PDA

View Full Version : Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion



Michael Lloyd
28-Jun-2015, 14:03
The results didn't surprise me. I see them every scan

I got the link from Frank Doorhof's G+ page. He still shoots and develops film :)

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/

The link to the right about Amanda Marie Ellison is interesting and a little disturbing. But it's real life...

Frank's page: https://plus.google.com/+FrankDoorhofphotographer/posts/gHm7M6SnzpU

Randy Moe
28-Jun-2015, 14:12
Thanks for posting it.

I read that last year and it was great to re-view it.

Ray Heath
29-Jun-2015, 03:40
Probably depends more on who you believe and what you personally accept.

I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.

Michael Lloyd
29-Jun-2015, 03:50
Probably depends more on who you believe and what you personally accept.

I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.

This is the POV that I can't get my head around. By far, the most frequent manifestation of this POV is on the web, which is most assuredly a digital medium. It is impossible to display an analog image on a forum or website. Even a print has to be scanned (converted to digital) to be displayed on a computer. The process of converting a print to digital affects it (and not in a good way imho).

I can tell you why I scan. I don't have a choice. Trust me, scanning is a pain in the neck (or elsewhere). If I didn't have to I wouldn't. Dealing with clogging and the other problems that come with inkjet printers is also a pain in the neck. Digital is expedient but it's not enjoyable.

I don't have a wet darkroom. I have the "stuff" to have a wet darkroom but I don't have a place to use it. I would prefer to analog print. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Kirk Gittings
29-Jun-2015, 09:53
"I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through."

I print digitally and traditional silver. Why scan? Some images will print better on inkjet and some with silver. Some scenes just need the total control that you can get in PS with a file. Silver prints can also now be made from files and enlarged negatives can be made digitally from scans for alternative processes.

Therefore why shoot film rather than digital to begin with? IME&O I can get more satisfying tonal control (fewer artifacts) most often from film filtered in the field than digital capture converted to b&w.........and also I like grain. Its about control based on standards learned through traditional printing. In many ways shooting film and scanning is the best of both worlds.

The digital vs. film debate based on resolution is pretty irrelevant to me as I can easily get the the resolution I need by either form of capture.

fishbulb
29-Jun-2015, 11:07
The article linked in the first post of this thread originally appeared at OnLandscape, and is part of an ongoing series of articles on resolution and film vs. digital. Much higher-brow stuff than the usual forum-based beatings of the film vs. digital dead horse.

The big camera comparison (2011): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Diffraction and resolution (2012): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/08/the-diffraction-limit-how-small-is-too-small/ (well not really film vs. digital but relevant to the discussion)
Article from first post (2014): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
Printing and resolution (2015): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/03/resolution/

I would also check out this page on Tim's site, which has a lot of comparison shots of LF, MF, and digital from the original 2011 article: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

Mark Sawyer
29-Jun-2015, 11:29
It would've been nice if they'd mentioned what lenses were used, especially since the results were quite close. Testing two different 4x5 lenses could easily have given more of a difference than that between 4x5 and the digital back images. For that matter, so could sending identical film to two different professional film processors.

fishbulb
29-Jun-2015, 12:55
It would've been nice if they'd mentioned what lenses were used, especially since the results were quite close. Testing two different 4x5 lenses could easily have given more of a difference than that between 4x5 and the digital back images. For that matter, so could sending identical film to two different professional film processors.

Check out the first link I posted in the post above yours. PetaPixel did not print the full article, so some information is missing.


8x10: For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 240A ... For the 70mm equivalent ... a huge 360mm Schneider Symmar-S


4x5: For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon N ... For the 70mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 180A

Mark Sawyer
29-Jun-2015, 13:02
Thanks, Adam!

mdarnton
29-Jun-2015, 14:46
I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.

Surely the single factor of optical quality is not the only reason to do something one way or another!

For me it's not about quality but about a working method that yields different results, for me. I shoot portraits, and people act totally differently in front of an 8x10 view camera from how they act in front of a tiny digital Nikon, and I work differently when I plan on shooting only two shots and making them work. I'm not saying my Nikon couldn't do the same thing, but it's a matter of the work flow leading to the results, naturally--a holistic process that is giving me better results.

Lenny Eiger
29-Jun-2015, 15:39
designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.

In my opinion, darkroom prints can't come close to the quality of an inkjet print. The other option I like very much is alt process... I'm almost up and running... So, for me the question would be -- why would I make a lesser print by going in the darkroom?

How many times are we going to go around and around with this?

Drew Wiley
29-Jun-2015, 15:49
You keep bringing it up, Lenny. Blame yourself if you get flak. You deserve it for making a ridiculous comment like that. It's like saying, "Great chefs only cook
with pork and never with beef". But thank you for the disclaimer, "in my opinion". That might keep you from getting lynched.

Ray Heath
29-Jun-2015, 16:09
In my opinion the method, if not the act, of comparison is totally wrong. It's not about what method or technique is the "best". It's about individual choice for whatever reason.

The most satisfying imagery that I've created in the last 10 years came from a mixture of paper neg, home made wooden box cameras and magnifying glass lenses. I assume many others wouldn't bother but I did and I enjoy the working methods involved.

How many times is this question going to go around? I'd suggest as many times as necessary until each of us is comfortable enough to say, or at least feel, '... this is what I do, I don't have to explain or justify my work'.

Randy Moe
29-Jun-2015, 16:24
I value process as much or more than product.

Art and Life is often a Dance, even if we are not dancers.

Obviously our Dance varies.

I am Don Quixote. :)

Wayne
29-Jun-2015, 18:26
+ 1001


I value process as much or more than product.

bob carnie
30-Jun-2015, 06:12
Wow Lenny

then you have never seen a great silver gelatin print.

In my opinion, darkroom prints can't come close to the quality of an inkjet print. The other option I like very much is alt process... I'm almost up and running... So, for me the question would be -- why would I make a lesser print by going in the darkroom?

How many times are we going to go around and around with this?

Kirk Gittings
30-Jun-2015, 06:45
Bob, Trust me, Lenny has seen as many great silver images as anyone here. That is not the issue. He is expressing his opinion, his preference.

bob carnie
30-Jun-2015, 06:48
Kirk - the statement makes me wonder?

but yes everyone is titled to their opinion.




Bob, Trust me, Lenny has seen as many great silver images as anyone here. That is not the issue. He is expressing his opinion, his preference.

Kirk Gittings
30-Jun-2015, 06:54
I don't wonder. Lenny is an old world craftsman with modern tools.

Michael Lloyd
30-Jun-2015, 07:26
I don't wonder. Lenny is an old world craftsman with modern tools.

Very true... I was hoping he would expound on what alt process he likes.

Admittedly I have no experience with creating a print in the wet darkroom, if you don't count the crappy little black and white print that I made in our bathroom with a Sears home film developing kit when I was 6 or 7 years old. I made the image with a Brownie Hawkeye and I have no doubt that it was amazing. Sure wish I knew where it is. Anyway, the point I was going to make before I ricocheted off into the past is that I can see why he prefers the digital print process. There is almost total control over the result and once you get into the groove of making digital prints it can be a one shot process. Can be :) I've got a stack of duds that need to be trashed that proves that more often than not it isn't.

