Is digital 6x9cm quality as good as 5x4" film"

[sanking]

I see your point, but giving a really complete answer is very complicated.

To be brief, my opinion is that film (of about same size as digital sensor size) is at a considerable disadvantage vis-a-vis digital capture unless you scan the film and process it as a digital file. This depends highly on output and at smaller print sizes film printed optically will clearly win. However, as print size increases the capability of applying digital processing to film scans more than makes up for the sampling pattern imposed by the scanner.

To say nothing of the fact that optical enlargement and wet processing of color prints is a skill almost gone with the wind.

Sandy

I'm not sure I follow your logic Sandy. I can see that using a very good drum scanner might let you scan the film at a resolution approaching the best the lens can deliver but it is still sampling the film in a regular fashion and then printing it in that same regular pattern.

Wouldn't there be qualitative differences if you printed optically, with different sources of losses in resolution? Put it this way, I'd love to see you compare the scanned results to some optically printed results and see them assessed for more than just a numerical measurment of resolution. Easy to suggest when someone else is doing all the work I know but there it is.

[Mattg]

I see your point, but giving a really complete answer is very complicated.

To be brief, my opinion is that film (of about same size as digital sensor size) is at a considerable disadvantage vis-a-vis digital capture unless you scan the film and process it as a digital file. This depends highly on output and at smaller print sizes film printed optically will clearly win. However, as size increases the capability of applying digital processing to film scans more than makes up for the sampling pattern imposed by the scanner.

To say nothing of the fact that optical enlargement and wet processing of color prints is a skill almost gone with the wind.

Sandy

How about B+W, could you make some enlargements using top notch APO glass to compare with your digitally output prints? My gut feeling is that they would not appear nearly as sharp but might actually retain as much detail. What about unsharp masking and other processing techniques; if we're happy to use them in the computer, why not use them in an optical process and compare the results?

Sorry to harp on this Sandy but it has been a beef of mine with many film vs digital capture comparisons that they don't actually compare the whole process of each type of capture. Rather they compare one type of digital capture with another type of digital capture. As you said, there is little point following through an optical process with colour materials, but a comparison in B+W might be interesting. Especially if all the tools available to the optical printer are used just as those available to the digital printer are.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Seems to be plenty of wet processing of color prints going on, even if the enlargement is digital.

[Don Hutton]

Matt

I've done comparisons of 4x5 negs I've printed optically with a very nice set-up (Devere 5108 in perfect alignment with a Schneider 150 Apo Comp) and the same images drum scanned and printed digitally - I'd agree with Sandy - the benefits start to disappear as you get to big enlargements because of the advantages of extra control etc. with the digital route appear to more than offset any perceived disadvantages of the sampling process through the scanner and printing. I'm pretty convinced at this point that I can make better prints with a hybrid - film to scan and inkjet process now than I have ever been able to manage in the darkroom. A big part of that is the ability to capture a very substantial amount of what is available on the film at the scanning stage.

[Don Hutton]

Seems to be plenty of wet processing of color prints going on...

I'd love to know what "plenty" means in a quantitative sense, or at least outside of APUG - I'd bet that the volume of large color prints being printed optically is not 1/500th of what it was 10 years ago.

[Mattg]

Matt

I've done comparisons of 4x5 negs I've printed optically with a very nice set-up (Devere 5108 in perfect alignment with a Schneider 150 Apo Comp) and the same images drum scanned and printed digitally - I'd agree with Sandy - the benefits start to disappear as you get to big enlargements because of the advantages of extra control etc. with the digital route appear to more than offset any perceived disadvantages of the sampling process through the scanner and printing. I'm pretty convinced at this point that I can make better prints with a hybrid - film to scan and inkjet process now than I have ever been able to manage in the darkroom. A big part of that is the ability to capture a very substantial amount of what is available on the film at the scanning stage.

Thanks Don,
what are the beneits at smaller sizes with optical printing and at roughly what sort of reproduction ratio do the digitally processed prints start to look superior?

[Don Hutton]

Matt

These comparisons are highly subjective - what looks better to one might not to the next. At smaller reproduction ratios, I'd suggest that the subjectivity is bigger. I don't imagine I'm an awesome silver print maker - merely competent by my own standards and those likely differ from the experience of others.

Despite your investment of skills and equipment etc. in your chosen process, I'd strongly encourage anyone who has any doubts or questions of the merits of achieveing the same goals through a different to process to fully investigate it personally. A couple of weeks ago I was considering whether 8x10 vs 4x5 had any merit for prints under 40x50. I did some tests and discovered that, for my purposes, it did. We are all going to draw the line at a different place. Make the best possible print you can from a negative you understand and like optically and then send it off to be done digitally at the same size and see what you think.

[Mattg]

Matt

These comparisons are highly subjective - what looks better to one might not to the next. At smaller reproduction ratios, I'd suggest that the subjectivity is bigger. I don't imagine I'm an awesome silver print maker - merely competent by my own standards and those likely differ from the experience of others.

Despite your investment of skills and equipment etc. in your chosen process, I'd strongly encourage anyone who has any doubts or questions of the merits of achieveing the same goals through a different to process to fully investigate it personally. A couple of weeks ago I was considering whether 8x10 vs 4x5 had any merit for prints under 40x50. I did some tests and discovered that, for my purposes, it did. We are all going to draw the line at a different place. Make the best possible print you can from a negative you understand and like optically and then send it off to be done digitally at the same size and see what you think.

Thanks Don, that's good advice.

[Oren Grad]

I'd love to know what "plenty" means in a quantitative sense, or at least outside of APUG - I'd bet that the volume of large color prints being printed optically is not 1/500th of what it was 10 years ago.

Don, I think David's point was that in this brave new hybrid world, a lot of traditional chromogenic print materials are being used for digital enlargements, e.g. via laser printing in a Durst Lambda or Theta.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Don, I think David's point was that in this brave new hybrid world, a lot of traditional chromogenic print materials are being used for digital enlargements, e.g. via laser printing in a Durst Lambda or Theta.

Yes, that was my point--Lambda, Theta, LightJet, Chromira, and then all the minilabs that still print wet with LED printers to RA-4 paper, because for volume printing, RA-4 is way faster and less costly than inkjet.