
> Douglas
>
>

Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
purports to show.

Eric Miller
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

Eric Miller wrote:
> "Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42b6ad57$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> > file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
> digital
> > file?
> >
> > Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
> each
> > produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
> Certainly
> > comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
> >
> > Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> > carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> > that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> > proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size
> source.
> > What do you think?
> > http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
> >
> > Douglas
> >
> >
>
> Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
> I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
> is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
> That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
> purports to show.
>
> Eric Miller

I have had a few that bad, below is a photo that I scanned from a
negative that is about 20 years old, clearly something is growing on
it.
http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Mis/0204.jpg
Ask me if I think film is a safer way to store photos over digital.

But I have to agree I see very few photos from a 35mm camera that are
as poor as the one the OP posted.

Scott
Scott
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

IMO I think a fair test would have been to use the same brand film camera
that can accept the digital lens, or the other way around. Shoot both shots
of the same thing through the same lens using a tripod at the same ISO.
This eliminates everything except the final image.

While I'm sold on digital, I agree with others here that the film shot looks
a lot worse than it should. My large film prints do show grain, but they
are much sharper with more detail.

Sheldon

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b6ad57$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
> digital file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
> each produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
> Certainly comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
>
> Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size
> source. What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
> Douglas
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

Ryadia@home wrote:
> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
> file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
> produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
> comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
>
> Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
> What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
> Douglas

There is an obvious problem; you're not comparing like to like. Compare
the digitally enlarged image, without special digital enlargement
procedures, to film, or put the film through the same *nice* special
digital enlargement procedure.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

Ryadia@home wrote:
> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
> file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
> produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
> comparisons made for the Internet are biased.
>
> Either they are biased towards film or the digital file. Not long ago I
> carried out some experiments with film to see what I could achieve, given
> that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital file to
> proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size source.
> What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
> Douglas

Wait. Your film shot is dramatically different from this
http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html
There's something wrong with your film shot.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:34 AM

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

Hi,

Friend recently switched from film to digital and he said it's changed
his method of photography.

On a recent trip he took over 600 pics with his new Nikon digital.
"Usually, on a trip, I'd shoot two rolls of film (72+ pics)."

Also, I've noticed that I check the pics shortly after shooting with
digital - rather than waiting to finish role of film, process, and view
much later. Funny how the winners kind of jump out at you.

Medium and large format film is stil awesome - particularly for
enlargements. I realize that there are larger format digital cameras
available but the current prices cause many of us to pause.

Best,

Conrad


--
Conrad
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:34 AM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:17:49 -0700, Scott W wrote:

>
> I have had a few that bad, below is a photo that I scanned from a
> negative that is about 20 years old, clearly something is growing on
> it.
> http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Mis/0204.jpg
> Ask me if I think film is a safer way to store photos over digital.
>
> But I have to agree I see very few photos from a 35mm camera that are
> as poor as the one the OP posted.
>
> Scott
> Scott
That looks like reticulation which can have a number of causes . One of
them is a drop in temperature between baths during processing.

--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:34 AM

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

In article <FMAte.113009$lQ3.81709@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Eric Miller
says...

> Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
> I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
> is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
> That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
> purports to show.

My experience is that unfortunately film is that bad. See for example
this scan:
http://www.ddde.de/Scan.jpg

Scan done at 4000 dpi with a Nikon LS 50 film scanner with digital ICE,
resized to 2000 dpi, unsharp masked at 100%, radius 0.3

There are issues with noise, detail in the shadows and white balance
(just to name a few).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:34 AM

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

Sheldon wrote:
> IMO I think a fair test would have been to use the same brand film camera
> that can accept the digital lens, or the other way around. Shoot both shots
> of the same thing through the same lens using a tripod at the same ISO.
> This eliminates everything except the final image.
>
It is really hard to say what a fair test would be. I think this is an
area where each person needs to work it out on their own. I rarely use
a tripod when shooting, this gives digital a big boost for the kind of
photography that I do, since I can shoot at ISO 800 with digital and I
tried to never buy a film faster then ISO 100.

I have a vast number of images, both film and digital, my current
digital images are better by far then my film ones. Why should I
compare film to digital, shooting the film in a way that I never shoot?

The other thing about film vs. digital is that you have to decide what
it is you are after. I use my photo mostly in two ways, either for
viewing on the computer screen or making 8 x 12 inch prints. For both
of these even my Sony F828 has more then enough detail, the big win
then is that the colors are much better with the digital then film.

I have no problem with people saying that they prefer film over
digital, I do have a bit of a problem when they try to say that they
get much better photos from film but are unwilling to show these
photos.

Scott
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:34 AM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:40:17 -0600, "Sheldon"
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>IMO I think a fair test would have been to use the same brand film camera
>that can accept the digital lens, or the other way around. Shoot both shots
>of the same thing through the same lens using a tripod at the same ISO.
>This eliminates everything except the final image.

I keep hearing people talk about "the digital lens" at least with
Canon except for a couple of mutants all their lenses work on both
digital and film bodies.

So for your test let's use a 1DsMkII and 1V for the bodies and then
test them with the following "L" lenses, 35mm F1.4, 135mm F2.0 and
200mm F2.0L.

Care to pick a film?
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:35 AM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:44:32 -0400, Conrad wrote:
u.
>
> Medium and large format film is stil awesome - particularly for
> enlargements. I realize that there are larger format digital cameras
> available but the current prices cause many of us to pause.
Can't understand why you would think that, just sell a couple of mansions
and that would be enough for a downpayment :-(

--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:49:35 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d21165253b4463798abe0@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <FMAte.113009$lQ3.81709@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Eric Miller
>says...
>
>> Wow! I switched to digital completely about two years ago with a Canon 10D.
>> I prefer the images, but, I don't think I ever got a scan of 35mm film that
>> is as bad as the image you are using for the film side of your comparison.
>> That poor quality makes me question that your comparison even shows what it
>> purports to show.
>
>My experience is that unfortunately film is that bad. See for example
>this scan:
>http://www.ddde.de/Scan.jpg
>
>Scan done at 4000 dpi with a Nikon LS 50 film scanner with digital ICE,
>resized to 2000 dpi, unsharp masked at 100%, radius 0.3
>
>There are issues with noise, detail in the shadows and white balance
>(just to name a few).

What film did you use?



--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 3:17:50 AM

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

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How do you compare digital to film?
> What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm

Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is a
crime against humanity.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 3:17:51 AM

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

In article <d96j3f$t7b$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> How do you compare digital to film?
>> What do you think?
>> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
>Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is a
>crime against humanity.

You are saying that all 35mm film scanned will be as bad as what Ryadia
manages to get?

Showing film at 6000 dpi is going to be messy, no matter what format you
use.

One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).
But Ryadia show only about 1/3rd (lengthwise) of the original frame. No
wonder things look a bit strange.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 3:17:51 AM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
> > David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >>"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
> >>
> >>Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is
> >>a
> >>crime against humanity.
> >
> > You are saying that all 35mm film scanned will be as bad as what Ryadia
> > manages to get?
> >
> > Showing film at 6000 dpi is going to be messy, no matter what format you
> > use.
> >
> > One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).
>
> Another rule is don't print over 5x7.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Just out of curiosity how large of a good print do you believe a 20D
can produce?

Scott
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:46:42 AM

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

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>>
>>Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm is
>>a
>>crime against humanity.
>
> You are saying that all 35mm film scanned will be as bad as what Ryadia
> manages to get?
>
> Showing film at 6000 dpi is going to be messy, no matter what format you
> use.
>
> One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).

Another rule is don't print over 5x7.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:46:43 AM

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

In article <d97gta$6if$2@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> >
> > One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop (much).
>
> Another rule is don't print over 5x7.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Why print at all :) 

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 3:21:09 PM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>> > David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> >>"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>> >>
>> >>Dunno about DvsF, but it certainly shows that shooting weddings on 35mm
>> >>is
>> >>a
>> >>crime against humanity.
>> >
>> > You are saying that all 35mm film scanned will be as bad as what Ryadia
>> > manages to get?
>> >
>> > Showing film at 6000 dpi is going to be messy, no matter what format
>> > you
>> > use.
>> >
>> > One of the rules of the game for using 35mm is that you don't crop
>> > (much).
>>
>> Another rule is don't print over 5x7.
>
> Just out of curiosity how large of a good print do you believe a 20D
> can produce?

My cheap shots at 35mm are just for the fun of it; at 11x14, 645 looks
better so I don't use 35mm.

The problem with the "how large of a good print can XXX technology produce"
is that whatever size you say, someone will chip in with "I made a print
twice that large and it was tack sharp". It turns into a competition of who
can stand the furthest from their prints.

If you can physically restrain your viewers from approaching the print, any
technology can make a print of any size...

FWIW, I don't like the look of 20x30" prints from 35mm or 8MP digital. I
suppose they're fine from across the room, but in a gallery, people will
walk up to within a couple of feet of a print if the image is at all
interesting. And see that there's no detail there.

The good news is that for larger prints, people don't put their noses on
them, so 200 dpi (with sensible upsampling and sharpening before printing)
can often be quite nice.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:21:21 PM

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

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119304841.862920.22420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Wait. Your film shot is dramatically different from this
> http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html
> There's something wrong with your film shot.
>
You have overlooked something Mike.
1. I didn't de-noise either the film or the digi file.
2. I interpolated both images to sizes neither are normally able to enlarge
to.
The digital file weathered the best because it had no surface irregularities
(grain) and it wasn't produced by first developing and then digitising. The
thing is, the film is a continious tone image and the digital is an image
made up on dots. Converting the continious tone image to a digital one
requires a great deal of "filling in the dots".

It is possible to run a program like "neat Image" over the scanned file and
remove about 30% of the file's bulk (size) and then with the remainder of
the image, interpolate it to a quite large size without the coloured grain
which some call noise. This is getting into the relm of specialised digital
darkroom techniques. I tried to do the easy thing and just scan the negative
at it's native 4000 lpi and work from there. Not possible.

I think if this proves anything, it is that Nikon are living a charmed life
with their film scanners. David Littleboy is absolutely right that the
nature of the game is to never put your work on unfavourable ground, like
trying to print a 35mm film at much over 5"x7". At that size, the film looks
quite nice and I have harnessed this by creating an album of 4"x6" prints
with only the digital images I shot of the current day couple any larger.

Douglas
June 22, 2005 1:59:00 PM

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

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b7dc1e$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119304841.862920.22420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait. Your film shot is dramatically different from this
>> http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html
>> There's something wrong with your film shot.
>>
> You have overlooked something Mike.
> 1. I didn't de-noise either the film or the digi file.
> 2. I interpolated both images to sizes neither are normally able to
> enlarge to.
> The digital file weathered the best because it had no surface
> irregularities (grain) and it wasn't produced by first developing and then
> digitising. The thing is, the film is a continious tone image and the
> digital is an image made up on dots. Converting the continious tone image
> to a digital one requires a great deal of "filling in the dots".
>
> It is possible to run a program like "neat Image" over the scanned file
> and remove about 30% of the file's bulk (size) and then with the remainder
> of the image, interpolate it to a quite large size without the coloured
> grain which some call noise. This is getting into the relm of specialised
> digital darkroom techniques. I tried to do the easy thing and just scan
> the negative at it's native 4000 lpi and work from there. Not possible.
>
> I think if this proves anything, it is that Nikon are living a charmed
> life with their film scanners. David Littleboy is absolutely right that
> the nature of the game is to never put your work on unfavourable ground,
> like trying to print a 35mm film at much over 5"x7". At that size, the
> film looks quite nice and I have harnessed this by creating an album of
> 4"x6" prints with only the digital images I shot of the current day couple
> any larger.
>
> Douglas


WHAT ?

Never print 35mm at over 5 x 7.

Have you never been to a Photographic Exhibition, or International Salon?

There you will see hundreds of prints, most of which will be from 35mm, and
many will be around 15" x 12". You will be able to go right up to them and
peer as closely as you wish.

The Print quality of many will be outstanding, and some will be of mind
blowing quality.

The arguments proposed in this thread remind me of the days when Rollieflex
was the Camera of choice for most keen Amateurs.

"You cant get exhibition quality from 35mm, you know" was what they said.

Well, I submitted my 35mm B & W Prints, with no technical info on the back
of the mounting board, and guess what? They got acceptances and some even
got praise for the Print Quality.

I am not saying that MF and LF or Digital can not produce Quality Prints,
but anyone who claims that 35mm can not be printed at over 5" x 7" has got
his head stuck very deep into some sort of mire, and should take it out and
actually start using his eyes.

To paraphrase an old saying---"Never mind the Theory, See the Quality"

Roy G
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 8:38:33 PM

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

Roy wrote:

> Theoretical knowledge is all very well, and any aeronautical engineeer can
> demonstrate that Bumble Bees must be incapable of flight because of Body
> Mass/Wing Size/Power calculations.

And yet, strangely, there is no "aeronautical engineer" that did such a
thing. Here is a clue for you:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199701/0127.html

Some scientists have said stupid things, but this isn't one of them.

> It is a good job Bumble Bees can not get a University education.

I find it despicable that too many people put far too much weight into
the useless output of so-called "artists" and their post-modern
prognostications about what it is to be "human" than the scientists,
engineers, and technicians who design and build the equipment they use
on a daily basis.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:22:52 AM

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

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think if this proves anything, it is that Nikon are living a charmed
>> life with their film scanners. David Littleboy is absolutely right that
>> the nature of the game is to never put your work on unfavourable ground,
>> like trying to print a 35mm film at much over 5"x7". At that size, the
>> film looks quite nice and I have harnessed this by creating an album of
>> 4"x6" prints with only the digital images I shot of the current day
>> couple any larger.
>>
>> Douglas
>
> WHAT ?
>
> Never print 35mm at over 5 x 7.

The 5x7 bit is a joke, but seriously, at 11x14, you'd have to be blind not
to see the difference between 35mm and 645. If one has even the slightest
interest in quality imaging, 35mm just doesn't cut the mustard at 11x14 and
larger.

> Have you never been to a Photographic Exhibition, or International Salon?

Yep. Lots. And the 35mm is all soft and mushy. If you want crisp, 35mm can't
do it.

> There you will see hundreds of prints, most of which will be from 35mm,
> and many will be around 15" x 12". You will be able to go right up to
> them and peer as closely as you wish.

Been there, done that, and it ain't nice. Sure, from four feet away, they're
fine. But come in for a closer look, and all there is is mush.

You can print 35mm as large as you like, but at 11x14 and over, if there's a
medium or large format print next to it, the lack of detail in the 35mm will
be painful.

> The arguments proposed in this thread remind me of the days when
> Rolleiflex was the Camera of choice for most keen Amateurs.

I own one of those. 1956 vintage. It'll still blow any 35mm camera out of
the water in print quality. Not having wide angle and telephoto, it's rather
limited. But it makes 11x14s of a quality that 35mm can't even dream of.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
June 23, 2005 4:22:53 AM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 9bvq8$ec6$2@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think if this proves anything, it is that Nikon are living a charmed
>>> life with their film scanners. David Littleboy is absolutely right that
>>> the nature of the game is to never put your work on unfavourable ground,
>>> like trying to print a 35mm film at much over 5"x7". At that size, the
>>> film looks quite nice and I have harnessed this by creating an album of
>>> 4"x6" prints with only the digital images I shot of the current day
>>> couple any larger.
>>>
>>> Douglas
>>
>> WHAT ?
>>
>> Never print 35mm at over 5 x 7.
>
> The 5x7 bit is a joke, but seriously, at 11x14, you'd have to be blind not
> to see the difference between 35mm and 645. If one has even the slightest
> interest in quality imaging, 35mm just doesn't cut the mustard at 11x14
> and larger.
>
>> Have you never been to a Photographic Exhibition, or International Salon?
>
> Yep. Lots. And the 35mm is all soft and mushy. If you want crisp, 35mm
> can't do it.
>
>> There you will see hundreds of prints, most of which will be from 35mm,
>> and many will be around 15" x 12". You will be able to go right up to
>> them and peer as closely as you wish.
>
> Been there, done that, and it ain't nice. Sure, from four feet away,
> they're fine. But come in for a closer look, and all there is is mush.
>
> You can print 35mm as large as you like, but at 11x14 and over, if there's
> a
> medium or large format print next to it, the lack of detail in the 35mm
> will be painful.
>
>> The arguments proposed in this thread remind me of the days when
>> Rolleiflex was the Camera of choice for most keen Amateurs.
>
> I own one of those. 1956 vintage. It'll still blow any 35mm camera out of
> the water in print quality. Not having wide angle and telephoto, it's
> rather limited. But it makes 11x14s of a quality that 35mm can't even
> dream of.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Dinosaurs are not yet extinct. I thought they had all given up on this sort
of argument by the early 1970s.

As I said, people like you, kept telling me and everyone else, exactly what
you are still saying. But I have had 35mm Prints in a competition being
judged by another Dinosaur, who actually used one of my Prints to
demonstrate the Superiority of the Quality of 120 claiming it could never be
matched by 35mm.

He was very successful in many International Salons, and a highly thought of
Judge, and got rather annoyed when a certain section of the Audience seemed
to be more than a little amused at his remarks.

He never stopped using his Rollei, and producing superb quality prints with
it, but he did, eventually, stop claiming that 35mm was incapable.

Years later, he did admit he could never get the sort of quality from 35mm
that I could get, and there are many photographers who can produce vastly
superior quality from 35mm than I ever could.

I have never said that MF or LF or Digital could not produce superb quality,
but I do take exception when people insist that 35mm can not produce the
quality, which I know it can produce.

Theoretical knowledge is all very well, and any aeronautical engineeer can
demonstrate that Bumble Bees must be incapable of flight because of Body
Mass/Wing Size/Power calculations. It is a good job Bumble Bees can not get
a University education.

Roy G
!