On the other hand, I was at a printing workshop in Maine in July of last year. It was put on by John Paul Caponigro. While there I saw their father / son exhibit. It was interesting to see and hear the digital son and analog father speak. I finally got to see Paul Caponigro's "galaxy apple" print. And I enjoyed meeting with and talking to him. That was a huge plus for the trip.

During the workshop we touched on alt processes and mimicking them in Photoshop (did I hear a gasp from the collective?). I mentioned that I have a LR preset for creating the look of a platinum palladium print but since I had never seen a platinum palladium print I wasn't sure what the result should look like. BTW- I feel like this is fairly common in modern photography. Anyway, JP moved the entire class upstairs, into the gallery, and pulled 4 platinum prints from his collection. One from his dad, one from Ansel Adams, and the other two slip my mind (they were noted photographers, I just have a crappy memory). All four prints looked different, which was the point. Create the look that you like not your perception of what it should look like. One thing I've discovered in my short time exhibiting and entering contests is that there is no accounting for peoples taste. Especially the "artistic" people.

I want to learn the analog processes for the same reason that I rebuild old radios and tv's from the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. I enjoy it (more radio, less tv). I enjoy the process. I enjoy the smells and textures. It doesn't mean that I don't embrace technology. I absolutely do. But I also enjoy the glow of a vacuum tube.

Comparatively speaking, I enjoy the organic look of a wet print. After all, it's all photography isn't it?

SergeiR
30-Jun-2015, 07:31
I value process as much or more than product.

Art and Life is often a Dance, even if we are not dancers.

Obviously our Dance varies.

I am Don Quixote. :)

Yup. Let the thousand schools prosper, let the thousand flowers bloom ;)

bob carnie
30-Jun-2015, 07:47
A silver gelatin image and true pt pd print live within the paper, a inkjet lives on top.

I like all of them but to say one cannot compare to the other is just total bullshit. In all due respect to all concerned- not trying to offend anyone here.

Michael Graves
30-Jun-2015, 07:57
I had read that article early in the year as well. But seeing this post led me back to it again, since I recently acquired a Phase One scanning back that has been a recent use of my time. The IQ80 used in the article is undoubtedly easier to use than my scanning back, but the results from the Phase one range from spectacular to abysmal, all depending on me. Getting the back inserted without knocking focus out has been a primary problem for me. I'm using a Horseman L-45 for the purpose and it is a relatively rigid camera. Due to the 15 to 30 second scan time, I'm thinking it might not be a great option for pet portraits.

Lenny Eiger
30-Jun-2015, 08:57
First of all, Kirk, thanks for the kind words.



Very true... I was hoping he would expound on what alt process he likes.

I like a lot of the alt process options. My primary tool used to be platinum, and it might be again someday. It's a wonderful method for b&w. I did a mixture of 3/4 platinum and 1/4 palladium at the time. I printed for a lot of photographers in NYC under a business I called "Platinum Editions". I originally learned the process from Alan Newman, at Pratt. I left NY in 1984, tired of cities and burnt out on how rough life can be there.

I've studied a lot of the other processes, gum bichromate, the different flavors of cyanotype, albumen, carbon tissue and gravure. I taught a college course in Alt Process and ran the students thru all sorts of options. I wasn't settled enough for a printing press, one can't really carry those things around. These days I like the idea of making inexpensive prints, so I might try my hand at some of the cyanotype options. I just picked up another book on Alt process, by Christoper James. The options have increased over time...

Everybody looks at things in a different way. This is good, much less boring that the alternative. I've studied printing my whole life. For the first part it was in the darkroom. I learned all the tricks, burned and dodged with the best. There are some that are excited by that, and they took burning and dodging to a high art. One can look at a starting image of Ansel's, and what he did to it, which was considerable. I went a different way. I decided to try and make a great print by making a great negative. I combined this with using two different developers in the trays and made something I liked very much - without all the burning and dodging. There isn't only one way to make an image. And it doesn't have to look like an AA print to be a great print, it has to match the image and match one's own style. There's an infinite number of options.

One of the things I liked about alt process was the surface. I like the choice of papers. I turned away from darkroom printing for my own work and went in that direction. Around 2002 I decided to see if a digital print could be made that would satisfy me. It took me a while, but I'm very happy with them. Lately, I've been using Kozo from Japan. It has a very platinum feel to it, and I love that its made from mulberry bushes and not trees, in a multi-thousand year old process.

When I first picked up the Keepers of Light I was drawn to an image by Charles Negre. It was some off-color blue-gray but there was something about it that I thought was terrific. There were a lot of images in there that I had only seen in books and was unaware that the photographer had added a lot of color to it...

This idea that "only darkroom prints are real photography" is ridiculous. I started in my father's darkroom when I was 9. I know what it takes to make a great negative and a great print. I have plenty of respect for this effort. I see no reason to disrespect anyone or their skills. It takes just as much, if not more, to make a great alt process print. And just was much, if not more to make a great inkjet print. The can all be good.

There is no "sitting on the top vs being in the paper". There is no "it isn't a good print if you didn't burn and dodge". There is only what you want to do with your images. There are a thousand ways to make a print. As far as I am concerned, none of them are invalid. It's only the image, what it means to you and how well you convey it to others that matters. (And how much fun you are having.) And there is no reason to disrespect anyone's effort. You may not like their results, but if they worked hard at the printmaking craft it may be its just something different from what you're after, and not "garbage".

Lenny

bob carnie
30-Jun-2015, 09:13
Your words Lenny -( In my opinion, darkroom prints can't come close to the quality of an inkjet print.) -


I totally disagree and still must say - (you then have never seen a really high quality silver print) for you to make this comment...

I am not disrespecting your ability's but am stating an opinion.

Sal Santamaura
30-Jun-2015, 09:19
...How many times are we going to go around and around with this?There is no limit on that number except when the Large Format Photography Forum ceases to exist. :) Unless, of course, the Usage Guidelines are expanded to prohibit such discussion.

Not that I'm suggesting such an expansion of prohibited subjects. :D:D

Michael Graves
30-Jun-2015, 10:03
Not long ago, I was at an exhibition of Paul Caponigro's work. I was totally amazed with the richness, texture and tonality of his work. All I could think was, If only I could print like that! How many sheets of paper did he go through and how many hours did he spend in the darkroom to get even one of these lovely prints?

Then as I was leaving, I bumped into one of the museum employees who told me they were all inkjets. Guess my eyes are too stupid to see the difference.

Michael Lloyd
30-Jun-2015, 10:07
Not long ago, I was at an exhibition of Paul Caponigro's work. I was totally amazed with the richness, texture and tonality of his work. All I could think was, If only I could print like that! How many sheets of paper did he go through and how many hours did he spend in the darkroom to get even one of these lovely prints?

Then as I was leaving, I bumped into one of the museum employees who told me they were all inkjets. Guess my eyes are too stupid to see the difference.

