DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Digital v Film again

Sorry Marc, but I have already stated that I was more than willing to have a head to head shoot out and asked for a UK based ND owner to come forward. Not yet.

Roger, I am not aware of an easy method of making a conventional print i.e. one made on photographic paper under an enlarger and dipped in chemicals, from a digtal file, but I'm sure there may be some way of doing it. Austin will surely know if there is. To get a digital print from a negative is easy - just go down to you local lab and hand in your film for normal processing. Nearly all commercial printing is now done digitally. That is why I insisted on a proper, old fashioned photograph and not a digitally printed image.

David, if you are still there please understand that I have been asking these guys to prove themselves for five months and apart from Michael who supplied well composed and clean, but not overly detailed or sharp prints, all I have seen are words. I respect your opinion of me, that is your choice.

Clive
 
Okay Clive, what you say is true, but no one with a ND in the UK has either read this fairly obscure post, was as interested as we are in such a comparison, or just doesn't care because they're getting what they want or need.

So, what film do you think should be used? And I'm not clear as to what gets compared? A digital ND file printed on an Inkjet printer verses a silver print from a neg or transparancy ? Who evaluates the results?

On a related note, I was processing some ND RAW files yesterday and will post a tiff of one on the test site with some severe crops for everyone to view. Like the flower shots Clive commented on, these were hand held, but more indicitive of real world applications IMO.

In that process I realized that when I did these incredibly severe blow-ups, the final size was equivalent to a 36"X54" print. Far beyond any use I would have in a practical sense.

I also realized that Digital achieves the over-all look of sharpness and detail in a much different way than film. So, it really goes beyond pure technical observation and also incorporates what the aggregate print looks like at the printed size and at viewing distance. While we ponder the science part, we should remember that it is all in the service of art to some degree (as Irakly pointed out).

A similar parallel I have found is in comparing Zeiss 645 glass verses Mamiya optics.
Mamiya sales reps point out the superior sharness in bench tests verses Zeiss, yet the Zeiss defies these findings to many photographers when viewing the end results.

I also find a similar issue when viewing Leica M negs at huge enlarged sizes. While some Japanese glass like L optics from Canon actually appear more detail oriented, the end results, at size, from the Leica optics appear more 3D and actually sharper.
 
Film for the test.... barring anything like Konica or cheap-n-yucky-brands, I'm not too fussy for a test ;)

If we're going to compare prints as an end result - should we shoot print film? If we're going to compare scanned images on screen - then I guess it would be better to shoot E6 to facilitate scanning? (yes the sprintscan 4000 would be fine by me) Although we can certainly get a good R print from E6. I will gladly pay to have a print made from the slide chosen. A&I seems to be good, although I haven't used their print from E6 service yet. I can get a machine printed 10x15 from slide for $10.50 or a custom Type-R 11x14 for $35 from them. If you were to produce your digital print from the ND in whatever manner you're most comfortable, we could send them to eachother for viewing. (I'd like to forward them on to who-ever would like first-hand viewing of the prints ... keep passing it forward from person to person and each person would pay postage only once to forward to the next person... too idealistic? maybe.. but sounds good)

Films: I tend to shoot like sensia 100 and agfa rsx 50 or 100 when I can find it. Agfa is a little more neutral in color with pleasing shadow detail, but some people don't like it at all and call it flat. Sensia seems to be a smidge blue in the greens and deeper in shadows. If you have a roll of provia (I can't see a difference between it and sensia especially since we aren't concerned with shooting multiple rolls from the same batch here) short on date, or any other good brand at about 50 or 100 speed I can't see a problem. What is your thought?

Let me know where this meets approval and where I've made a dundering mistake in my thinking. I'm flexible.

Best, Lynn PS: Should I throw a spanner in the works? ;) I'm only dreaming here, but wouldn't it be fun to add a third image from a C/Y mount or G series lens? Not necessary - but how interesting it would be.
 
Michael, just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, when I was finding fault with the image of Ms. Kitty I was criticizing the ability of the equipment, not your ability nor your eye as a photographer. I'm not a perfect photographer and even if by some miracle I could become one, I wouldn't rip on someone's form or technique. Equipment success or shortcomings are different, and should be singled out. Best, Lynn
 
"...Well I tried 3 times to load the original tiff at 240 Dpi @ 9" wide (8.92 meg) and it just wouldn't load...."

The upoad size limt is 8MB. 8.92 is almost 9MB. To be sure that the server does not count the file size differently, size it down to 7.9 MB
 
On flicking through the latest (August) edition of the UK’s best selling photo magazine I came across the usual insipid and detail lacking photos from our resident wildlife pro’s Canon D60 followed by some inspirational vibrant Velvia fuelled landscape photos from another pro’ when – BANG!

Has anyone seen the photos from a Kodak DCS Pro 14n?

There is a crop of a round 1.7% of a full image (they quote 250% magnification) that simply blows away our test images – digitally captured and film scanned. Even at this magnification you can clearly see every eyelash, skin texture, nuances of tone in the iris and even veins in the eyeball.

Now if that camera was not a one task wonder for studio work as Kodak admit, and could cope with low light situations I would not be embarrassed to add it to my arsenal. Once the $7,000 price had come down a bit of course because being a poor amateur with photography only adding around 15% to my income seven grand is a whole year’s work.

Still, they are getting there.

Clive
 
Hi Clive, are you comparing web uploads to printed material as stated in your last post?

The 14n is why I switched to Canon's 1Ds, and had to sell all my Nikon gear in the process. I waited a long time for the 14n and was disappointed in the over-all performance of the camera.

However, you are right in that nothing performs like film in lower light with faster emulsions. Even at ISO 400, film still has the edge IMO.

If you like the 14n results, you'd love the 1Ds...which is as close to a multi-task full frame digital SLR that there is today. Focuses faster than any digital available, and the detail capture is there for you to judge on the Canon web site with tiff downloads.

However, as you say, all of the high end pro digitals are very expensive. So, it's still an arm and a leg in cost, but can earn it's keep if the photographer has enough client work to save on film and processing plus charge a separate fee for digital capture on each job.

Why is the 14n so much where you live? In the US it is about $5,000. right now, and will be less than that with-in a year.
 
There is no comparison between the kodak 14n and canon 1ds. the 1ds is hands down better in all matters and this is first hand opinion. i have = the 1ds and had the 14n for 1 month before returning and i doubt if kodak = can fix the problems since the seed (cmos) is bad to begin with

=20

on other note, just got back my ND from contax after a ccd cleaning and focus adjustment? has anybody sent or cleaned the CCD on the ND, mine = was real dirty=20
 
Back
Top