A shoot out of sorts and a call for more

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ok as shoot outs go this one is pretty lame, I am hoping that others
might post what they have done as well.
Last summer a fiend of mine bought a film scanner, a Nikon Coolscan V I
believe. We both wanted to see how his 35mm Nikon would do against my
Sony F828. When I was in town we went out to take some photos for
comparison. So here comes part of the lame part, I don't remember
what film he was using, it was something that he thought would do well
beyond that I don't know (other then it was print film). At the time
of this test I did not have a good raw converter for the Sony so I was
shooting in jpg mode.

These are the two photos that we got.

>From the 35mm camera
http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Film% [...] 2035mm.jpg

>From the Sony F828
http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Sony%20F828.jpg

In the end we both agreed that there was not much to choose between the
two. We did 8.5 x 11 prints of each and we both thought the print from
the Sony was just a bit sharper looking, but it was so close as to not
really matter.

I now own a 20D which is much sharper then the F828, as well as having
a lot more dynamic range. I would like to repeat this test with he the
next time I am in town, but I don't think my friend will have a lot
of enthusiasm for it as he has pretty much quit shooting film
altogether.

So what is the point in this post? People in these groups seem to want
to argue with words but rarely will show their photos. Spirited debate
is good, but when it breaks down into flame wars it stops being
useful.

I am sure that someone will say that my example of a 35mm film scan is
poor, if so I would hope that you would post one that you believe is
better. I would hope that we might be able to some meaningful
comparisons between different hardware. This goes beyond digital vs
film, this includes lenses, scanners, print vs slide film, Fuji film vs
Kodak, and dare we say it maybe even Sigma vs. Canon. I would also
love to see a comparison between a number of stitched photos and a 4 x
5 view camera, one of the questions being how well can the software
match the effects of the tilt shift lens.

Ideally we could get people together to shoot the same scenes at the
same time so we could get a good comparison between, cameras, lenses,
film, scanners etc. If you are going to tell me how much better your
lens is then mine I would hope you would be willing to share a photo as
well as your words.

If anyone is visiting the Big Island of Hawaii in the future and shoots
35mm film I would be more then happy to get together and shoot a bunch
of photos together so we could compare how each camera does.

Gear is not all there is to photography and it may not be the most
important part, style and a good eye are important. But there is a
wide range of styles and it will be futile to try and do any meaningful
comparisons of style.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119917998.988320.69290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Last summer a fiend of mine.....

Do you keep your fiends separated from your other pets?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> In the end we both agreed that there was not much to choose between the
> two. We did 8.5 x 11 prints of each and we both thought the print from
> the Sony was just a bit sharper looking, but it was so close as to not
> really matter.

I have no idea what people like you are trying to prove with ridiculous
nonsense such as this. It seems that you're trying to justify the expense to
yourself by "proving" digital has some kind of advantage over film apart
from convenience. I personally use film, I've been using it for years and it
has improved much over the last 15 years, therefore I see no reason to stop
using it, film does what I need it to do and then some, the quality
satisfies me and I'd don't find the format inconvenient in terms of cost or
availability of processing/printing, so what is my incentive to ditch film
in favour of electronic photography, there is no incentive. If your happy
with film use it, if film doesn't do it for you use electronic capture, but
please stop with these ridiculous outdated pseudo-comparisons.

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119917998.988320.69290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Ok as shoot outs go this one is pretty lame, I am hoping that others
> might post what they have done as well.
> Last summer a fiend of mine bought a film scanner, a Nikon Coolscan V I
> believe. We both wanted to see how his 35mm Nikon would do against my
> Sony F828. When I was in town we went out to take some photos for
> comparison. So here comes part of the lame part, I don't remember
> what film he was using, it was something that he thought would do well
> beyond that I don't know (other then it was print film). At the time
> of this test I did not have a good raw converter for the Sony so I was
> shooting in jpg mode.
>
> These are the two photos that we got.
>
> >From the 35mm camera
> http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Film% [...] 2035mm.jpg
>
> >From the Sony F828
> http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Sony%20F828.jpg
>
> In the end we both agreed that there was not much to choose between the
> two. We did 8.5 x 11 prints of each and we both thought the print from
> the Sony was just a bit sharper looking, but it was so close as to not
> really matter.
>
> I now own a 20D which is much sharper then the F828, as well as having
> a lot more dynamic range. I would like to repeat this test with he the
> next time I am in town, but I don't think my friend will have a lot
> of enthusiasm for it as he has pretty much quit shooting film
> altogether.
>
> So what is the point in this post? People in these groups seem to want
> to argue with words but rarely will show their photos. Spirited debate
> is good, but when it breaks down into flame wars it stops being
> useful.
>
> I am sure that someone will say that my example of a 35mm film scan is
> poor, if so I would hope that you would post one that you believe is
> better. I would hope that we might be able to some meaningful
> comparisons between different hardware. This goes beyond digital vs
> film, this includes lenses, scanners, print vs slide film, Fuji film vs
> Kodak, and dare we say it maybe even Sigma vs. Canon. I would also
> love to see a comparison between a number of stitched photos and a 4 x
> 5 view camera, one of the questions being how well can the software
> match the effects of the tilt shift lens.
>
> Ideally we could get people together to shoot the same scenes at the
> same time so we could get a good comparison between, cameras, lenses,
> film, scanners etc. If you are going to tell me how much better your
> lens is then mine I would hope you would be willing to share a photo as
> well as your words.
>
> If anyone is visiting the Big Island of Hawaii in the future and shoots
> 35mm film I would be more then happy to get together and shoot a bunch
> of photos together so we could compare how each camera does.
>
> Gear is not all there is to photography and it may not be the most
> important part, style and a good eye are important. But there is a
> wide range of styles and it will be futile to try and do any meaningful
> comparisons of style.
>
> Scott
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119917998.988320.69290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Ok as shoot outs go this one is pretty lame, I am hoping that others
> might post what they have done as well.
> Last summer a fiend of mine bought a film scanner, a Nikon Coolscan V I
> believe. We both wanted to see how his 35mm Nikon would do against my
> Sony F828. When I was in town we went out to take some photos for
> comparison. So here comes part of the lame part, I don't remember
> what film he was using, it was something that he thought would do well
> beyond that I don't know (other then it was print film). At the time
> of this test I did not have a good raw converter for the Sony so I was
> shooting in jpg mode.
>
> These are the two photos that we got.
>
>>From the 35mm camera
> http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Film% [...] 2035mm.jpg
>
>>From the Sony F828
> http://www.sewcon.com/photos/Sony%20F828.jpg
>
> In the end we both agreed that there was not much to choose between the
> two. We did 8.5 x 11 prints of each and we both thought the print from
> the Sony was just a bit sharper looking, but it was so close as to not
> really matter.
>
> I now own a 20D which is much sharper then the F828, as well as having
> a lot more dynamic range. I would like to repeat this test with he the
> next time I am in town, but I don't think my friend will have a lot
> of enthusiasm for it as he has pretty much quit shooting film
> altogether.
>
> So what is the point in this post? People in these groups seem to want
> to argue with words but rarely will show their photos. Spirited debate
> is good, but when it breaks down into flame wars it stops being
> useful.
>
> I am sure that someone will say that my example of a 35mm film scan is
> poor, if so I would hope that you would post one that you believe is
> better. I would hope that we might be able to some meaningful
> comparisons between different hardware. This goes beyond digital vs
> film, this includes lenses, scanners, print vs slide film, Fuji film vs
> Kodak, and dare we say it maybe even Sigma vs. Canon. I would also
> love to see a comparison between a number of stitched photos and a 4 x
> 5 view camera, one of the questions being how well can the software
> match the effects of the tilt shift lens.
>
> Ideally we could get people together to shoot the same scenes at the
> same time so we could get a good comparison between, cameras, lenses,
> film, scanners etc. If you are going to tell me how much better your
> lens is then mine I would hope you would be willing to share a photo as
> well as your words.
>
> If anyone is visiting the Big Island of Hawaii in the future and shoots
> 35mm film I would be more then happy to get together and shoot a bunch
> of photos together so we could compare how each camera does.
>
> Gear is not all there is to photography and it may not be the most
> important part, style and a good eye are important. But there is a
> wide range of styles and it will be futile to try and do any meaningful
> comparisons of style.
>
> Scott
>