Maybe they were printed by John Paul Caponigro? I think that he reprinted some of his dad's work to show him what digital printers can do. I vaguely remember them joking back and forth about that during Paul Caponigro's impromptu class visit. Paul Caponigro is still doing analog work. He never embraced digital.

Father and son have distinctively different works btw.

Michael Lloyd
30-Jun-2015, 10:08
There is no limit on that number except when the Large Format Photography Forum ceases to exist. :) Unless, of course, the Usage Guidelines are expanded to prohibit such discussion.

Not that I'm suggesting such an expansion of prohibited subjects. :D:D

I usually answer those kinds of questions with- "Thursday"

Michael Graves
30-Jun-2015, 10:23
I had thought that Paul had never entered the digital world, so that was a surprise to me. This particular exhibit was at the Farnsworth Museum in Rockport, Maine, which has quite a number of his works in their private collections. The person there seemed very knowledgeable and told several anecdotes about different images. I stand corrected in saying all were inkjets, what she really said was "most" were inkjets. It is quite possible they were printed by John Paul. She didn't say one way or the other. But the beauty of the prints was actually the focus of my post and not whether one form was better than the other. I don't care which type of printing I use. I don't come close to ANY of those prints I saw there.

Lenny Eiger
30-Jun-2015, 11:09
Your words Lenny -( In my opinion, darkroom prints can't come close to the quality of an inkjet print.) -

I totally disagree and still must say - (you then have never seen a really high quality silver print) for you to make this comment...

I am not disrespecting your ability's but am stating an opinion.

Bob, We have different opinions.

I have a BFA and a Masters Degree in Photography, that I got in New York City. I got a chance to see a lot of prints from all the professors there (at Pratt). Phil Perkis was the highlight for me. I taught at Cooper Union, Parsons and thee New School. I got to see all my colleague's work, from Norman Sanders, to Lisette Model. Align the way there were a large number of visiting lecturers, people that were visited, from Andre Kertesz to George Tice (yes, and Ralph Gibson in a green suit, white shirt opened to his navel), Helen Leavitt, Bruce Davidson. I went to all the museums and galleries in NYC dozens of times during those years. I also went to Christies and Sotheby's auctions where you could go the day before and hold a 100 year old print in your hand, study it six inches from your face.

I am a second generation photographer. Not only did my father do 100's of album covers for CBS Music, including a well known one for Pablo Casals, but photography was in the family. My father worked for Life and Vogue, Town and Country before he left NY. I met Phillipe Halsman, a friend of the family, Gene Smith, Jack Delano and many others.

As part of my printing business I met lots of artists, but also Karl Fisher, Cosimo, Scavullo and Avedon. My gallery in NY for a number of years was PhotoCollect. I got to see a lot of images, from Walker Evans, Weston, Paul Caponigro, to Fenton, Frederick Evans, PH Emerson, Clarence White and Sutcliffe, among many others.

I always had a passion for printing, as I have said, and I was paying attention, studying this aspect of it the whole time. I've been very lucky to have met so many terrific photographers, and to have had the opportunity to see so many great images.

I have a Clarence White gravure on my wall. I had an Adams, but I gave it away. I'm sorry you can't believe that I prefer something different than you (without having seen it), but its the truth. I'd rather have a Roger Fenton, a Frederick Evans or a Sutcliffe. Regardless, I have seen a lot of outstanding silver prints, and I've made a few myself. There is nothing wrong with silver. My point was that the concept of "quality" is subjective. One need not be dismissive of anyone else's printing preferences. No one gets to say "My way is the only valid way." Everyone gets to like whatever they want.

bob carnie
30-Jun-2015, 11:34
I was once told by a very wise man and mentor, to never argue on the internet .. both parties lose...

My opinion is different than yours...I will leave it at that.

tgtaylor
30-Jun-2015, 11:43
Then why subvert the process by using a silver-based capture process and then switch, mid-stream, to a digital printing process? Doesn't make sense to me. I'd go either all silver or all digital.

Thomas

Michael Lloyd
30-Jun-2015, 12:02
I had thought that Paul had never entered the digital world, so that was a surprise to me. This particular exhibit was at the Farnsworth Museum in Rockport, Maine, which has quite a number of his works in their private collections. The person there seemed very knowledgeable and told several anecdotes about different images. I stand corrected in saying all were inkjets, what she really said was "most" were inkjets. It is quite possible they were printed by John Paul. She didn't say one way or the other. But the beauty of the prints was actually the focus of my post and not whether one form was better than the other. I don't care which type of printing I use. I don't come close to ANY of those prints I saw there.

I wish I could remember the name of the studio in Rockport that one of the participants and I visited. We were just killing time one day and we walked into an upstairs studio there and I really liked the man's work. He had some of his brother and sisters work their too. He was a psychiatrist that shot medium format. He would combine two negatives, of differing subjects, in the darkroom and create some very interesting images. He was truly an artist and a really nice guy.

JP's Fine Art Digital Printing doesn't seem to be on the schedule this year. That's too bad. I went to the class in Santa Barbara about 5 years ago and it was the best workshop that I've attended to date. Last year I did the advanced class at his studio near Cushing, ME. It was a good class and I enjoyed meeting all of the people. I learned more in the first workshop but I had a lot to learn back then. Still do :)

I stayed at a little cottage called Old Comfortable in Friendship, ME. I don't think I've ever had a more relaxing stay in my life. There was small lake and forest out the back door and across the street there was Hatchet Cove. The quietness was amazing. It was a lot cheaper than any of the hotel offerings and just about the same distance from Caponigro Arts as Rockland. I really enjoyed Maine. I did not enjoy the drive up from Texas :)

Old_Dick
30-Jun-2015, 14:07
Is it me? People are comparing a modified bitmap to a silver gelatin print, apple to oranges. My background was with graphics hardware design. When I look at a digital print, all I see from the command line is this, "file _DE32434.jpg, JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01", (just an example). From a logic analyzer I see a bunch of hex numbers. I don't see any work done by an individual. The biggest difference I see, is a pull-down asking how many prints do I want 1-1000. As far as print quality, printers are getting better, but the final product for me is just a bunch of rearranged 0 & 1's.


2 Dick

Lenny Eiger
30-Jun-2015, 16:32
Is it me? People are comparing a modified bitmap to a silver gelatin print, apple to oranges. My background was with graphics hardware design. When I look at a digital print, all I see from the command line is this, "file _DE32434.jpg, JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01", (just an example). From a logic analyzer I see a bunch of hex numbers. I don't see any work done by an individual. The biggest difference I see, is a pull-down asking how many prints do I want 1-1000. As far as print quality, printers are getting better, but the final product for me is just a bunch of rearranged 0 & 1's.
2 Dick

If there isn't any work done by the individual, then it is likely not a very good print... It takes me a lot of time in PhotoShop to get things right. If you're printing jpeg's you aren't getting very much...

You can just as easily say, "all I see is a bunch of chemicals" for the silver print.

Printers aren't any better than they were years ago. Further, it isn't the printer that makes a print, its the photographer. Just like in the darkroom. If you make only one print in either case, it will probably be awful. It takes just as long to do either...

This argument doesn't hold any water at all.

Old_Dick
30-Jun-2015, 16:47
"it isn't the printer that makes a print, its the photographer", then what is PhotoShop and why do we need it?

Sal Santamaura
30-Jun-2015, 17:03
"it isn't the printer that makes a print, its the photographer", then what is PhotoShop and why do we need it?Then what is silver gelatin paper and why do we need it?

Michael Lloyd
30-Jun-2015, 17:06
Then what is silver gelatin paper and why do we need it?

It's paper that the photographer uses to create an analog print. It takes a fair amount of equipment and software (knowledge) to make a nice print. But I think you already know that. :)

Sal Santamaura
30-Jun-2015, 17:10
Then what is silver gelatin paper and why do we need it?


It's paper that the photographer uses to create an analog print. It takes a fair amount of equipment and software (knowledge) to make a nice print. But I think you already know that. :)Yes, it was a rhetorical question intended to make clear for Old_Dick that there's plenty of expert knowledge, skill and craft already in silver gelatin paper when it's purchased, perhaps as much or more than digital printers benefit from when using Photoshop. :)

Old_Dick
30-Jun-2015, 17:19
Sal, that was my point. I have a darkroom, I shoot analog, print analog. The point I was trying to make is, why do I need Photoshop, of what benefit will it give me over making a silver print?

Sal Santamaura
30-Jun-2015, 17:33
...I have a darkroom, I shoot analog, print analog...So far, so do I.


...The point I was trying to make is, why do I need Photoshop, of what benefit will it give me over making a silver print?Based on posts by skilled digital printmakers I respect, the benefit is even more fine control of print characteristics. Some day I'll probably try it myself. In the meantime, I feel no urge to denigrate, either explicitly or via subtle innuendo, anyone's preferred methods, whether digital, analog or hybrid.

Old_Dick
30-Jun-2015, 18:13
Probably should have stuck a :) somewhere. I'm not getting my point across. I'm not knocking anyone and what they do or how they do it. I just look at digital images differently then you.

Wayne
30-Jun-2015, 18:21
Knowledge is (equivalent to) software? Fascinating (raises eyebrow)...


It's paper that the photographer uses to create an analog print. It takes a fair amount of equipment and software (knowledge) to make a nice print. But I think you already know that. :)

Lenny Eiger
30-Jun-2015, 19:05
"it isn't the printer that makes a print, its the photographer", then what is PhotoShop and why do we need it?

You don't need it. You should only try this if you want to.

As Sal said, there is some fine control available. Another benefit is only having to spot an image once vs for every print. In those rare instances when there is a negative disaster its a little easier to repair it.

My choice is based upon the choice of paper surface. I like these exquisite papers I get to use. The print has as much "quality" as I put into it.

The good news is that there is a way forward, when film is gone, and if and when photographic paper goes as well. There is still a way to create magic and excellence in photography if one chooses.

But no, if you like what you are doing, there is no reason whatsoever to pack up your darkroom and change to something else.

Old_Dick
30-Jun-2015, 19:27
Hi Lenny,

Thanks for the reply, very much appreciated, just what I was looking for, I just wanted to know/learn. Not to get too far off topic, do you ever think about the day PS or other editors and their images of today will someday not be supported? I've seen this happen with other software products.

Digital Dick

Lenny Eiger
30-Jun-2015, 19:55
Hi Lenny,
Thanks for the reply, very much appreciated, just what I was looking for, I just wanted to know/learn. Not to get too far off topic, do you ever think about the day PS or other editors and their images of today will someday not be supported? I've seen this happen with other software products.
Digital Dick

I certainly didn't imagine what has happened in the world of photography in the past 20 years. PS has been here for a while. I think it will ultimately morph into something else, hopefully a product for photography and another for everything else it does. Yet, I think among many others, I don't trust Adobe to go into the direction I want them to.

Yesterday was apparently the 8th anniversary of the iPhone. Whatever anyone thinks of smartphones, or Apple's version, they certainly have changed a lot of things. You may not be able to unlock your front door, or start a car without one pretty soon. The web is only 20 years old. There have been a lot of predictions, one well known person in the field said there wouldn't be any printing in a few years - at all. I don't buy that one, I don't think monitors are that nice to look at. But maybe I'm just getting old....

I think there will always be people who know the old processes. We may not have photographic paper, or inkjet paper, but there will definitely be some kind of paper, and there is always alt process... the materials will be available.... I am pretty certain we will have some sort of creative outlet... at least.

I used to think I had some idea of what the future would hold but not anymore.... I am glad that the product of my efforts is a print. It's an object that one can hold in your hand... at least we have that...

Iluvmyviewcam
30-Jun-2015, 21:01
35mm film is pretty low res. It is not 12mp or 24 mp as was stated in the article. Flatbed scanned 35mm color neg film = about 3 or 4 mp with a ps cam. Do your own tests to see.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

Maybe 35mm tests would be better with a drum scan, but few have them at their disposal. You can see the sharpness difference plainly when looking at old film shots compared to the super sharp digital shots. You have to tone down the digital stuff to make it look like it was film...if that is the look your after. OK 4x5 and 6x7 offers some res. But I feel they are misrepresenting things with their claim for 35mm, although I didn't test slide film or drum scans. I ran my tests as the average photog would do it.

Kirk Gittings
30-Jun-2015, 21:36
I totally disagree and still must say - (you then have never seen a really high quality silver print) for you to make this comment...Bob Carnie

Putting the shoe on the other foot-makes me wonder if you have ever seen a really high quality inkjet print. Most people in these "debates" seem to pose the best silver prints they have ever seen by anybody against the worst or mediocre inkjets. To rip off a famous astronomer, heck there have been billions and billions and billions of crappy silver prints made. Process guarantees absolutely nothing. Only someone very dedicated to their craft can make a silver print that really sings-maybe one person in a thousand, ten thousand? Inkjet is no different. Maybe you are comparing traditional prints to the best inkjets you can make?

Around here where there is a long rich photographic historically and currently which few areas can claim. I hear repeatedly from well known traditional silver and alt process printers at exhibits complaining about how good inkjet is getting. It is getting to be undeniable even for died-in-the-wool traditional affectionados.

I personally find these discussions fairly tedious these days. 10 years ago they peaked my interest as inkjet was maturing and playing catch up but after seeing shows like William Clift's fairly recent solo show at the NM Museum of Art/Phoenix Art Museum where local world class traditional printers could not pick out the three inkjets among nearly 50 silver prints I'd say that ship has sailed.

rbultman
1-Jul-2015, 03:11
I was disappointed with the article. It was pixel peeping at it's worst. With a statement containing the words "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion", I was expecting some science on the page. I saw none. I saw a bunch of comparison shots that were poorly organized. As the camera setups for each shot are not listed, as well as the drum scanner used, it is impossible to reproduce the results. The comparison goals are not clearly stated. IMO, the comparisons are all subjective anyway -- not science. The shots of the transparency were all horrible. I think these types of tests are poorly controlled and do not represent a fair comparison.

