Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 87

Thread: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyone???

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyone???

    I don't want this to be a film vs. digital type of debate and which one is better, blah blah blah...I don't care since I use both, though my heart will always love film better even if one day I see digital being better...then my heart will be sad

    What I want is to see if this may be something interesting for discussion since for me, it isn't exactly all new stuff, but it is definitely striking some important issues and also ?????? marks...so the knowledgeables around here should certainly have a say in this one.

    Before I get into this one, I wanted to ask why we do not have a scanner/digital camera guideline where a person that is interested in getting scannera type A can know the output expected of these film sizes will give a result equal to about the sensor/output of digital camera type whatever. In other words, say an Epson V750 can scan 4X5 film as well as a Canon 5D/MKII can produce prints up to X size...then there should be a chart/guide made that shows on one side, film scanners, and on the other side, digital camera equivalents in terms of digital output, not the print quality...only the digital output quality. I know this would take a lot of effort and it would likely not be precise, but it would at least be a guideline of some sort. In other words, I'd surely love to know, when scanner shopping or not, if I can make X sized prints with a flatbed, or if I have to buy a pro-level drum scanner OR if I need to send the film into Lenny and have him run it off the Aztek (such as 35mm film).

    Now onto the discussion and the specific points Rockwell makes, links to these readings (along with Erwin Puts Leica M7 vs. M8 comparison), etc.

    Here is Rockwell's writing about film vs digital "files" and "prints". He makes a clear distinction about how things look on the screen vs. how things look on the print. If the link is not working properly, let me know and I'll figure out a better one...just scroll the site and find the page that shows the Contax 645 shot w/21mm Distagon and you'll find the reading I am referencing.

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

    Now a quote from him and one that I find argumentative:

    "The supremacy of film's resolution is so obvious to me that I've never gotten around to comparing it properly, which requires looking at the film as optically printed, as Puts did.

    Every other comparison, including my own, has been comparing digital capture to scans of film. Scanning film loses most of its resolution, and gives digital the unfair advantage of being compared in its native format: digits.

    If you compare pictures (prints) instead of digital files, film pulls way ahead of digital capture."


    1) I know we have had the optical vs. digital prints debate many times, but here even Rockwell is stating that optical is superior to digitizing aka-hybrid the film. If this is true, then why would I send off one of my favorite shots with 35mm film to Lenny to have it digitized when my Howtek 4500 can produce a file size larger than Rockwell's scans that he receives from the lab he uses? I know Hutton sent off, or at least he said he was going to send off the superb 35mm b/w shot of the house to Lenny because neither his Minolta or Howtek could get the resolution off the film like the Aztek could.

    Is Rockwell wrong in saying, "scanning film loses most of its resolution"? OR, is Rockwell not scanning the film with a proper scanning device or operator?


    2) Is Rockwell "and" Puts correct about the optical path producing the most resolution when it comes to getting the film onto the paper-print?

    3) Lastly, a very critical statement is made that threw me off about digital files/output.

    "If you compare pictures (prints) instead of digital files, film pulls way ahead of digital capture."

    This has to be the most perplexed statement to interpret because he is both 1) Arguing one of the two primary things that digital shooters declare when declaring the death of smaller film formats=The TONS of online articles/comparisons of film and digital "files", proving the grain issues of film and also the lack of resolution by comparison...duh...too easy of a comparison and 2) The statement is greatly generalized as if anyone can take even a 35mm piece of film, put it on a cheap flatbed, and make a print that is WAY ahead of the print from the digital camera.


    Though Rockwell is quite out in space somewhere, he does raise some interesting subject material I feel is good for discussion and with hope, not a big thread of film, digital, whatever bashing...

    Erwin Puts comparo of the Leica M7/M8 prints:

    http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html

  2. #2
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    5,377

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    Note that Rockwell claims that film is superior to digital for the type of landscape photography that he does. For action photos and low-light photos he prefers digital. In particular, he's talking about 35mm (and now 120mm) Velvia 50 versus digital slrs, such as a D40, D90... His claim is that he gets better color and detail with film. I see no reason to disagree, with the caveats mentioned.
    "Why can't we all just get along?" President Dale, Mars Attacks

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    638

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    Here is the thing: A colour 8x10 print made on a good quality printer from a 6MP digital SLR looks better than 99% of the optical 8x10 colour prints I've ever seen from 35mm.

    For my eyes, in my experience, I have no idea what he is getting on about.

  4. #4
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,160

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    Why can't you just use the search function and look up any of the countless threads already on this website that deal with this and all the other aspects of film vs. digital? If that's not enough, the 'net is full of flame wars over this topic.

    There's nothing new to be said. The horse is long long dead. Stop beating it already.

    Bruce Watson

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    7,834

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon




  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    412

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    Now THAT'S entertainment!!!!!! Many thanks to Ken Lee for the best post ever!!!!

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New Market, MD
    Posts
    347

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    Ken- thats awesome!!!!

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    7,834

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    Please, no offense or disrespect meant to the original poster !

  9. #9
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,281

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    I find Puts dismissal of the objection that a color sensor was compared to B&W film a bit cavalier. Isn't it the case that a B&W film is sharper than a color film of identical ISO ?

    As for Ken Rockwell's statement, may I remind everyone of his own disclaimer:

    "I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.

    This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.

    While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction. "

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    823

    Re: Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyon

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
    Why can't you just use the search function and look up any of the countless threads already on this website that deal with this and all the other aspects of film vs. digital? If that's not enough, the 'net is full of flame wars over this topic.

    There's nothing new to be said. The horse is long long dead. Stop beating it already.
    ah.. but this is a new twist... adding the name "Ken Rockwell' to the topic will make it even more contentious.

Similar Threads

  1. Film Still Popular Among Pros
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 21-Sep-2015, 06:04
  2. Polaroid Land Film Holder #500
    By Russell Graves in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2008, 07:33
  3. converting slides to B&W
    By Magnus W in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 31-Jul-2006, 04:51
  4. silliest question ever: how to load sheet film
    By David Haardt in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 7-Jun-2001, 17:55
  5. One-pass cleaning rollers
    By Don Hall in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2-Jan-2000, 18:54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •