side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

[PenGun]

Just to wander a bit further. It's interesting that Ken Rockwell has now decided that film is better even at the 35mm level:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

It's also interesting to me as a sometime audiophile that a drum scanner is an analog device until we take the output of the PMTs.

Digital sound is ugly in general and the comparison with CCDs and tubes, which populate my pre and main amps, is kinda cool.

[mcfactor]

I think the only truely fair comparison would be between a 4x5 optical print made in the darkroom, i.e., not scanned, and a print of the same size made by a lightjet or digital optical device, or even an inkjet print. scanning negtive film brings in all of the above scanner issues and necessarily degrades quality.

[Lenny Eiger]

I think the only truely fair comparison would be between a 4x5 optical print made in the darkroom, i.e., not scanned, and a print of the same size made by a lightjet or digital optical device, or even an inkjet print. scanning negtive film brings in all of the above scanner issues and necessarily degrades quality.

I'd rather have a scanned image and inkjet than a darkroom print any day. I think the quality is far higher than what you see in the darkroom. There are a lot of factors, not the least of which is dynamic range.

As to a personal preference for the kind of surface one likes, that's for everyone to decide for themselves. However, you can't suggest that inkjet prints don't have at least the quality of a darkroom print - it's simply not supportable.

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

...comparison with CCDs and tubes, which populate my pre and main amps, is kinda cool.

You do realize that a PMT is a vacuum tube, yes? You could think of a drum scanner as a big single stage vacuum tube amplifier.

[sanking]

I agree with Lenny. Assuming that you have a scan that pulls all of the detail out of the negative or transparency the quality of digital printing is much higher than darkroom printing, especially with magnifications at or over about 3X-4X. Once the negative is scanned there is so much one can do to enhance it both in terms of tonal values and apparent sharpness that simply can not be done in the darkroom without an extraordinary amount of work.

There are exceptions, however. Working with a late model Leica camera and aspheric lenses and a low speed film with the camera on a tripod one can expect to put as much as 150-200 lpm on the film. Not even a a Howtek 4500 can pull all of the detail out of a negative like so so unless you have a HR-8000 or Premier drums scanner you will get higher quality in the darkroom with wet processing.

Sandy King

I'd rather have a scanned image and inkjet than a darkroom print any day. I think the quality is far higher than what you see in the darkroom. There are a lot of factors, not the least of which is dynamic range.

As to a personal preference for the kind of surface one likes, that's for everyone to decide for themselves. However, you can't suggest that inkjet prints don't have at least the quality of a darkroom print - it's simply not supportable.

Lenny

[PenGun]

You do realize that a PMT is a vacuum tube, yes? You could think of a drum scanner as a big single stage vacuum tube amplifier.

Indeed, my very point. Made better by you though .

[Lenny Eiger]

Just to wander a bit further. It's interesting that Ken Rockwell has now decided that film is better even at the 35mm level:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

I just called them. They apparently use a film scanner. They were very defensive - at first they didn't want to tell me the brand of their scanner - I finally just asked them what type they had. ("We don't gie out the name of our scanner".) I don't know anything about Mr. Rockwell or why we ought to listen to him - or not, either way. Some day he might like to get a truly great scan...

I say that as their prices were so low - on everything, especially printing. I can't imagine they have any time to do things right... maybe they are good at film developing...

Lenny

[mcfactor]

my point was that it adds another layer to the process. If you optical print an image there is only one other layer, the enlarging lens. when you scan, there is the scanner, the processing of the computer, and the printer.

I did not mean to suggest that the quality of the prints were worse, just that there was another layer added to the process that could (as the above discussion demonstrates) alter the quality.

Also, the discussion was not about dynamic range as much as it was about sharpness and resolution, which are affected by scanning.

[sanking]

Over the past year or so I have had the same 6X7 color negative scanned by several people with different professional flatbed and drum scanners, including Howtek 4500, Howtek 6500 and Screen 1030ai. I have also scanned the same negative with an EverSmart Pro and with a Leafscan 45.

I do have a microscope, and in looking at the negative with a 30X eyepiece it is clear that for all practical purposes the scan made with the EverSmart Pro at 3175 spi is as good as those made with the Howtek 6500 and Screen 1030 ai at 5000 spi. In other words, all of the scans have as much information as can be seen in looking at the negative with a microscope with a 30X eyepiece.

From this I must conclude that the limiting factor was the film, not the scanners. And this color negative was made with a high quality Mamiya 7II camera and a 65mm lens at f/8, with the camera on a tripod, which is about as good as it gets in the analog world of film.

BTW, for more details have a look at the thread I started on the Hybrid forum about this. http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=743

Sandy King

I suspect you are incorrect in the max of 150 mp of info, however I have no data to support such a claim. It doesn't look like that to me on my scans - but that's not particularly scientific. I think what would be useful - perhaps for the entire group here - is to develop some testing methods to figure this stuff out. I think there remain some questions as to what is possible with scanners at the low, mid and high end. I think incorrect info abounds.... much of it no doubt put out by people marketing digital cameras, or the Reichman's of the world.

If a 20x microscope is the way to figure this out, by all means let's find one and put it to the test. I think we ought to develop a list of questions and hunt them down.... Of course, I have to get back to work now rather than start on this, but I think it would be great...

Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

As Sandy mentioned earlier, this thread has wandered so much I'm not sure what the real focus is any more. But when it comes to in depth comparisons of scanned film, capture, darkroom vs ink, etc. etc. the conversation becomes much more complex than some of this indicates.
Given that, I have to stress something Bruce often states here, all that matters to me is what happens on paper, the final object. The in between steps, ccd, pmt, whatever, can only be judged by how they impact the final piece. Looking at comparisons of file magnifications on the monitor only gets us so far. Also, if we are going to judge, what are the criteria? What constitutes higher quality? What does better mean? The opinion that the quality of scanning/inkjet surpasses silver is just that, an opinion. I ask this as someone committed to drum scanning and the highest quality inkjet systems and that aesthetic, I love it- how come few, if any, ink prints can sit next to one of Caponigro's (just as an example) finest? A Tice, whatever...
I ask this against my own interests, I offer drum scanning, inkjet printing, etc etc for a living, my own personal work is committed to these processes and I depend to a smaller degree on sales of that too. But in the interests of real artistic pursuit, real scientific knowledge, and advancement of the craft we love, absolute honesty is required, difficult, but required.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/