4x5 on Flatbed vs 6x7 on film scanner

[audioexcels]

And there is the point. You have to know what you are comparing. A 35mm negative on high resolution film scanned with a drum scanner is extraordinary. The comparisons I have seen of Don Hutton's work with 35mm Leica on Adox ASA 25 film
Sandy King

I'm looking forward to Don's similarly good comparisons with his Leica setup using Velvia/Astia/Negative films...pick his emulsion of choice that isn't some rare/unattainable film that only he has...to a digital capture from his M8 or 5D.

[Don Hutton]

I'm looking forward to Don's similarly good comparisons with his Leica setup using Velvia/Astia/Negative films...pick your color of choice to a digital capture from his M8 or 5D.

Mike

You're the guy making grandiose statements. I've actually done some testing and make photographs. As time goes by, I suspect that the latter would be a new experience for you and the former, merely fantasy. Have you ever shot a 5D on a tripod and shot the same scene target etc with 35mm film? Let me guess.... But you "know" enough to declare that one "blows" the other? At best you are quoting others and if your "quoting" others on this forum is any indication, you're likely misquoting them too. The parameters of what you're testing and how are critical - and it's clear from your blanket statement that you either don't know what the parameters of a particular test were or you're deliberately avoiding them - perhaps both.

Do your own testing, sport.

[sanking]

Well, here is the thing. As a photographer coming from the tradition of LF B&W work I don't believe the comparison is pointless as it is what I, and a lot of other photographers who work primarily in B&W, are interested in.

It is almost the other way around. Many photographers who work professionally, where color is the standard, come on here and proclaim that digital this and that blows film away. But when you get down to what they are saying, it is always about color. For people primarily interested in fine art B&W photography even the best digital, say P45 at this time, can no compete with good quality MF in print sizes over about 20X30", much less LF.



Sandy King

I don't care about b/w since it is a pointless discussion given digital is still not on par with film b/w...Saying the Leica M8 is "closest" to it (from your experience with different digital cameras/post-processing/etc.) says nothing when comparing film to digital.

[D. Bryant]

pick his emulsion of choice that isn't some rare/unattainable film that only he has...to a digital capture from his M8 or 5D

Audio,

I can tell you that you have stepped into a pile of dog squeeze here. Hehehe ...

Don Bryant

[audioexcels]

Mike

You're the guy making grandiose statements. I've actually done some testing and make photographs. As time goes by, I suspect that the latter would be a new experience for you and the former, merely fantasy. Have you ever shot a 5D on a tripod and shot the same scene target etc with 35mm film? Let me guess.... But you "know" enough to declare that one "blows" the other? At best you are quoting others and if your "quoting" others on this forum is any indication, you're likely misquoting them too. The parameters of what you're testing and how are critical - and it's clear from your blanket statement that you either don't know what the parameters of a particular test were or you're deliberately avoiding them - perhaps both.

Do your own testing, sport.

Don,

I've compared a Kodak SLR/C to 35mm film scanned with a Nikon V. Sure, the Nikon V is the equivalent of your Nikon 9000, hence, not as good as your Howtek. Files from the Kodak SLR/C are severely better at larger sizes. I prefer "the look" of film in the end and actually feel it is sharper in a more natural looking way, at least using a rangefinder and good lenses, tripod, etc. Most would disagree with me and think I'm crazy, but it's just my own "preference" for the look of one print vs. another.

But size to size, grain to grain, color film emulsions have serious issues IMHO, and b/w ones do as well unless we all shoot with your miracle drug cure Adox!

I'd rather you do the testing of color work between the Leica M8 or Canon 5D (Leica M8 preferred since you can use the same lense albeit the cropped version vs. the ff analog version), and let me know the results you come up with. I don't need a barn or some piece of furniture to look at. Find me a nice river with trees surrounding the area or whatever has a nice dynamic range of color and skies. Let me know how those clouds handle the grain at larger sizes, and even smaller sizes...

If you can prove that the 35mm color film emulsions or the higher speed b/w emulsions are just as clean, smooth, and sharp as what you are achieving from FF 5D or cropped/crippled Leica M8, this would be most valueable, especially considering Sandy mentioning how color seems to always come up when speaking of Digital, and the fact that there's a boatload of color photographers on this forum...we're not a b/w "aesthetic", but a photographic aesthetic...

If you are still telling me to do these results myself, I will know you have no business replying the way you did to my post...or I'll simply take it as another 5 year old attempt to degenerate yourself...

[Matus Kalisky]

Let me put my hand into the fire

I have just a limited and rather low - end experience (no Leica lenses, drum scanners or high end full frame DSLRs). My DSLR is only 6 Mpix, but even with a good prime after the image was ressed - up to be printed on A4 (cca 7,8" x 11,8") in 300 or 360dpi (6Mpix delivers only 250dpi for such a print) one can see the difference - the extrapolation simply shows. On the other hand if I take a 35mm scan made with a reasonable prime lens and have it scanned at 3200 spi or more to be printed at 300 or 360dpi it is a different animal. The amount of information (depends of course on the film, lens etc.) acquired when increasing the resolution of the scan (provided the scanner really delivers the resoluion you are scanning at) is indeed not linear and at some point higher scanning resolution becomes questionable - but there is no abrupt transformation like when you extrapolate the digital file. In ohter words you may get little more information going beyond 2400, or 3200 spi (or wahtever - depends on many factors), but as long as the scanner is up to the task - you are still getting SOME information out (be it only the grain).

[audioexcels]

Well, here is the thing. As a photographer coming from the tradition of LF B&W work I don't believe the comparison is pointless as it is what I, and a lot of other photographers who work primarily in B&W, are interested in.

It is almost the other way around. Many photographers who work professionally, where color is the standard, come on here and proclaim that digital this and that blows film away. But when you get down to what they are saying, it is always about color. For people primarily interested in fine art B&W photography even the best digital, say P45 at this time, can no compete with good quality MF in print sizes over about 20X30", much less LF.



Sandy King

I understand, but do not agree with anyone that feels digital b/w is comparable to film b/w...let me re-state that. I don't think ANY digital image can be made to look like it was shot with b/w film inside a film camera...so resolution and whatever is pointless in Don's test especially considering he used a film I cannot even locate on the net, Ebay, anywhere...would love to find some of this film Don has OR

Have Don put in some Tmax 400, Ilford HP5+, etc. and see how the comparison turns out next time. I'm certain the grainular structure of the Tmax 35mm film will look superb under even the most anal/stringent conditions ever known to be tested.

Once done has his serene image of nature, with lots of different colors and detail...heck, it can be industry with some crazy wild colors in it...shot with whatever 35mm color emulsion of choice along with the Leica M8 or Canon 5D...report back with the results and then we would have had 1) An Adox, film to be purchased at your nearest drug store, and 2) Whatever Color emulsions (maybe all) that can stack up to color from FF or Leica DSLR.

Here's how I see it=

Kodak SLR/C...13.9MP's, superior IQ to Canon 5D, and looks better at larger print sizes than the best color emulsions I have used with a Nikon Coolscan V scanner.

BUT,

At the smaller sizes and with "certain" negative films that have much better grain structure than even E-6 films (though not as sharp IMHO as E-6) do print very smoothly to a decent size. More importantly for me, is the look I appreciate more with the film over digital. Just personal preference in spite the Kodak is the closest thing to film that I have ever seen (Canon looks horrible, Nikon has some quality to it, but no thanks, Fuji is quite nice, Minolta again with a certain quality, and then Leica digital via 4/3rds sensor is yet again, to a certain extent).

[audioexcels]

Let me put my hand into the fire

I have just a limited and rather low - end experience (no Leica lenses, drum scanners or high end full frame DSLRs). My DSLR is only 6 Mpix, but even with a good prime after the image was ressed - up to be printed on A4 (cca 7,8" x 11,8") in 300 or 360dpi (6Mpix delivers only 250dpi for such a print) one can see the difference - the extrapolation simply shows. On the other hand if I take a 35mm scan made with a reasonable prime lens and have it scanned at 3200 spi or more to be printed at 300 or 360dpi it is a different animal. The amount of information (depends of course on the film, lens etc.) acquired when increasing the resolution of the scan (provided the scanner really delivers the resoluion you are scanning at) is indeed not linear and at some point higher scanning resolution becomes questionable - but there is no abrupt transformation like when you extrapolate the digital file. In ohter words you may get little more information going beyond 2400, or 3200 spi (or wahtever - depends on many factors), but as long as the scanner is up to the task - you are still getting SOME information out (be it only the grain).

Good post that I would agree with, but highly doubt Lenny or Donny would. Lenny claimed something like a 90+MP image...interesting. Don has proven that with a film that no other LF forum member has ever heard of, you can get a nice looking larger print from 35mm using a drum scanner, though he did state that if it was shot with a 4X5 camera, the detail would have been obvious in favor of 4X5...Sounds a lot like, uhhhh...grain in all those 90MP+ of info on the film)

I personally do not like digital. Use my wife's cam since my Kodak is for sale. I suppose I don't like 35mm all-together since it hurts my eye after squintting through the vf for too long. Would love to pick up some Adox, though...(sounds like a really addictive drug!)

[Don Hutton]

Don,

I've compared a Kodak SLR/C to 35mm film scanned with a Nikon V. Sure, the Nikon V is the equivalent of your Nikon 9000, hence, not as good as your Howtek. Files from the Kodak SLR/C are severely better at larger sizes. I prefer "the look" of film in the end and actually feel it is sharper in a more natural looking way, at least using a rangefinder and good lenses, tripod, etc. Most would disagree with me and think I'm crazy, but it's just my own "preference" for the look of one print vs. another.

But size to size, grain to grain, color film emulsions have serious issues IMHO, and b/w ones do as well unless we all shoot with your miracle drug cure Adox!

I'd rather you do the testing of color work between the Leica M8 or Canon 5D (Leica M8 preferred since you can use the same lense albeit the cropped version vs. the ff analog version), and let me know the results you come up with. I don't need a barn or some piece of furniture to look at. Find me a nice river with trees surrounding the area or whatever has a nice dynamic range of color and skies. Let me know how those clouds handle the grain at larger sizes, and even smaller sizes...

If you can prove that the 35mm color film emulsions or the higher speed b/w emulsions are just as clean, smooth, and sharp as what you are achieving from FF 5D or cropped/crippled Leica M8, this would be most valueable, especially considering Sandy mentioning how color seems to always come up when speaking of Digital, and the fact that there's a boatload of color photographers on this forum...we're not a b/w "aesthetic", but a photographic aesthetic...

If you are still telling me to do these results myself, I will know you have no business replying the way you did to my post...or I'll simply take it as another 5 year old attempt to degenerate yourself...

1. I don't own a Nikon 9000 and never claimed I did have. Once again, reading comprehension is letting you down.

2. WTF if a "5 year old attempt to degenerate myself"? If it's some half hearted attempt at an insult, it's pathetic.

3. I don't need to prove a thing to you. You are the guy making sweeping statements without any conditions, proof etc. I simply asserted that your statement, as you made it, is clearly wrong. I've actually done some side by side testing with the equipment you mentioned - you obviously haven't.

I spend a bit of time testing my equipment and materials for one reason - to make photographs.

[jetcode]

Frank, your right, the 8x10 is the best deal....

if you don't mind lugging a tuna-boat everywhere you go ... wait 'till you try to get that market scene in the busy streets of Florence