If you want to compare the resolution of systems, you should be shooting resolution charts under controlled conditions, not some guys transparency taped to a light table or his film Nikon. Resolution charts are meaningless unless you are doing scientific photography, are a lens designer, or you happen to like hanging resolution charts on your wall.

I think the only fair comparison is comparing each workflow in an identical display system at some final display resolution, not blown up xxx times on a monitor to show some meaningless detail. For example, select the final display system, such as a 16x20 color print or a certain LCD monitor of fixed resolution, and have each workflow produce the best color print or image possible. Each will be necessarily scaled to suit final display type. Only then can you start pixel peeping to look for differences between workflows. Even this is likely to be a subjective comparison, just like in the article, unless the images are of resolution charts...

FWIW, I shoot both analog and digital and appreciate both technologies. I like viewing images on both monitors and cell phones as well as prints on my wall. It's all just photography, not some One True Way. Unless you are shooting resolution charts or cells under a microscope, the final purpose is to make a moving image, whether it be Moonrise over Hernandez or grandma. I just finished scanning some film from a new-to-me Tower 66/Franka Solida IIIe and am amazed by what this pedestrian camera produced. I can't wait to make some prints, either optical or inkjet using my favorite printing service, Walgreens...

Regards,
Rob

prendt
1-Jul-2015, 03:29
I was disappointed with the article. It was pixel peeping at it's worst. With a statement containing the words "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion", I was expecting some science on the page. I saw none. I saw a bunch of comparison shots that were poorly organized. As the camera setups for each shot are not listed, as well as the drum scanner used, it is impossible to reproduce the results. The comparison goals are not clearly stated. IMO, the comparisons are all subjective anyway -- not science. The shots of the transparency were all horrible. I think these types of tests are poorly controlled and do not represent a fair comparison.


Regards,
Rob

I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.

Wayne
1-Jul-2015, 04:42
If only one in a thousand PS/inkjet printers and only one in a thousand silver printers can make a print sing and inkjet/photoshop allows finer control as Lenny states, then by any sensible interpretation either

- PS/inkjet is "better"

or

-one of the premises is false







Putting the shoe on the other foot-makes me wonder if you have ever seen a really high quality inkjet print. Most people in these "debates" seem to pose the best silver prints they have ever seen by anybody against the worst or mediocre inkjets. To rip off a famous astronomer, heck there have been billions and billions and billions of crappy silver prints made. Process guarantees absolutely nothing. Only someone very dedicated to their craft can make a silver print that really sings-maybe one person in a thousand, ten thousand? Inkjet is no different. Maybe you are comparing traditional prints to the best inkjets you can make?

Around here where there is a long rich photographic historically and currently which few areas can claim. I hear repeatedly from well known traditional silver and alt process printers at exhibits complaining about how good inkjet is getting. It is getting to be undeniable even for died-in-the-wool traditional affectionados.

I personally find these discussions fairly tedious these days. 10 years ago they peaked my interest as inkjet was maturing and playing catch up but after seeing shows like William Clift's fairly recent solo show at the NM Museum of Art/Phoenix Art Museum where local world class traditional printers could not pick out the three inkjets among nearly 50 silver prints I'd say that ship has sailed.

bob carnie
1-Jul-2015, 06:58
I will let my clients I print for determine whether I can make a good inkjet print or not... suffice to say I have a bricks and motar operation dedicated to show printing in many forms including PAID silver gelatin and inkjet within any given month. Just took a ten year lease on this place and ordered two more Canon printers , I hope I know what I am doing.


Putting the shoe on the other foot-makes me wonder if you have ever seen a really high quality inkjet print. Most people in these "debates" seem to pose the best silver prints they have ever seen by anybody against the worst or mediocre inkjets. To rip off a famous astronomer, heck there have been billions and billions and billions of crappy silver prints made. Process guarantees absolutely nothing. Only someone very dedicated to their craft can make a silver print that really sings-maybe one person in a thousand, ten thousand? Inkjet is no different. Maybe you are comparing traditional prints to the best inkjets you can make?

Around here where there is a long rich photographic historically and currently which few areas can claim. I hear repeatedly from well known traditional silver and alt process printers at exhibits complaining about how good inkjet is getting. It is getting to be undeniable even for died-in-the-wool traditional affectionados.

I personally find these discussions fairly tedious these days. 10 years ago they peaked my interest as inkjet was maturing and playing catch up but after seeing shows like William Clift's fairly recent solo show at the NM Museum of Art/Phoenix Art Museum where local world class traditional printers could not pick out the three inkjets among nearly 50 silver prints I'd say that ship has sailed.

Kirk Gittings
1-Jul-2015, 07:05
If only one in a thousand PS/inkjet printers and only one in a thousand silver printers can make a print sing and inkjet/photoshop allows finer control as Lenny states, then by any sensible interpretation either

- PS/inkjet is "better"

or

-one of the premises is false

There is no doubt that PS/inkjet allows finer controls. Is there really any doubt about that? I don't know how anyone could dispute that. But do all artists need such controls? Does every image benefit from such control? I don't think so which is why I personally print both silver and inkjet.

Alan Gales
1-Jul-2015, 07:16
I will let my clients I print for determine whether I can make a good inkjet print or not... suffice to say I have a bricks and motar operation dedicated to show printing in many forms including PAID silver gelatin and inkjet within any given month. Just took a ten year lease on this place and ordered two more Canon printers , I hope I know what I am doing.

I wish you much success, Bob. The film community needs people and businesses like yours!

Taija71A
1-Jul-2015, 08:06
>> I went a different way. I decided to try and make a great print by making a great negative.

"Did he just say... What I thought he said?"



A silver gelatin image and true pt pd print live within the paper, a inkjet lives on top.
I like all of them but to say one cannot compare to the other is just total bullsh*t...

Exactly!

fishbulb
1-Jul-2015, 08:22
I was disappointed with the article. It was pixel peeping at it's worst. With a statement containing the words "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion", I was expecting some science on the page.


I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.

The article in the first post, on PetaPixel, is not the complete article by any means. PetaPixel often does this when they repost content from other sites. There is a LOT more to read. Quoting my own post a few down from the first one in this thread:


The article linked in the first post of this thread originally appeared at OnLandscape, and is part of an ongoing series of articles on resolution and film vs. digital. Much higher-brow stuff than the usual forum-based beatings of the film vs. digital dead horse.

The big camera comparison (2011): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Diffraction and resolution (2012): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/08/the-diffraction-limit-how-small-is-too-small/ (well not really film vs. digital but relevant to the discussion)
Article from first post (2014): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
Printing and resolution (2015): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/03/resolution/

I would also check out this page on Tim's site, which has a lot of comparison shots of LF, MF, and digital from the original 2011 article: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

The gear they used is listed in the articles, but:

8x10: "For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 240A ... For the 70mm equivalent ... a huge 360mm Schneider Symmar-S"
4x5: "For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon N ... For the 70mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 180A"
Howtek 4500 Drum Scanner was used for the 4000dpi scans
Over 4000dpi scans were on an Itek Colour Graphics (ICG) drum scanner and a Fuji Lanovia (aka Agfascan)
For consumer flatbed scans (clearly labelled as such), Epson V750

Taija71A
1-Jul-2015, 08:52
I was disappointed with the article. It was pixel peeping at it's worst. With a statement containing the words "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion", I was expecting some science on the page. I saw none.


I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.

@rbultman @prendt...

Agreed in full 110%.

--
The following statement (IMHO)...
Pretty much says all that needs to be said -- About the 'above cited' Articles:

"Amateur Photographer who plays with big cameras and film when in between digital photographs."

Enough said. No further comment is required. :(


"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time.
But you cannot fool all the people all the time." ~~ Abraham Lincoln. ~~

Lenny Eiger
1-Jul-2015, 09:02
If only one in a thousand PS/inkjet printers and only one in a thousand silver printers can make a print sing and inkjet/photoshop allows finer control as Lenny states, then by any sensible interpretation either

- PS/inkjet is "better"

or

-one of the premises is false


No, this is not true. It depends on the definition of "better". If what you would like is a silver gelatin print, then an inkjet is not at all better. If your idea of better is a print on Kozo, with all of its qualities then a silver gelatin print is a poor substitute.

Lenny Eiger
1-Jul-2015, 09:37
>> I went a different way. I decided to try and make a great print by making a great negative.

"Did he just say... What I thought he said?"

What about this is difficult to understand? I was contrasting the idea of burning and dodging and other types of manipulation being the way to make a print. I decided to standardize on a grade 2 fiber paper and see what I could do by tuning my neg. I got what I wanted....


[COLOR="#0000CD"]
"A silver gelatin image and true pt pd print live within the paper, a inkjet lives on top."

Exactly!

This is ridiculous. Ink, which is just a little more viscous than water, gets absorbed into the paper... especially with black and white inks. Further, the silver print is encased in some kind of goo we call emulsion that sits on top of the paper. Further, if you look at the surface of any silver print, and lustre or gloss paper for inkjet, there will be reflections and the image will appear to be on the surface. Contrast this will an inkjet print on a good paper like Hahnemuhle for one, or any alt process print on similar paper and you will see a huge difference. There are no reflections, the tones are rich and velvety, and the sense of experiencing the image, the suspension of disbelief, etc. is enhanced. It's nice if that's what you are after.

Of course, if what you are looking for is the "wet look" then a matte paper won't do it for you.

When it all comes down to it there are more than a few different ways to make a print. Big deal!

djdister
1-Jul-2015, 10:03
At great personal risk, first I'll preface this with the usual "this is only my opinion, your mileage may vary, blah blah blah."

Three points:

1. Not all of us are able to maintain, borrow or rent wet darkrooms, for various reasons. But we still shoot film. What's wrong with making use of inkjet technology to make prints from my negatives that in some cases are equal or better than what I could have done in a darkroom?

2. A bad print is a bad print, whether it's a silver print or an inkjet. If this is relatively agreeable, then the converse could also be true - a good print is a good print, regardless of the process involved.

3. Shooting on film and scanning for inkjet printing can yield better, worse or the same results as shooting film and printing on conventional photo paper. I get a bit mystified by people who only talk about how a print was made, as if that trumps things like composition, lighting, mood, or emotional impact of the image.

Taija71A
1-Jul-2015, 10:06
In my opinion, darkroom prints can't come close to the quality of an inkjet print...
So, for me the question would be -- why would I make a lesser print by going in the darkroom?


You keep bringing it up, Lenny. Blame yourself if you get flak. You deserve it for making a ridiculous comment like that. It's like saying, "Great chefs only cook with pork and never with beef". But thank you for the disclaimer, "in my opinion". That might keep you from getting lynched.


... but yes everyone is titled to their opinion.

Like Drew and Bob originally said...

Thank-you. Best regards, -Tim.

Drew Wiley
1-Jul-2015, 10:24
I judge with my eyes. I've seen very very few truly nuanced inkjet prints, and many many superb silver ones, not to mention alt processes like Pt/Pd and carbon. This fact might just be an artifact of history - inkjet simply hasn't been around very long. It also interposes a lot of secondary hurdles between film and output, like scanning, which kinda either appeals to your workflow or it doesn't. I'm in the tactile camp, so would prefer darkroom regardless. But I've also been around some people with heavy-lifting big-budget prepress ability who can run rings around garden-variety inkjet. In the final result, a Stradivarius in the hands of Bozo the Clown still sounds like Bozo the Clown; so at a certain point all these technique A versus technique B arguments get downright idiotic. It's like debating whether oil painting or watercolor is the "better" medium. What's far more important is the person behind the brush, either way.

sanking
1-Jul-2015, 10:51
Regarding the article itself, the methodology of Tim Parkins is first rate in my opinion. Anyone who thinks they can do better, go for it. I did some similar testing some years ago with a couple of friends and decided to not try to publish the results because I saw it as a waste of time. People find a way to convince themselves they are right regardless of what the tests show. But the effort sure taught me how complicated it is to do this kind of testing right. In my work film is better some time, other times digital offers advantages, sometime both work equally well.

In my print making I am firmly in the world of hybrid, with the end an analog print with the carbon transfer process. I printed with carbon for more than two decades by contact printing with traditional camera negatives, then about a decade or so ago I switched to scanning my film, with output to a digital negative, and then making the print by contact with the digital negative. I miss some of the features of the camera negative but there is no question in my mind but that I am able to craft a much richer print by adjusting tonal values in PS than I could achieve with traditional negatives, even though my camera negatives were generally well exposed and developed for the process. It is hard to explain to someone what is meant by this as most people's imagination is limited by their own experience and they are simply unable to cross the bridge from their way of doing something to an alternative path.

As far as regular inkjet printing, I do some of this also as it is part of crafting the image in PS and serves as a bridge for me between the image on the monitor and the image on paper, so I often proof for carbon on the inkjet. And some of the inkjet prints are very good, and of course have their own image qualities that are quite unlike my carbon prints.

What people really need to do is go out and find a way to look at outstanding work in the various media, inkjet, silver, pt/pd, alternative, so that they can understand the potential. You will never grow holding on to preconceptions based on ignorance of the potential of different processes.

Sandy

Lenny Eiger
1-Jul-2015, 11:23
Like Drew and Bob originally said...

Thank-you. Best regards, -Tim.

1) You must learn to read more carefully. The key concept I was talking about is that for my purpose a darkroom print is lesser. I am looking for something different. Anything else is merely reacting to the perceived over-reaching statement by Ray Heath. Ray later clarified his statement

2) No, I didn't bring this up. Drew is, well, he's just Drew.... he didn't read before he posted.

3) Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's been my point all along.

There are more ways to make a print than silver gelatin. Everyone should do what they enjoy, and what works for their images.

There's no reason to dismiss any of the methods as "lesser". It's no different from suggesting that journalistic photography is not really photography, or landscape isn't really valid anymore. They are just arguments that separate us.

Drew Wiley
1-Jul-2015, 11:33
My central point is that once you have chosen your particular instrument (watercolor versus oil / cello versus banjo), you need to master it. It takes discipline, and certainly helps to know what it is you're trying to achieve, and to what qualitative level you aspire. Every really good digital printer I've ever met was an excellent darkroom printer first. Now that stereotype probably will not apply to the next generation who know nothing but digital; but then, qualitative expectations seem to be much lower in general too nowadays. Yet somewhere in this mix, you either aspire to high quality craft or you don't. A great sculptor can do more with a shovel and a pile of dirt than a dingbat with a block of Carrara marble. Heck. I sell tools, and there are endless arguments over what is "best" in that field. A klutz will just cut his fingers off, even with the most expensive choice. And in the final analysis, we are talking about mere choice of tools here. I'll state my preferences. You state yours. Whatever works, works.

prendt
1-Jul-2015, 12:08
After all the pages written about it I wish somebody said it clearly (and proved it!) what is really better in the couple digital - analogue. Otherwise it's just beating the poor dead horse all the time. Nobody up to the challenge? No, I don't think so, it's just to wait and wait. Yawn.

Lenny Eiger
1-Jul-2015, 12:48
After all the pages written about it I wish somebody said it clearly (and proved it!) what is really better in the couple digital - analogue. Otherwise it's just beating the poor dead horse all the time. Nobody up to the challenge? No, I don't think so, it's just to wait and wait. Yawn.

Neither is "really better". That's the point.... it's a subjective question.

prendt
1-Jul-2015, 12:52
Neither is "really better". That's the point.... it's a subjective question.

I agree. That's why I never take part in those fights. To watch it it too is rarely interesting without yawns.

Drew Wiley
1-Jul-2015, 13:27
Oh throwing a few punches now and then is almost mandatory to survival as I see it. On one side you've got hundreds of millions of dollars being spent annually
to tell you the superiority of all things digital. On the other side, just a David here and there with a sling and pebble. But it has its rewards. Only a few people passed me on a rather steep trail last Saturday. But everyone of them stopped to gawk at my Norma. Even a couple of teenagers stared a moment and clearly
pronounced the word, "Cool". Nobody does that for cell phones or DLSR's. And whether they know exactly what it is or not, they somehow know it takes serious
pictures that involve a darkroom too. Life is too short to make a technical debate about all this. That's fine if you have a junction in the road and realistically need to decide how to best allocate your budget and workspace. I've already got a nice darkroom and know how to use it. So it's a settled question. And if you don't like my answer, that's what the spikes on that big Ries tripod are for replying with! Some things are more fun the Medieval way.

Michael Lloyd
1-Jul-2015, 13:34
I tried putting my DSLR memory card in my Jobo but it didn't work... Must've been the wrong kind of film.

Taija71A
1-Jul-2015, 13:37
I tried putting my DSLR memory card in my Jobo but it didn't work... Must've been the wrong kind of film.

Michael... Are you sure that you put it in the 'proper' Slot?
Did you load the Memory Card... Label Side 'Up' or Label Side 'Down'? ;)

Michael Lloyd
1-Jul-2015, 13:46
Michael... Are you sure that you put it in the 'proper' Slot? ;)

Oooohhh... I didn't think it mattered. I used a drum and it has 6 holes so I just tossed it in there and put the lid on

Taija71A
1-Jul-2015, 13:49
Oooohhh... I didn't think it mattered. I used a drum and it has 6 holes so I just tossed it in there and out the lid on

LOL.

No problem...
Now that you know what you did wrong... I am sure that it will turn out much better -- 'Next time!'

RSalles
1-Jul-2015, 14:01
Putting the shoe on the other foot-makes me wonder if you have ever seen a really high quality inkjet print. Most people in these "debates" seem to pose the best silver prints they have ever seen by anybody against the worst or mediocre inkjets. To rip off a famous astronomer, heck there have been billions and billions and billions of crappy silver prints made.

Please don't use the name of Saint Carl in vain...

Cheers,

Renato

rbultman
2-Jul-2015, 03:43
The article in the first post, on PetaPixel, is not the complete article by any means...

@fishbulb...Thanks for rubbing my nose in this. No, really. The PetaPixel article is still pretty terrible and does not do justice the work that was actually done. IMO, it does the work a huge disservice. Even the shorter synopsis article that Tim did was better than the PetaPixel article.

I did go back and read the links that you provided as well as the comments and conclusions links. It was very informative and I feel that the methods used for comparison were beyond reproach. My takeaway is that imaging systems are good. Pick one, mind the limits of each, and it is possible to produce excellent results with normal (i.e. non-hero) sized prints.

I wonder two things at this point. How would optical prints made using either 35mm or 6x7 film compare to the IQ180? How do the new crop of digital cameras without anti-aliasing filters compare to the 'big camera test' results?

Regards,
Rob

Iluvmyviewcam
2-Jul-2015, 05:18
It is amazing...35mm digital = / or bests 6x7 film! To outdo 35mm digital you have to go to 4x5. What a testimony to digital, isn't it. I just wish they would come out with an affordable FF 6mp back for my SWC for $2500.

Kirk Gittings
2-Jul-2015, 07:36
Please don't use the name of Saint Carl in vain...

Cheers,

Renato

:)

Kirk Gittings
2-Jul-2015, 07:40
What people really need to do is go out and find a way to look at outstanding work in the various media, inkjet, silver, pt/pd, alternative, so that they can understand the potential. You will never grow holding on to preconceptions based on ignorance of the potential of different processes.

Sandy

fishbulb
2-Jul-2015, 08:20
I wonder two things at this point. How would optical prints made using either 35mm or 6x7 film compare to the IQ180? How do the new crop of digital cameras without anti-aliasing filters compare to the 'big camera test' results?


Those are both good questions; I have the same ones. Hopefully they will update the test at a later date.

Cost is a huge factor for the IQ180 - we can shoot, develop, and print a lot of 6x7cm or 4x5in film for the cost of an IQ180 (the 80 MP 6x4.5 back costs over $30,000). Even if the IQ180 files and prints are cleaner than high-end scans of 6x7cm, it's not going to be enough to justify the cost of most of us.

But the cost difference comes down with a $3500 Canon 5D with 50mp, or a $3000 Nikon D810 with 36mp, or a $3200 Sony A7RII with 42 MP. Still, even if I bought a brand new Fuji GF670 for $1800 I'd still have a lot of money left to buy film, and it'd be even a bigger difference with a used Pentax or Mamiya.

Kirk Gittings
2-Jul-2015, 08:37
But the cost difference comes down with a $3500 Canon 5D with 50mp, or a $3000 Nikon D810 with 36mp, or a $3200 Sony A7RII with 42 MP.

Following the idea that the "best" camera is the one you have with you. A simple 2x or 4x stitch with these cameras with a decent lens can get you a pretty damn good file. As I am often on the road for commercial work and only have room for a DSLR kit and lighting gear, suitcase, ladders etc. sometimes I run across a personal image that can't wait. I have gotten very good at even hand holding the DSLR in good strong light for stitching purposes.

FWIW I recently dumped my Canon bodies for the Sony A7r (with which I can still use my Canon lenses). A7r camera bodies are like $1400.00 right now. Canon has fallen behind in the most important tech-dynamic range and I got tired of waiting for them to catch up with Sony and Nikon.

Drew Wiley
2-Jul-2015, 11:00
Sounds great. But you'd still need a wooden tripod and darkcloth hanging from the thing to look authentic. Too bad a simple purchase of flashgun powder now gets the attention of the FBI. But really... My favorite camera is indeed the one that I've got with me. But I choose that, or try to, in advance. Depth of field issues, size
of the intended prints, weather, exercise regimen that day (walking fast vs plodding with a heavy pack - I need both types of exercise). It's all fun and capable of
yielding excellent results. But when I'm shooting and printing Nikon negs I'm in a very different mindset than 4x5 or 8x10.

prendt
2-Jul-2015, 11:25
Sounds great. But you'd still need a wooden tripod and darkcloth hanging from the thing to look authentic. Too bad a simple purchase of flashgun powder now gets the attention of the FBI. But really... My favorite camera is indeed the one that I've got with me. But I choose that, or try to, in advance. Depth of field issues, size
of the intended prints, weather, exercise regimen that day (walking fast vs plodding with a heavy pack - I need both types of exercise). It's all fun and capable of
yielding excellent results. But when I'm shooting and printing Nikon negs I'm in a very different mindset than 4x5 or 8x10.

Now you got me really confused - don't know anymore what is better, digital or analogue? When even masters can't say what am I suppose to believe? Eh, what misery!

djdister
2-Jul-2015, 11:57
Now you got me really confused - don't know anymore what is better, digital or analogue? When even masters can't say what am I suppose to believe? Eh, what misery!

The answer is simple, it depends...

prendt
2-Jul-2015, 12:40
The answer is simple, it depends...

Thank you for the medicine, everything will do in the time of doubts and misery...

Drew Wiley
2-Jul-2015, 13:00
An ole acquaintance just stopped by a few minutes ago, trying to guestimate the value of any old gear he wants to sell off. He also runs the annual donated camera
sale for the Oakland Museum fundraiser, and still does prep work for a big auction house's collectrouble photo event. Since he can't maintain his own darkroom
space anymore, we were discussing the options. And Lo and Behold, some of the pro camera brands have indeed engineered continuity in their lens and accessory lines. He's a Lecia guy; and yes indeed, even Leica's digital cameras can still be used with existing stockpiles of flash powder. They think of everything, don't they?
I just don't think I could personally afford a darkcloth with a Leica logo on it.

timparkin
20-Jul-2015, 08:46
35mm film is pretty low res. It is not 12mp or 24 mp as was stated in the article. Flatbed scanned 35mm color neg film = about 3 or 4 mp with a ps cam. Do your own tests to see.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

Maybe 35mm tests would be better with a drum scan, but few have them at their disposal. You can see the sharpness difference plainly when looking at old film shots compared to the super sharp digital shots. You have to tone down the digital stuff to make it look like it was film...if that is the look your after. OK 4x5 and 6x7 offers some res. But I feel they are misrepresenting things with their claim for 35mm, although I didn't test slide film or drum scans. I ran my tests as the average photog would do it.

'I didn't test drum scans' - which sounds like you may have severely limited the potential results from 35mm. I used a 5600dpi scanner which outresolves many drum scanners. I also used an ICG which can supposedly exceed 6000dpi. If you scanned using a 4000dpi scanner then you only got 44% of the possible results from a 6000dpi scanner and if you only managed say 2500dpi (which many consumers scanners can - the Epson V750 for instance) then you only managed 17% of the possible results from a 6000dpi scanner. That means if you got 4mp then the real result could have been 24mp.

The results speak for themselves though. If I have a slide that is showing 4mp that could possibly be mean it actually resolved 10mp but I made a mistake. If I get a result that shows 20mp then it's unlikely to be a mistaken result that should have been 10mp (unless I'm counting aliased bars, which I wasn't).

Tim

timparkin
20-Jul-2015, 08:51
I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.


The actual quote was "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion" and I stand by that. I have a PhD in experimental engineering and so I know what good methodology looks like.

Also approaching something in a scientific fashion doesn't mean abandoning all real world applicability. I suggest reading the original articles where the approach was documented in more detail and perhaps look at the past threads from this very forum where we solicited opinions on methodology, approach, lenses used etc. If you had something to say about the way the test were being done, that would have been a useful point at which to say it.

I'll take your constructive criticism to heart though - when I find it..

Tim

timparkin
20-Jul-2015, 08:57
Probably depends more on who you believe and what you personally accept.

I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.

Because -

1) Film has qualities that you don't get with digital (obviously)
2) Post processing with digital has many advantages
3) printing very big with an enlarger is very difficult - a job for the experts. Printing very big with an inkjet is a doddle.

In this case it means that I get the qualities I love from film which I can't get from digital and I don't need to operate a darkroom. However, I have also started playing with making OHP films for contact printing. The process of scanning and processing in Photoshop to prepare an OHP for alt processes removes a lot of the 'problems' and gets your most of the way towards the classical look that comes from using film and finishing photo chemically.

Finally though - the answer is 'why not'! If it means lots more people use film even if they don't have the time, space, etc for a darkroom then it benefits those that do!

Tim

djdister
20-Jul-2015, 10:54
Because -

1) Film has qualities that you don't get with digital (obviously)
2) Post processing with digital has many advantages
3) printing very big with an enlarger is very difficult - a job for the experts. Printing very big with an inkjet is a doddle.

In this case it means that I get the qualities I love from film which I can't get from digital and I don't need to operate a darkroom. However, I have also started playing with making OHP films for contact printing. The process of scanning and processing in Photoshop to prepare an OHP for alt processes removes a lot of the 'problems' and gets your most of the way towards the classical look that comes from using film and finishing photo chemically.

Finally though - the answer is 'why not'! If it means lots more people use film even if they don't have the time, space, etc for a darkroom then it benefits those that do!

Tim

Right on! I find shooting on film and scanning it in (because I can't setup a darkroom) still yields results that are not identical to shooting the same scene digitally in the first place. So, a "hybrid" process out of necessity...

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 12:28
Because -

1) Film has qualities that you don't get with digital (obviously)
2) Post processing with digital has many advantages
3) printing very big with an enlarger is very difficult - a job for the experts. Printing very big with an inkjet is a doddle.

In this case it means that I get the qualities I love from film which I can't get from digital and I don't need to operate a darkroom. However, I have also started playing with making OHP films for contact printing. The process of scanning and processing in Photoshop to prepare an OHP for alt processes removes a lot of the 'problems' and gets your most of the way towards the classical look that comes from using film and finishing photo chemically.

Finally though - the answer is 'why not'! If it means lots more people use film even if they don't have the time, space, etc for a darkroom then it benefits those that do!

Tim

Absolutely

johnmsanderson
23-Jul-2015, 12:01
using large format film and printing digital is the best of both worlds.

that said, getting high quality scans of LF negatives can be pricy. scanning isn't so much fun either.