Film vs. Digital

[Richard Boulware]

I shoot conventional silver film and will continue to do so. I am toying with the idea of adding some digital in the future. A good friend that is pretty savy tells me that in comparing digital to film, the likely ratio is a camera which shoots digital at 15 or more mega pixels.... is equal to high quality Ektachrome. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this, WITHOUT a snow-job in ultra-tech.
Just plain common language please, as I am just a plain common man...and not impressed with cyber-geeks! Thanks in advance.

Richard, in Denver..... where we have record high temps. It's in the 70's.

[Bill_1856]

If you don't want to hear "ultra-tech" answers than don't ask "ultra-tech" questions. There are many basic books and tutorials on digital photography. If you really want to learn about it, you should start there. Or just ignore the whole thing, buy a good camera, and find out for yourself what works.

[Scott Fleming]

If I was going on an expedition to Antarctica or just bound and determined to shoot Yellowstone by snowmobile in the dead of winter .... I'd go out and buy myself a EOS 5D as I have some pretty good EOS lenses. But I'm not that adventuresome so I will stick with my 645 MF and 4 x 5 LF because it's fun. I have an EOS 10D and I took it to Israel cause I needed convenience due to traveling with the wife. I should have shot 35mm film and scanned because what I came home with are just some very nice snapshots. Next time I go I'm taking the Contax 645. Digital shooting is too easy. You end up chimping and then you have to spend days in photoshop. Then you still end up with a computer full of shots you should just throw away anyway. You wish you had the keepers on transparency. My film and transparency archive fits in two notebooks and I can puruse it in a couple hours anytime I want to. My Israel shots do make a nice slideshow on my Mac for wallpaper though.

[Jack Flesher]

Oh my... I can feel the heat already! LOL

IMO only! These are rough equivalents, though I derived them by making careful comparisons of the files at the pixel level AND comparisons of prints:

It takes about 6MP of digital to equal a drum-scanned 35mm chrome;

It takes about 10MP to equal drum-scanned 645 and 16MP to equal drum-scanned 6x7;

It takes about 50MP to equal drum-scanned 4x5.

However, I have yet to see digital anything that is as good as traditional silver when the output is a B&W print. Though admittedly, proper conversions of high-rez color digital files when printed on the latest inkjet printers look very good and are getting better every day.

[Scott Fleming]

Now now Bill. Guys like me can give a non techy answer to ANY question. We have no choice. ;-} (ok ok we do have 'a choice' but what fun is that?)

[Dave Tolcher]

I grapple with this myself at the moment. I am committed to 5X4 but increasingly find that I use a D2X for all sorts of reasons (mainly flexibility and weight). Up to 20X16 and there is almost no practical difference - I have compared several 5X4 scanned on Imacon Flextight with a D2X file printed to 20X16 and 30X20. 30X20 is better on film for detail but struggle with tonal range and getting as clean colours - film gives a bit of grit to the printed image giving richer texture to objects. If I apply LF discipline and compositional rules, pick good light and am lucky with the place then I get results that I am happy with much more easily, quickly and cheaply from the D2X. I often get pictures with the D2X that I wouldnt get with LF because I wouldnt have the camera (about 70%) or I missed the light. Files from the D2X are easier to share, manipulate and print than from scanned film. But...... the 5X4 chrome on the lightbox is better than any screen or print and will never be surpassed IMO (except by 10x8!).

I agree completely with the sentiment that I wish I had my best digital files on 5x4. I suggest that a D2X/5D/D200/1DS is a good partner to 5x4 and quite addictive.

Regards

Dave

www.btinternet.com/~davidjt

[rob_5998]

its really very simple.

First you need to know how big your final output needs to be. As an example we'll say 20x16inches. Next you need to decide how many pixels/dots per inch you want to print at. We'll say 300ppi which equals a tad under 6lp/mm because each pixel equals one line of a line pair(approximately but it gets a billy wooly beacause of dot size and print bleeding so its not an exact science).

so its simple to say that a 20inch wide print needs 20x300 = 6000 pixels width and 16inch high print needs 16x300 = 4800 pixels.

then you can say that you need a camera sensor of 6000 x 4800 pixels for 20x16 print at 300ppi(fairly common print res for digital). Thats a 27 megapixel camera. I don't think canon makes one of those.

But who says 300dpi is required? Who says you can't digitally upsize and get "good enough" resulting quality. Maybe you don't want final output that big. Does a scanner which generates more noise than a digital camera give such good output even though the scan res is higher? The list of if buts and maybes goes on and on. Just like analogue. Its full of subjectivity.

[robc]

scott,

at what temperature do the camera batteries stop working?

[Scott Fleming]

David,

Have you seen your digital files, or scans on a 23 or 30" Apple Cinema Display ... or better? To me these monitors rival even the light table as they are nearly as luminous and you don't have to squint through a monocular lupe. I'd love to see my slides projected on a good glass bead screen but that may never happen.

[Scott Fleming]

rob,

Beats me. Ain't gettin me out in that weather. I read however that such intrepid photogs keep one battery in their inside vest pocket and keep switching. What do ya'll do with film in such deep freeze conditions? Quickloads must be fun when it's below zero.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I evolved from 35mm and MF film to high-end digital (canon 1Ds) nearly three years ago, and gave up film. Just over a year ago, I took up LF. I'm baaaack! I have great images from both worlds. My friend has great images from his 10D. They are NOT snapshots. My point is that you can adapt to applying your craft to whatever tools you choose if you put your mind to it and don't allow yourself to get caught up in the techno arguement of the century. Personally, if an imaging opportunity appears to me, I'll do my best with whatever camera or medium I have at hand. I try to be a photographer, not just a user of a particular kind or brand.

[John Flavell]

As someone who shoots both extensively, I'll have to say you're trying to replace apples with oranges. It'll have a different taste.

[ronald moravec]

Y`al l can complain about batteries in the cold and you are right, except I can`t pull darkslides with gloves either and the darkcloth is a pain in wind and cold.

a local camera shop told me 6MP makes accepatable 11x14, 8 MP is better. 12 MP required for good 16x20. I was shopping a small digital slr for when I want pics fast or do not want to waste most of a long roll for a few pics. Like most photography, you can spend as much as you want and I decided it is cheaper to waste a few rolls than spend $1-4 grand on a camera that will outdate in a few years. You would be suprised how crummy the camera is $1000. That is low to middle consumer grade. I can waste 100 rolls for that amount and that will never happen. Staying with Leicas and Zone VI 4x5 `til they stop making film.

[Eric Rose]

Try them both. Rent equipment if you have to. Make a print. Pick the one you like best. Go with that one. Have fun using whatever your choice is.

[Roger Richards]

I got a Canon EOS 5D yesterday and have been testing it a bit. The files are very clean, and at ISO 3200 the noise resembles film at ISO 800. I need it for enlarging to no more than 16x20, and as a carry-around camera to compliment my LF and 6x7 gear. The picture styles setting is great, with very neutral RAW files that do not need a lot of work in Photoshop. I also see a difference between the 5D files and scans from my Mamiya 6x7, so they are definitely not equal (the Mamiya is higher resolution). I only have Canon L-series lenses, so it is not the glass. The 5D is also very well built, although not like the 1D series, but still exudes high quality. The 2.5 inch review screen on the back is excellent. The shutter is very quiet. Compared to the 10D I previously owned, it is a big improvement. All in all, I like it very much. I am still totally committed to film, but really like this new digital camera. It has its place in my toolbox.

[bglick]

Hey, different Bill up there, vs. the "hot" thread I participated in! I changed my screen name to fly under the radar....

Anyway, I think Jacks answer is on par to the simple response you desired, however, I fully disagree with his numbers :-( Easy, Jack, I am still licking my wounds from the last thread of flame throwers :-) I would say these numbers below are closer to what I, and many other Digital vs. film buffs concluded...



10 MP = good scanned 35mm Chrome film, (Maybe Velvia can top this a bit)

7 MP = good scanned negative film.

Now, to interpolate from here, just take the 35mm area, and divide it by other formats, such as, it takes 4 35mm frames to equal one 6x7 frame, so 40 MP to match good scanned MF chrome film....

The advantages of digital are so obvious and desireable, not worth mentioning, but films advantages have not been so well advertised....

1. Neg film still blows away exposure lattitude vs. digital sensors, chrome film does a tad worse.

2. Film can withstand bigger enlargements since you can keep going up in format size.

3. Super wide angle shots are NOT friendly to digital sensors as the angle of light does not strike the sensor cleanly, so you get fringing and artifcacts.

4. Tonal range of B&W film will beat digital capture consistently.

5. Good film gear is relatively inexpensive vs. high end digital, whereas a 40 MP back alone can cost $30k which only replaces film, not the bodies, lenses, etc. Film / processing is dirt cheap if you don't shoot many shots per year.

6. film cameras are more "movement friendly" but even digital can be adapted to enjoy movements.

If one is not bitten by any of these issues above...... ahhhhh, they probably already went digital :-) Once digital overcomes all these issues, well, people will still use film, just like people still listen to Vinyl music albums..... however, I can see film slipping from the planet.

[bglick]

checking.....

[robc]

what colour depth are these digicams giving? 24 or 48 bit.

[Jack Flesher]

WG: No flames here, but the data you are espousing is probably gleaned from the "older" generation of DSLRs -- and I would have agreed with all of it two years ago. However, things have improved quite a bit. Notably DR in a good DSLR is better than even scanned color neg film (this happened with the 1D2 era cameras) and cleaner files AND better RAW processing software are allowing far more detail to be extracted from a given file than before. Hence, I'll stand by my numbers above.
~~~

rob: Most of the high-end DSLR's are 36-bit. The Leica DMR and most of the higer-end digital backs are 48-bit, but these sensors are Bayer and thus are interpolated. The Foveon is of course different, but lower true resolution.
~~~

FWIW the BetterLight scanning back I referred to in another thread is 48-bit TRUE-COLOR per pixel. Many folks believe this effectively doubles the detail-gain at the sensor since there is no Bayer interpolation happening, so a BL 48MP file is roughly equivalent to 100MP of conventional digital capture.

