Oh Yes.Originally Posted by Jamie123
Completely off topic but did you know that there's a youtube clip about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo
As they say, "All publicity is good publicity".
Oh Yes.Completely off topic but did you know that there's a youtube clip about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo
As they say, "All publicity is good publicity".
1) So are the tests by Erwin Puts incorrectly done and does the person simply not know how to conduct a proper study on the subject of prints and resolution? Is this basically a poor study like the ones done with the Phase 45 backs, that one a while back comparing the Pentax to the Canon 1DS, etc. etc...and as Brian mentioned, we need to perform these so-called scientifically controlled tests ourselves?
2) For Bruce, can you link me to a chart that shows which scanner will give approximate results of the digital camera equivalent? I.E. If one wants to know what 10 different pieces of film can acheive as a maximum print size that is equivalent to the digital SLR/Medium Format back/etc. and the person wants to know what scanner will give an approximately close enough result of this, where can I find this chart online? I have never seen one and even if one collects the loads of repetitive info on the forum and net, it still isn't a nice layout or even sufficient data.
3) I liked the neat old/traditional funny comic thing about the beating of the horse dead. Thanks for the post...but I still find it interesting to get to the bottom of digital output and film output when it comes to the print and not the file.
4) QT, Rockwell is indeed what you referred to him as, by his own words, though I think one has to appreciate some of the random things that do pop up on his site.
5) Camera equipment is obviously useful for end results. But the point that "the photograph" is the final result holds true. Experience is one thing, the photograph is another thing. I.E. What the world of well known artists to many or most may indeed be the best photographs we have available, but to others, they may look and be entirely irrelevant due to their lack of appeal to that specific viewer. So while we walk around an art exhibit and then look at prints in other places, etc. etc. we may like ones taken with a cheap digital point and shoot or we may like a mixture of prints from tools costing close to nothing to ones costing the price of a house.
Just a final note that my questions are for discussion purposes and to learn more through collective output. Sure, differing opinions will persist and that's a good thing, but to remain on subject as much as possible rather than straying away from the subject and getting into what looks better is the intention of my post. I don't care what looks better on print...I only care about people's thoughts on the digital output and analog output when it comes to the prints, and if this Puts person is raising some valid and interesting data or if it's purely subjective-response and in the end, no one on the net is ever correct, nor should they produce articles of this nature since we need to learn how to do this stuff ourselves.
I believe that Erwin Puts' tests are quite well done. However, as a true comparison of the M7 and M8 they are more valid for comparing B&W work with the two camera system than for comparing color for the simple reason that B&W film, at a given ASA, generally has much more resolution than color film.
My opinion is that a a good 12-24 mp DSLR is capable of better results in color than all but the very best 35mm work. On the other hand, in B&W a high quality Leica camera with an aspheric Summicron lens, in combination with a high resolution film, will deliver at least twice the detail possible with a 24mp DSLR. But it would take a high resolution drum scan to pull the detail out of the 35mm B&W film.
In medium format, 6X6 and larger, 12-24 mp DSLR does not come close to the detail of ASA 100 B&W or color film, but if you limit print size to 13X19 you should not see much difference in image quality. In larger prints MF wins easily, assuming you scan the film with a dedicated film scanner or drum scanner. If you scan MF with a flatbed consumer scanner the result will be no better than DSLR.
12-24 mp DSLR does not come close to the detail in 4X5 film, even when scanning with a flatbed consumer scanner. However, if you limit print size to 13X19" or smaller you won't see much difference in image quality.
My comments are opinions based on my own practical experience and testing, and on the results I have seen from friends.
Sandy King
Maybe so, but I still strongly believe that most cameras and lenses are better than most photographers. So far, most of the publicly available "evidence" reinforces that opinion.
<edit>
"Better" in the sense of being capable of producing better images in the hands of better photographers than their current holders.
</edit>
Which is another way of saying the person takes the picture, not the cameraMaybe so, but I still strongly believe that most cameras and lenses are better than most photographers. So far, most of the publicly available "evidence" reinforces that opinion.
<edit>
"Better" in the sense of being capable of producing better images in the hands of better photographers than their current holders.
</edit>
I basically agree with the notion that a true comparison of digital and film should involve a chemical print compared to an inkjet print, both being about as good as most photographers can attain using their own equipment.
Rockwell, despite his frequent silliness, it right that we do usually compare the two on a computer screen. Rather than argue the technical merits or problems with that approach, I would offer the following counter-test.
Let's use an inkjet printer to print an image onto a 4x5" piece of plastic, and then throw it on a light table next to a 4x5 transparency, with the comparison made by direct viewing (hey, live large--use a loupe). I don't think there is anyone who would not think such a comparison engineered to make the film look good, and I suspect we all are confident of the result.
