How GRAINY your film scan looks...Originally Posted by Don Hutton
How GRAINY your film scan looks...
Well, you would know, wouldn't you? I guarantee you that most folks on this forum would probably be surprized at how smooth - not how grainy - that 3x3inch crop from a 20x30 inch on 35mm color negative is.... I'm done with with this interchange - time to go and commune with the family pets - I value their opinion and my bulldog is even starting looking smart now!
Last edited by Don Hutton; 11-Aug-2008 at 17:48.
Find me a store that I can purchase it from. A .de website doesn't do much for me. Would love to shoot some of this film due to the results Don posted a while back.
They are your best students now that you have mocked the rest away from your life. Fortunately, they keep coming back regardless...man's best friend...
Impressive that shot can look sharp and clean/smooth at 20X30" since my own results vary by 1/2 of yours (i.e. I can get a 16X20 print, but nothing I would write home about). I guess I suck so bad at scanning film or my Nikon Coolscan V 35mm only scanner is not as good as your Multi-machine...though it's probably that the perfectly exposed film must have had a bad ray of light shatter its ability to eek out the larger print size...
These are tests I have read, but didn't post since Don would emit them. I'm surprised he hasn't said your link is irrelevent...If I posted it, like I would have along with 10 others last night, he would have bashed my post, stating they are not well conducted tests and mean nothing. Here's the important aspects of the test you mentioned (in bold):
"After having seen all the prints and the scans on the screen it is clear to me that a good 6x7 camera with good lenses has a high resolution and is clearly sharper than a professional 12 megapixel DSLR. Also a Canon 1Ds mark II will not change this, it is only a little bit sharper. You must, however, have the intention to get the best from the Mamiya 6x7 otherwise it is useless to use this format.Well used and scanned with care, large impressive prints can be made
Scanning is a point of attention. The Imacon is a good scanner but not for all kind of work. Not impressive for the money. Imacon has sold the virtually drum idea very well. Unfortunately no drum to see, just a good CCD scanner with all problems of ccd's (dust, blooming) For larger prints a good scan is necessary. Drumscans are in fact the only reasonable solution and nowadays rather payable. The difference with Imacon is sometimes very large dependent on the subject. Drumscans are in any case always the best choice. Although at this moment scanners are not yet perfect, you don't know what will be possible in the near future."
Too bad Don's tests couldn't be a part of this since he shows how poor the Imacon is compared to his Minolta scanner and how 35mm, not 120 film shot with a Mamiya 7 is also inferior...
I dunno what Donny does for work, but I don't see why people in the photographic world wouldn't hire him on to conduct tests and at the same time, present his beautiful portfolio.
Audio, it's not like we resort to buying Adox film from our local back alley drug dealer. A simple web search reveals it's sold by Freestyle.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?rfnc=402
As is another fine grain B&W emulsion you might consider: Efke 25. Check out this article for sample photos & impressive detail/resolution. Interestingly, the theme of the article, "Enough Already" by Pete Myers, is that he shot for years with a Kodak DCS 760m B&W DSLR & has returned to film, using a Leica MP, 35 APSH and Efke 25. I thought it might be of interest to you. The scans look oversharpened, but the detail captured, especially in the final photo, is impressive.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-already.shtml
I use Ilford PanF Plus 50. I have a freezer full of 17m bulk loader spools that I acquired several years back. Like the Adox & Efke, Freestyle sells this in both rolls and spools. I don't have any scans to show you, but I'd be glad to sell you some.
As for your claim that a 5D blows 35mm film away, I thought that was the case too because of the images I've seen from this camera printed on an Epson 9800. That is, until I saw a magnificent print from a drum-scanned 35mm slide. Calypso Imaging out here in the SF Bay has a mural-size (roughly 40x50) print of Franz Lanting's that just blew my mind when I saw it. I simply didn't know this sort of quality was possible from 35mm. The employee behind the counter stated very nonchalantly that that's what you can get from a good drum scan. Granted, I haven't seen any photos printed that large that I know were taken with a DSLR (I've shot with a 1Ds II but haven't printed that large), but I'd be surprised if they'd hold up as well at that reproduction ratio.
My 2c for what it's worth.
I had a Minolta Dimage and it's OK but it is not a high end scanner and is not priced as such either. I've used Imacons and while I think they are quality scanners the price doesn't map to the other choices out there for equallly good but less expensive older scanners such as the Scitex, Screen, or Creo. Drum scans while commonly purported to be "the best" really depend on the same criteria as for all scans : operator + equipment + film type.
I have a mural (B/W negative) that prints 18"x36"+ at 600dpi. It was obtained on my lowly Cezanne Elite. Yes, by god it even resembles a decent scan. The Elite is smooth and quiet, no shaking, no roar, just precision electronics designed for prepress operations. It's not perfect but it's pretty amazing to my eye. I suspect that the high end drum scans are equally worthy and indeed better as Lenny frequently indicates.
Personally I think dynamic range is more important than resolution. I would rather have fewer full range pixels than more low range pixels.
I thought Don's image was excellent and if he gets results that good he is dialed into a process that works. What's the problem?
Tony I remember TechPan film being used in 35mm circles that was the grail of detail in my earlier years. Unfortunately it was/is a fussy film and contrast control is a bit to manage.
The best work (sharp) in my archives comes from a Fuji 645 rangefinder followed by 35mm. Now a days I am getting sharp results with LF but the 645 is hands down far more portable and efficient.
Find it yourself! I'm trying to be helpful, but you can do your own websearch.
Sorry to Don and any others around here for my remarks, but it's mind-boggling when you've been reading every piece of literature posted about film and digital for the past 6 years and now everything that has been read is basically in the re-working or should have been re-worked back when it was said!
I just don't quite understand the words spoken of circumstances of:
1) On a Leica forum, people will state how much better even a $50 medium format camera is than any Leica 35mm setup due to surface area.
2) How the Canon and other various DSLRs or MF backs, when used correctly, produce quality as good as/similar to 4X5 or even 5X7 LF enlargements.
3) How tests show that MF film needs to be drum scanned to beat digital. Nothing else will do.
4) Then this mural that is 40X50" from 35mm film.
5) Lastly, there's Don's examples with 35mm film scans, especially the one using his Howtek scanner, though the color example did turn in a very impressive result.
In sum, 35mm has been declared dead by the digital world...but medium format has been declared superior, only when properly drum scanned...yet, the digital world can actually beat 4X5 and equal 5X7 film enlargements. And finally, we have 35mm film examples showing that not only does the 35mm film at least hold its own against FF DSLRs, but also other larger film formats???
Makes me wonder why anyone shoots with a digital cam when film cams are so much cheaper and if you want to make an exhibition from your work, be it 35mm or digital, it won't cost a lot to have such small film go through a quality drum scan.
I.E. You can buy the Leica M8 and 35mm lens OR you can shoot with a Contax G2 w/45mm Planar, and achieve the same results. Why does anyone pay $8000-9000 more for the Leica setup???
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks