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

Findingmyway4ever

25-Jul-2009, 04:30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erwin Puts comparo of the Leica M7/M8 prints:

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

Peter De Smidt

25-Jul-2009, 05:05

Note that Rockwell claims that film is superior to digital for the type of landscape photography that he does. For action photos and low-light photos he prefers digital. In particular, he's talking about 35mm (and now 120mm) Velvia 50 versus digital slrs, such as a D40, D90... His claim is that he gets better color and detail with film. I see no reason to disagree, with the caveats mentioned.

Paul Kierstead

25-Jul-2009, 06:27

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

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

Bruce Watson

25-Jul-2009, 06:48

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

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

Ken Lee

25-Jul-2009, 07:13

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/deadhorse.gif

;)

Steven Barall

25-Jul-2009, 07:44

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

eric black

25-Jul-2009, 07:52

Ken- thats awesome!!!!

Ken Lee

25-Jul-2009, 08:11

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

QT Luong

25-Jul-2009, 08:56

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

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

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

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

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

Jim collum

25-Jul-2009, 09:09

Jim Galli

25-Jul-2009, 09:19

...subscription removed...

Brian Ellis

25-Jul-2009, 09:50

I've made thousands of prints in a darkroom, at least another thousand from scans (most done myself, a few drum scanned by others), and at least another thousand from digital cameras. And I'm supposed to care or even be interested in Ken Rockwell's opinions of prints made from different sources? Can't I see for myself? Can't anyone who's done darkroom work and now prints digitally see for themselves?

I've always thought Rockwell was a strange duck. I'm glad to see from QT's quote that Rockwell himself agrees.

D. Bryant

25-Jul-2009, 09:54

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

This post reminds me a lot of this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26243&highlight=digital

Don Bryant

Marko

25-Jul-2009, 10:03

Dead horses and such aside, why isn't this thread in The Lounge?

No, seriously, it should be safe to post it there, since this isn't about either politics or religion.

;)

jim kitchen

25-Jul-2009, 10:23

Damn, someone left the lounge door open again.

Ken: An excellent graphic... :)

jim k

paulr

25-Jul-2009, 11:32

I've gone from printing conventionally to printing digitally over the last several years. I find even a cheap scanner produces higher quality prints than even a high end enlarging lens (I just sold my 150mm apo componon HM). But this is for small to moderate sized enlargements.

I can see from the maximum useable resolution of my scanner that I'm limited to enlargements of up to 4X or so. Beyond that I'll start having problems ... below that the prints are the sharpest and clearest I've ever produced.

To make big enlargements would require a much higher quality scanner. I don't have experience with this, so I don't know where currently the threshold would be.

My general sense is that with a scan, there's a kind of brick-wall limit to enlargement size. Above that size artifacts of the scanning process will start to intrude. Below that, they're invisible. An anolog scan, on the other hand, doesn't have any hard limit. Sharpness and perceived detail just gradually decline as the enlargement gets bigger.

Jamie123

25-Jul-2009, 15:06

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/deadhorse.gif

;)

Completely off topic but did you know that there's a youtube clip about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo

:D

Tim Meisburger

25-Jul-2009, 16:52

I like Ken Rockwell. Although I always had a vague interest in LF, I might never have followed up without the encouragement and information I got from his site. Also, I completely agree with his mantra that 'the camera doesn't matter'. Art comes from the mind of the creator. His point is that a good photographer will make interesting images with any equipment (camera size, digital, film, etc.), while a poor one will make poor images whether he is using 8x10 or the latest 30mp SLR.

All that being said, to me many digital images look flat, but maybe that has to do with excessive sharpening in post-processing, as I never see that same flatness in film.

Steve M Hostetter

25-Jul-2009, 19:56

I say it like this: I replaced my 35mm with a digital SLR

when I want a technical camera I still need to use film

no one gets offended

Jamie123

26-Jul-2009, 07:38

Also, I completely agree with his mantra that 'the camera doesn't matter'. Art comes from the mind of the creator. His point is that a good photographer will make interesting images with any equipment (camera size, digital, film, etc.), while a poor one will make poor images whether he is using 8x10 or the latest 30mp SLR.

I strongly disagree with this wide spread notion that a good photographer will make interesting images with any equipment and that the camera doesn't matter. A good photographer knows what equipment he needs in order to achieve the results he has in mind. Just as an example, I think Massimo Vitali's work would be rather boring if it was shot on a 35mm film camera.
Whenever I hear a photographer say that it's all about "the eye" and that the equipment doesn't matter it's mostly BS.

PS: Of course your second comment, i.e. that a poor photographer will take poor images no matter what equipment he has, is true. All I'm saying is that I'm opposed to the notion that a good photographer is some kind of a wizard who will turn a pile of sh*t into roses just by looking at it. After all he has "the eye" doesn't he? ;)

Ken Lee

26-Jul-2009, 07:50

Completely off topic but did you know that there's a youtube clip about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo

:D

Oh Yes.

As they say, "All publicity is good publicity".

Findingmyway4ever

26-Jul-2009, 08:35

1) So are the tests by Erwin Puts incorrectly done and does the person simply not know how to conduct a proper study on the subject of prints and resolution? Is this basically a poor study like the ones done with the Phase 45 backs, that one a while back comparing the Pentax to the Canon 1DS, etc. etc...and as Brian mentioned, we need to perform these so-called scientifically controlled tests ourselves?

2) For Bruce, can you link me to a chart that shows which scanner will give approximate results of the digital camera equivalent? I.E. If one wants to know what 10 different pieces of film can acheive as a maximum print size that is equivalent to the digital SLR/Medium Format back/etc. and the person wants to know what scanner will give an approximately close enough result of this, where can I find this chart online? I have never seen one and even if one collects the loads of repetitive info on the forum and net, it still isn't a nice layout or even sufficient data.

3) I liked the neat old/traditional funny comic thing about the beating of the horse dead. Thanks for the post:):):)...but I still find it interesting to get to the bottom of digital output and film output when it comes to the print and not the file.

4) QT, Rockwell is indeed what you referred to him as, by his own words, though I think one has to appreciate some of the random things that do pop up on his site.

5) Camera equipment is obviously useful for end results. But the point that "the photograph" is the final result holds true. Experience is one thing, the photograph is another thing. I.E. What the world of well known artists to many or most may indeed be the best photographs we have available, but to others, they may look and be entirely irrelevant due to their lack of appeal to that specific viewer. So while we walk around an art exhibit and then look at prints in other places, etc. etc. we may like ones taken with a cheap digital point and shoot or we may like a mixture of prints from tools costing close to nothing to ones costing the price of a house.

Just a final note that my questions are for discussion purposes and to learn more through collective output. Sure, differing opinions will persist and that's a good thing, but to remain on subject as much as possible rather than straying away from the subject and getting into what looks better is the intention of my post. I don't care what looks better on print...I only care about people's thoughts on the digital output and analog output when it comes to the prints, and if this Puts person is raising some valid and interesting data or if it's purely subjective-response and in the end, no one on the net is ever correct, nor should they produce articles of this nature since we need to learn how to do this stuff ourselves.

sanking

26-Jul-2009, 11:16

I believe that Erwin Puts' tests are quite well done. However, as a true comparison of the M7 and M8 they are more valid for comparing B&W work with the two camera system than for comparing color for the simple reason that B&W film, at a given ASA, generally has much more resolution than color film.

My opinion is that a a good 12-24 mp DSLR is capable of better results in color than all but the very best 35mm work. On the other hand, in B&W a high quality Leica camera with an aspheric Summicron lens, in combination with a high resolution film, will deliver at least twice the detail possible with a 24mp DSLR. But it would take a high resolution drum scan to pull the detail out of the 35mm B&W film.

In medium format, 6X6 and larger, 12-24 mp DSLR does not come close to the detail of ASA 100 B&W or color film, but if you limit print size to 13X19 you should not see much difference in image quality. In larger prints MF wins easily, assuming you scan the film with a dedicated film scanner or drum scanner. If you scan MF with a flatbed consumer scanner the result will be no better than DSLR.

12-24 mp DSLR does not come close to the detail in 4X5 film, even when scanning with a flatbed consumer scanner. However, if you limit print size to 13X19" or smaller you won't see much difference in image quality.

My comments are opinions based on my own practical experience and testing, and on the results I have seen from friends.

Sandy King

1) So are the tests by Erwin Puts incorrectly done and does the person simply not know how to conduct a proper study on the subject of prints and resolution? Is this basically a poor study like the ones done with the Phase 45 backs, that one a while back comparing the Pentax to the Canon 1DS, etc. etc...and as Brian mentioned, we need to perform these so-called scientifically controlled tests ourselves?
I don't care what looks better on print...I only care about people's thoughts on the digital output and analog output when it comes to the prints, and if this Puts person is raising some valid and interesting data or if it's purely subjective-response and in the end, no one on the net is ever correct, nor should they produce articles of this nature since we need to learn how to do this stuff ourselves.

Marko

26-Jul-2009, 11:18

Whenever I hear a photographer say that it's all about "the eye" and that the equipment doesn't matter it's mostly BS.

Maybe so, but I still strongly believe that most cameras and lenses are better than most photographers. So far, most of the publicly available "evidence" reinforces that opinion. ;)

<edit>
"Better" in the sense of being capable of producing better images in the hands of better photographers than their current holders.
</edit>

iamjanco

26-Jul-2009, 11:52

Maybe so, but I still strongly believe that most cameras and lenses are better than most photographers. So far, most of the publicly available "evidence" reinforces that opinion. ;)

<edit>
"Better" in the sense of being capable of producing better images in the hands of better photographers than their current holders.
</edit>

Which is another way of saying the person takes the picture, not the camera ;)

rdenney

26-Jul-2009, 20:48

I basically agree with the notion that a true comparison of digital and film should involve a chemical print compared to an inkjet print, both being about as good as most photographers can attain using their own equipment.

Rockwell, despite his frequent silliness, it right that we do usually compare the two on a computer screen. Rather than argue the technical merits or problems with that approach, I would offer the following counter-test.

Let's use an inkjet printer to print an image onto a 4x5" piece of plastic, and then throw it on a light table next to a 4x5 transparency, with the comparison made by direct viewing (hey, live large--use a loupe). I don't think there is anyone who would not think such a comparison engineered to make the film look good, and I suspect we all are confident of the result.

The main reason is the generational loss. When we scan film, we are converting from one medium to another, and that will cause whatever weaknesses there are in each medium to cascade. So, comparing scanned film to a digital capture will already show the weaknesses of both film and digital, while the digital capture will only show the latter. Mistakes made in any one case might overwhelm those weaknesses, but even without mistakes they will be there. I see them in my own images. And that doesn't even consider whatever inefficiencies, in terms of maintaining faithfulness to the original, arise from the transfer.

Okay, maybe weakness is a combative term, too akin to, um, equinicide. Let's change it to response. Film and digital respond differently, and when film is scanned there will be some of film's response that the scan can't respond to, in addition to the film missing some content that a digital capture might have seen.

Most of the time, we are comparing scanned medium and large-format images with small-format digital, and in those cases, the clear superiority of film is more a matter of format than medium, it seems to me. As we on this forum know intimately, the size of the format is likely the first most important factor in ultimate image quality, and resolution is only a minor reason for that.

Scanning medium and large-format film to the capabilities of my equipment, I get about 80 megapixels from each. That will show a considerable advantage over a DSLR, but that advantage is allowed by the extra-large format more than anything. And then there's the format advantage even when comparing within the same medium.

Film and digital look different (this is the typical beaten dead horse statement, of course). Each has its artistic possibilities and constraints. I prefer some aspects of each. But one thing I absolutely adore about digital processes is that it is much easier for me to attain my visualization than with film. I'm happy to concede the implied weakness in my own non-digital technique. But I do the best I can with my equipment, my limited visual skills, and my even more limited time.

I rarely pay much attention to Rockwell's conclusions, but sometimes in coming to a conclusion I might disagree with, he brings up an interesting point.

Rick "whose sense is that digital provides about the same nominal image quality as the next larger film format" Denney

Ben Syverson

26-Jul-2009, 21:15

Marko

26-Jul-2009, 22:24

Let me say this: let's ignore the resolution issue entirely for a moment.

I can get an early Canon EOS (650, 620) with lens for $40-50 on eBay. The cheapest full frame DSLR is a 5D Mk I which you can get for around $1000 without lens.

I can get a Mamiya RB67 with lens for around $200. The earliest MF digital backs are now dropping to $1000, but their quality doesn't even match the 5D Mk I, and we haven't even begun to discuss the body or lens.

You can easily find a Crown Graphic or tank-like 4x5 monorail for under $150, with lens (and usually film holders). There's no full-frame digital equivalent. There are scanning backs, but you can't shoot people with them.

So financially, there's that.

No, it isn't. There's one crucial aspect to that you didn't take into account. It's the cost of film and processing. We've been there before, I believe, but since this entire thread is all about beating dead horses... ;)

When you buy a 5D, or any other digital camera for that matter, you are buying a lifetime (of the camera) supply of film to go with it as well. Figure $10 per roll of color slide film, processed. If you shoot only one roll per week, you will break even on the $950 difference between the 5D and the film body in less than two years. 22 months to be exact. Add those extra two months for the cost of memory cards and you're set.

Anything longer than that or more than one roll per week is clear advantage over the film body, and that leaving alone all the other advantages of a digital such as HDR, automatic bracketing, stitching, b&w conversions, tethered shooting and such. And you won't have to go hunting for film supplies or reliable labs to process it, no mailing hassles...

Ben Syverson

26-Jul-2009, 22:30

When you buy a 5D, or any other digital camera for that matter, you are buying a lifetime (of the camera) supply of film to go with it as well.
Lifetime of the camera. Exactly. Which means "until the camera starts showing ERR 99 or breaks down completely." Either way, you have 5 years at the most. You can run your own numbers on that one.

Regardless, the whole "digital vs film" thing is ridiculous. If you need to shoot a lot, you need to have a digital camera. End of story. If you want gigantic prints, you either shoot film or you go broke buying a MF digital back that doesn't look as good as 4x5. :rolleyes: (Let alone 8x10.)

Marko

26-Jul-2009, 22:39

Lifetime of the camera. Exactly. Which means "until the camera starts showing ERR 99 or breaks down completely." Either way, you have 5 years at the most. You can run your own numbers on that one.

I wasn't aware that Canons come with expiration date. A Canon D30 (not 30D) I got back in 2002 is still alive and kicking. No error messages.

On the other hand, I've seen my fair share of film cameras with light seals gone bad, shutters getting stuck, and such. Cost you much more than $50 to repair. And still have to buy film for them.

Regardless, the whole "digital vs film" thing is ridiculous. If you need to shoot a lot, you need to have a digital camera. End of story. If you want gigantic prints, you either shoot film or you go broke buying a MF digital back that doesn't look as good as 4x5. :rolleyes: (Let alone 8x10.)

Horses for courses. No need to ditch a particular horse until it dies, but further beating won't get it back to life either... ;)

I don't particularly need gigantic prints, but I do like the mechanics of shooting MF and LF. Since it's just a hobby, I shoot film with those too. So no disagreement here, as long as we put things in the right perspective.

Jamie123

27-Jul-2009, 01:45

Lifetime of the camera...or you go broke buying a MF digital back that doesn't look as good as 4x5. :rolleyes: (Let alone 8x10.)

Depends on what "as good as 4x5" means. I used to assist for a still lifer who had just done the jump from 4x5" to a P45+. To my surprise a shot done on Kodak E100G film showed considerably less resolution than the same shot on the P45+. Of course resolution is not the only criterion and I still think film looks better but it was quite a surprise nonetheless.

Anyways, digital is not that expensive if you compare prices for new equipment. The reason why film has gotten so cheap is that you can get 20-50 years old used equipment that still works.

bob carnie

27-Jul-2009, 05:43

Missing from the this analysis is the terabyte drives and storage issues.
Last time I looked a 3ring portfolio binder holds a lot of information.

No, it isn't. There's one crucial aspect to that you didn't take into account. It's the cost of film and processing. We've been there before, I believe, but since this entire thread is all about beating dead horses... ;)

When you buy a 5D, or any other digital camera for that matter, you are buying a lifetime (of the camera) supply of film to go with it as well. Figure $10 per roll of color slide film, processed. If you shoot only one roll per week, you will break even on the $950 difference between the 5D and the film body in less than two years. 22 months to be exact. Add those extra two months for the cost of memory cards and you're set.

Anything longer than that or more than one roll per week is clear advantage over the film body, and that leaving alone all the other advantages of a digital such as HDR, automatic bracketing, stitching, b&w conversions, tethered shooting and such. And you won't have to go hunting for film supplies or reliable labs to process it, no mailing hassles...

Marko

27-Jul-2009, 06:32

Missing from the this analysis is the terabyte drives and storage issues.
Last time I looked a 3ring portfolio binder holds a lot of information.

The last time I calculated, a 1 TB hard disk was less than a quarter of the size of a 3ring binder, held more information than a few dozen binders and could be duplicated to another such disk with a flick of a mouse. Or even without, completely automatically. Across the desk or across the world.

Oh yes, and they currently cost about $0.08 per GB.

No, the "issue" of drives is not missing, it's just that I was comparing cameras. I think computers and peripherals should be compared with the entire darkroom/backroom deal.

Jamie123

27-Jul-2009, 06:49

No, the "issue" of drives is not missing, it's just that I was comparing cameras. I think computers and peripherals should be compared with the entire darkroom/backroom deal.

True. Besides, factoring in the cost of computers and peripherals into the cost of digital implies that film users generally don't own computers and harddrives which is not true for the most part. Most of us use computers for at least part of our workflow and the scans from 6x6 film on my Nikon 9000 are around 450mb. Talk about storage space :)

bob carnie

27-Jul-2009, 07:08

Right now for me , storage of information/files is a huge issue, I just priced out a daisy chained drobo at $1600.00 , I have been told this will hold 18 terabytes of info. At the rate we are currently working this will be not enough within a short period of time.
I bought a Mac Pro 1 year ago with a couple of Terabyte Drives and was assured at the time I would be OK for awhile, well as file sizes are increasing on a quarterly basis from my clients , I am maxed out and looking for safe places to put all this info.
We are working from this digital platform now , as I am sure you are, so the costs and practice of storage should be a financial consideration as time goes on.
As an aside I do have containers of negatives *clients* at my shop that I am basically paying a square footage cost to have sitting in my shop. This too is a real pain in the ass.

The last time I calculated, a 1 TB hard disk was less than a quarter of the size of a 3ring binder, held more information than a few dozen binders and could be duplicated to another such disk with a flick of a mouse. Or even without, completely automatically. Across the desk or across the world.

Oh yes, and they currently cost about $0.08 per GB.

No, the "issue" of drives is not missing, it's just that I was comparing cameras. I think computers and peripherals should be compared with the entire darkroom/backroom deal.

Marko

27-Jul-2009, 09:20

One of the ways to look at the storage issue is this:

- A 4000dpi drum scan of a 4x5 film sheet should result in about 320MB file, provided that the entire area was scanned, no cropping.

- Archival storage sleeves hold 4 sheets of film, come in packages of 25 (there are bigger packages, but let's keep it simple) and cost $10 per package, give or take.

- Typical archival storage binder that will hold these 25 sheets costs another $5-$10.

So, that's 320 MB x 4 x 25 = 32GB, approx. for the price of $15. There are 1024 GB per TB, or rather 1000 using marketing math ;), so we would need about 32 binders to store 1 TB worth of information.

At $15 a piece, that's $480. 1 TB hard drive costs about $130 these days.

32 binders would take a full bookshelf, say about two (2) square feet of real estate. Say a $50 for a cheap bookshelf. The cost of those 2 square feet depends on where you are and how much are you paying for your place, but here in SoCal, it is somewhere between $100 and $200 per square foot, net (the cost to build, with no taxes, interest or other extras).

And then there is the issue of backup. Want to create an identical copy and store it elsewhere in case of flood or fire? How about two identical copies, one across the town and the other across the continent?

Yes, I know that information storage is an issue. That is one of the main arguments for digital. :)

Ed Richards

27-Jul-2009, 09:37

sanking

27-Jul-2009, 09:46

Depends on what "as good as 4x5" means. I used to assist for a still lifer who had just done the jump from 4x5" to a P45+. To my surprise a shot done on Kodak E100G film showed considerably less resolution than the same shot on the P45+. Of course resolution is not the only criterion and I still think film looks better but it was quite a surprise nonetheless.

Anyways, digital is not that expensive if you compare prices for new equipment. The reason why film has gotten so cheap is that you can get 20-50 years old used equipment that still works.

Opinion appears to be that P45+ and drum scanned 4X5 color film are capable of about the same image quality in print size up to 30X40", but above that drum scanned film is better.

However, in the comparison mentioned above you must be confusing apparent sharpness with resolution. A sheet of 4X5 Kodak E100G is capable of at least as much resolution in lp/mm as a P45+ sensor, and the 5" dimension of the film is more than twice that of the P45+ sensor. So if the film were scanned to pull out all of the detail in there the actual detail would be much greater than would be theoreticlaly possible with the P45+, all other things being equal. That explains why above a certain size film is better in this comparisoin. Of course, if you using B&W film the advantage would be even greater for film since it is capable of much high resolution than color film.

However, the actual apparent sharpenss of a print depends on a number of factors other than resolution/detail and image processing is often more important than the inherent quality in the scanned film file or the digital file from the P45+.

Sandy King

rdenney

27-Jul-2009, 10:11

To me, the storage issue is a red herring. I work in the digital domain as early in the process as I can because I can achieve my visualization more efficiently, and I'm already very limited on the time I can devote to it. That end result motivates me, primarily. But for many, the process of chemical photography is as meaningful as the end result, and it makes no sense to attempt to justify that commitment and enjoyment in mere dollars. It costs what it costs, and the price we pay is the investment we make in our own enjoyment.

Professionals have a different calculus, of course. I'm glad I'm an amateur so that I don't have to justify my ridiculous expenditures by the standards of good business.

For storage, I balance risk. Off-site digital backups aren't an option--we are in Rural America, with trees that block satellites, and with only dial-up as an Internet access option. To make off-site backups, I'd need to back up my on-site backups to optical media and carry them to my office--as yet too difficult to fit into my life (a cheap and fast Blu-Ray writer might change that soon). But then a house fire will carry away all my prints, negatives and transparencies, too. So, I run my nightly backups to a 1-TB network storage device and hope for the best.

Rick "whose heirs will probably just throw it all away anyway" Denney

Marko

27-Jul-2009, 11:26

I use envelopes and boxes for 4x5, which use about 15% of the room of binders. But I think you math is off a bit. A 4000 DPI scan of a color 4x5 negative at 16 bits is close to 1.5 gigs per image. So reduce your binders to 8. Plus, at a minimum, you store every image on at least 3 spindles, with one of those off site, and no one puts more than 90% capacity on a drive if they want to avoid trouble.. So each terabyte is taking at least 3 1.2 terabyte drives. You are also replacing those drives through time, and refreshing the data to avoid data rot, which takes time/money.

So those binders look pretty good, and my boxes look a whole lot better. Until the fire or flood. Then that offsite data is going to look a lot better.:-)

OK, I was basing my math on B&W negatives, but still... 1.5 GB sounds a bit excessive to me. Sure, you can scan down past the grain level if you wish, but let's talk about retrieving real information, not noise.

Also, I was specifically comparing only one set of films with one set of files on one hard disk. The size of a 1TB external hard disk is about 5" x 4" x 1". Almost pocketable, and you can certainly carry a couple of those around with you without much effort. I would be very interested to hear about logistics and cost/benefit analysis of extra copies on film. :)

Anyway, I was trying to put things in perspective, not do the exact figures. My point is that photography will cost you a certain amount, regardless of whether you do digital, traditional or hybrid. It's mostly distribution of that cost that is different, aside from workflow.

I agree with Rick that the cost and storage type arguments are red herrings. Comparing a $5 binder or a shoebox with a $130 hard disk makes for a great soundbite, but in reality, I can stash a roomfull of binders worth of information into only one shoebox if I store that information on my hard drives first.

It may cost me the same, but I can always carry it with me. And I won't need another room if I want to have a copy.

redrockcoulee

27-Jul-2009, 11:33

If I read Sandy's post correctly then images I make with my Pentax 35mm prime lens on my last remainding rolls of Technical Pan and scanned on my Nikon 8000 will be "better" than those shot with my D200 or K10D but those shot with HP5 or TriX and my zoom lens will be "worse" than if I used my friend's D3. But before I bought my CS8000 I used to use a Sprintscan for 35mm. If I am not mistaken the OP wanted to be able to look up a table and see what film/scanner would be equaled by what level digital. Not that I shoot much 35mm anymore with LF, MF and digital but still have cameras and film.

As far as cost comparisions go there are only three things to say 1) film is cheaper than digital and 2) digital is cheaper than film 3) cost comparisions should be based on what you would actually pay or would pay.

Marko

27-Jul-2009, 11:33

For storage, I balance risk. Off-site digital backups aren't an option--we are in Rural America, with trees that block satellites, and with only dial-up as an Internet access option. To make off-site backups, I'd need to back up my on-site backups to optical media and carry them to my office--as yet too difficult to fit into my life (a cheap and fast Blu-Ray writer might change that soon). But then a house fire will carry away all my prints, negatives and transparencies, too. So, I run my nightly backups to a 1-TB network storage device and hope for the best.

What's preventing you from running the same nightly backup to two 1TB network hard drives and carry one of them with you?

There are various rotation strategies that can let you space out your backups and spread out your data across multiple copies, devices and locations with very little direct user involvement other than initial setup and physically carrying one of the devices around if need be.

Off-site digital backups are very much an option for those of us who live in metropolitan areas. Each lifestyle comes with a different set of advantages and sacrifices. This is clearly one of them.

Don Hutton

27-Jul-2009, 11:52

OK, I was basing my math on B&W negatives, but still... 1.5 GB sounds a bit excessive to me. Sure, you can scan down past the grain level if you wish, but let's talk about retrieving real information, not noise.Wow - even when you're flat out wrong, you're still trying to convince everyone that you're right... Says everything I suppose.

Jamie123

27-Jul-2009, 11:56

However, in the comparison mentioned above you must be confusing apparent sharpness with resolution. A sheet of 4X5 Kodak E100G is capable of at least as much resolution in lp/mm as a P45+ sensor, and the 5" dimension of the film is more than twice that of the P45+ sensor. So if the film were scanned to pull out all of the detail in there the actual detail would be much greater than would be theoreticlaly possible with the P45+, all other things being equal. That explains why above a certain size film is better in this comparisoin. Of course, if you using B&W film the advantage would be even greater for film since it is capable of much high resolution than color film.

Don't worry, when I say resolution I actually mean resolution. The digital file had more detail in certain areas which really surprised me. However, I might have to put a disclaimer here. I was not really there for the capture and I suspect that the slide was shot at a smaller aperture than the p45+ a may have suffered from some diffraction. The p45+ has to be shot below f22 or it starts to get crappy. He may have been shooting the film with a smaller aperture than that.
However, I've seen the resolving power of the p45+ on other occasions where I just think there is no way 4x5" slide film would have captured the same amount of detail. Pair it with Schneider lenses for digital and get ready to be blown away.
Maybe b/w film would have been able to compete but if you're a color guy that's just not an option.

To be quite honest, if I was given infinite funds and had the choice of using either film or digital I would probably pick film for every format except 35mm as I just think it has other qualities that digital can't match.

PenGun

27-Jul-2009, 12:11

I believe it was the CEO of Seagate that said: "There are two kinds of hard drive. Those that have failed and those that will."

The neg holders rarely fail.You usually have to burn the house down.

Of course using both is useful.

rdenney

27-Jul-2009, 12:43

What's preventing you from running the same nightly backup to two 1TB network hard drives and carry one of them with you?

There are various rotation strategies that can let you space out your backups and spread out your data across multiple copies, devices and locations with very little direct user involvement other than initial setup and physically carrying one of the devices around if need be.

Off-site digital backups are very much an option for those of us who live in metropolitan areas. Each lifestyle comes with a different set of advantages and sacrifices. This is clearly one of them.

Carrying a hard disk to work every day (or even every week) would require a whole different level of dealing with those backups. The hard disks don't unplug without consequences on the network, and those consequences require more fiddling. It may be only 15 life-minutes a week, but one reason I have so little time is that there are 1000 things each consuming only a few life-minutes.

But my system is slightly more redundant than I portrayed it. The backup files are made to a 2-disk NAS that uses RAID mirroring so that each disk is an exact duplicate of the other. And, of course, those backups are copies of the original files on the hard disk in my computer. So, I have three hard disks storing the same information. That reduces the chances of a complete loss pretty dramatically.

The next step is a Blu-Ray drive that will store 50G on an optical disk. It would only take a handful of those to make a complete backup, and done once every few months would limit the effects of a catastrophic failure.

On the other hand, I could spend my whole life protecting my images, and when I die they'll still probably go in the dumpster. I doubt there will be a university photography center or such like eager to archive MY work, heh, heh.

