which gives the best picture a good 5meg camera or a slide scanner
Julian
be better to keep my top class Nikon F3 with a set of lenses and invest in
the Coolscan 4000. That way I will get digital images which are superior to
those from a good digital camera. Obviously there are other reasons why a
digital camera might be bought but from the quality standpoint am I correct
in thinking that this is the best option?
Roland Karlsson
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com:
Nope. Scanning a 35 mm slide will not result in superior
quality pictures compared to a full frame 35 mm SLR digital
camera. The only full frame digital camera for your Nikon
lenses is the Kodak 14n. It is expensive ($4000) and it is
not released yet. You can buy a Nikon D100 and get very good
pictures. But this camera is not full frame, so your pictures
will be cropped to approx. APS size.
Roland
Mac McDougald
jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com says...
While total pixel count/resolution is not the only valid comparison tween
scanning film and digicam, it IS simply true that you will get a quality
image with MUCH higher pixel count with quality film scanner.
As compared to a 5MP (megapixel) cam:
2900ppi (ala Nikon IV) - 4110x2740 = 11.2MP
4000ppi (ala Nikon 4000) - 5669x3780 = 21.4MP
--
Mac McDougald
Doogle Digital - www.doogle.com
Mac McDougald
roland_do...@bonetmail.com says...
> "Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com:
>
> > I am thinking of getting a good digital SLR type camera but perhaps I
> > would be better to keep my top class Nikon F3 with a set of lenses and
> > invest in the Coolscan 4000. That way I will get digital images which
> > are superior to those from a good digital camera. Obviously there are
> > other reasons why a digital camera might be bought but from the quality
> > standpoint am I correct in thinking that this is the best option?
> >
>
> Nope. Scanning a 35 mm slide will not result in superior
> quality pictures compared to a full frame 35 mm SLR digital
> camera.
Debatable, many contexts and parameters involved.
I don't think it's valid to make such a generic, sweeping statement.
Also, note that OP asked in comparison to a 5MP camera, did not mention
higher class of camera.
Mac
Tony Spadaro
a small grain film and scanning at 4000 is going to beat out any digital
(that will take your Nikon lenses) short of the new Kodak 14 megapixel due
out soon.
There are other considerations however.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Don
Canon EOS-1Ds a good negative scanner will do the job. It's certainly the
cheapest way to go. Most of the scanners are optimized for positives
(slides), but the Coolscan 4000 has an high enough dynamic range that it
should handle negatives nicely, particularly if using multiple scans. I've
not tried it.
Don
"Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Tony Spadaro
(The 4000 ED) that scans it well. I'm saving a lot of money and get my
processing done in as short as an hour now - my lab has to send slides out
so it's two days.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Don" <world...@velocitus.ten> wrote in message
news:etw2a.448$%h4...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Pierre L
are done perfectly using both methods, I'm betting they will come out pretty
even in print. I think it has reached the point that, it's the end result
that matters, and how you get there really doesn't. If it were me, I would
stick with the F3, but that's only because I prefer my hobby to be
photography as opposed to digital imaging.
Pierre
"Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Godfrey DiGiorgi
scan 35mm film (Canon, Nikon, Leica, Rollei 35) with a Minolta Scan
Dual II at 2820ppi. Here are some things to think about...
Advantages: digicam
- zero grain
- very fast and easy to do a lot of photography
- no processing costs, no film costs
- built in infrared, small movie, sound capabilities
- prints of excellent quality up to 8x10 inch (250ppi output),
satisfactory quality at 11x14" (200ppi)
Disadvantages: digicam
- like shooting slides ... limited exposure tolerance
- camera handling speed only acceptable ... shutter lag,
inter-frame write time
- camera and media costs are high up front, fast depreciation
- lack of interchangeable lenses
- low light sensitivity and noise limitations
- battery/power dependence
Advantages: film and scanner
- larger prints possible (35mm ff: 11x16 inch@250ppi, 13x20 inch@200ppi)
- variety of cameras, lenses to choose from
- fast camera handling and responsiveness
- excellent low-light capabilities
- lower equipment costs
- depending upon equipment chosen, less to no battery dependence
Disadvantages: film and scanner
- cost of film and processing rises proportional to usage
- grain, dust, scratches, handling of delicate media
- processing quality critical
- time consuming, less convenient to use due to both processing
and scanning requirements
- more difficult travel issues due to XRay scanning,
media deterioration in hot climates, etc
On balance, I've found that the speed, convenience, ease and low cost
post-purchase means that I use the digicam more than film cameras now.
My results for the average prints I make (5x7 inch to 8x11 inch
constitutes about 98%) are identical in quality. I've learned how to
overcome some of the current generation prosumer handling deficiencies
too, with practice and effort.
Where I continue to use 35mm or larger format film cameras is where
they have distinct advantages:
- low light work (fast fast films can do wonderful things)
- ultra-wide angle (you need lots of resolution to make this
area work well and 5Mpixel doesn't cut it)
- responsive needs (street photography, candid portraiture)
Pick your poison and enjoy ... ;-)
Godfrey
In article <b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Julian
Martin Francis
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Depends on how good a photographer you are.
--
Martin
"Amateurs borrow. Professionals steal"
- Rankin
John Eyles
>
>As compared to a 5MP (megapixel) cam:
>
>2900ppi (ala Nikon IV) - 4110x2740 = 11.2MP
>4000ppi (ala Nikon 4000) - 5669x3780 = 21.4MP
I'll simply repeat what I have consistently read - I've never compared
any digital camera to scanned film ...
Not only is total pixel count not the only valid comparison, it is a
misleading comparison. The reason is that a digital camera is sampling
the actual scene, whereas a scanner is sampling yet another sampling of
the scene (the one done by the grain in the film). Thus, a scanned
pixel is not "worth" as much as a pixel from a digital camera. What
the ratio is, is open to debate.
That being said, the quoted numbers show a ration in pixel count of
2 to 4, so the conclusion that scanned film is still superior may be
a valid one.
John
Roland Karlsson
news:MPG.18b45dd5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
> Debatable, many contexts and parameters involved.
> I don't think it's valid to make such a generic, sweeping statement.
Everything is debatable. But the general consensus here
has been that a full frame 35 mm 14 Mpixel camera and a
scanned full frame film is about the same kind of quality.
You can (with a drum scanner) get more from film, but
drum scanning is not for everyone. And you also get more
noise than from the all digital picture. So ... even if
you CAN get some more out of the film, you will have a hard
time getting it.
> Also, note that OP asked in comparison to a 5MP camera, did not mention
> higher class of camera.
Not in the post I replied to.
Who is OP?
Roland
Mac McDougald
roland_do...@bonetmail.com says...
> Mac McDougald <doogleRE...@nxs.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.18b45dd5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
>
> > Debatable, many contexts and parameters involved.
> > I don't think it's valid to make such a generic, sweeping statement.
>
> Everything is debatable. But the general consensus here
> has been that a full frame 35 mm 14 Mpixel camera and a
> scanned full frame film is about the same kind of quality.
I run film recorder and agree that somewhere around 11-15MP image
"equals" ISO 100 E-6 and C-41 films.
However, there you are, with 35mm frame equiv.
With a 21 MP image from say, Nikon 4000, you have a lot more leeway with
output size.
Just as a 35mm neg won't look as good above 8x10 as a 120 neg.
Yes, I realize that 35mm film is limited in and of iteself, but scanning
at these high resolutions seems to be same principle as making a larger
copy neg from smaller one before printing large output print. It
definitely is better quality (except for increased contrast as per the
photographic method).
We used to have lifesize prints of sports players made when I was photog
at univ .. we'd shoot on Blad and make 4x5" copy negs for the final
prints. Waaayyy better results than making them directly from the 6x6cm
orig negs, sharpness wise.
In that way also, a higher than 14MP digital image is helpful.
Mac
J. A. Mc.
<roland_do...@bonetmail.com> found these unused words floating
about:
>Mac McDougald <doogleRE...@nxs.net> wrote in
>news:MPG.18b45dd5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
>
>> Debatable, many contexts and parameters involved.
>> I don't think it's valid to make such a generic, sweeping statement.
>
>Everything is debatable. But the general consensus here
>has been that a full frame 35 mm 14 Mpixel camera and a
>scanned full frame film is about the same kind of quality.
>You can (with a drum scanner) get more from film, but
>drum scanning is not for everyone. And you also get more
>noise than from the all digital picture. So ... even if
>you CAN get some more out of the film, you will have a hard
>time getting it.
So by your statement, he'll get about a 1/3rd the quality image ...
Mac McDougald
> > Also, note that OP asked in comparison to a 5MP camera, did not mention
> > higher class of camera.
>
> Not in the post I replied to.
It's in ALL the thread ... look at subject :-)
> Who is OP?
Original Poster.
Mac
David J. Littleboy
"Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Scanning's a major pain. Even worse, scanned 35mm is only somewhat better
than consumer 5 MP cameras.
If you want to knock the socks of consumer 5MP cameras at A4, go to scanned
645 with even the (new, not yet released in the US) Epson 3200. If you use
Provia, you can do even better with a real film scanner, albeit at a rather
steep (US$3,000) cost.
Anyway, consider the reality of life. Getting a decent 8x10 from 35mm is
quite hard, and 11x14s are basically impossible (even thinking about 35mm
11x14s requires putting up with more grain and poorer tonality than I'm
willing to). 35mm has never been adequate for larger print sizes. It's a
consumer P&S technology that grew like cancer due to convenience.
For convenience and fun, the Sony F717 kicks 35mm's butt. But at A4, fussy
types will be happier a lot of the time with a D60/D100/S2 sort of camera.
The slight (often theoretical and only at ISO 100) improvement you might be
able to get with impeccable scanning technique and 35mm seems to me a rather
Pyrrhic/Quixotic victory.
The 1Ds is the first "35mm" camera that can consistently and easily produce
quality 11x14s. It's simply revolutionary. The only problem is what to do in
the two or three years until that quality makes it to more reasonable
price/weight levels...
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Carsten J. Arnholm
Roland Karlsson wrote in message ...
>Mac McDougald <doogleRE...@nxs.net> wrote in
>news:MPG.18b45dd5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
>
>> Debatable, many contexts and parameters involved.
>> I don't think it's valid to make such a generic, sweeping statement.
>
>Everything is debatable. But the general consensus here
>has been that a full frame 35 mm 14 Mpixel camera and a
>scanned full frame film is about the same kind of quality.
>You can (with a drum scanner) get more from film, but
>drum scanning is not for everyone. And you also get more
>noise than from the all digital picture. So ... even if
>you CAN get some more out of the film, you will have a hard
>time getting it.
Well, I have (and have used extensively) the Minolta Scan Multi Pro
(4800ppi for 35mm, 3200 ppi for MF), and I have (and have used
extensively) the Nikon D100 (6MP).
I would NOT make the statement that a 14 MP camera and "a scanned full
frame film is about the same kind of quality". A camera with that
amount of pixels (provided each pixel has approximately the same quality
as a pixel from the D100) is much more likely to approximate the
quality you get MF film scanned with a quality film scanner, such as the
one just mentioned. The results I've just today seen from Canon 1Ds
(11+ MP) and my experience with the Minolta Scan Multi Pro (scanning
35mm and MF) is the basis for this evaluation.
On the other hand, D100 RAW files , competently processed approximates
the quality scanned slides (Provia 100F) or negatives (Superia 100) made
with a quality film scanner. Sometimes the film/scanner combination
wins, sometimes the images made with D100. Comparisons should be made
with prints no smaller than 8x10", preferably 12x16".
Regards,
Carsten J. Arnholm, Oslo, Norway.
http://carnholm.home.online.no
Pedro
for the scanners. My experience with scanners is that they show film
grain rather well at these high resolutions, but it's largely empty
magnification. I am however impressed with the quality possible when
scanning 2-1/4 negs, it does appear a bit more detail is available but
a few tests are in order. Also, I thought that film scanners were
rated in lpi, not ppi -- hope that we're not getting apples & oranges
mixed a bit here.
Mac McDougald
Pe...@Pultroon.net says...
> I think there's a lot more going on there than just a high pixel count
> for the scanners. My experience with scanners is that they show film
> grain rather well at these high resolutions, but it's largely empty
> magnification. I am however impressed with the quality possible when
> scanning 2-1/4 negs, it does appear a bit more detail is available but
> a few tests are in order. Also, I thought that film scanners were
> rated in lpi, not ppi -- hope that we're not getting apples & oranges
> mixed a bit here.
Actually, most, if not all, use the what's come to be ubiquitious and not
technically accurate term "dpi".
Mac
========
Gordon Moat
always give the best results when they are left at their default settings. In
comparison, a simple digital camera can be very user friendly for digital
images, any fairly close to a basic colour range suitable for many digital
uses.
If all you want is to post to a web site, or send e-mail images, get yourself a
cheap digital camera. Even if you just occasionally want to print inkjet
images, even a low end digital should be good enough. The dot gain of inkjet
printers is so high, that the digital resolution only needs to be close enough,
so anything in the 4 MP or 5 MP range is very suitable for the majority of
inkjet prints.
If you want to learn colour correction for printing, or use digital images
(scans) for publishing, then a film scanner is the way to go. These work okay
at default settings, but more effort will be required in PhotoShop to get good,
and consistent, output for publishing. If you want to spend the time
establishing a good scanning workflow, the results can be better from scanned
film than from a digital camera. The biggest difference is in the colour, not
in the resolution.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
Bob Crownfield
>
> "Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am thinking of getting a good digital SLR type camera but perhaps I
> would
> > be better to keep my top class Nikon F3 with a set of lenses and invest in
> > the Coolscan 4000. That way I will get digital images which are superior
> to
> > those from a good digital camera. Obviously there are other reasons why a
> > digital camera might be bought but from the quality standpoint am I
> correct
> > in thinking that this is the best option?
>
> Scanning's a major pain. Even worse, scanned 35mm is only somewhat better
> than consumer 5 MP cameras.
>
> If you want to knock the socks of consumer 5MP cameras at A4, go to scanned
> 645 with even the (new, not yet released in the US) Epson 3200. If you use
> Provia, you can do even better with a real film scanner, albeit at a rather
> steep (US$3,000) cost.
>
> Anyway, consider the reality of life. Getting a decent 8x10 from 35mm is
> quite hard, and 11x14s are basically impossible (even thinking about 35mm
> 11x14s requires putting up with more grain and poorer tonality than I'm
> willing to). 35mm has never been adequate for larger print sizes.
you might be surprised by 20x30 prints from kodak asa 100 color
negatives.
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Crownfield" <Crown...@Cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, consider the reality of life. Getting a decent 8x10 from 35mm is
> > quite hard, and 11x14s are basically impossible (even thinking about
35mm
> > 11x14s requires putting up with more grain and poorer tonality than I'm
> > willing to). 35mm has never been adequate for larger print sizes.
>
> you might be surprised by 20x30 prints from kodak asa 100 color
> negatives.
I am surprised every time I see a 20x30 from 35mm: surprised that people
bother. 20x30 is pushing it for 6x9, which has about 5 times the film area
as 35mm. From 645 or 6x6, with Provia 100F, tripod, f/8, and mirror lock up
13x19s are usually possible.
Arthur Entlich
Otherwise, its not nearly as clear cut as those numbers imply.
Art
Arthur Entlich
Art
Jonathan
> > negatives.
>
> I am surprised every time I see a 20x30 from 35mm: surprised that people
> bother. 20x30 is pushing it for 6x9, which has about 5 times the film area
> as 35mm. From 645 or 6x6, with Provia 100F, tripod, f/8, and mirror lock
up
> 13x19s are usually possible.
You're standards are clearly ridiculously high.
Bill Karoly
that the 5mp camera has advantages over the scanner.
1. You capture the original scene.
2. You save money - no film or processing so to speak.
3. No clean up after scanning. Saving you time.
4. Instant gratification. You know what you shot when you shot it because
you can preview your shots right away.
5. No chance of damaging your negative or slide before you scan it.
Take a look for yourself. Go to www.photosig.com and research. Click on the
Photos tab and then choose a category on the left for a specific camera.
Choose a Nikon film camera and look at the images these people scanned. Then
look at some of the 5mp cameras and compare.
My 5mp camera was a Minolta DiMAGE 7 and it was a frustrating camera to use.
There have been improvements such as the 7i and the 7Hi but they still
suffer with the low res eye piece. A true SLR is the probably the best way
to go. Choosing a Nikon compatible DSLR would be smart because then you can
use your existing Nikon lenses. Your choices right now are the Nikon D100 or
the Fuji S2 Pro. The S2 Pro costs more but IMHO the color is better, or so
my eyes tell me after comparing for myself.
A good website for reviews of digital cameras is www.dpreview.com.
Personally I'd like to have the best of both worlds. A quality scanner and a
good digital camera. I happen to like the Fuji S2 Pro.
Bill
"Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Frank ess
Seems to me optimum printing size is to a large extent dependent on
display. Somewhere, many years ago, I learned that viewers have a
tendency to arrange themselves and the subject (print) so that its
perceived field is about the size of an 8x10 at something less than
arm's length. You can observe the effect yourself by handing someone
several photos of similar subjects, or watching viewers at an
exhibition. One such that I know of allows viewing from a closest
distance optimized for 11x14s. You could see lookers leaning over the
rope to view 8x10 prints (submitted in a "no larger than 11x14"
competition).
I have a 30x40 print of a hand-held 200mm-tele 35mm color negative
frame taken from a moving train. It's matted and framed and hangs on a
wall opposite the entry to a room. The subject and colors are
appealing, and it always creates a positive impression on first-time
viewers. That's what it is for. I could usher them to the entry and
hand them a nice 4x6 print, but it wouldn't be the same, would it?
--
Frank ess
The Oracle says: Frank ess has a Bacon number of 3.
The Oracle says: Elizabeth Taylor has a Frank ess number of 3
http://tinyurl.com/4n7m
Mac McDougald
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >
> > "Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am thinking of getting a good digital SLR type camera but perhaps I
> > would
> > > be better to keep my top class Nikon F3 with a set of lenses and invest in
> > > the Coolscan 4000. That way I will get digital images which are superior
> > to
> > > those from a good digital camera. Obviously there are other reasons why a
> > > digital camera might be bought but from the quality standpoint am I
> > correct
> > > in thinking that this is the best option?
> >
> > Scanning's a major pain. Even worse, scanned 35mm is only somewhat better
> > than consumer 5 MP cameras.
> >
> > If you want to knock the socks of consumer 5MP cameras at A4, go to scanned
> > 645 with even the (new, not yet released in the US) Epson 3200. If you use
> > Provia, you can do even better with a real film scanner, albeit at a rather
> > steep (US$3,000) cost.
> >
> > Anyway, consider the reality of life. Getting a decent 8x10 from 35mm is
> > quite hard, and 11x14s are basically impossible (even thinking about 35mm
> > 11x14s requires putting up with more grain and poorer tonality than I'm
> > willing to). 35mm has never been adequate for larger print sizes.
>
> you might be surprised by 20x30 prints from kodak asa 100 color
> negatives.
I'd be surprised if they look any different than the last time I looked
at any :-)
Mac
Julian
many personal opinions so quickly, this sort of decision is a subjective one
and so it is useful to hear what you think.
The decision is not clear to make. The impression I get is that there is a
greater chance of getting better quality images from scanned film but it
will not be greatly better nor will it be always better. Not the clear cut
answer I was hoping for. There is an advantage to getting the scanner in
that I can archive my old slides and produce good scans for printing myself
but there are also the obvious advantages of digital (I have a cheap digital
3mp camera too and so I have some feel for it). I suspect I may get the
scanner and then later take the plunge when I am sure I am ready and get
something like the Nikon D100 to reuse my lenses. If I have made the wrong
choice I will always be able to sell what I don't need. Expensive though.
Julian
"Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
flycaster
news:v4m3f22...@corp.supernews.com...
I don't know about "ridiculous", but he may be a bit conservative. I would
certainly agree, however, with his assesment of a 20x30 enlargement of a
35mm piece of film. It might look OK from about 5', but it will certainly
please no one other than a casual photographer ~ or someone for whom it has
emotional value.
I shoot 35mm, 6x7, and LF, and it is my experience that as soon as you get
past an enlargement factor of, say, 8X-9X, you are better served by going to
a larger format.
A 10X enlargement is equal to a 3000-3600ppi scan, at which point you've
simply digitizing the grain structure of all but a single handful of films.
Additionally, unless you're using very, very expensive "pro" glass, at this
point you are also beyond the resolving power of the lenses.
Per Inge Oestmoen
(David Littleboy):
>>I am surprised every time I see a 20x30 from 35mm: surprised that people
>>bother.
> You're standards are clearly ridiculously high.
David Littleboy is realistic and he is one of those who truly knows
what he is talking about.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
Per Inge Oestmoen
> I am thinking of getting a good digital SLR type camera but perhaps I would
> be better to keep my top class Nikon F3 with a set of lenses and invest in
> the Coolscan 4000. That way I will get digital images which are superior to
> those from a good digital camera. Obviously there are other reasons why a
> digital camera might be bought but from the quality standpoint am I correct
> in thinking that this is the best option?
You pose a very good and relevant question. Unfortunately no hard and
fast answers can be given.
Basically neither of the two choices is likely to give you results
that are definitely and consistently superior to the other solution.
This I say judging from my own use of the Canon D60 digital SLR, as
well as the Nikon LS-40 and LS-4000 scanners in company with the Nikon
FM2 film based SLR.
To elaborate a bit around the scanners before we go further; there is
hardly any appreciable difference in output quality between the LS-40
and LS-4000 when it comes to the ability to create sharp images up to
A4 size. (-Yes, I know that you Americans hate metrics!)
On balance the LS-4000 is to be preferred because it permits you to
isolate parts and crop them out, and the somewhat higher Dmax would
give an advantage with dense slides, however nothing dramatic. For
negatives the Norwegian importer of Nikon told me that I would
probably not see any difference at all unless I wanted really big
enlargements. My subsequent testing of these two scanners vindicated
that statement.
So I went with the 2900 ppi LS-40, and saved $700 on that.
After having used the LS-40 and the Canon D60 I am happy to have both.
My impression, which in no way claims to be authoritative, is that the
digital camera wins on average because you lose something during the
extra step involved in the scanning as compared to a completely
digital recording of an image.
That said, I feel that my very best pictures - technically speaking -
are those recorded on film and scanned by the LS-40. While I will far
from deplore the purchase of the D60, I have began to tilt towards a
feeling that film still does indeed have advantages that are not so
easily equalled by a contemporary digital camera. It is in particular
the color quality of film that has a more subtly attractive appearance
to it. Of course that might be caused by my relative lack of
experience with a digital camera since I have not taken 3000 pictures
with it yet, but there is little non-technical reason why I should
start to appreciate film more and more _after_ the purchase of a
digital solution.
These are normal results from my Canon D60, in _average_ they are at
least as good than my film scans:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_1064_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_1832_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_0357_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_2003_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_0283_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/animal2/CRW_2717_RT16_800.jpg
Film scans, on the other hand, show better and more vibrant color
(Fuji Superia 200):
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/horseride_skullerudstua1_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/horseride_skullerudstua2_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/lyseren_1_12bit_ICE_no_USM_in_scanner_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/animal/standing_horse_USM_in_scanner_8bit_850.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland/tvaerdalen2_no_usm_ice_800_al.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland/tvaerdalen1_no_usm_800_al.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland/aarjaeng1_no_USM_in_scanner_800.jpg
Another perhaps unexpected result I have noticed, is that contrary to
widespread assumption, I consistently get results from negative film
that are superior to that of slides. The negative film may not have
the same 'sting' in its contrast to start with, but that can to a
large extent be adjusted in an image editor when you have 12-bit
TIFF's as your original files. More importantly, the negative film
yields superior sharpness, and I have never been able to obtain
sufficient sharpness with slide film, and this is equally true for the
LS-4000 as it is for the LS-40. I therefore seriously question the
assertion that slide film is preferable to negatives. Slides are of
course more easy to work with, and they do not scratch so easily. But
other than that I prefer negative film every time.
Last weekend I took a large number of pictures from zoo in a small
Swedish town calles Kolmaarden. For this trip I had brought both my
D60 and my old and revered FM2 SLR. Thus I was able to perform a
direct comparison under comparable lighting conditions. Even more so
since I used both the Fuji Provia 100F and the Fuji Superia 200
negative films in the FM2.
My results led me to conlude that the best results were obtained by:
1. The FM2, Fuji Superia 200 and the LS-40 scanner
2. The D60 DSLR
3. The FM2, Fuji Provia 100F and the LS-40 scanner
There was a rather close race between the Superia/scanner combination
and the Canon D60, but I believe that the scanner won albeit not by a
large margin. I found that the Provia images were lacking in detail as
they always are. Interestingly, the slide film was clearly more prone
to the blowing out of highlights than the digital D60. The Superia
negative film was visibly superior, both in exposure latitude and in
sharpness. All in all, my vote goes to the Superia + scanner
combination. The D60 was not far behind, though, and I would not say
that I am able to _consistently_ beat the D60 in all situations. As I
said, the D60 is (at least for me) the best tool in average. For
example, I doubt that I could have surpassed these with Superia/LS-40:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_2003_RT16_800.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_0283_RT16_800.jpg
You can now see by going to a page where most of the Kolmaarden images
are publicly available. The files whose name begin with "CRW_" are
made by the D60. The files that were made by scanner and Provia have
"provia" in their file name, and those made from Superia have
"superia" in their name.
Then, you are all invited to see and judge for yourself:
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/kolmaarden4/index.htm
Arthur Entlich
These prints are bought by both collectors and for decorative art, and
sold only in galleries.
Just to see if it was worthwhile, on one particular shoot, we shot Reala
with a Hassie 4x6cm, and with 35mm Nikons using Nikon lenses. Both were
on tripods, and the Hassie was even sand bag damped to try to keep
shutter shake to a minimum.
We then had proofs made. Under a loupe the differences were so small,
that, due to the ease and lower costs of printing the 35mm frames to 20
x 30" prints, we went with those. We've been selling these for several
years now and the demand is constant.
I'm not suggesting the 4 x 6 cm negs wouldn't produce a better image,
for sure they would, BUT, to imply that you cannot get a decent 20 x 30
from a 35mm neg is going overboard. In fact, Kodak and I were in
discussions years ago about going much larger with Kodachrome slides,
for some really big prints. They told me they had done this before, and
other than using a wet gate, and maybe an interneg, the work could be done.
In fairness, the 20 x 30" prints are abstracts which have a lot of small
detail, so there aren't a lot of areas with slow gradients. Even so,
there is no grain visible. Of course, everything was bracketed, and
lighting was controlled, so these are not demanding a lot of the film,
but still, I was very impressed with the results.
Lastly, technique is all well and good, but if the image isn't saying
something, it really doesn't matter how good the grain is, etc. On the
other hand, a grainy or even mildly blurred print of a great image is
still a worthwhile visual story.
Art
Charlie
> Lastly, technique is all well and good, but if the image isn't saying
> something, it really doesn't matter how good the grain is, etc. On the
> other hand, a grainy or even mildly blurred print of a great image is
> still a worthwhile visual story.
The bottom line!
--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA
Arthur Entlich
flycaster wrote:
> "Jonathan" <fdgfdg...@gfhfghfh.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>You're standards are clearly ridiculously high.
>>
>
> I don't know about "ridiculous", but he may be a bit conservative. I would
> certainly agree, however, with his assesment of a 20x30 enlargement of a
> 35mm piece of film. It might look OK from about 5', but it will certainly
> please no one other than a casual photographer ~ or someone for whom it has
> emotional value.
That is simply untrue. The proof is our sales and whom we sell to.
These are often educated art/photograph buyers. Sure, a larger piece of
film can provide more resolution and even more tonal range, but it also
limits the number of frames shot, and it means using a larger heavier
and usually clumsier camera, to boot. It may also mean using worse
quality glass. "Art" isn't just about technique and technical
perfection. Some images provide a better impression or expression when
grainy or slightly unfocused.
Your rule of thumb just doesn't hold up. And it isn't just the
"emotion" of the image. Many images simply would not exist had it not
been for the ease of use of a 35mm camera. Taking your "view", anyone
using anything less than a 4x5" view camera is probably committing
sacrilege if they make larger prints from their work. I know of a
number of wildlife photographers who regularly produce museum display
images from their 35mm frames. I'm speaking of images in the 4x6 feet
range. With drum scans and digital massaging, this is quite doable
today, and before, with wet gates and internegs, the results were often
stunning.
I think I'm going to coin a new term for people who think images must be
enlarged no more than X... how about we call them "loupies" (rhymes with
"groupies"...)
;-)
Art
Pierre L
themselves that any advice they give is suspect - they are so concerned with
resolution that I'm betting they are paralysed by it, for fear of not
producing the absolutely and technically perfect photograph. People,
amateurs and pros alike, have been blowing up photos taken with 35mm cameras
for decades, and not only blown up, but cropped as well. Until recently,
cropping was done without giving much thought to "resolution". It's only
since the arrival of digital that this has become an obsession.
Photography is about the subject too, in case you've all forgotten this. You
can take a photo with a 35 that you could never take with a larger format.
That's why 35 became so popular in the first place. I'll concede that larger
format and very expensive digital SLR might give better resolution, but who
cares which picture is marginally better, ultimately? Many all-digital
photograph as so good that they are their own worse enemy: they look too
artificial - like the phoney background Colosseum scenes in the movie
Gladiator. I continue to be amazed that, with the craze of new technology,
nobody seems to notice this.
As to buying a scanner, bottom line is there isn't enough difference either
way to base a decision on, although with the camera, you're stuck with what
you have. With the scanner, you can not only scan 35 mm film but larger
formats as well, if you want to. Your decision should be based on whether
you want to be able to continue working with film, or you want to be all
computer. If you can have both, great. If, like me, you can only afford one
system, traditional film and a good scanner really provides the best of both
worlds.
Pierre
just an amateur
Per Inge Oestmoen
> Photography is about the subject too, in case you've all forgotten this.
Yes, but then one must also be aware that all things being equal the
best possible rendition of the object is desirable.
> As to buying a scanner, bottom line is there isn't enough difference either
> way to base a decision on, although with the camera, you're stuck with what
> you have. With the scanner, you can not only scan 35 mm film but larger
> formats as well, if you want to. Your decision should be based on whether
> you want to be able to continue working with film, or you want to be all
> computer. If you can have both, great. If, like me, you can only afford one
> system, traditional film and a good scanner really provides the best of both
> worlds.
I could have both because did not need to buy two complete systems at
once. I had an old film based SLR system which I have had for more
than fifteen years. A Canon D60 has however proven to be a capable
addition to my old photographic arsenal.
Based on my experiences, I would advise anyone who already owns a
decent film based SLR camera with lenses to buy a quality scanner.
Film is not going to disappear anytime soon, if ever. Moreover, the
high capability of 35 mm film is beyond doubt.
Jonathan
> certainly agree, however, with his assesment of a 20x30 enlargement of a
> 35mm piece of film. It might look OK from about 5', but it will certainly
> please no one other than a casual photographer ~ or someone for whom it
has
> emotional value.
> I shoot 35mm, 6x7, and LF, and it is my experience that as soon as you get
> past an enlargement factor of, say, 8X-9X, you are better served by going
to
> a larger format.
>
> A 10X enlargement is equal to a 3000-3600ppi scan, at which point you've
> simply digitizing the grain structure of all but a single handful of
films.
> Additionally, unless you're using very, very expensive "pro" glass, at
this
> point you are also beyond the resolving power of the lenses.
No arguments here. But I thought the point made was that 35mm produced
acceptable 20X30?
Peronsally, I don't enjoy huge photos anyway, I find it much more pleasing
to see photos in 11X14 or smaller. If I wan't a big picture, I would rather
have a painting. Even then, my own paiting are sually 11X14 or smaller.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>
> I've 16x20 analog prints from 35mm Kodachrome 25 that I'm
> dissapointed with because there is clearly "empty magnification"
> on close inspection, I was expecting a lot.. OTOH, I've an 8x10
> made from a 1 Mp digicam (1024x768) that interpolated and printed
> wonderfully on my Epson 2200, I wan't expecting much.
>
> If I know I will want bigger than 11x14, I generally lug the
> 6x4.5 rig. YMMV.
My thoughts too.
I recently uncovered a cheap 20x30 poster print I made from a 35mm
Kodak Gold 200 negative taken with a three-element lens. Grain and
resolution aren't the issue, they suck, but the picture is worth it.
Framed and hung on the wall, it's funny, amusing and worth the effort.
I generally follow the rule I posted in another thread on this subject
... 16-20x is the magnification limit for small format film
(subminiature up to medium format in my mind), with 10x being the limit
when I'm being picky. For digital, 250-200 ppi print output are the
bottom limits for good quality small prints, 150 ppi for big prints,
and 300+ ppi for "fine art" quality prints of any size.
All rules of thumb may be broken at will .... the real goal is to
produce compelling photographs, which might have none of the notions of
acutance, resolution or smooth tones that orthodox thinking normally
assumes.
Godfrey
Aitor
it.
An interesting film / digital comparison has been done here
http://www.likeaduckinanoose.com/digital/master.jpg.sit
B&W Portraits on a
3 diff fine grain negs ( inc Plus X and FP4) shot on a Hass and scanned on
an Imacon + a file from a EOS 1Ds
BEWARE This is a 10Mb download,
Roger N. Clark
I have done a lot of testing of image detail from digital, and scanned
film from 35 mm to large format, various scanners up to drum scans.
Results are at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail
The question of the resolution trade point of film versus digital depends
on the film, with higher ISO film being noisier with less resolution. The current
6 mpixel dslr's are similar in spatial resolution in an image to Fujichrome
100F slide film. Higher speeds: digital wins, lower speeds: film wins.
Details at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
The full comparisons are at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
However, detail is not everything. Noise is important to. See comparisons
to the Canon D60 and Fujichrome Velvia film:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.6mpxl.digital.html
While image sharpness is is usually but NOT always important for impact,
subject and mood is more critical. For example the egret in flight image at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_5113.egret-flight.f-600.html
could not have been done with the same impact on film (yes the image could have been done,
but much noisier). This image is a vertical crop from the horizontal frame thus
represents only about 3 megapixels. Yet I have done stunning 14x16 inch prints,
and it can go effectively to 16x20. Is it stunningly sharp? No! But it is simply
sharp enough for the "knock-your socks off" impact of many viewers. (See the many other
bird photos by going to the gallery home page--many would not have been done well with
film.)
On the other hand, for the mood of a landscape image, sharpness is usually paramount
(after subject and composition). For example, the rainbow at sunset image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/roger.photo/sanjuansnst1.htm
was done on 35mm, drum scanned and I make 19 x 29 inch lightjet prints that
pro photographers usually ask (when seeing the print for the first
time) "is that medium or large format?" So, 35mm can go quite large and still
have impact. Certainly 4x5 (and larger) could have greater impact. For example,
I've been back to the rainbow at sunset site many many times trying to get
something similar on 4x5, but have yet to see another rainbow (many great sunsets though).
The lessons in all these examples are: you can do large prints from many small formats,
and still have impact. Subject and composition are the first criteria for impact.
For action wildlife photography, digital slr's are surpassing the image quality that can
be obtained with film (this can be extended to children and pets at play). For the tripod
mounted tack sharp image requirements, film still rules, with larger formats winning
vastly over 35mm and digital.
Roger Clark
Photography home page: http://www.clarkvision.com
Jonathan
> I have done a lot of testing of image detail from digital, and scanned
> film from 35 mm to large format, various scanners up to drum scans.
> Results are at:
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail
>
> The question of the resolution trade point of film versus digital depends
> on the film, with higher ISO film being noisier with less resolution. The
current
<snip a bunch of interesting stuff>
These arguments about the merits of digital versus film are very
interesting, the the direct comparison are a lot of fun. But when you get
right down to it, it's all very pointless. You use the tool that gives you
the results you want/need, be it film, digital, or a shoe box with a hole in
the end.
David J. Littleboy
"Jonathan" <fdgfdg...@gfhfghfh.com> wrote:
>
> These arguments about the merits of digital versus film are very
> interesting, the the direct comparison are a lot of fun. But when you get
> right down to it, it's all very pointless. You use the tool that gives you
> the results you want/need,
It seems quite point-full to me. If you don't understand the technical
properties of the various tools, you have no way of knowing if the tool will
provide the results you want/need...
Carsten J. Arnholm
Jonathan wrote in message ...
If I'm to interpret the statement from David J. Littleboy, I would
agree, provided we are considering technically excellent print. A 20x30"
(about 51x78 cm) from 35mm is clearly too much if you want technically
excellent print.
However, that does not mean that such sizes from 35mm in general are
ridiculous - that depends on picture content, presentation and a lot of
other factors, technical excellence may not be a requirement and is in
many instances something that has little to do with pictorial content.
Regards,
Carsten J. Arnholm, Oslo, Norway.
http://carnholm.home.online.no
Lewis Lang
David J. Littleboy said:
>Anyway, consider the reality of life. Getting a decent 8x10 from 35mm is
>quite hard, and 11x14s are basically impossible (even thinking about 35mm
>11x14s requires putting up with more grain and poorer tonality than I'm
>willing to). 35mm has never been adequate for larger print sizes. It's a
>consumer P&S technology that grew like cancer due to convenience.
Couldn't disagree more. I've been doing and selling larger than 8x10" prints
off of 35mm for years. The quality is there and proven, if your technique,
equipment, and most importantly, of course, the image is good. I have printed
excellent prints from Ektar 25 and Kodachrome 25, both 35mm, out to 30x40" w/
no porblems whasoever other than the lengthening of my arm as I try to stretch
to operate the chain in an optical enlarger. If someone can't get _superb_
results off of 35mm at 8x10" size it is most likely their own fault, or faulty
equipment rather than the inabilities of the format. 35mm is the ultimate for
both high quality and high flexibility combined.
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Due to spam, I no longer accept emails at this address. Ping me on the ng or go
to my website & click on "LEWISCONTACT" to email. Sorry for the inconvenience
:-).
David J. Littleboy
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030214055203...@mb-me.aol.com...
> BIG SNIPS
>
> David J. Littleboy said:
>
> >Anyway, consider the reality of life. Getting a decent 8x10 from 35mm is
> >quite hard, and 11x14s are basically impossible (even thinking about 35mm
> >11x14s requires putting up with more grain and poorer tonality than I'm
> >willing to). 35mm has never been adequate for larger print sizes. It's a
> >consumer P&S technology that grew like cancer due to convenience.
>
> Couldn't disagree more. I've been doing and selling larger than 8x10"
prints
> off of 35mm for years.
Sorry, that was a (rude and stupid) joke meant for the digital group. My
mistake (I failed to notice the cross-posting). I get carried away with my
MF evangelism some times...
But, grumble:
> I have printed excellent prints from Ektar 25 and Kodachrome 25, both
35mm,
I'm sure you have, but both those films have been discontinued. (Cheap shot
follows:) No demand, perhaps? (Much to Zeiss' irritation, since there isn't
anything to replace Ektar for lens testing.)
> out to 30x40" w/ no problems
I suspect that people who think that 20x30 or 30x40 35mm prints are "problem
free" are talking about _posters_, not photographs. Those are different art
forms.
Alan Browne
8 Mpix images at max res. Admitedly, they are not so hot in the dark
parts of shaddows.
Newer higer res scanners obviously give more res and deeper shaddow
coverage.
So the print sizes (at given dpi) available are larger than from a 5
mpix scan.
Also consider how much shooting you will do, how large you will print, etc.
Cheers,
Alan
Deathwalker
some loss. Direct from a digital camera is usually sharper. You have also
overlooked the fuji cameras. they have a pro camera with 6mpixels that
interpolates up to 11 or more. its the same price as the nikon 100 and
canon d60. that are only 5mp. so go with the fuji it will take the lenses
too.
Charlie
"Deathwalker" <ian-l...@blueyonder.co.ukspam> wrote:
> You have also overlooked the fuji cameras. they have a pro camera with 6mpixels that
> interpolates up to 11 or more.
That's advertising BS and is empty magnification.
David J. Littleboy
"Charlie" <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> "Deathwalker" <ian-l...@blueyonder.co.ukspam> wrote:
>
> > You have also overlooked the fuji cameras. they have a pro camera with
6mpixels that
> > interpolates up to 11 or more.
>
> That's advertising BS and is empty magnification.
It's not completely BS: the S2 provides the best (by a small margin)
resolution of the current 6MP digitals. Lovely low noise, too...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis2pro/page19.asp
But that is frighteningly graphic<g>.
Roland Karlsson
news:MPG.18b49d41...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
> It's in ALL the thread ... look at subject :-)
>
Oops .. missed that :)
Roland
Roland Karlsson
> you might be surprised by 20x30 prints from kodak asa 100 color
> negatives.
I have seen several very good large prints from film. They have never
been particular sharp when looking close. A 20x30 inch print is enlarged
25 times from the original. At 75 lp/mm in the negative this gives
3 lp/mm (i.e. 75 PPI). The same resolution as a monitor. And at that size
the grain will be VERY easy to see.
Yes - the picture may look good. But it is not sharp.
Roland
Mark McGilvray
edge over the 5meg cameras if you are shooting Fuji Velvia and printing
something like 16x24. You will not go wrong with the Coolscan 4000. I bought
one and am very pleased with it for all but my best stuff, which I have drum
scanned at about 5000dpi and printed on a Lightjet. My proofs and run of the
mill efforts get scanned at 4000 dpi on the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and printed
at 360dpi on my Epson 1270 inkjet. My Images are mostly roses and
Landscapes, where I want all the detail I can get. I have a Nikon Coolpix
5000 which does quite well for many things, but not landscapes. I have
boycotted the Digital SLRs until the manufacturers (hopefully Nikon) comes
up with a full frame DSLR that records 100mb .tif files in 8 bit mode.
Hopefully only a couple of years away!
However, if I am shooting documentation (I work in construction management)
or stuff for the web, then the digital gets the nod. The choice depends on
what you do with the camera. For a really excellent technical evaluation,
read Roger Clark's post in this thread.
"Julian" <jwilkinsonisthemanBinAll%Spam%Ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2e2uj$o6c$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Deathwalker
equivalently priced camera. The configuration of the sensor gives even
better performance than a competitors sensor even at true optical. then you
get the nikon fit and excellent build quality and reasonable price. Its a
sharp first generation image and low noise to boot.
"Charlie" <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:cdilks-F9D366....@news.fu-berlin.de...
Fernando
how far your tools can go.
And you question is not about "which solution is more
practical/useful/versatile/etc", but "which solution gives the best
resolving power", and not between a high-end digital SLR and a
scanner, but between a prosumer 5MP digital camera and a scanner.
To -this- particular question, there -is- a short answer: a
medium-to-good film scanner will give you the best resolving power,
coupled with a good film (I suggest Reala for color prints, Provia100F
for slides: Velvia is maybe sharper, but has too much dynamic range
for easy good scans).
If you have the budget for a 5MP prosumer, than you have the budget
for a Nikon LS-4000, IMHO the best scanner in its range.
A couple years from now, the answer would be different, I bet. :)
David J. Littleboy
"Fernando" <fcar...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:
>
> And you question is not about "which solution is more
> practical/useful/versatile/etc", but "which solution gives the best
> resolving power", and not between a high-end digital SLR and a
> scanner, but between a prosumer 5MP digital camera and a scanner.
Yes. This thread has gotten out of hand.
> To -this- particular question, there -is- a short answer: a
> medium-to-good film scanner will give you the best resolving power,
> coupled with a good film (I suggest Reala for color prints, Provia100F
> for slides: Velvia is maybe sharper, but has too much dynamic range
> for easy good scans).
I find Velvia quite noisy when scanned at 4000 dpi. Grain, presumably. But
Provia 100F is way beyond wonderful.
Speaking of 4000 dpi, there's a review of the Canon 4000 film scanner up at
photo.net.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/fs4000us/index.html
When I was deciding between D60/D100/S2, scanned 35mm, or scanned MF*, I
thought this scanner looked very attractive, and it seems I was right. I
really don't like the look of things that I've seen coming out of 2800 dpi
scanners, but it looks like this guy will, at about the same price as a Sony
F717, keep your 35mm stuff well ahead of consumer digital, and somewhat
ahead of US$2,000 dSLRs (until next month anyway).
*: Canon announced the 1Ds a month after I bought the Nikon 8000ED. That
_hurt_.
> If you have the budget for a 5MP prosumer, than you have the budget
> for a Nikon LS-4000, IMHO the best scanner in its range.
The last time I looked, the LS-4000 was twice the price of a Sony F717 or
Canon 4000.
> A couple years from now, the answer would be different, I bet. :)
A couple of _months_ from now things will be different<g>.
Roland Karlsson
news:YCf3a.4557$MZ4.50...@news-text.cableinet.net:
> so ignore the interpolation bit. the true res is still higher than
> equivalently priced camera. The configuration of the sensor gives even
> better performance than a competitors sensor even at true optical. then
> you get the nikon fit and excellent build quality and reasonable price.
> Its a sharp first generation image and low noise to boot.
>
I have looked at Fuji cameras and they are good. Personally
I liked the S602Z when I tested it. Felt very good.
But ... the fact is that you (maybe) get some more
useful resolution by making files twice the size.
And this is the problem - if I get twice the size
files I want twice the resolution, not 10% more.
Roland
Roland Karlsson
> And you question is not about "which solution is more
> practical/useful/versatile/etc", but "which solution gives the best
> resolving power", and not between a high-end digital SLR and a
> scanner, but between a prosumer 5MP digital camera and a scanner.
Directly from the original post:
> I am thinking of getting a good digital SLR type camera ...
I interpreted that as at least a Canon D60 or Nikon D100
and proabably even a Kodak 14n as he was thinking of
getting a "good" camera and already have Nikon 35 mm lenses.
This has been my assumption when I have answered the post.
Hmmm ... but the wording "SLR type" could mean a consumer
camera with electronic view finder or even an Oly 10 or
20 with optical view finder. Then the anser is more in the
favour for the scanner - resolutionwise. And the subject
line supports this interpretation, even if a D60 is approx.
5 Mpixels.
Roland
Roger N. Clark
Jonathan:
Your response leads me to believe you didn't even read the post,
let alone any of the web pages. I specifically showed examples
of when one tool works better in one situation and another tool
works better in a different situation. Testing leads to
understanding, enabling one to use the better tool for the situation.
In the film versus digital wars, people seem to want one answer,
but there isn't one. There is a continuum of answers with film
winning in some cases and digital winning in others. If you want
the best out of the tool set, none of which are perfect, you
need to understand the technical differences. For example, would
you do fast action wildlife photography with a pinhole camera,
if your want/need were sharp action-stopping images?
No, because it simply won't work.
If you don't care about the best, it doesn't matter.
Roger Clark
Fernando
> photo.net.
I've tried side-by-side an FS-4000 and an LS-4000; I've found both to
be very good, but the FS-4000 gave me some headache with some Velvia
shots: seems to have more troubles with very dense areas.
But I agree that has better price/performances ratio. :)
> A couple of _months_ from now things will be different<g>.
I'm drooling over the Kodak DCS 14m, David. ;)
But $4000 ... :(
Bit Bucket
your best shots. This cannot be overstated IMHO. Yeah, you can digitally
retouch, but that takes valuable time and energy and is completely
unnecessary with digital shooting. If you are even considering going all
digital, it's about time to drop the "film-flam" and move on if you can.
--
Visit Terry and the Pixels at
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/
Jonathan
I read every page. My only point was that it doesn't matter which is better,
it only matters which works best for the indivdula for the particular job.
So to argue the merits of each medium is rather a waste of time.
If people would stop looking for implied meanings in what people say, and
instead read what is said on it's face, there would be a lot less confusion.
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: which gives the best picture a good 5meg camera or a slide
>scanner
>From: "David J. Littleboy" dav...@gol.com
>Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2003 12:06 PM
>Message-id: <b2ils8$p1d$1...@nnrp.gol.com>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20030214055203...@mb-me.aol.com...
>> BIG SNIPS
>>
>> David J. Littleboy said:
>>
>> >Anyway, consider the reality of life. Getting a decent 8x10 from 35mm
>is
>> >quite hard, and 11x14s are basically impossible (even thinking about
>35mm
>> >11x14s requires putting up with more grain and poorer tonality than I'm
>> >willing to). 35mm has never been adequate for larger print sizes. It's
>a
>> >consumer P&S technology that grew like cancer due to convenience.
>>
>> Couldn't disagree more. I've been doing and selling larger than 8x10"
>prints
>> off of 35mm for years.
>
>Sorry, that was a (rude and stupid) joke meant for the digital group. My
>mistake (I failed to notice the cross-posting). I get carried away with
>my
>MF evangelism some times...
>
No problem.
>But, grumble:
>
>> I have printed excellent prints from Ektar 25 and Kodachrome 25, both
>35mm,
>
>I'm sure you have, but both those films have been discontinued. (Cheap shot
>follows:) No demand, perhaps?
Not enough demand for the "blue beaines" (corporate bean counters).
(Much to Zeiss' irritation, since there isn't
>anything to replace Ektar for lens testing.)
>
>> out to 30x40" w/ no problems
>
>I suspect that people who think that 20x30 or 30x40 35mm prints are "problem
>free" are talking about _posters_, not photographs. Those are different
>art
>forms.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
No, photographic prints. Roger Hicks (Shutterbug, The 35mm Panorama, The Film
Book, Pro-Lighting photo book series) seemed to like it (my 30x40" prints from
35mm Ektar 25 and Kodachrome 25) well enough to mention the high quality of
them in an early 90's Shutterbug article and one of his books. Anyway, you'd
have to see them in person to see their quality.
The greatest problems/weakest links in large enlargements from 35mm (possibly,
but not necessarily in order) to look out for so you can print w/ "no/little
problems" are:
1. The enlarger lens (w/ most lenses chromatic aberration (read crappy Nikkors)
becomes very visible at large magnifications and the lens starts to crap out
even when stopped down. Schneider Companaon S lenses work well and so does the
Leica 40mm enlarger lens (forget its exact designation). I suppose an APO
Rdoenstock would work well too but I haven't tested it out on 16x20" and larger
enlargements.
2. The paper (which is mostly limited to about 8 lpm resolution for normal
color papers and about 12 lpm for Ilfochrome?Cibachrome).
3. The taking lens/technique (tripod and/or flash helps). I've seen Leica M35mm
Summicron shots w/ flash at about 4x6' that would knock your socks off for fine
grain and sharpness. These are not "posters" but mural sized photographic
prints. And yes, I know, Ektar 25 is no longer available ;-)...
4. The film used (though Ektar 25 isn't available anymore, Konica Impresa is
itss best "substitute" if not "replacement" in the grain/resolution category,
especially when shot at I.S.O.'s of 32 and less. I haven't tested out Velvia or
Provia F 100 large (mostly shoot Sensia 100 now), but aside from contrast
issues (for Velvia), these, though not replacing Ektar 25 or Kodachrome 25,
should do well for larger enlargements (out to what size though I couldn't say
w/o testing. I have been very pleased seeing a friend's 16x20" flower macro
shots on Astia (100 speed) w/ nary a bit of grainand excelelnt sharpness (using
an older Sigma 90mm macro lens no less!).
The point is that 35mm is capable of superb results at larger sizes than most
people give it credit for. I suspect drum scanning and Lightjet type large
prints would also do well, eleiminating the enlarger lens part of "the weakest
link chain" but I can't say for sure, not having testedit myself.
Look, I'm not saying this in a blind haze, but from experience and my own
testings. I can even find fault w/ 11x14" 16x20" prints made from 4x5" film if
I look closely enough. Though my quality standards are high, they are not
rediculous. There are varying levels of excellence/quality and varying levels
of satisfaction and of course a 35mm level of excellence would most likely not
be equal to a 4x5" leve of excellence (Tec Pan excepting?) but I am not about
to trash 35mm for large enlargements simply becuase it would not withstand the
microscopic or eyeball slid along the print at 10" (or whatever inches) or less
requirements of some even more fanatical about quality than me (and I am pretty
fanatical about quality). For some people 4x5" contact prints might not even be
enough and they'd be better off selling their camera and buying a window frame
instead of a picture frame, or perhaps knock a real hole in the wall behind
their picture frames, so that whenever they felt like "getting into a
landscape" they could merely slide the window up and step through like Alice in
Wonderland. Though I can still hear their chants if, Lord help them, they
should step into a seascape/beach scene...
As they bend down and grab a handfull of beach sand they scream to the skies...
"I SEE G-R-A-I-N!"
Jef
35mm? You have to be kidding. 35mm will work up to 11x14, and this is
assuming slow film, spot on exposure, and precise processing. 35mm
over 8x10 just starts falling apart quickly.
"Jonathan" <fdgfdg...@gfhfghfh.com> wrote in message news:<v4m3f22...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > you might be surprised by 20x30 prints from kodak asa 100 color
> > > negatives.
> >
Fernando
20x30 cm are fair for 35mm originals, 20x30 inches are not.
I bet all this rumor is originated by this misunderstanding.
Roger N. Clark
has been limited by film and/or technique. To get into the 20x30 inch
range, one needs very fine grained film (e.g. Fujichrome Velvia),
a lens that is very sharp, operating at its best f/stop, and a
STURDY tripod. Then, if digital, scanning at more than 5000 dpi
with a good digital workflow process that includes correcting
film defects. If you have this, you can produce stunning prints
in the 20x30 inch range, and it can be routine for landscapes.
And a digital process can rival 6x4.5 film enlargements from
traditional enlarger process.
As an example, see my rainbow at sunset image at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-1/web/c073093_01_26-600a.html
The image was drum-scanned at 6000 dpi and I make about 19 x 29 inch
prints on a lightjet 5000 (20x30 would be almost indistinguishable).
The page above shows a couple of enlarged sections so you can see the
detail at approximately the 19x29 inch size on your monitor, but at
1/4 the resolution. If you're really interested, I'll sell prints,
at my cost, if referring to this thread (contact me off list).
At the time I took the above image, my tripod was not a good as it needs
to be. I took a couple of rolls of film of this rainbow at sunset
and under a 10x loupe, all appeared very sharp, and all would make
excellent 8x10s. I had several drum scanned and was shocked to find
some images not as sharp as others. I was using a $40 velbon tripod
and found it to be my limiting problem. I now believe something
like a bogen 3001 is the MINIMUM for 35mm wide angle shots. For
telephoto shots, a bogen 3221 class tripod is necessary. However, for
big telephoto images, e.g. 500mm f/4 lens class, a bogen 3221 is just
in the ballpark and not good enough at slower shutter speeds (<1/500).
(this assumes a good tripod head too).
Roger Clark
http://www.clarkvision.com
Roger N. Clark
> I read every page. My only point was that it doesn't matter which is better,
> it only matters which works best for the indivdula for the particular job.
> So to argue the merits of each medium is rather a waste of time.
>
> If people would stop looking for implied meanings in what people say, and
> instead read what is said on it's face, there would be a lot less confusion.
So if you don't know the "merits of each medium," how do you
know "which works best?"
Jonathan
The point is, it doesn't matter. What is best for the individual
photographer is what matters.
Deathwalker
the canon d60 and nikon 100. the original poster also specified wanting to
use his original nikon lenses.
"Roland Karlsson" <roland_do...@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93236AE29CC8Cro...@130.133.1.4...
brian
>
> While image sharpness is is usually but NOT always important for impact,
> subject and mood is more critical. For example the egret in flight image at:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_5113.egret-flight.f-600.html
>
Roger:
Sorry if this is OT, but I think that's a great image.
Dennis O'Connor
Now, show us the other 300 shots from that day :)
Denny
"brian" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c459ba.03021...@posting.google.com...
Roland Karlsson
> ...
> The lessons in all these examples are: you can do large prints from many
> small formats, and still have impact. Subject and composition are the
> first criteria for impact. For action wildlife photography, digital
> slr's are surpassing the image quality that can be obtained with film
> (this can be extended to children and pets at play). For the tripod
> mounted tack sharp image requirements, film still rules, with larger
> formats winning vastly over 35mm and digital.
Wow - nice pictures and nice response. I think all is said now :)
Roland
Per Inge Oestmoen
> On the
> other hand, a grainy or even mildly blurred print of a great image is
> still a worthwhile visual story.
By all means. However, this truism is all too often used as a specious
excuse for a so-so technical level when better would be desirable.
This I am saying in awareness that there are those images whose
message and impact simply are enhanced by being somewhat soft.
Still, with equipment and techniques that are capable of rendering
exquisite detail one has all possibilities. If such detail cannot be
resolved, there will be less potential as compared to what could have
been. And perhaps should and also would have been if another choice
had been made.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
Roger N. Clark
> OUTSTANDING
>
> Now, show us the other 300 shots from that day :)
Thanks. Actually, I has imaging about 800-1000 per day.
About 1% came out very nice. I spend some time (up to
2 hours) per image adjusting contrast, upsampling
and preparing the image for printing at least at
13x19. So, I will add images slowly over the next few months.
The problem is, then I go out and take more images,
so even with digital (no slide scanning), I fall
behind. Better than not enough good images ;-)
Roger
Dennis O'Connor
future... I'm not ready to give up my MF and LF cameras yet, but my pocket
digi P&S camera seems to go with me more and more... I looked at the Kodak
DCS14 but the price is up there with what I paid for my F5 when it first
came out and I still remember writing that check... So, I will watch it for
a while yet... The idea of not having to spend ten to twelve grand for a
new lens system is appealing, over changing to Canon, et. al.
Anyway, as Mr. Edison pointed out, success is 99% perspiration, and at 800
to 1000 frames a day, you are certainly doing that...
Now back to my 14 hours a day job...
Denny
"Roger N. Clark" <rnc...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3E51B8CC...@qwest.net...
Michael J Davis
>Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
>> OUTSTANDING
>>
>> Now, show us the other 300 shots from that day :)
>
>Thanks. Actually, I has imaging about 800-1000 per day.
>About 1% came out very nice.
8 to 10 per day. Good!
>I spend some time (up to
>2 hours) per image adjusting contrast, upsampling
>and preparing the image for printing at least at
>13x19.
Up to 20 hours per day, now I'm *really* impressed....
>So, I will add images slowly over the next few months.
>The problem is, then I go out and take more images,
>so even with digital (no slide scanning), I fall
>behind.
Not surprised.
>Better than not enough good images ;-)
I know the feeling. Frankly, I'm still almost as cautious as I was with
35mm, and only get through 30-40 a day when I'm out...
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><
Larry Bourdillon
the cost of the film/processing. Now, with digital it's the prospect of
staring at the monitor for hours and wading through several hundred 'bad'
shots just to find something printable. :-)
...larry
"Michael J Davis" <news$3...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V2JYgnRm...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
Roger N. Clark
> Roger N. Clark <rnc...@qwest.net> observed
> >Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> >
> >> OUTSTANDING
> >>
> >> Now, show us the other 300 shots from that day :)
> >
> >Thanks. Actually, I has imaging about 800-1000 per day.
> I'm impressed.
Actually, I'm a large format photographer usually doing
a few to maybe a dozen sheets of film in a day, with
a few 35mm support images. I only did maybe 40-60
rolls per year. The 2 bird trips were my first
bird outings ever. So it was a fun new experience. I
would never have done as many images if I was using film
(which I also had with me and only did a couple of rolls
each trip, and still havn't been scanned). Part of what
I was doing was learning how to image the birds, and digital
gave me the instant feedback. The keeper ratio increased
each day as I reviewed what worked and what didn't after both
morning and evening sessions. The little lcd was no help
here; only on a computer screen where I could zoom in
and see the real sharpness did I see what worked.
Roger
> >About 1% came out very nice.
> 8 to 10 per day. Good!
Many more are good focus, and even technically
good composition, but just not very exciting.
> >I spend some time (up to
> >2 hours) per image adjusting contrast, upsampling
> >and preparing the image for printing at least at
> >13x19.
>
> Up to 20 hours per day, now I'm *really* impressed....
No, the contrast etc adjustments were done after I
got back. A typical day imaging birds on location
is:
On site before sunrise. Work until action dies down
(typically in these winter months 6:30-10 or 11 am).
Go back to hotel, download the several 512 MByte flash
cards and review images (300-500). Take a nap if time.
Back out by 2-3pm for the afternoon action. Work
until after sunset. Grab a quick dinner (which I take
back to the room). Download and review images. Sleep.
Repeat. After a few days, exhaustion sets in. Sleep more.
The many images are only possible if at a location
where there are many birds doing things.
Roger N. Clark
Thanks
Roger
Arthur Entlich
Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
I agree, as long as the equipment doesn't impede the creation of the
image, due to logistics, size, weight, cost, among other considerations.
Simply put, I do not believe that a rule of thumb about how large an
image can be produced from a certain size film frame has any real meaning.
How enlarged can you make a 35mm frame? No bigger than when you can no
longer express your intent with the resulting image.
Art
Per Inge Oestmoen
> How enlarged can you make a 35mm frame? No bigger than when you can no
> longer express your intent with the resulting image.
That is true.
Gene
or camera. I too am cautious. While I would like to match up my F5 with a
digital camera based on the same body, I'm going to wait awhile for the new
generation of high resolution cameras to drive down the cost. I just picked
up a used Fuji S1 to tide me over till then. I wlll most likely upgrade to a
DCS 760 in a year of so when the 14n has been around awhile. I try to stay
behind the cutting edge. It's cheaper!
Gene
"Dennis O'Connor" <doco...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:v54f23t...@corp.supernews.com...
Roger N. Clark
> > So if you don't know the "merits of each medium," how do you
> > know "which works best?"
>
> The point is, it doesn't matter. What is best for the individual
> photographer is what matters.
You must be a manager.