The main reason is the generational loss. When we scan film, we are converting from one medium to another, and that will cause whatever weaknesses there are in each medium to cascade. So, comparing scanned film to a digital capture will already show the weaknesses of both film and digital, while the digital capture will only show the latter. Mistakes made in any one case might overwhelm those weaknesses, but even without mistakes they will be there. I see them in my own images. And that doesn't even consider whatever inefficiencies, in terms of maintaining faithfulness to the original, arise from the transfer.
Okay, maybe weakness is a combative term, too akin to, um, equinicide. Let's change it to response. Film and digital respond differently, and when film is scanned there will be some of film's response that the scan can't respond to, in addition to the film missing some content that a digital capture might have seen.
Most of the time, we are comparing scanned medium and large-format images with small-format digital, and in those cases, the clear superiority of film is more a matter of format than medium, it seems to me. As we on this forum know intimately, the size of the format is likely the first most important factor in ultimate image quality, and resolution is only a minor reason for that.
Scanning medium and large-format film to the capabilities of my equipment, I get about 80 megapixels from each. That will show a considerable advantage over a DSLR, but that advantage is allowed by the extra-large format more than anything. And then there's the format advantage even when comparing within the same medium.
Film and digital look different (this is the typical beaten dead horse statement, of course). Each has its artistic possibilities and constraints. I prefer some aspects of each. But one thing I absolutely adore about digital processes is that it is much easier for me to attain my visualization than with film. I'm happy to concede the implied weakness in my own non-digital technique. But I do the best I can with my equipment, my limited visual skills, and my even more limited time.
I rarely pay much attention to Rockwell's conclusions, but sometimes in coming to a conclusion I might disagree with, he brings up an interesting point.
Rick "whose sense is that digital provides about the same nominal image quality as the next larger film format" Denney
Let me say this: let's ignore the resolution issue entirely for a moment.
I can get an early Canon EOS (650, 620) with lens for $40-50 on eBay. The cheapest full frame DSLR is a 5D Mk I which you can get for around $1000 without lens.
I can get a Mamiya RB67 with lens for around $200. The earliest MF digital backs are now dropping to $1000, but their quality doesn't even match the 5D Mk I, and we haven't even begun to discuss the body or lens.
You can easily find a Crown Graphic or tank-like 4x5 monorail for under $150, with lens (and usually film holders). There's no full-frame digital equivalent. There are scanning backs, but you can't shoot people with them.
So financially, there's that.
If we stop ignoring resolution, there's the reality that smaller format film systems can reach 60-70 lp/mm pretty easily, and the Crown Graphic should have no trouble getting to 40-50 lp/mm. If you break it down to $ per line pair, film just beats the pants off of digital.
No, it isn't. There's one crucial aspect to that you didn't take into account. It's the cost of film and processing. We've been there before, I believe, but since this entire thread is all about beating dead horses...
When you buy a 5D, or any other digital camera for that matter, you are buying a lifetime (of the camera) supply of film to go with it as well. Figure $10 per roll of color slide film, processed. If you shoot only one roll per week, you will break even on the $950 difference between the 5D and the film body in less than two years. 22 months to be exact. Add those extra two months for the cost of memory cards and you're set.
Anything longer than that or more than one roll per week is clear advantage over the film body, and that leaving alone all the other advantages of a digital such as HDR, automatic bracketing, stitching, b&w conversions, tethered shooting and such. And you won't have to go hunting for film supplies or reliable labs to process it, no mailing hassles...
Lifetime of the camera. Exactly. Which means "until the camera starts showing ERR 99 or breaks down completely." Either way, you have 5 years at the most. You can run your own numbers on that one.
Regardless, the whole "digital vs film" thing is ridiculous. If you need to shoot a lot, you need to have a digital camera. End of story. If you want gigantic prints, you either shoot film or you go broke buying a MF digital back that doesn't look as good as 4x5.(Let alone 8x10.)
I wasn't aware that Canons come with expiration date. A Canon D30 (not 30D) I got back in 2002 is still alive and kicking. No error messages.
On the other hand, I've seen my fair share of film cameras with light seals gone bad, shutters getting stuck, and such. Cost you much more than $50 to repair. And still have to buy film for them.
Horses for courses. No need to ditch a particular horse until it dies, but further beating won't get it back to life either...Regardless, the whole "digital vs film" thing is ridiculous. If you need to shoot a lot, you need to have a digital camera. End of story. If you want gigantic prints, you either shoot film or you go broke buying a MF digital back that doesn't look as good as 4x5.
I don't particularly need gigantic prints, but I do like the mechanics of shooting MF and LF. Since it's just a hobby, I shoot film with those too. So no disagreement here, as long as we put things in the right perspective.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks