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!

RAW Developer revisited

"In the eyes of these beholders digital is just fine". This is the most important thing that's been said about this subject. Commercial accounts aren't looking for whether DSLRs are better than MF. They're looking for what does the job for them, what's good enough. For the vast majority of commercial work the ultimate quality is never important, workflow and a consistent product that "gets the job done" is.

And as for why DSLRs are replacing MF,yes they do a very adequate job. If however a MF digital back was about the same price as a DSLR you'd be seeing a lot of DSLRs on the shelf too.

Whether film or digital data is data. It's the same thing between 35mm, MF, 4x5, 8x10 and 11x14s. Each one will rival the previous, if well done. But other than artists who will need the difference in quality?

I love my 645 but when I look at a professional "large" print from my 4x5 there is no question about the difference in quality.

A MF digital back will in most cases surpass a DSLR, where it counts. But the production advantages of a good DSLR often will make the DSLR the right choice for the job.

Maybe we should be lamenting the passing of art directors and clients who don't care about wonderful quality but care more about efficiency and cost and getting the job done than debating which is the better medium.

Guy
 
"Maybe we should be lamenting the passing of art directors and clients who don't care about wonderful quality but care more about efficiency and cost and getting the job done than debating which is the better medium"

The art directors I work with haven't given up on quality. And they are some very good ADs doing national award winning work.

What is not understood here is that the whole commercial process is now digital. Far less steps than the old analog work flow means more control and consistent quality even with a mass produced product. The lowest common denominator with commercial work is the printing itself, and the viewing distance of that printing. Overkill isn't what commercial art buyers are willing to pay for anymore. They don't want to pay for film, processing, and $50 each for drum scans. This stuff doesn't hang in a gallery to be studied. It's digitally prepped and reproduced by the tens of thousands or millions... which is the great equalizer.

Austin, I am not advocating that 35mm DSLRs can make better images than a MF back. If I believed that, I would sell my 2 digital backs tomorrow. But quite frankly, these people are so skilled with post processing that they could care less if I use the MF back or the Canon 1Ds. They know it's overkill for the reproduction to be used.

Same with wedding images. As previous posts indicated, prints are rarely made over 8X10. A MF back for an 8X10 print is overkill that the client will NEVER, EVER realize as being superior.

Finally, unless you do drum scan a neg. it is a difficult thing to get film to work well in comparison to a pro level digital image...
when both are in the digital domain. One is direct, the other involves an extra step. If you are very skilled at digital work it is certain that film will technically outperform digital.

Technical aspects aren't why I still use film. I do it for the feel of film due to the randomness of grain verses the antiseptic uniformity of digital. IMO, that uniformity is why digital is seen as rivaling film. It is almost grain-less in appearance... which was usually associated with MF work.
 
Hi Wilson,

I have a feeling that when you throw in all the variables encountered in real-life situations all the way through the wet & digital process this theoretical limit will be significantly less, although undoubtedly still in favor of the film.

I mean, based on those numbers a 35mm originated 8x10 would be 6x sharper than my ND shot done through a thermal dye transfer printer, and frankly I have not seen such a difference, not even 2x, though there IS a visible difference.

On the other hand, I am getting older and blinder
sad.gif
.

We need to face the fact that most discussion is just that, but it sure serves to stimulate some excellent discussions and bring up good points.

Cheers,

DJ
 
Robert,

1 square meter from 3.2MP?? That's on the ludicrous side, unless you're going for that impressionistic look ...

Here in NYC the wind was unbearable today. Temperature in the 30s, and going down to the 20s tonight, before the wind chill factor ... spring my a#&!
happy.gif


But I'm ready ...

DJ
Having an extra cup of coffee (I roast my own!) but staying inside for the time being
 
Yes, DJ. There are some insane claims out there on the Internet.

It's cold here in Boston, too. But I did see the sun today (briefly). Enjoy Spring, and the coffee, too.

Robert
 
Hi guys,
Seems like I missed all the fun testing Adobe software. I was in Moscow giving a master-class on fine-art photography. Hopefully, I am still able to contribute something to the test.
Irakly
 
Welcome back Irakly.

Check your e-mail to see if the latest version of the Adobe Beta test was sent to you. It's Camera Raw version 2.2X21. Would be curious as to your take on it compared to the SharpRaw version.

I'll call you for lunch.
 
FYI:

I dropped 5 shots done with the Adobe RAW developer into the general Contax Gallery. The compression isn't great, but you will get the idea. The full screen uncompressed images are pretty darn good. Irakly came over and saw them and thought so too.

I'm taking DJs word for it that it's okay to post some results here.
 
Marc-

Thanks for posting the test images. I have been impressed by Adobe ever since I started working with Thomas on support for the ND. He tweeks every little nuance I share with him (responsive) and make sure it works (quality). Their approach is why they sell so much software. They have gone a long way toward earning my loyalty.

I noticed that you shot the first two shots with the 50/1.4 at 1.4. How do you eliminate vignetting? My 50/1.4 wide open on my ND with no filters vignettes. I had my ND serviced last month and they checked it for me and said the body was fine. It must be the lens. I just ordered an 85/1.4 and I'm hoping it doesn't do the same...

also...a challenge to fellow ND users...When/how can we get Contax/Kyocera to get aggressive about updating the ND firmware the same way Adobe has openly allowed us to beta test the Camera RAW plugin? The public relations benefit from a more aggressive approach would certainly make Kyocera lots of dough and build better relations. I have pounded the people at Kyocera USA and all they tell me is that all the development and testing is done in Japan. If someone can help me find a interested Kyocera development person in Japan that will spend the skin to help us get the firmware upgraded and update us on a new DSLR, I will commit the time and effort to hound them (It will probably be like the photographer, the translator and the art director in the photo shoot with Bill Murray in Lost in Translation!).

It seems like the only way we as prosumers can get things to happen is to make them happen not sit back, kick the dirt, and complain. We need to make things happen before we let them happen to us. Throughout my life I have found that caring people in big companies do exist, they do want to help, and they need to be asked in a very nice and respectful way and voila...stuff happens. I am fortunate to own three large and sucessful banking and finance companies and I see it every day. I encourage the people I work with to challenge vendors constantly. Most times it works. Eventually we get what we want.

AL
 
The 38 MP claim seems a little too optimistic to me as well. I try to look at the problem in two ways. Resolution and raw pixel counts with the weight on resolution.

Here's what I generally use for my thinking where the denominator is in resolution lpmm.

1/system=1/film+1/lens+1/scanner

For me I assume that the best color slide film (with really, really good contrast) is capable of 125 lpmm (with poor contrast it will be half that). Let's further assume that the lens is very good (say a CZ lens) shooting at close to optimium (which I assume is 2 stops above wide open - its that diffraction vs aberation issue again) which yields a lpmm number of 250. Lets also assume that we are doing an apples to apples comparison and that we need to get it into a digital format (like a scan) and that a really good scanner (a drum of 8000 ppi) yields a lpmm of roughly 160. Adding everything up gives a resolution of 55 lpmm. Thats the usable resolution. This is REALLY, REALLY good resolution and generally, if you are getting 40 lpmm, you're doing quite well. But at 55 lpmm (or 110 ppmm), this is only 10MP of resolvable data. (Please, someone check my thinking on this?!) However, this is really solid (every pixel could be quite different from every other pixel) data. Not real life but a good metric.

BUT, lets back up and just look at pixel counts. Just scanning a slide/negative gives raw data equilvalent of 85 MP (using a 8000 ppi scanner)!!!! If one uses a more reasonable scanner of 4000 ppi, this gives an output of 21MP if I've done my math right (no guarantees here). Reality is probably somewhere in the middle which is probably where the Kodak number came from.

A couple of observations:
1) The film & scanner are the weak link in the MP battle in the analog world (as is the sensor in the digital world). If the scanning isn't part of the work flow, then you're ahead of the game and it comes down to film versus sensor.
2) BUT, DO NOT }discount the lens at all. A crappy lens will quickly degrade the resolution capabilities of a system (whether film or digital).
3) DON'T get sucked into the MP wars. In my opinion, resolution and color rendition is where the action should be. I've attempted to do resolution comparatives with my digital camera and they all fail dismally compared to film. Digital filters and aliasing wreak havok on resolution relative to film. I use good film and scan and I can definitely see differences in resolving power.
4) All the above is subject to interpetation and there are few absolutes in life. I make no claims that film is better or worse than digital. I like both for various reasons. Film for accuracy and the craft, digital for workflow speed and ease if the desired output is an digital image.
5) I don't want to start a flame war and all comments welcome. Again, someone check my assumptions. I used rough approximations for the lpmm of films, lens and scanner.

keoj
 
Back
Top