I've a better idea. Make an 8 x 10 print from the negative (not from a scan
of the negative), and an 8 x 10 print from the jpeg, and compare those.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5vp7c1pc5tkdnifl2ukop4nr4tf9rif3pe@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:06:08 GMT, "Matt Clara"
> <none@this.guy's.expense> wrote:
>
>>I've a better idea. Make an 8 x 10 print from the negative (not from a
>>scan
>>of the negative), and an 8 x 10 print from the jpeg, and compare those.
>
> Although I can see where you are coming from, this isn't fair at all.
>
> The digital image will be significantly superior to the film one for
> any of the following reasons:
>
> * Levels & curves can be applied to the digital image.
> * Sharpening can be applied to the digital image.
> * Color correction can be applied to the digital image.
> * Visual imperfections or distractions can be removed from the digital
> image.
> * The digital 8x10 will be printed using digital laser wet-print,
> technology and the negative based enlargement will likely be optical.
>
> It comes down to custom digital darkroom improvements vs dumb
> automated enlargement. Not fair.
>
> One could argue that you should disallow any digital adjustments for
> the comparison, but then it becomes a fruitless exercise, because
> anybody who cares about their pictures *will* do digital darkroom
> adjustments to ensure the print looks great.
>
> I think the OP's approach is best: scan the neg and then let them
> follow the same digital darkroom and printing path. The coolscan +
> 35mm Nikon costs around the same $$ as a 20D, so the 'capture'
> device/system are roughly on par with each other.

Ok, take the negative to a pro lab and ask them to work it up as best they
can. I didn't explicitly say take it to walmart for an enlargement (or
insert the dumb automaton center of your choice).

Also, even if the capture systems are roughly on par with eachother, there's
the inherent degredation of making a copy of the negative via scanning which
is not there in the direct digital capture of the digi camera.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> <none@this.guy's.expense> wrote:
>>
>> * Levels & curves can be applied to the digital image.

In the darkroom I can dodge and burn.

>> * Sharpening can be applied to the digital image.

Can't "sharpen" per se in the darkroom, but I can increase contrast which
increases perceived sharpness. In my opinion, sharpening tools are a poor
substitute for skill with the camera anyway.

>> * Color correction can be applied to the digital image.

And in any competent color lab.

>> * Visual imperfections or distractions can be removed from the digital
>> image.

Just where do you think the term "airbrush" came from?

>> * The digital 8x10 will be printed using digital laser wet-print,
>> technology and the negative based enlargement will likely be optical.
>>

So what? We see optically, not digitally. To be perceived, your digital
image started out as an optical image in the lens, was converted to a
digital image in either the camera or the scanner, then converted back to
optical by the eyes of the person viewing it.

>> It comes down to custom digital darkroom improvements vs dumb
>> automated enlargement. Not fair.
>>

While darkroom skills may have deteriorated in the past 10 years, there are
still some of us who remember how. And, I might add, it takes no more time
to do these corrections in a darkroom than it does to do them in a computer.
Post-processing takes time either way.

So, yes, unless you have equally skilled technicians producing both prints,
the suggested comparison is bogus. But skilled darkroom technicians can
still be found. With skill, both methods can produce superb results.

Walt