I don't think you gain that much personally, but I can tell you that a BL file is definitely more detailed and has broader DR than any scan, of any film, at any size, I have ever seen. Period.

[Doug Dolde]

"40 MP to match good scanned MF chrome film.... "

I definately have to disagree here. I had a Kodak 16mp Pro Back and it easily surpassed 6x6 film.

[David Luttmann]

WG,

Unfortunately, extrapolating doesn't work. Because of differences in sharpness and film flatness between 35mm & MF gear, as well as scanning tolerances, I have found that 22MP backs exceed what is achievable with 6x7 MF gear. And don't get me wrong....I own an RB67. I compared a while ago scans shot on Astia F vs a 22Mp back from Imacon. While it is possible that the film holds more resolution.....it's not usable as at magnifications large enough to see it, you become overwhelmed in grain. The human eye responds quite well to accutance with regards to perceived detail & sharpness. You are able to increase accutance from a digital source through USM to a much greater extent than film because of the fact that digital sources lack noise. ...which would be increased far more using USM from a film source.

That is why you'll find a 48MP betterlight back easily equals 4x5 film. It is also why on a 16x24 print, an 8MP source exceeds 35mm film when many people throw around numbers like 10,12, even 25MP. Give it a try yourself. Print out some 8x10 crops from a 16x20 film & digital source. I've found whenever I do this for people, they are really surprised how well a digital source can do.

Of course, if all you're doing is 16x20, you'll do well with any of 4x5, MF 6x7, or a 12MP digital source.

Best regards,

[Emre Yildirim]

Roger Clark has a page dedicated to this topic here:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

According to his findings:

35mm Provia 100 - 7MP (aparent image quality = 7MP)

35mm Velvia 50 - 16MP (apparent image quality = 14MB)

8MP DSLR at ISO 100 - 8MP (aparent Image quality = 38MP)

35mm vs. 8mp DSLR, Digital wins here.

6x4.5 Velvia 50 - 50MP (aparent image quality 45MP)

6x7 Velvia 50 - 78MP (aparent image quality 70MP)

Theoretical 39MP digital medium format - 39MP (aparent image quality = 185MP)

Film MF vs. Digital MF, Digital wins here again.

4x5 Velvia 50 - 240MP (apparent image quality = 220MP)

8x10 Velvia 50 - 960MP (aparent image quality = 860MP)

4x5 film vs. 39MP Digital MF, Film wins.

In the end, I'll probably stick to film for resolution. I have a 20D that I use for snapshots, but I never actually made prints from it. I have a friend who makes 8x10 prints from his 5MP point & shoot camera, and they look very decent.

[Emre Yildirim]

Oops, looks like I don't know how to spell "apparent". Sorry I just woke up :)

[Ron Marshall]

Here is a link to a page on Norman Koren's site which lists the effective resolutions of most of the current DSLRs (scroll to the bottom of the page).

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

[David Luttmann]

Emre,

I can tell you right away that it takes far less than 78MP to equal 6x7 Velvia, as well as far less than 240MP to equal 4x5. He is basing these figures on theory rather than real world testing.....which unfortunately is what many people do.

I was really surprised when I found 4x5 exceed by a multi shot 22MP back.....which gave the equivalent of an 88MP image. The 4x5 was left far behind in resolution, noise, and color accuracy......but at $23,000......I'm not rushing out to buy one!

[Bill_1856]

I told you so.

[Hans Berkhout]

"Adding some digital in the future". Why?? That's the question you need to answer first. Only consider digital if it offers you something you need, and you can't get it with your current equipment- whatever that is.

[Matthew Cromer]

Some of you guys need your eyes checked. . .

[Emre Yildirim]

Dave,

I'm still a little skeptical about this. I've seen shots from a 16.7MP 1Ds MkII and compared them to 4800dpi scans from my Epson 4990. The 4x5 scans were far suprior to the digital capture. Maybe the extra 6MP makes a difference with the 22MP back, but as you said, I don't think it would be worth the money.

Another [cheaper] alternative is 8x10. I doubt any digital back can match a 4000 dpi scan of an 8x10 Astia slide.

[Dan_4341]

Here's what my (very limited in scope) tests comparing film to digital showed me:

1. Compared a 13x19 print made at Costco from Fuji Reala 35mm shot with a Rollei AFM35 P&S camera (with an excellent lens for a P&S), to same size print made from a digital file shot with a Nikon D50 6mp RAW (converted for printing to TIFF) using 18-70mm Nikon lens, camera set at ASA 200 (the lowest available if I remember correctly). The film shot showed a fair amount of grain. The digital showed none. Costco did a lousy job of color on the film shot - color balance way off. The digital was great. However, there was a marked lack of detail and lack of texture to the digital shot. Nice and smooth but pathetic lack of detail in comparison to the Fuji Reala shot.

2. Compared a 35mm Provia F slide taken from an Olympus stylus 35mm P&S camera to a Canon SD500 7mp digital. View slide with 20x magnifier, and compared the detail observed to 100% and 200% (for easier viewing as a double check) on a 17" monitor for the digital file. The slide had a tremendous amount of more detail than the digital file. Of course, it had film grain as well, while the digital had a very small amount of noise.

3. Printed some digital files I found at various camera review sites and manufacturer's sites on the internet - large files made from a Canon 5d, a 22mp back (forgot which ones), etc. Printed at 13x19" at Costco. Again, no grain, very little noise, sometimes some digital artifacts (maybe jpeg detail shadows or whatever they are called, sometimes banding in large areas of sky). Very nice all of them, but in comparison to what I am used to seeing from 6x7 and 4x5, .. no cigar for digital. Yes my nose is pressed against the print !

4. Had a 6x9 color neg scanned commercially at 3000 dpi from a high end Nikon scanner, and printed to about 13x19" at Costco (on photo type paper - not inket; the same as my other comparison shots). Compared it to an analog print made some years before at a pro lab. No comparison - the analog print blew away the one made from the scanned file. Much more detail on the analog print, and smoother, and less apparent grain. I suspect that I would need an expensive drum scan for more detail and more expert operators dealing with something that doesn't make the film grain more pronounced than the analog print.

In my opinion (which reflects my priorites, tastes, possible shortcomings in observations, etc.), while a 13x19" print from a good 6mp SLR shows no grain/no or little noise and therefore presents a 'smoother' picture than a 35mm shot taken with a very good color film, it has much less detail and texture. So for me, a 13x19 is much too big a print to be made from a 6mp camera.
At some point in increasing the megapixels - maybe 8, maybe 10, I would say digital would equal 35mm film. For portraits, most people probably prefer smooth skin tones - so no film grain and lack of detail would favor a 6mp DSLR. For anything else I think film would be favored. For me, my guess is that I wouldn't consider digital to equal 35mm film unless the digital had at least 10 mp.

A 4x5 pro, Jack Dykinga, has written at least a couple of articles on the subject, and my interpretaion of what he has said is that it might take about a 50mp camera to equal the quality from a 4x5 RVP transparency. Since a 4x5 trannie has about 13 times the area of a 35mm trannie, than puts the 35mm/digital equivalent to about 4mp. Apparently Jack is allowing for the fact that 4x5 film is not held as flat as 35mm, and the 4x5 lenses aren't as sharp, etc.

It will be awhile before that type of digital becomes affordable. In addition, some LF folks , like me, are 'moving up' to larger size camera, like 5x7 and 8x10, even for color. Not very practical, but any view camera, even 4x5, is not very 'practical' or maybe 'convenient' is a better word. I dearly wish high end digital was more refined and affordable, because it's so darn convenient. Some day it will be. For many, it's already good enough and affordable enough. But, not me :-)

[John_4185]

Regardless of the arithmetic, silver process film and print making makes different images. You like it or you don't. You see it or you don't.

[John_4185]

[i]I evolved from 35mm and MF film to high-end digital [...]

Evolution often takes wrong turns.

[John_4185]

But who says 300dpi is required? Who says you can't digitally upsize and get "good enough" resulting quality.

It is called interpolation, something like homeopathic imaging, magic thinking.

"Good Enough"? I see, if at first you don't succeed, then lower your standards, right? If your huge prints look like crap, just stand as far away as possible. No farther than that.

[Paul Droluk]

A couple of months ago I purchased a D2X, having already matriculated into digital (starting in 1999) via the Canon G3, Nikon D100 and Kodak DCS Pro SLRn. Needless to say the D2x blows all of the previous camera away in every respect, although I do miss the DCS Pro's "Custom Looks"). The D2x was a natural choice because of all the Pro Nikon glass I own. Anxious to verify how good the D2X is (compared to film) I compared it to 6x9 using a Horseman VH, Velvia 100F and a few top LF lenses (47XL, 80XL, 135 Sironar S, 180 Sironar S and Nikon 270T-ED). The comparison product for the test was prints, as that's always MY end product. For the D2X I used both primes and Pro zooms (14ED, 20/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 - 12-24ED, 17-35ED, and 55-70ED). The resulting film was scanned on a Polaroid SS120 @ 3200 ppi, then resized (using bicubic sharper in CS2) to match the D2X output in size. Initial comparisons on my monitor clearly showed the 6x9 film images contained FAR more detail (and grain/noise) when viewed at 100% magnification in CS2. I then printed two test series... the first were A3's at 300 dpi on an Epson 2200. The D2X images were rezzed up from the 240 capture to 300 dpi, while the 6x9's were scaled down to the same dimensions at 300 dpi. I used Noise Ninja on all of the images and did modest sharpening in CS2. For the second set of prints made on an Epson 7600, all images were sized and rezzed to 22x33 inches. Both sets of images were printed on Pictorico PGHF. The results... the A3 sized prints exhibited virtually identical detail levels and other than the digital "feel" of the D2X images, were in all ways comperable to my eyes. On the other hand, the 22x33 inch prints showed an easily seen difference in quality. The film images contained far more detail, especially highlight detail. Almost all of the D2X images exhibited CA to one degree or another, which was quite pronounced in some cases towards the edges of the prints. I hate CA! After 55 years on the planet, I have yet to observe purple/blue edges on anything in nature.

This test, along with additional shooting, has changed my equipment selection. I find myself using the D2X quite a lot nowadays, but not if I know the output will be in excess of A3 sized prints. If movements are not needed I am even using the D2X for catalog type product work, as here the very (too) clean digital files and workflow perform the best. It's also my choice for portraiture, assuming A3 or smaller print sizes. When it comes to landscape work (or anything requiring larger than A3 sized outout) I still ALWAYS choose film... the bigger the better, as I almost never print landscapes smaller than the maximium width my 7600 allows. My most frequently used format for landscape work is 6x17... printed to 22x66 inches. I wouldn't want to even guess on how much effort it would take to duplicate 6x17 film using digital (D2X) capture methods.

With the current level of DSLR performance, in the end it's all about output requirements. As digital capture technology improves these benchmarks will also, but FOR ME - FOR NOW A3 is my digital (D2X) capture benchmark. One additional thought... between the G3, D100, DCS PRO and now the D2X I've spent over $11,000 (minus their vastly diminished resale values) to work my way into digital usage. My Horseman VH (and numerous other film camera) are still in my inventory of tools, performing exceedingly well as they have since their initial purchase. No more chasing the digital resolution conundrum for me... I'm sticking with the D2X until the next mega-jump in technology. For me that will mean an affordable ($5000) digital solution that raises my benchmark of acceptability to 24x36 inch prints. Even then, I'll still need my 6x17 and larger film cameras.

[Doug Dolde]

There's a good test here, D2X vs Mamiya 7

www.xs4all.nl/~diax/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html (http://www.xs4all.nl/~diax/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html)

[Scott Fleming]

Paul droluk,

Thanks. Great post.

[David Luttmann]

Emre,

I was referring to the multi shot feature on the 22MP back. In single shot at 22MP, the 4x5 film still wins out. In multi-shot the sensor is moved while 16 shots are taken. This gives a non-bayer non- interpolated 88MP shot. Pixel dimensions are approx 10,600 wide. This exceeds 4x5 capture. Really though, you'll find the Betterlights at 48MP to be a decent match for 4x5 film. But like we agree.....the cost is prohibitive.

The one thing you didn't mention is output size. For a 16x24, there is pretty much no difference between 4x5 and the 17MP Canon. I didn't believe it until I viewed sample prints between it and 4x5 Provia......and yes.....from 18"........not from a mile as some sarcastically imply ;-)

Now if only I could afford one of those backs.......

Regards,

[bglick]

> the data you are espousing is probably gleaned from the "older" generation of DSLRs

Jack, not really..... I will explain more about this below. And trust me, no flame throwin here, I appreciate everyones contributions. I think this thread is very interesting, even though, it has taken on its own life already :-) But lets face it, this subject is of interest to many of us.

The fact these posts disagree with each other so much, demonstrates the anarchy in the digital vs. film "state of affairs". First, some general comments....

To compare digital vs. film, there needs to be parameters defined of the test. Then the results would be categorized by the parameter set. For example, shooting a test target with the best 4x5 gear at f8, digital lenses, excellent film alignment (see recent thread for discussion of such) no shutter vibrations, Velvia film, etc., vs. 35mm digital with a 8 MP digicam, and noisy sensor. Well in this test, we may see the scanned 4x5 film resolving in the digital file, maybe 15x the resolution of the 35mm digital file.

Now, turn the tables, we use the sharpest Canon lenses on say the 5d, (the least noise of the current line up) and compare this to a sloppy 4x5 camera, poor alignment of film, flatness issues, older vintage LF lenses, shutter vibrations, f16, negative film used, low end consumer flat bed scanner used, etc.... now, with this test, it's possible the 5d digital file can match or possibly exceed the resolution in the scanned 4x5 file.

Although this is two extremes , it would be true to quote both of these statements....

4x5 scanned film still exceeds 35mm digital by 15x.

and

35mm has surpassed 4x5 scanned film in resolution.

This is just one example of the many variables when testing film vs. digital. Of course, the next huge variable is actually testing the two using different DOF requirements for each format, whereas the LF film will suffer radically from diffraction wheras the 35mm will not. This variable is rarely discussed when making the comparisons, and its very important if one shoots scenes with lots of DOF. Next is, what color was the target, as Bayer sensors are very vulnerable to red and blue subjects, something film does not suffer. Pure red, and pure blue subjects can dismiss up to 75% of the pixels, since each pixel only aborbs one of the RGB colors, and every set of four pixels is RGGB. So my point is, when making such comparisons, unless all the variables are known, the results are hard for others to interpret.

Now, I am leaving out digital scanning backs, as they are far superior to Bayer and CCD sensors, as each pixel absorbs all RGB colors and the pixel counts are huge. However, as many know, these benefits come at a huge price.... very long exposure times, i.e. minutes vs. fractions of seconds. So this limits the applications of scanning backs, whereas film vs. digital one shot sensor are a fair comparison as they can be used for equal applications as exposure times are the same, or very similar.

The basic 1/R formula has become somewhat of a reliable formula to anticipate resolving capacity of a camera system. The lens aerial resolution and the film / sensors MTF needs to be known. Without turning this post into a math exercise, in general, digital sensors will record on the low end, about 35% of their pixel density, and on the higher end, cleaner, more expensive pixels up to 75% of their pixel density. Film, well we all know what it can record. Now I do agree with the posters above regarding alignment issues, lens sharpness issues between formats. But when all that is factored in real world tests, LF film still will do very well, until diffraction starts degrading its benefits. It's this methodology and field testing that yields the approx 10 MP per drum scanned 35mm film I quoted above.

When extrapolating up to larger formats, I agree Dave, some degredation needs to be assumed, so for argument sake, lets say 1/3. There is 12.5x more area of 4x5 film vs. 35mm film, reduced by 1/3, so about 8.3x more. Now, you one can accept somewhere between 8 - 11 MP equals 35mm scanned film (based on average set of variables from above), then a digital sensor would need 66 MP on the low side and 91 MP on the high side to match 4x5. This demonstrates how close digital one shots are getting to film as the 39 MP MF backs are just hitting the market.

But the real problem here is diffraction..... I feel these numbers above are relatively fair and safe at reasonable apertures, say not more then f11 for 4x5. But when a scene requires f8 on 35mm, it then requires f16 on MF, and f32 on 4x5 to acheive the same DOF. Now, the gap narrows even greater, as the 4x5 just lost even more advantage to diffraction, just winging a guestimate, maybe 40 - 65MP of clean pixels to match 4x5 (when 4x5 uses f32). And the worst part is, in scenes with large amounts of DOF, the diffraction (coupled with defocus principle at the near/far) effect dominates the scene, as the point of exact focus now only holds about 10% of the film area, whereas in a target test, the point of exact focus represents 100% of the recorded image.

So what is my dream (somewhat realistic) digital camera for landscapes? About a 50 MP sensor, on an area about 6x4.5, (so we benefit from shorter fl lenses, faster ss's, sharper lenses, less shake), hopefully the sensor will record close to the exposure lattitude as negative film, and record tonal ranges in a non linear fashion, oh, and one more request, the ability for each pixel to record all 3 RGB colors to reduce interpolation and increase the files up rez friendliness. This may be waaaay off into the future, so I think LF gear and a GOOD scanner is still a sensible investment vs. digital gear today. Of course, this assumes you want large prints 40"+, and shoot scenes with large uncontrollable exposure lattitude.

There is some very interesting shortcomings of digital as I mentioned above, so digital is NOT a cure-all for us landscape shooters. But, I gotta admit, I love digital capture! Whether market forces will ever drive force the R&D into chips bigger then the current 40MP remains to be seen. It's possible, the volume will be so low, the price at this end of the market will not drop too much. It's my guess, it would take Canon or Nikon to drive up their sensors to 24 - 28 MP and sell for <$10k pricing, which would force the MF digital companies down in price to compete. Or the other alternative, drive em out of business!

Emre, the 88 MP shot is not a fair comparison in my opinion, assuming it is the Sinar you are referring to. This method of shifting a few microns in each direction between shots is only useful for still subjects, is somewhat handicapped by the lenses shaprness vs. 4 mossaic shots taken stitched (which would be a more true 88 MP sensor), and the subject matter would have to warrant such resolution to notice its increased resolution. The problem with comparing the BL back is the fact it records more then 3x the data per pixel and more exposure ranges. So the closest comaprison we have to look in the future is the sensors that exist now and the new ones being released and extrapolate upwards, with the caveats that Dave mentioned.

Paul, what happened to Fotoman cameras? It seems no one responds to email or phone calls anymore?

[Emre Yildirim]

Hey, Dave's the one that mentioned the 88MP shot, not me :)

Also, regarding 24 - 28MP Canon/Nikon sensors...do you think that it's actually possible? It seems that 35mm DSRL manufacturers are slowly approaching the limit where cramming more pixels into a 36 x 24mm sensor is becoming problematic. The more pixels, the more noise right? And they can't make the sensor area larger, because that would create a crop factor for the lenses.

[Antonio Corcuera]

When 12-16Mb DSLR's are under 1K and their technology doesn't go obsolete in a year, I'll get one.
When a 50Mb back for 4x5" is in the market at around 5K, I'll get one.
Meanwhile, I shoot film.

