If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
I have listened to the film-vs-digital argument for years. Inasmuch as
I haven't had a chance to experiment with 35 mm film, I could only imagine the kind of resolution I could get if I had a good-quality system and film. Well, this year I began buying fairly nice photographic equipment, nicer and much more expensive than anything I have ever before owned. I have experiemented with films ranging in ISO from 100 to 3200, and even tried Velvia 100F (I asked my local Wolf Camera shop for Velvia film, and that's what they had to special order to get me). My Velvia film is still out of shop being developed, but I've scanned everything else. I have to say, I am disappointed by the results. So far, my cheapy little point-and-shoot Minolta Dimage G500 does as good a job--image quality-wise--as my 35mm Canon Rebel G with a 28-135 IS zoom lens. I have been tinkering with this stuff for most of this year, and I simply cannot take photographs with my 35mm camera that look any better than those on my G500. Considering that I have spent nearly 4x more on my film setup than on my digital camera, I am really disappointed. Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
Well, everything has a learning curve.
It is not clear what aspect of your results from film you are disappointed with. Even Ansel Adams had to start somewhere after his first Kodak Brownie. Velvia can be difficult to expose and scan properly and is not intended as a beginner or all purpose film. It is not clear if it is the elements of basic photography that are problematic for you, post scan digital image processing, color management, etc that is causing you difficulty. If you are happier with your P&S than your SLR methinks there are some problems with your grasp of the basics, but everyone has to start somewhere. I suspect that if you consistently used an ISO 100-200 negative film your results, with regard to exposure and scanning, would significantly improve. If you understand what you are doing with the scanned image in Photoshop/Elements you can easily make it look like it was shot on Velvia or shot through Velveeta. This stuff all has a learning curve. I had Photoshop for a long time before I grasped the zen of layers, sublayers, regional image adjustment and especially the rituals of color management. You may find it difficult to keep track of scanned film but with digital the problems can be even worse because once images are offloaded from the memory card they are nothing but magnetic pulses stored on impefect media. Once film is scanned you will not get optimal results unless you understand how to process the image in your imaging program. Color ink jet photo printing is expensive, frustrating and disappointing until you understand how to use color management and have a decent, preferably non-Canon, non-HP printer. A higher end printer from a brand that begins with an "E" would be a good choice. These latter issues are no different when using images shot with a digital SLR. Added to this, IMHOP, is that the dSLR is nothing more than a very heavy P&S unless you are going to learn how to shoot and process RAW images, another significant learning curve. In fact, I would far rather use a film SLR than a dSLR in jpeg mode. Simply using a D20 is not going to make you a better photographer and may lead you into an expensive new world of disappointing results if you do not understand how to take reasonably satisfying pictures with the film SLR you now own. And get out of that Wolf camera shop and find someplace decent to hang out. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
"Scott W" wrote:
There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film, but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they are really getting. Me! Me! I get great resolution from film. Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.) http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large (Click original to see the pixels.) I have two friends, both of which thought they could do better with their 35mm film camera then I could with my digital, in both cases we both shot the same scenes and compared the results, in both cases neither has shoot film since. ROFL. You are one evil dude, guy. Then I hear that get really get 35mm to work you have to use just the right film and have a pro lab process it and then have it drum scanned, this is not for me. I also don't like the idea of shooting ISO 50 film. I've wasted much of what photo-shooting time I've had the last year playing with various films, only to find out that at it's best, Provia 100F is very very good and everything else is much worse than Provia on a bad day. Shadow detail is lousy, but it holds highlights almost as well as negative films and is nearly noiseless out of the scanner. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
bmoag wrote: Well, everything has a learning curve. It is not clear what aspect of your results from film you are disappointed with. Even Ansel Adams had to start somewhere after his first Kodak Brownie. Velvia can be difficult to expose and scan properly and is not intended as a beginner or all purpose film. It is not clear if it is the elements of basic photography that are problematic for you, post scan digital image processing, color management, etc that is causing you difficulty. If you are happier with your P&S than your SLR methinks there are some problems with your grasp of the basics, but everyone has to start somewhere. I suspect that if you consistently used an ISO 100-200 negative film your results, with regard to exposure and scanning, would significantly improve. If you understand what you are doing with the scanned image in Photoshop/Elements you can easily make it look like it was shot on Velvia or shot through Velveeta. This stuff all has a learning curve. I had Photoshop for a long time before I grasped the zen of layers, sublayers, regional image adjustment and especially the rituals of color management. You may find it difficult to keep track of scanned film but with digital the problems can be even worse because once images are offloaded from the memory card they are nothing but magnetic pulses stored on impefect media. Once film is scanned you will not get optimal results unless you understand how to process the image in your imaging program. Color ink jet photo printing is expensive, frustrating and disappointing until you understand how to use color management and have a decent, preferably non-Canon, non-HP printer. A higher end printer from a brand that begins with an "E" would be a good choice. These latter issues are no different when using images shot with a digital SLR. Added to this, IMHOP, is that the dSLR is nothing more than a very heavy P&S unless you are going to learn how to shoot and process RAW images, another significant learning curve. In fact, I would far rather use a film SLR than a dSLR in jpeg mode. Simply using a D20 is not going to make you a better photographer and may lead you into an expensive new world of disappointing results if you do not understand how to take reasonably satisfying pictures with the film SLR you now own. And get out of that Wolf camera shop and find someplace decent to hang out. The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these great results from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find. http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original There are not that many people who have even come close to being disappointed with their 20D. As for raw vs jpeg, there are cases where the raw file will save the shot, but this is normally if the shot was a bit over exposed. Some of the raw converters also do a good job of cleaning up CR, but this is really not much of a problem in any event. My own filling is that if you care about quality then you don't shot 35mm, you shoot digital or you shoot MF. If the OP really wants to give film a chance then he would need to dump the 35mm gear and get a MF camera. But if 35mm works for you more power to you, but most of us are finding that a DSLR not only produces much better looking photos but is also a lot more fun to use. Scott |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Scott W" wrote: There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film, but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they are really getting. Me! Me! I get great resolution from film. Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.) http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large (Click original to see the pixels.) Wow. No fringing at all. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Scott W" wrote: There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film, but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they are really getting. Me! Me! I get great resolution from film. Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.) http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large (Click original to see the pixels.) But then this is what I have always said, if you want high resolution out of film you have to shoot at least MF. Scott Scott |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
"Scott W" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: "Scott W" wrote: There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film, but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they are really getting. Me! Me! I get great resolution from film. Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.) http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large (Click original to see the pixels.) But then this is what I have always said, if you want high resolution out of film you have to shoot at least MF. We're on the same page there. I started out in MF, and every time I've bought a 35mm camera, I've been aghast at what comes out. I just don't get it... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
"bmoag" writes:
Well, everything has a learning curve. It is not clear what aspect of your results from film you are disappointed with. Even Ansel Adams had to start somewhere after his first Kodak Brownie. Velvia can be difficult to expose and scan properly and is not intended as a beginner or all purpose film. It is not clear if it is the elements of basic photography that are problematic for you, post scan digital image processing, color management, etc that is causing you difficulty. If you are happier with your P&S than your SLR methinks there are some problems with your grasp of the basics, but everyone has to start somewhere. I remember back in 2000, when I got my first digital camera (an Epson 850Z, 2.1MP) after 33 years of 35mm photography, I found myself doing nearly all my work with it, despite the various limitations of that camera. I'd been working with scanned 35mm for at least 5 years at that point, so digital wasn't completely new to me. You may, of course, conclude that *I* also lack any grasp of the basics. I don't feel that way myself, but who knows? I suspect that if you consistently used an ISO 100-200 negative film your results, with regard to exposure and scanning, would significantly improve. If you understand what you are doing with the scanned image in Photoshop/Elements you can easily make it look like it was shot on Velvia or shot through Velveeta. This stuff all has a learning curve. I had Photoshop for a long time before I grasped the zen of layers, sublayers, regional image adjustment and especially the rituals of color management. Particularly since Photoshop didn't *have* color management for the first some-number-of-years that I had it :-). You may find it difficult to keep track of scanned film but with digital the problems can be even worse because once images are offloaded from the memory card they are nothing but magnetic pulses stored on impefect media. I find digital much easier to keep track of and find later, myself. Once film is scanned you will not get optimal results unless you understand how to process the image in your imaging program. Color ink jet photo printing is expensive, frustrating and disappointing until you understand how to use color management and have a decent, preferably non-Canon, non-HP printer. A higher end printer from a brand that begins with an "E" would be a good choice. grin These latter issues are no different when using images shot with a digital SLR. Added to this, IMHOP, is that the dSLR is nothing more than a very heavy P&S unless you are going to learn how to shoot and process RAW images, another significant learning curve. In fact, I would far rather use a film SLR than a dSLR in jpeg mode. That seems silly; unless the jpeg modes on other cameras are a lot worse than on my Fuji S2. I resort to RAW mode for extreme situations or really critical shots, but the vast majority of the time jpeg is fine. To me the big difference is the ability to go from 12mm to 300mm easily, use extension tubes, etc. Simply using a D20 is not going to make you a better photographer and may lead you into an expensive new world of disappointing results if you do not understand how to take reasonably satisfying pictures with the film SLR you now own. Getting the Fuji S2 sure made me a better photographer. And get out of that Wolf camera shop and find someplace decent to hang out. Always a good plan. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
High Resolution from 35mm Film
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
35mm on grade 3 explained | Michael Scarpitti | In The Darkroom | 240 | September 26th 04 02:46 AM |
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
SONY UY-S77 BULK Digital film scanner, Nikon N80, Fuji s7000 | Al Jacobson | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 2nd 04 04:41 AM |