[John_4185]

Back to Richard with what I hope is pertinent.

First, these so-called modern digital cameras are what I call techno-vain; they can create profound confusion in what is really a simple camera 'interface'. They like to throw up onto the screen every darned setting they are capable of so that the world is obscured with irrelevant metrics, much like a few photographers view the world - as photometrics, not imagery, not the Thing Itself.

You (and I) have used small cameras and our brains for forty and fifty years, respectively. We don't need that stuff. If you get one, then I suggest you find one you can tell to shut-up, be silent, don't display a darned thing in the viewfinder but the scene itself. If the camera will not operate properly without shutting up and stifling the techno display, then it points to profound shortcomings in the technology. If it has more than three buttons, ask yourself what the heck is going on here, what is wrong with the technology, why you need a pilot's mentality to make a picture.

Oh, one more - if you get one that has a default setting to makes a phoney a camera-like noise, don't buy it - spite the manufacturer. Once I was near a table full of camera guys and heard what was almost the classic Nikon-F (close to the Nikon-S motordrive but with mirror sound.) It came from a little digital camera. I knew that very moment that something was terribly wrong with the whole paradigm.

I work with digital on the day job and I tell you I just hate the cameras. I hate any inanimate thing that sticks irrelevant technolgy in my face. I don't even like camera gear that uses batteries. So that's my prejudice, up front and center.

Peace,

[Eric Leppanen]

West Coast Imaging is a well-respected digital lab located just outside of Yosemite. Their conclusions are as follows:

- When printing to an Epson printer (360 DPI native resolution), you need only a 240 DPI digital source file, which is uprezed to 360 DPI in Photoshop. They see no visible benefit from providing source files with greater than 240 DPI.

- When printing to a Lightjet/Chromira printer, you need only a 200 DPI digital source file. They see no visible benefit from providing source files with greater than 200 DPI.

Please reference their article: www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshoptip/tip25.html (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshoptip/tip25.html)

Applying the 240 DPI number, we get the following maximum output sizes (rounded to the nearest inch):

Canon 20D (2336 x 3504): 10 x 15"

Canon 1Ds2 (3328 x 4992): 14 x 21"

Phase One P25 (4080 x 5436): 17 x 23"

Phase One P45 (5412 x 7216): 23 x 30"

My experience with drum-scanned 4x5 is that I start seeing obvious artifacts of over enlargement (fuzzy pine needles on trees, etc.) starting around a 24 x 30" print size. So in theory, it would seem that the P45 is getting into the realm of 4x5-based print resolution. Similarly, to my eye 6x7 starts running out of gas beyond a 16 x 20" print size, so to hazard a generalization, I would say that:

Canon 20D is roughly equivalent to 35mm film format

Canon 1Ds2 is roughly equivalent to 645 film format

Phase One P25 is roughly equivalent to 6x7 film format

Phase One P45 is roughly equivalent to 4x5 film format

So Richard, there is your plain language comparison. Note that we're talking about resolution that actually shows up in a print, not how much resolution you seen on your CRT/LCD monitor in Photoshop.

Of course, to achieve these results requires lenses capable of fully resolving the digital format. The limitations of the Canon wide-angle zooms in this regard are well known, and the jury is out as to how many MF lenses can stand up to the P45.

[Steven Barall]

Cameras are just tools. Comparing large format film to digital is like comparing a screw driver to a hammer. Pick the right tool for a particular job.

Ultimately you need that camera system that you are actually going to use. If you look at your camera and get a feeling of dread for whatever reason, it's not the camera for you. It all has to serve your goals.

Good luck and be happy.

[David Luttmann]

Steven,

If you could you tell my wife that the handle of the screwdriver isn't a hammer.....I'd really appreciate it! ;-)

[Glenn Kroeger]

Like the blind men examining the elephant, everyone here is right to a certain extent.

As a seismologist, digital sampling theory is my field, but as a photographer, images are my passion.

An instructive experiment is to photograph a standard USAF resolution chart using a DSLR and then MF or LF film followed by a very high resolution drum scan. Examining the results show the difference between digital and analog capture of the line pairs. The DSLR image will show very clear dark lines up until the cutoff frequency of the sensor at which one gets a severly alaised rendition followed by mush. The film will show a higher resolution, where resolution is defined by the last lines that can still distinguished. But long before that, the lines become low contrast and mushy (like fuzzy swollen rice grains!) unlike the digital capture. So which is better? Do you like your diagonal lines fuzzy and swollen or sharp with stairsteps? That depends on the subject and the response of the human eye-brain system to images. It also depends ultimately on the subject matter in the image.

What I can tell you from experience... my own digital processing and printing (it is critical to do this yourself, as processing flow and sharpening procedures greatly influence the resulting print) is that I have produced 13"x19" prints from an 8MP DSLR that greatly surpass anything I was able to produce from 35mm chromes using both analog and digital enlarging processes.

Having recently worked with output from a Nikon D2X and Canon 1DsMkII, I find these files nearly, but not quite equal to drum scans from MF (6x8 cm) Velvia. They are much less noisy and thus produce better skys, but they are also lower resolution and thus produce mushier foliage. Apples and oranges as many have said.

Similar to the WCI results posted above, I find that when printed at higher than 200 ppi, the results are spectacular. I find I can go as low as 180 dpi (upsampled to 360 for printing) before things really start to fall apart (or really smear apart!). This translates to about a 16x24 for the Canon 5D or Nikon D2X and about 18x27 for the 16MP Canon 1DsMkII as the point where drum scanned film will show a clear advantage in detail but still a disadvantage in grain and noise.

I have printed some files from the new Mamiya ZD at 20x25 (200 ppi) and they are as sharp at that size as anything I have printed from 4x5... but at 30x40, the LF film will still prevail. This comparison also assumes you print to the very edge of the frame... the LF film will allow post-exposure cropping at 20x25.

I have just been looking at some raw files from the new 39MP MF backs. These files are spectacular and the processing tools (Nikon Capture, PhaseOne C1 and the latest Hasselblad/Imacon software) are starting to deal very effectively with the CA problems. Canon needs to address this issue to remain competative with wide angle lenses (they also need to make some better WA optics!)

What digital has done for me in landscape work is open up new possibilities for making images where the added speed (in framing and exposing), the added speed (ISO) and the added DOF allow me to capture images in situations of rapidly changing light that I could never capture in LF except by accident. OTOH, when I have the time to pre-plan and setup a shot, MF and LF film still hold their own.

[bglick]

Emre - will Canon / Nikon get to 24 - 28 MP? It's certainly possible in my opinion. I bet the MF back makers are wondering that same question. :-)

If Canon gives up the 1.5 : 1 aspect ratio and go closer to a square, say 1.15 : 1 and maintain the same image circle diaganol of approx 45mm, they can add 18% to the area, or 17 MP x 1.18 = 20 MP.... to gain the remaining pixles, they would have to either make them smaller, or probably just add a few mm around the border of each dimension. Example, 33 x 37mm sensor would only increase the image area diaganol from 44 to 49.5mm. Something most of the L lenses can easily absorb, this equates to 24 MP..... then, make the pixels a tiny % smaller if they wanted 28 MP... but I think 24 MP is surely in reach, IF, they decide to attack that end of the market.... I think they will, but maybe in 5 years, just a wild guess.

Eric, great post indeed.... I tried this kind of post initially, (sumplisitc, but it got challenged :-) but I think working backwards from the print rez is great cross check. However, I think you short changed film a bit, and i know WCI also doesn't address this well. Based on the DOF, the quality of the lenses and the alignment issues discussed before, 45 film can be pushed further then 24x30. If using Velvia, at the point of exact focus, the film can resolve up to 60 lp/mm....the printers being fed 240 dpi which equals / 51 = 4.7 lp/mm (with 1/3 loss in printing efficiency, this is 3 lp/mm to print, VERY SHARP), so 60 lp/mm / 4.7 = 13 x with no sharpening, or 46" x 62". Now, again, this is best case scenario for 45, low f stop, infinity focus (or shooting a flat subject, or front tilt tracked the subject plane perfectly), sharpest lenses, Velvia, perfect alignment, best scan, etc. etc. When you add some DOF, and reduce some of these variables to less then optimum, this max. print size will obviously be reduced, and possibly down to the 24x30" you mentioned. BTW, if one prints on high rez glossy papers, the paper can hold even more detail, up to approx 7 lp/mm, assuming the printer can deliver such rez.



One issue WCI never will discuss is the need to overscan to resolve desired dpi. I am not knocking Tango scanners, I have worked with many tango files, I also have read many independent test resolution test results of the Tango vs. other scanners. Although the Tango scans up to 11k dpi, (which is overkill for photographic film) you must overscan by a factor of 1.25 x to actualy resolve the desired dpi (assuming the rez is in the film), this is called scanning efficiency.

The Tango test results yeild about .80 efficiency, in other words, when scanning a 100 lp/mm target, at 100 lp/mm (5100 dpi) you will only resolve 80 lp/mm in the digital file. However, if you scan at 100 lp/mm * 1.25 = 125 lp/mm, the digital file will resolve 100 lp/mm. As you can imagine, this is significant if you trying to grab all the films detail. You can run test scans of targets to determine this for any scanner. The 100 lp/mm example was only used to simplify the math, color film is much less of course. The best scanners tested, most from the next generation after the Tango, have efficiencies up to 96%. Simply better lenses, electronics, software, etc. Of course consumer type flat beds can have efficiencies for film down to 35% when scanning near the resolvable film detail levels. But be careful mentioning this to WCI, they are extremely defensive over their Tangos.

> Cameras are just tools. Comparing large format film to digital is like comparing a screw driver to a hammer.

I get your drift Steve, but, a hammer will not perform the task of a screwdriver and vica versa. However, digital and film are both methods of capturing image data, with the exact same light levels striking them.... so they are two different tools that perform the exact same task, albeit with some pros and cons of each, which is what these discussions are always about. Considering the price of conversion, or even adding one vs. the other is so steep, I think these discussions are healthy.

To the original poster, Richard, I am sorry for digressing into geek land a bit, but as with some of the recent "hot" threads, this thread is a perfect example of just how hard it can be to oversimplify a response about a very complex subject, without loading up with disclaimers, caveats, etc. Oversimplification can often lead to bad information, bad purchase decisions, too high / low expectations, etc.

Glen, I just noticed your post when I finished writing this.... and I appreciate your input....as you raise yet another issue.... resolution on test targets is a fuzzy and subjective issue....the sharpness-to-blur curves are clearly not the same in film / digital, so trade off exists in which subject matter is friendlier to the types of blur, as you pointed out. However, this should not suggest the comparison is too hard to evaluate, and therefore 8 MP resolves as much as 810 film.... it's a fine detail, not a deal breaker in the comparative methodology.

Since you have lots of 4x5 experience, I am curious of a more thorough opinion of the 39 MP backs vs. 4x5 Velvai, which is what I think you shot? Or if your just starting analyzing such, keep us posted! If this thread is on-course, I would suspect this back can beat 4x5 film when there is signficant DOF (difraction limited f stops for 4x5) in the scene, but when shooting a flat subject or using tilt to track the subject plane perfectly, the 45 will still out perform the digital by small margin. The suspense is tooooo much :-) Again, thanks for the contributions!

[Glenn Kroeger]

WG:

I don't have the data yet to compare 39MP to 4x5 Velvia... but based on looking at the 39MP files, I suspect they are neck and neck... as for that, 22MP backs are close. Lenses for the digital back are an issue, but the new Schneider Digitars may be up to the task. Film flatness and grain are issues for the 4x5. I have to admit that after looking at and printing digital files, I have realized that much of the quality I have always ascribed to LF images has been due to low grain... and digital can deliver that quality easily. I have come to dislike grain more and more so that I am now bothered by the grain in my MF images. The biggest problem with 39MP is $30K!

DOF is clearly an advantage of smaller sensors. Many folks have found the Nikon D2X (12MP) equal to or better than the Canon 1DsMkII (16MP) for landscape work because of the greater DOF on the smaller sensor.

As for DSLRs exceeding 20MP, it will undoubtable happen this year. If Canon simply scales the pixel density of the 20D (which has very low noise and good high ISO peformance) to full frame, they will be at 21MP.... and the 20D is 18 month old technology by now.

Finally, when comparing theoretically, I think that we place too much emphasis on resolution. First, it is poorly defined... even the Rayleigh criterion is dubious for non point source images. Secondly, the human eye-brain system clearly prefers crisp edges to high resolution soft edges. I have looked at alot of test charts where line pairs are technically resolved, but still look like crap. I will take a lower resolution with high accutance and low noise any day... this is why digital looks so good with apparently low resolutions. I have seen 20x30" prints made from 8MP files that are stunning... but they are of images that don't rely on fine detail and are viewed at resonable distances (image diagonal).

Vegetation in landscapes is one area where high resolution really influences perceived sharpness... and it remains a bane of digital sensors.

Glenn

[John_4185]

Like the blind men examining the elephant, everyone here is right to a certain extent.

And I suppose only you have the Truth. So let's see what you prescribe.

An instructive experiment is to photograph a standard USAF resolution

What a laugh. An image with notable esthetic quality transcends grain sniffing, anal, microscopic metrics. Your observations might be of passing interest to a reconnaissance 101 class, but only optical benchracers would be silly enough to stay there.

We are not blind and we aren't feeling up elephants.

[Glenn Kroeger]

jj:

No, the point of the elephant fable is that everyone is right and no one has a corner on truth... which is exactly the point of my post.

As for AF charts, I said they are instructive in understanding why digital and analog are different, which if I recall was one of your points. If you will read my post, you will notice that I clearly indicate that subject matter matters in peoples reaction to real images.

Glenn

[Scott Fleming]

This is one of the best of all time threads. I'm going to print it out and file it as well as bookmark it and keep watching it.

This whole subject is as indivdualistic as possible. Digital capture has really tossed the photographic world for a loop. Never since the invention of glass plates has so much changed so fast. Though I enjoy such discussions the personal reality of our photography comes down to what feels good to us and what we can afford. It took me three years of inner machinations to get where I am today on this subject.

As a piper cub flyer I can enjoy listening to the stories of a young jet jocky serving in the Persian Gulf once in a while but dwelling on them would only make me unhappy. I really like making pictures. I love analog equipment. Both handling it and using it. I feel just like jj. Complex digital cameras don't get me off. Give me a young Sophia Loren in a modest bathing suit. Paris Hilton gives me an empty limp feeling.

More than anything I like my favorite prints. They are my friends. I never tire of looking at them. I even forget after a while which camera I used or which lab printed them or how they were scanned . I'll never know or understand the joy of Pt Pd printing in my own dark room nor will I ever own my own 39 MP MF back. But I can make a print I love just as well with my comfortable analog cameras as anything else out there. Speaking relatively. I can punch up a digital photograph in PhotoShop and even get it sharpened ok without owning a third party sharpening program. But I'll probably never learn how to build a complex mask so as to blend two exposures. Screw it. I prefer graduated neutral density filters. I never had a disciplined mind and I can feel the brain cells slipping away by the year now. I'll never be a great photographer nor a Capture One or PS maven. Don't wanna be. I'm very glad however that others of you are and report the latest develpments here and around the web. I'm so glad I don't do this for a living.

[robc]

<span style="color: #FF0000;">WARNING! You have entered CYBER-GEEK land! There is no exit!</span>

[bglick]

Glenn... > Lenses for the digital back are an issue, but the new Schneider Digitars may be up to the task.

Agreed, but I am using the same digitars on film, and they make the same remarkable improvement in image quality over the sharpest LF lenses, so future comaprisons should also take this into account. Of course, not all digital lenses can cover 4x5, but several can.... albeit at the sacrfice of some movements.

I also fully agree with you comments on placing too much emphasis on sheer resolution, as, the digital / film issue should be evaulauted, even with targets, as a which one looks better to you. As you mentioned, since they record differently, the comparison of target data is not apples to apples.... such as comparing MF film to LF film....

jj, I think Glen and many others understand your position. Digital is not for everyone, heck some people still drive Model T cars around, not liking all the sophistication of new cars. We all have different taste and needs. And Scott, I fully agree with your position.... everyone has "fall off" zones with technical endeavors. For example, 10 years ago, i was into every detail in to Hi FI audio, wasting too much money on gains that were rarely ever heard. But now, I have no interest in the nitty gritty details of such, it all sounds so good, I can't stress myself out pursuing the ever changing electronics of that field either. I may feel the same about photograhy in 5 years.

The reality of the situation is, for me, I am happy with what I have, (digital and film mix) but am always interested in the trend of digital, as you mentioned, it truly is a revolutionary breakthrough, probably only compared to the developement of film after glass plates, and that evolution took 40 years to develop to make plates obsolete.....but in this electronics age with computer aided designs, larger markets, public companies with huge R&D budgets, stockholders forcing growth, etc. Things progress so fast, it's almost a capitalism "case study" by itself, even if one is not a photographer. Just think, in 2010, film may be near obsolete. Can you imagine looking back then, and saying, 10 years ago, digital was more of a novelty then a serious competitor for film, which has been around for almost 100 years, and still continues to improve, as Fuji just released improved emulsions in 05 ! Truly amazing....

From the business side of this, I marvel how Fuji did not see this coming and make a huge move to digital to protect their future eroding film sales and profits. Kodak did react somewhat, but even they did not make the "power play" I would have anticipated. Hence why Canon and possibly a few others will benefit from the modern day "you snooze, you loose" business adage! Nikon did not attack digital with the vengence that Canon did, and they too are paying the price as 35mm was clearly the most vulnerable to the wrath of digital capture. Xerox / IBM is still kicking themselves in the butt by allowing others to handle the tiny and unprofitable task of a computers operating system software! :-) Hell, they were busy making short term profits on hardware, and getting big bonus checks each month......while Bill Gates when on to be the richest person on the planet in less then 15 years!

[bglick]

Rob.... that was short, but sweet, and all too true.....argggggggg......

But it's fun, calorie free and not harmful to your health, so why not indulge!

[robc]

"But it's fun, calorie free and not harmful to your health, so why not indulge!"

I probably will at some point, but not while a high numbered MegaPixel camera is harmful to your pocket. A reasonable quality scanner is good enough for me at the moment.

incidentally, I recently went into my local town hall market. There was a photographer from the local camera club selling 18" by 48" local panoramas and smaller versions. I know him and asked about his sales sucess and whether it was profitable. He told me it pays for his equipment. He uses a 6MP camera and stitches images together in PS to make the panoramas which are printed on his epson 4000. He is completely non technical and gets his daughter to install software for him. From a sensible viewing distance the images look really good. A lot of them are printed on canvas. Get up close and very very soft is the best way to describe them. They sell. He is happy. His customers(tourists) are happy. Everyone is happy.

6MP cameras are cheap as chips and you can make money from them if you have a mind to do it.

ENGAGE BRAIN. GO AND DO IT!

[Scott Fleming]

"gets his daughter to install software for him"

Windows user.

[bglick]

Rob, when I mentioned "why not indulge", I was referring to the digital vs. film "state of affairs" progress. I was not referring to buying digital gear, although many have done this also, at least on the lower end. For many of us, its just as fascinating on a curiosity level as it is on an application level.

[Tom Westbrook]

FWIW, I compared the same photo taken with am 8MP P&S digicam (Panasonic LX1) and with a Leica M6. I haven't kept up with digital arcana too much (eg what the differences are in chips of the same MP on a P&S and pro SLRs), so I'm sure someone will point out the numerous flaws in this comparison, but see this page on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom_westbrook/sets/1568894). Richard might find it useful as a visual comparison to draw some conclusions.

[John_4185]

I'm sure you all know the comments that occured when the automobile was invented: "Get a Horse!" Well, the countryside then was only suitable to horses and walking. Infrastructure, roads made cars not only possible, but necessary. Digital is still at the brink of that change. Very soon the infrastructure will be complete. Assimulation will be complete. (Picture Homer Simpson saying that.)

I see LF poseurs, wannabes, look-alikers from time to time standing as close to their car as possible, stuck to the infrastructure they have presumed necessary.

It doesn't have to go that way. Not today. Not in a hundred years.

Question presumptions.

[David Luttmann]

Scott,

("gets his daughter to install software for him")

"Windows user."

Ya, Windoze is soooo hard. Insert CD, click "install"....click OK. Ya, a Mac is WAY easier......you just follow the same steps as ......well, Windoze! Sorry, let's leave the OS myths aside shall we? Like the fellows at the Mac booth who tried to convince me years ago the Photoshop was easier to use on the Mac.....when the software is the SAME on both platforms.

[Scott Fleming]

Sorry Dave. Can't remember. Last time my P-4 crashed due to spyware clogging and the myriad of programs I had to go through regularly to keep it running and functional I couldn't get it to go again so I unplugged it and gave it to goodwill. I have no spyware or virus problems now. My mac is actually plug and play not plug and play and play and play and play and then unplug and reinstall then get forced into a system reinstall then .....

Well you get my drift. Let's not ruin this thread. I'm glad you like windows and are happy with it. I'm glad the whole world runs on windows. I enjoy living in the other simpler world.

[John_4185]

Photoshop was easier to use on the Mac.....when the software is the SAME on both platforms.


I use both. I wish Apple would make the right mouse button native, naturally integrated and provide the darned two button mouse standard.

Another handy thing about WindoZe: The default 'open' dialog allows one to type in a URL to open an image file. Handy in PS. Try it!

[robc]

I'd like to hear what the original poster, Richard (remember him?) thinks about all the non-snow-job, non-ultra-tech and just plain common language answers he's got to his question.

[Marko]

jj: I use both. I wish Apple would make the right mouse button native, naturally integrated and provide the darned two button mouse standard.
Another handy thing about WindoZe: The default 'open' dialog allows one to type in a URL to open an image file. Handy in PS. Try it!

JJ, I have both on my desk, sharing one monitor and one mouse. It's a standard, Microsoft two-button optical usb mouse and it works right out of the box on my Mac, both buttons. If you get one of those with additional buttons, you'll have to install the software to make use of the additional buttons, but that's true on the PC too.

Also, as far as I know, you can type in the path on the Mac too, you just have to use a very different convention.

Dave: Like the fellows at the Mac booth who tried to convince me years ago the Photoshop was easier to use on the Mac.....when the software is the SAME on both platforms.

Well, yes and no... It is not Photoshop that makes the difference, it's the OS. I use both in my work. One makes me fight it every day, the other makes me forget it exists. Care to guess which is which?

Now back to the topic - I have a simple question: Why is it always film vs. digital? Or PC vs. Mac, or Canon vs. Nikon or ... Why do we force ourselves and often others around us to live in a binary world? Most of us here are just amateurs, after all... Whichever camera we pick will surely be able of taking much better pictures than we are, so why not just pick whatever makes us feel the least guilty about spenindg all that money and enjoy?

[Marko]

Richard: I shoot conventional silver film and will continue to do so. I am toying with the idea of adding some digital in the future. A good friend that is pretty savy tells me that in comparing digital to film, the likely ratio is a camera which shoots digital at 15 or more mega pixels.... is equal to high quality Ektachrome.

Having done both, I can confidently say this: to be able to enjoy digital, you have to be comfortable with Photoshop or at least with the idea of learning it. You also need to have a good quality, calibrated monitor. Finally, you definitely need to shoot RAW. It does have a very different paradigm ("expose to the right") and workflow, but it offers the greatest rewards. Also, be prepared to upgrade every few years and live with steep depreciation.

So, to answer your question, even a 12 megapixel camera could equal slide film, but only if you mastered all of the above. If any of these make you uncomfortable (and there are others too!), you may end up with a lot of frustration and might be better off saving your money for film instead.

Regards,

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I refer you to the FBI standards for resolution as per requirements for evidence. Very informative. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

[John_4185]

John Berry I refer you to the FBI standards for resolution as per requirements for evidence.

Megosh, I think I've had an epiphany! Or maybe it's a stroke.

[David Luttmann]

Odd Marko, I've never fought with PS in Windows. I just use PS all the time & I never think about the OS. As well, my virus protection program has kept me from having any spyware or virus issues at all. I suggest people have one installed. I do, and don't have a problem. But yes, back to the original topic......

[Terence Spross]

Richard Boulware

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this, WITHOUT a snow-job in ultra-tech. Just plain common language please

I fear this thread -hasn't lived up to your expectations. In fact I fear we've chased you away.
If you sort thru it and ignore the occational off topic - there is a simple answer in there somewhere.

speaking of off topic-
jj a default setting to makes a phoney a camera-like noise, don't buy it - spite the manufacturer. Once I was near a table full of camera guys and heard what was almost the classic Nikon-F (close to the Nikon-S motordrive but with mirror sound.) It came from a little digital camera. I knew that very moment that something was terribly wrong with the whole paradigm.

Sort of like hearing a cell phone ringtone simulating and old fanshioned telephone with real bells in it. - But that beats a ringtone on someone's cell with "Little Brown Jug" in the middle of the last wedding I was at. I gave that person a real look of distain.
One of the disadvantages of conventional cameras is their noise - I know a photographer that selected and uses a Leica camera because of its relative silence for use during ceromonies, which I think is why a lot of Leica rangefinder owners selected their camera. So it is amazing and disturbing when a digital camera is generating a lot of noise for no reason whatsoever, with the user having no clue how to turn the sound off, in the middle of a wedding. It makes noise when the menu button is pressed - when the release button is pressed slightly, indicating low light, when they the picture is taken anyway for fear that other adjustments might sound like mechanical ratcheting - and when the memory chip is removed -the blasted thing sounds like a 35mm rewinding! After people in front of me looked around with distain - I returned the camera to the owner who had asked me to use it as a favor. (then she had the nerve to say she thought it might make less noise for me...)
The quiteness of digital is supposed to be an advantage.

I hadn't made so much noise at a wedding since the time I tried to use my 4x5 at another wedding, but got klutzy and dropped the film holder bouncing it off the balcony edge and cracking it open ruining my previous shot with a loud smack on the floor below (fortunatly missing everybody) and the same time as the minister indicated it was time for a moment of silence in prayer.

ON TOPIC: SORT OF
Why do many people like B&W ?- -- I think often the paper choice - the texture choices are not yet available for inkjet printing digitally - there are some choices if you search and there are coatings that can be applied to art papers to keep the ink from running - but its not the same thing. Look ahead to the future for not only a reduction in cost for better quality at the sensor level but also at the printing end.

Also, for those who have taken their 66MP or even 88MP raw images to be printed as a 16x20 print. What resolution is actually used? The commercial printer I was going to use verified their firmware update for their equipment now allowed files larger than 12 MP but as I pressed further I found the actual process resulted in the resulution reduced to near 12MP just before printing. So what resolution are you really looking at when you see the print and compare it to a conventionally printed film print?

Digital is still in its infancy - expect big changes in the near future...

[David Luttmann]

Terence,

When outputting for something like a 16x20, 88MP would be overkill. While you could output to inket at 530 dpi, going to a Chromira, Lightjet, or Noritsu, you would be limited to just over 400 dpi of output rez.....if I recall, the max from Frontier is 302 dpi.

The big advantage would be maintaining in excess of 200 dpi for a 50" print. Being that I rarely print over 30 to 36 inches, a 39MP back would be more than sufficient.....if I could just afford it!

[Marko]

Dave, I don't think it's odd you do not have problems with your computer, I think that's great. My whole point is that it should be a personal choice, not a thing to fight over. Ditto for cameras.

I am fairly proficient with both platforms, I don't have a problem installing or troubleshooting either. And I'm not saying I have problems with one of them, what I am saying is that that particular OS (not Photoshop, mind you, I find it remarkably stable across platforms!) simply feels clunky for the want of a better word to describe it, to the point that I feel as if having to fight it. Some people feel that, the others don't - it is a big deal to those who do and all the talk about it is the matter of annoyance to those who don't. To each his own, like I said above.

Now, just out of idle curiosity - what exactly made you think it was Windows I was refering to? I never said which one was it, did I? ;)

Regards,

[David Luttmann]

Marko,

You mentioned Mac, and as Photoshop is only available for Mac & Windows (I wish they would make it for Linux), if you aren't talking about Macs, then it must be Windows you're fighting with. But I agree, OS platforms are like cameras. I wouldn't use my 4x5 for my wedding or event work....and I wouldn't use my old backup DSLR (3.4MP D30) for landscape work.

[Marko]

Dave,

Yes, I'm using both Mac and Windows - no Linux either, because there is no Photoshop for it - I said that much. But what I did not say was which one of the two causes me more grief. You guessed Windows, and correctly so, which I found amusing since you seem to prefer Windows yourself.

Don't take it the wrong way, just a light moment, that's all :)

Now, about the cameras - I used to use D30 until recently, when I found a good home for it. I loved it, despite all of its shortcomings. It has only 3MP, can't even print 8x10 without upresing, forget about cropping at all, autofocus is slow... But... That's the camera that got me back into photography after about 20 years, even did some landscapes with it. Now I'm curious to see how the 4x5 will work out for me, but I'll probably end up with both, just like computers...

[David Luttmann]

Marko,

I don't think I'll ever part with the D30. It's a great walkabout camera. It's my point & shoot. And for quick snaps of kids birthdays, etc, for 4x6 & 5x7 it's great. I must admit, I find the autofocus so bad, I just manual focus all the time.

Now since the days of the D30, I also have a 10D, 1D MK2, and 1Ds, for my digital work.....which is a bulk of the paying work. I do find it fun though to grab the RB67 or 4x5 and head out for an afternoon or evening of shooting.

Best regards,

[Marko]

Unfortunately, I do it only as a hobby, I don't get paid for it. Or should I say fortunately...

But at any rate, I simpy can't justify that many cameras, especially not the high end ones. I'd rather have a low-end body with a couple of high-end lenses. I'm now waiting to see what's Canon going to announce at PMA, but I'm also curious to see what Zeiss is up to... I might as well switch to whichever system they end up supporting.

4x5 is so much simpler in that respect. Aside from the fun factor, it doesn't seem to get obsolete nowhere nearly that fast...

[Victor Samou Wong]

Marko: you can say that again..... I just got my apo-ronar in the mail and whoo-hoo is it sharp! I could cut myself! I'm falling in lust all over again! (well not really, but I am impressed).

Cheers

[Doug Dolde]

I am sure some of you saw the recent P45 samples on Rob Gailbraith's forum. Some were taken with a Schneider 35mm Digitar lens. If you have Capture One 3.7.3 you can download and process the raw files. Clicking on the images will load a jpg.

www.iversenfoto.dk/p45test.html (http://www.iversenfoto.dk/p45test.html)

I'll not say too much about them except to my eye I'd take them over drum scanned 4x5 any day. Obviously I'm not saying this as a result of an actual comparison more a seat of the pants impression. These are 5428 x 7228 pixel files ! That spells 18x24 at 300 dpi.

Not sure how comfortable I'd be taking a 30K piece of hardware out in the woods or desert though even if I could afford one.

[Marko]

There's no question in my mind that digital will replace film. This is already happening and it is only natural.

The real question is about the price point.

The pros are already entirely there or will be very soon. It is a question of economics for them.

The snapshooters are already there, as both the camera prices and print prices have reached the film levels. For this segment, it is a question of convenience.

That leaves the rest of us here. The technology exists, but it has not yet reached the price point at which it will make sense for us to make a full switch. The real question here is the economics of scale - how fast if at all will the large chip market grow, thus enabling the price per unit to fall beyond the point at which it will be able to trigger a landslide similar to the ones that had already occurred in the consumer and pro segments.

Until that happens, majority of us will be shooting both LF film and "35mm" digital, depending on the occasion and purpose, while the minority will keep bitterly complaining about evil new technology.

And Doug, I understand what you are saying, but if I were able to afford that kind of hardware, I'd take it to the woods or desert any day over certain areas of LA. At 30K, make that "most areas".

Regards,

[C.A]

I saw a large promotional print from a Canon 1Ds and I wasn't impressed, on closer inspection the girls eye was all jagged from pixels. how can such a small sensor compete with large formats.

[David Luttmann]

C. Alex,

If you saw jagged eyes, that was due to poor interpolation, not the sensor. I don't get jagged portraits from my gear.

[C.A]

I don't get jagged portraits from my film cameras either, how can a sensor the size of a postage stamp record as much detail as larger formats, and if a digital sensor is so good why do users have to interpolation ?

[Jim collum]

the problem is, a lot of users enlarge the image past where is should be. you'll find many who take a 3 Mp image and blow it up to 30x20, and insist that it's high quality (if viewed from 'proper' distance.. which in most cases seems to be about 30 feet). I'm used to the large format world, where viewers tend to expect to be able to walk 'into' a print.. nose to glass. In that case, I rarely will enlarge a 1dsMk2 image over abot 14x20. At this size, no interpolation is necessary, and there are no digitial artifacts that are apparent at 'nose-to-print' distance.

it happens in the film world as well.. 35mm users who enlarge to 30x20 and insist that the detail is the same as 4x5 film. in this case you have 'grain artifacts' instead of jaggies. if i wanted to, i could emulate that with digital by interpolating (using a decent alorithm) the file up to 30x20, and then overlaying it with a grain pattern.

i always add a little background noise/grain to my digital images.. . Most people are used to seeing a noise floor in images analog images... and the clean look of digital can look artificial. The noise actually adds the impression of finer detail.

jim

[David Luttmann]

C. Alex,

Whatever.....

[Larry_6283]

As a technophile, and a thrilled-to-shoot-digital hobby photographer, I'd like to point out some facts that film shooters, and digital non-experts, don't seem aware of.

Post-processing digital correctly for prints requires up-ressing/interpolation- *lot's* of it.

Properly-sharpened high-quality digital files from top-line cameras (Nikon D2x, Canon 1Ds*, Canon 5D) with top-line zoom or prime lenses produce single-pixel details near 100% MTF. Scans of film-drum or otherwise, don't get near to this. It makes sense to up-res digital to the same 'blurriness' of film scans before printing, to get a fair comparison. Or look at it this way: how much down-ressing would you need to get 100% MTF from a film scan?

The current top-line inkjet printers, such as the Epson R1800, have a native resolution of 720 print-pixels per inch. (And it's very obvious that going lower than that produces blurry edge details when viewing the print with a loupe.)

If you foolishly print a 13" x 19" at native resolution, you will obviously see square pixels in the print. If you interpolate the digital file up to a minimum of 360 print-pixels per inch, or the ideal 720 ppi for the R1800, you get printer-induced-artifact-free prints.

If you properly sharpen (I use two-pass sharpening at low radii), at nose-print viewing range you

get clear, sharp edges.

My bottom line is that I am printing 13" x 19" prints from 11 MP source that is perceptibly as

sharp as our MF-captured wedding photos which were optically printed to 8" x 10". That's at an

eyeball-to-print range of about 6" (I'm very near-sighted.)

I won't argue tonality, or the obvious advantages that film's shoulder and toe response provides,

but again, proper RAW converison and post-processing of digital comes very close to those attributes, too.

[Santiago Vanegas]

Try and make a 6 hour exposure with only moonlight on a $40K digital back. Digital only works during the day and in the studio. It's useless for night photography.

[Jim collum]

>Try and make a 6 hour exposure with only moonlight on a $40K digital back.

ok.. haven't tried it. but i figure at least battery life in the field would limit that. (although i' m not sure what percentage of images are taken via a 6 hour moonlit exposure with film)

>Digital only works during the day and in the studio.

sorry.. competely wrong. have been using digital in the field for years (even a scanning back.. which is one of the more difficult field digital capture methods)

It's useless for night photography.

also wrong. night photography is fine.. 6 hour exposures i'd probably agree on.. but night photography with film is not limited to 6 hour moonlit exposures

[Santiago Vanegas]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Digital capture is inferior to film when it comes to longer exposures of 1 minute or more. They produce way too much moise, or the camera/back simply will not allow more time (32 seconds is the longest I've seen on high end digital backs).

[David Luttmann]

Santiago,

Stick with what you know. I have shot star trails for 2 hours with my Canon 10D with little problem. You can subtract a dark frame.....which is easy to do to reduce noise even further.....try that with film! As well, I shoot a fair bit of deep sky work with both my 10D and Canon 1Ds. Poor reciprocity characteristics of film and film grain are far worse than digital noise. Quantum efficiency of a CMOS or CCD sensor in a digital camera is hundreds of times better than film in long exposures whether or not the film has been hypersensitized or chilled in a cold camera. That is why digital sensors have replaced film for virtually all astronomical capture whether professional or amateur.

Here's an example of deep sky work. This is one of the many shots I took of M27 with a Canon 10D. This is a composite of three, 10 minute shots at ISO 1600. I'd like to see you compare the grain and noise to a 1600 speed color film. Ya, I thought you wouldn't!

http://members.shaw.ca/daveandclaire/locb/images/co.jpg

[Santiago Vanegas]

Well, it's great to see that people are pushing digital capture with long exposures and getting satisfying results (I haven't had that satisfaction yet). I really hope that camera makers continue to improve digital capture's long exposure capability. That has been the reason I haven't switched yet... plus digital backs are still way too expensive.Have you had any experience with long exposures at the lower ISO settings?

[David Luttmann]

I rarely shoot below 400 as the noise at 400 is non-existant....especially when images are added. I normally shoot at 800 or 1600, and stack a number of images together. My normal routine involves stacking a dozen or so 5 minute iso 800 shots. This reduces the chances of tracking errors and provides a decent signal to noise ratio to work with. Once stacked and added, there is virtually no noise at either 800 or 1600 iso. I also take a dark frame near the begining of the run and near the end, and average the 2 together. I then subtract this dark frame from each image prior to stacking. At a size of 12x18, the noise is invisible.

Noise is just one issue though. The greatest problem with color film is that the different color layers all have differing reciprocity characteristics and thus you end up with awful color shifts. I used to use medium format film and a cold camera to reduce reciprocity failure and lock in color balance a bit better. My best film work was shot on hypersensitized Kodak PPF400 and Tech Pan. The first CCD camera I built about 15 years ago used a small TI chip, but it convinced me then that for astronomical imaging, films days were numbered. I now shoot with DSLRs and an SBIG ST10XME CCD camera.

[Oren Grad]

Dave, any experience with the 20Da?

[Santiago Vanegas]

Dave,
When you stack images though, you can only do that when you're shooting things that are static. So, what about shooting things that move (water, star trails, people, cars, etc.) at night?

*just to add some more info about my way...
I shoot a Hasselblad H1 and an Ebony SV23 with Fuji 64T and Astia.

[Marko]

Santiago: Dave, When you stack images though, you can only do that when you're shooting things that are static. So, what about shooting things that move (water, star trails, people, cars, etc.) at night?

So, what about them?

I have seen digital shots of people, cars, planes and trains made in the range of 1600-3200. They all looked pretty darn good.

Now, what color film options are available in the 1600-3200 range? And at what color balance (daylight or tungsten)? Also, what about reciprocity and grain on those?

This was, IMHO, a very valid and good point in digital vs. film argument about three years ago. This is now and this particular point is no more. Those of us with at least basic exposure ;) to digital know very well how long a year really is when it comes to progress.

On another, more basic plane - I don't see much point in the digital vs. film arugment per se. What I do find funny though, is that it is mostly analog people that seem to be categorizing the world in such a binary fashion.

Regards,

[David Luttmann]

Santiago,

Long exposure deep sky work is all static. That said, I can capture star trails that are 2 hours long at iso 100. When I subtract a dark frame, there is less noise in the image than ANY film available on the market today.

I also do a fair bit of long exposure work with water targets, etc. Attached is an image that was approx 3 minutes long at iso 100 shot with a 1Ds. At 20x30 there is NO NOISE in the image. Really, all this talk of noise in digital imaging is laughable considering the amount of grain in film images from the same people putting down digital imaging for noise issues. The noise I get in home exterior shots at iso 200 and 30 sec to 3 minutes is less than that from Scanned Fuji Astia. Thus, this topic is really a non-starter.

As to the 20Da....I was actually disappointed. The extra sensitivity to the red, covering hydrogen alpha and HII lines was about double that of a conventional 20D. While it is better, I don't think it's any big deal. If one is really concerned about spectral response, a good choice would be some of the front illuminated imaging chips from Finger Lakes Instruments. The QE is superb and spectral response curve is better at both ends. Even the SBIG I have will dig deeper & with better color in a 5 minute shot than I can get with 400 speed film in an hour!

http://members.shaw.ca/daveandclaire/locb/images/ca.jpg

[Santiago Vanegas]

I've seen them as well at 1600-3200 in digital and film. It's a totally different look if you put them side by side to a 64-200 range. So, that comparison wouldn't necessarily apply to my situation. I shoot with the 64 and 100 films because I like their characteristics. I'm not into grain, whether it's digital or film. And it's very different to stack exposures, when necessary, as opposed to one single exposure with moving elements within the frame. The fact remains that with digital capture, *long* exposure times (continuous, not layered/stacked) are not completely up to the photographer. They're up to the equipment. With film, the photographer decides and has no limit.
"I don't see much point in the digital vs. film argument per se."
The argument is there and always will be because they are both inherently different form each other. They both do certain things that the other cannot. Because of this, it is only natural that they be compared. The analog people may tend to "categorize -ing- the world in such a binary fashion" only because that's kind of how it is now given that digital capture is still a new technology. Film still exists, as does digital. Digital people may not do as much comparing because they have less pressure to go back to film. People who drive cars nowadays don't compare driving with riding a horse. But people who still use a horse as basic transportation may be comparing the horse to the car more frequently (regardless of which is the preferred way to go). People will always compare old ways to new ways in any subject/dicipline. It may seem funny, but that's how people are.
So, have you had any experience shooting in even lower ISO (50-200) with exposures longer than 1 minute?

[Santiago Vanegas]

Oops! In my previous reply, I thought I was still talking to Dave.
So... Dave, everything you're sharing with me about your experience with long digital exposures has been very very interesting and I'm pleased that this knid of shooting is becoming more and more possible. However, I'm still looking forward to the day when one will be able to make exposures lasting up to several hours with digital capture. I have no doubt that day is near.

[David Luttmann]

Other than astronomical imaging, exposures over 2 hours for any other type of photography are rare. Most of the long water shots that you see by people like David Fokos are much less than an hour long. At this point, digital capture is already up to snuff and as such, film holds no advantages in this area.

Best of luck with your experimentation in this area.

Regards

[Paul Coppin]

Richard, you didn't say whether you had any experience yet in digital, even with a point and shoot. assuming that you have none, my suggestion would be to go get a Canon Digital Rebel and explore in 35mm for a bit. No, its not LF - look at is as microscale LF digital - you can play with the digital files easily, you can compare to your favorite film easily (assuming you have a 35mm camera). Minimize the expense, maximize the learning curve. When you can produce GOOD digital images within the limits of the Rebel, you will have worked out most of the geek issues that will get in your way in LF - that part of it is all a matter of scale, and you don't take such a large $ hit up front while you experiment.

[Jerry Fusselman]

"film holds no advantage in this area"

Even if neither money nor portability is an issue, I thought film's potential advantages were two:

(1) very large format still beats digital for ultimate image quality;

(2) reciprocity failure with film actually helps you with star trails and meteor trails, because reciprocity failure removes more light pollution than your subject.

But I am willing to learn something new.

[David Luttmann]

Jerry,

Large format is actually a poor choice for star trails or astronomical imaging. My DSLR is far more portable than a 4x5 film camera and film backs. For starters, the lenses are slower for LF compared to 35mm lenses. Secondly, resolution is limited by atmospheric seeing, not the sensor. Lastly, reciprocity failure effects the whole image....not just skyglow. If skyglow was the only issue, I could combat that with something like a Lumicon Deepsky filter to remove sodium and mecury vapor lines. Because digital sensors lack reciprocity failure, I can stop down the lens to improve sharpness further at the edges and end up with less skyglow and a sharper background (assuming there are terrestrial object in the image).

As well, the latest digital sensors have less noise and more accurate color in time exposures than 4x5 film. As I said, digital sensors have replaced film in this area and for good reason.

[Jerry Fusselman]

Dave.

Thanks for replying. You wrote, "reciprocity failure effects the whole image...not just skyglow." Not true, if your meaning is that reciprocity failure affects equally the light pollution and the trails.

I was discussing star trails and meteors, where the image is formed by a light source that causes exposure on different points of the film of brief duration compared to the background light pollution. Therefore, the trails are diminished little or not at all by reciprocity failure, whereas the light pollution is often dramatically diminished by reciprocity failure. So don't you see that the benefit of reciprocity failure is real and substantial for film images of star trails and meteors?

[David Luttmann]

Actually Jerry,

That's not quite correct. The star trails are affected very much so by reciprocity failure. Tests that I did a long while ago with hypered Kodak PPF400 and well as Ektachrome in a cold camera showed that reduced reciprocity failure greatly increases the number of stars you see in a star trail photo. By reducing reciprocity failure, you end up with better contrast in the image between the stars and skyglow. Of course, what many people do to avoid the skyglow issue altogether (as it is a problem for both film and digital users) is to take multiple exposures of say 15 minutes each. That way sky glow is avoided, and the digital sensor will dig deeper than film possibly can and you keep the nice star trail effect.

Believe me, after doing this for more than 25 years, I've got a pretty good handle on the limitations for film in astronomical imaging. Star trail shots are an extremly testing type of photography for both film and digital. As most shots are much shorter in duration, I will reitterate that film holds no advantages here....including resolution.

[Jerry Fusselman]

Dave,

I don't immediately see what you mean by "reduced reciprocity failure" in this:


Tests that I did a long while ago with hypered Kodak PPF400 and well as Ektachrome in a cold camera showed that reduced reciprocity failure greatly increases the number of stars you see in a star trail photo. By reducing reciprocity failure, you end up with better contrast in the image between the stars and skyglow.

Would you please elaborate? I don't immediately understand this.

Also, are you saying that reciprocity failure darkens stars trails and light pollution equally? Or would you concede that it darkens star trails significantly less than than it darkens light pollution?

There is also the area of black and white imaging, where film may have an advantage, yes?

[David Luttmann]

Jerry,

One can reduce reciprocity failure in films through two methods:

1) Gas hypersensitization. A mixture of 92% nitrogen & 8% hydrogen is used to purge all air & moisture from the film. Normally this involves film baking in a chamber for a 1/2 day to 3 days at 30 to 40 degrees centrigrade in the forming gas at about 15psi. This is different depending on the film used. Testing is by trial and error. Overdoing it increases base fog to a level that starts to reduce contrast.

2) Cold camera. Film is placed into a chamber that is purged with nitrogen to remove moisture. The film rests against a thin glass optical window. On the back side, the film rests against a cold plate that has crushed dry ice placed on the other side. This chills film to approx 80 degrees below zero. This reduces reciprocity failure and limits the sensitivity difference between the color layers....thereby locking in color balance.

Film lost it's advantage in B&W imaging as well as soon as Kodak discontinued it's Tech Pan emulsion. This B&W film hypered extremely well. However, it still paled in comparison to CCD cameras where the quantum efficiency was better and spectral response dug deeper into boths ends of the spectrum.

As to star trails, the issue is that as long as the base fog levels from the skyglow stay below that which can be adjusted in the digital file later, the greater quantum efficiency of the CMOS or CCD sensor will record more stars than film....without skyglow impacting on the image.....and will do it with less noise.

[Emre Yildirim]

I mostly agree with Dave here. The first thing I did when I got my Canon 20D last year, was go out and shoot star trails. Noise is pretty much non-existent at ISO 100 & 200, but I can see some (very very little) noise at ISO 400. After that it becomes much more visible.

One thing that I did noticed however, even at ISO 100 and 15 minute exposures, is that my 20D produced at least 4 dead pixels in every image. Sometimes it was as high as 10. These were very noticable red dots on my images. Of course, I could easily correct them in photoshop.

I still think 4x5 is nice when doing long exposures, but the depth of field becomes a problem, not to mention focusing in darkness. I never use film above ISO 100 because I don't like the grain. So when I'm using 100 speed film, I have to make sure my lens is wide open or else everything will come out too dark, no matter how long I keep the shutter open. And of course...when the lens is wide open, not everything is in focus (i.e. if I want mountains and trees to be in focus along with the star trails).

With my 20D on the other hand, I just set the aperture to f/2.8 focused at infinity. Works really well.