For digital photos of family events and so on, we make prints and put them in albums. Those are more likely to be carried into the next generations than my so-called art.

Rick "who protects it mostly for his own use" Denney

Jim collum

27-Jul-2009, 12:50

Backing up to hard drives has become *very* easy.. don't need to take anything apart. I have one of these

http://www.vantecusa.com/front/product/view_detail/372

in which i can backup to 2 drives (have an overnight batch job that does it automatically.

Dan Fromm

27-Jul-2009, 13:01

I thought all those horses had rotted away ...

Pointless wrangling for its own sake ...

Don Hutton

27-Jul-2009, 13:43

Don't worry, when I say resolution I actually mean resolution. The digital file had more detail in certain areas which really surprised me. However, I might have to put a disclaimer here. I was not really there for the capture and I suspect that the slide was shot at a smaller aperture than the p45+ a may have suffered from some diffraction. The p45+ has to be shot below f22 or it starts to get crappy. He may have been shooting the film with a smaller aperture than that.
However, I've seen the resolving power of the p45+ on other occasions where I just think there is no way 4x5" slide film would have captured the same amount of detail. The actual highest possible resolution of the P45+ sensor is not difficult to calculate - do the math... and you'll realize that in terms of actual resolution, 4x5 film will blow it out the water. Obviously to realize the full potential of either 4x5 or the P45+ back, you need good lenses shot at optimal apertures. If you manage both the latter in a comparison, as well as the ability to extract the information from the 4x5 transparency (a very good scan), you'll be really surprised all over again....

sanking

27-Jul-2009, 13:44

Gordon Moat

27-Jul-2009, 13:45

I suppose for those who cannot afford to shoot film, then a cheap D-SLR is a possible solution.

:D :rolleyes:

Jamie123

27-Jul-2009, 14:11

The actual highest possible resolution of the P45+ sensor is not difficult to calculate - do the math... and you'll realize that in terms of actual resolution, 4x5 film will blow it out the water. Obviously to realize the full potential of either 4x5 or the P45+ back, you need good lenses shot at optimal apertures. If you manage both the latter in a comparison, as well as the ability to extract the information from the 4x5 transparency (a very good scan), you'll be really surprised all over again....

I wasn't comparing scans, I was comparing what I see on a screen to what I can see with a loupe on a lighttable.

Anyways, I don't really want to calculate anything as I'm not terribly hung up on resolution anyways. The reason why I stopped assisting for a still lifer was exactly that I got terribly bored with inane technical details. Things are just things no matter how much you dust them off or polish them. I guess some people's commodity fetish is just a little more pronounced than mine :)

Don Hutton

27-Jul-2009, 14:18

I wasn't comparing scans, I was comparing what I see on a screen to what I can see with a loupe on a lighttable.

Anyways, I don't really want to calculate anything as I'm not terribly hung up on resolution anyways. The reason why I stopped assisting for a still lifer was exactly that I got terribly bored with inane technical details. Things are just things no matter how much you dust them off or polish them. I guess some people's commodity fetish is just a little more pronounced than mine :)
Not sure how comparing apples to oranges equates to a commodity fetish, but whatever... just stating in public that apples are better than oranges is likely to invite some debate, especially if you're wrong!:D

Jamie123

27-Jul-2009, 14:37

Not sure how comparing apples to oranges equates to a commodity fetish, but whatever... just stating in public that apples are better than oranges is likely to invite some debate, especially if you're wrong!:D

I guess you misunderstood. I was relating the commodity fetish to still life photography which was slightly off topic.
Also not sure why people are always so opposed to comparing apples to oranges. After all you can make juice from both. And I think you will find that when you really do state in public that apples are better than oranges, most people will just say which one they prefer more and no one will cite mathematical formulas. I suppose we should do the same.

PS: I personally think that the best way to judge a slide is viewing it on a lighttable with such magnification that you can easily make out the grain. A scanner will not pull out more detail than that.

Nathan Potter

27-Jul-2009, 14:53

I don't understand why so many people treat these digital versus film discussions as if the issues have long since been resolved and that they are of no interest to anyone. To my mind the opposite is the case in that the issues clearly continue to be of interest to many, they are quite complex, and constantly evolving.

For that reason I would suggest that those who have no interest in the discussion or who don't believe there is anything else to discuss simply move on to another thread and leave the discussion to those who are interested.

Sandy King

Very apt comment Sandy. There are a lot of generalities floated in these discussions but occasionally some gems appear that tell me something useful or an issue that I have ignored or not thought about is brought to light.

Having done both LF industrial and fine art type photography for years and some digital stuff for several years I will say that I have found the capture mediums quite similar. Resolution limitations with film are mostly a function of the lens quality, the stability of the setup, and my focus accuracy. I don't have LF digital back experience but I suspect that much of the resolution capability is a function of the same parameters I mentioned for film. Fact is that the best of lenses are unlikely to achieve resolutions of better than 100 lp/mm., (airy disc dia. of 5 um), and practical limits for LF lenses are typically 10 um when the image taking variables are folded in. Even a 10 um COC implies a critical best focus - tough to achieve with front and rear standards flopping mils of dimensions.

Really valid resolution comparisons between digital and film images are devilishly hard to obtain due to the sophistication of the measurement instrumentation, lack of standards and fundamentally different image capture sensors. Complex stuff indeed.:)

Nate Potter, Boston MA.

rdenney

27-Jul-2009, 15:32

Fact is that the best of lenses are unlikely to achieve resolutions of better than 100 lp/mm., (airy disc dia. of 5 um), and practical limits for LF lenses are typically 10 um when the image taking variables are folded in. Even a 10 um COC implies a critical best focus - tough to achieve with front and rear standards flopping mils of dimensions.

Which highlights the advantage of the larger format, which requires less resolution in the film because of its much reduced enlargement. If I want 5 lines/mm in the print (a fairly demanding standard, it seems to me, for viewers without a loupe in hand), then achieving 50 lines/mm allows a 10x print--40x50 inches from 4x5. If the best digital (and high-end lenses) can dish up is 20x, then my 5D would be limited to a bit less than 20x36 inches. That is likely to exceed the capabilities of most lenses, most technique, and perhaps even the sensor. If a 17" print is the biggest one might contemplate (that being a threshold between expensive and mega-expensive printers), those limits become slightly better for the small digital camera (24x36 format at 18x) but well in hand for even a clodhopper like me with a 4x5 camera (4x). And in addition to those sharp edges, the tonality will be far smoother, too.

Comparing small-format digital to large-format film is more about format than medium. If there was an affordable 4x5 sensor that made, say, 80 megapixels in a single exposure without scanning, I for one would jump on it. We aren't even there technically yet, let alone in the affordable range. So, for me film is the path to large format, and that is what brings the big quality benefit.

Rick "finding it hard to get motivated these days to use the 645 film camera, let alone 35mm" Denney

Marko

27-Jul-2009, 15:36

Wow - even when you're flat out wrong, you're still trying to convince everyone that you're right... Says everything I suppose.

?

Don, I don't recall offending either you or anybody else here. At least not on purpose. Reading back what I said, I don't see I was trying to convince anybody much less "everybody" anything here either.

I'm always open to the possibility that I might be wrong. One of the reasons I participate in discussion forums is to check my own beliefs/opinions against those of others.

I don't have a problem admitting I'm wrong, but it will take a bit more than a sarcastic one-liner to convince me I'm "flat out wrong".

Donald Miller

27-Jul-2009, 16:17

It seems that these discussion eventually come down to a couple of areas. Those being cost and resolution...it used to include time spent in front of a computer too...but that seems to have gone away for the moment with the advent of film scanning included in the workflow.

I want to unequivocally state that as a user of both that neither of these (cost or resolution) enter into my consideration. I don't like making large prints...never have. So resolution is not an issue. For the most part ease of use and emotional content are far more important to me. Perhaps I am fortunate in that I don't need to watch my expenditures and so cost is not an issue.

Sometimes I want to go out alone and do the contemplative photography that LF entails and other times I want the instant gratification as well as the post exposure manipulative ability that digital affords. Both are valid considerations from where I sit.

rdenney

27-Jul-2009, 17:03

Sometimes I want to go out alone and do the contemplative photography that LF entails and other times I want the instant gratification as well as the post exposure manipulative ability that digital affords. Both are valid considerations from where I sit.

Agreed on most counts. Even though I don't make big prints, the extra detail and tonal information in large-format images (and even in the larger roll-film formats) still seems to be apparent in the prints I do make.

But a question: Is the contemplative part for you all the work required to bring out the potential of a large-format image (camera movements, tripod use, studying GG with loupe, dark cloth, etc.) or is it the work required in the darkroom?

For me, the contemplation is understanding my visualization and working with the camera to try to achieve it, and as such it's all the field work. Darkroom work was never emotional for me--it was instead a means to an end. I'm just as happy to sit in a comfy chair and not smell like fixer, but by that time, I already have a mental image of what I want the results to be and whatever emotional response I had to the scene is already either there in the image or (sadly, more often) not.

Rick "for whom the contemplative nature of view camera use is the main attraction" Denney

Donald Miller

27-Jul-2009, 20:28

Agreed on most counts. Even though I don't make big prints, the extra detail and tonal information in large-format images (and even in the larger roll-film formats) still seems to be apparent in the prints I do make.

But a question: Is the contemplative part for you all the work required to bring out the potential of a large-format image (camera movements, tripod use, studying GG with loupe, dark cloth, etc.) or is it the work required in the darkroom?

For me, the contemplation is understanding my visualization and working with the camera to try to achieve it, and as such it's all the field work. Darkroom work was never emotional for me--it was instead a means to an end. I'm just as happy to sit in a comfy chair and not smell like fixer, but by that time, I already have a mental image of what I want the results to be and whatever emotional response I had to the scene is already either there in the image or (sadly, more often) not.

Rick "for whom the contemplative nature of view camera use is the main attraction" Denney

Rick,

The work required in the darkroom, whether developing film or printing, is really the least desireable part of LF photography...I mean standing around in the dark is not my idea of fun. I am too much a social animal to find photography...no matter the tools used as conducive to or supportive of achieving social interaction. The darkroom is for me a barely tolerable exercise. In many ways, for me, once I have "seen it" I could almost care less if a print ever evolves.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

rdenney

27-Jul-2009, 20:40

In many ways, for me, once I have "seen it" I could almost care less if a print ever evolves.

Donald, we are of one mind on the subject. In my case, it leads to a mountain of unfinished work.

Rick "recognizing that many prefer the darkroom work" Denney

Joseph O'Neil

28-Jul-2009, 05:20

Rick,

The work required in the darkroom, whether developing film or printing, is really the least desireable part of LF photography...I mean standing around in the dark is not my idea of fun. I am too much a social animal to find photography...no matter the tools used as conducive to or supportive of achieving social interaction. The darkroom is for me a barely tolerable exercise. In many ways, for me, once I have "seen it" I could almost care less if a print ever evolves.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

-snip-

Interesting, because for me, working in the darkroom is one part I look very much forward too. Very quiet, no one bothering me, my mind goes a bit quiet. Hours go by like minutes for me. But to each thier own, whatever works best for each one of us.

Now - as for the title of this thread - gag me. I thought we were banning all religious and political discussions? :D

To "steal" an image from the start of this thread, and a wonderful image at that, I hereby propose that every single new "film vs digital" thread anyplace on this board be proceeded first with the following image: :D

bob carnie

28-Jul-2009, 06:15

Donald

I actually have the exact opposite response, the least enjoyable part of photography is the image capture*unless I get some healthy benefit from the walk*.

Sitting in front of the computer then watching a Lambda Print or Inkjet print spit out is somewhere in the middle, basically I stop when my sore ass says it's had enough.

Darkroom though is the best, the whole day experience of setting up the trays and enlargers turning on the safe light and listening to music while I try to pull some magic out of those thin strips of silver is the one of the great joys of my life.
This year I have made it possible to spend 1/2 of the year in the darkroom. It was the best decision I could have made for myself and our business. Wet printing is an very important factor in our company's existence and it is a blessing that I love the scent of fixer so much.

Bob

Rick,

The work required in the darkroom, whether developing film or printing, is really the least desireable part of LF photography...I mean standing around in the dark is not my idea of fun. I am too much a social animal to find photography...no matter the tools used as conducive to or supportive of achieving social interaction. The darkroom is for me a barely tolerable exercise. In many ways, for me, once I have "seen it" I could almost care less if a print ever evolves.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

Marko

28-Jul-2009, 06:41

Carrying a hard disk to work every day (or even every week) would require a whole different level of dealing with those backups. The hard disks don't unplug without consequences on the network, and those consequences require more fiddling. It may be only 15 life-minutes a week, but one reason I have so little time is that there are 1000 things each consuming only a few life-minutes.

A simple external FW hard disk works just fine for this purpose. It's essentially a backup of a backup, so it does not have to be networked. All it needs to be is connected through one computer which can also see the NAS drive. Let it copy overnight, pick up the drive in the morning and toss in the car with you.

If physically securing your files from catastrophes is what you are after, this is the most efficient and least hands-on method other than backups over the Net, which you say are out of question.

But my system is slightly more redundant than I portrayed it. The backup files are made to a 2-disk NAS that uses RAID mirroring so that each disk is an exact duplicate of the other. And, of course, those backups are copies of the original files on the hard disk in my computer. So, I have three hard disks storing the same information. That reduces the chances of a complete loss pretty dramatically.

Even with mirroring RAID, you could still swap one disk once a week and keep it in the car so it goes with you, having a day-old backup at least or week-old at worst.

I've been through these scenarios with web sites, at one point I was doing a combination of these plus some, so I hear you loud and clear when you mention 15 life-minutes. :) I still think those 15 minutes might be worth it if they save a few life-hours though.

On the other hand, I could spend my whole life protecting my images, and when I die they'll still probably go in the dumpster. I doubt there will be a university photography center or such like eager to archive MY work, heh, heh.

For digital photos of family events and so on, we make prints and put them in albums. Those are more likely to be carried into the next generations than my so-called art.

I hear you there too, although it may come as a shock to some on this board.

Perhaps this could make a good intro to the forum?

:D

Marko

28-Jul-2009, 06:47

The darkroom is for me a barely tolerable exercise. In many ways, for me, once I have "seen it" I could almost care less if a print ever evolves.

This, I think, is one of the main reasons behind digital's success summed up in two sentences.

Personally, I found the processing workflow - in a word: Photoshop - even more liberating than the camera itself, since I can do things I never could before and I can do them in full light of the room without isolating myself from people around me. I can also stop and continue wherever I like, change my mind and go back or simply try out several different scenarios without ever wasting a piece of paper or any other material. I can also get opinions from people in the same room, same continent or across the world in minutes.

We now live in the age when we can simply "phone a photo". Literally. :)

Paul Kierstead

28-Jul-2009, 07:15

[QUOTE=Donald Miller;491143In many ways, for me, once I have "seen it" I could almost care less if a print ever evolves. [/QUOTE]

Yup, I am in solidly in that camp most of the time. I'll happily let sheets sit for 6 months before developing them (or the memory card sit in the digicam, for that matter). I love the process of shooting, not so keen on the rest of it, though I will admit to a certain love of seeing the trannies on the light-table.

I've come to be ok with the scanning/printing, so long as editing does not exceed an hour or so; at that point, I am pretty happy to let the image go (in the trash). I do kind of like the actual print, just not all that anxious to travel the path to get there :)

Darkroom? No. I spend a couple of years in the dark room, and a couple more at the minilab, and it was enough for life.

Brian Ellis

28-Jul-2009, 08:21

[QUOTE=Findingmyway4ever;490549]1) So are the tests by Erwin Puts incorrectly done and does the person simply not know how to conduct a proper study on the subject of prints and resolution? Is this basically a poor study like the ones done with the Phase 45 backs, that one a while back comparing the Pentax to the Canon 1DS, etc. etc...and as Brian mentioned, we need to perform these so-called scientifically controlled tests ourselves? . . . [QUOTE]

My apologies, my message apparently wasn't clear. It hasn't been through any "scientifically controlled tests" that I've concluded that prints made digitally are potentially superior to enlarged silver prints made in a darkroom (from a technical standpoint that is, obviously I'm not suggesting that a digital print is necessarily aesthetically superior as well). And I wouldn't suggest that anyone who has significant experience with the two types of printing as I do should perform any "scientifically controlled tests."

The point of my message was actually the opposite - i.e. that anyone with that kind of extensive experience can best evaluate prints from the two types of sources by looking at the prints he or she has made over a period of time. And when such a person has made hundreds of prints from both sources as I have, he or she can form an educated opinion about their respective merits that is more accurate and more meaningful for them than all the "how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin" type of scientific stuff Rockwell and so many others talk about.

Not that there isn't a place for scientific testing in many many areas of photography. Just that its place isn't in evaluating prints.

I haven't read most of this messages in this thread so if this response is now irrelevant to what's being discussed my apologies but I didn't want you or anyone else to think I'm claiming to have done a lot of scientific testing in order to evaluate my darkroom and digital prints.

Ben Syverson

28-Jul-2009, 08:58

To "steal" an image from the start of this thread, and a wonderful image at that, I hereby propose that every single new "film vs digital" thread anyplace on this board be proceeded first with the following image: :D
Seconded!

rdenney

28-Jul-2009, 10:33

A simple external FW hard disk works just fine for this purpose. It's essentially a backup of a backup, so it does not have to be networked. All it needs to be is connected through one computer which can also see the NAS drive. Let it copy overnight, pick up the drive in the morning and toss in the car with you.

You overestimate me. Half the time, I have to go back into the house because I forgot my keys. And most of the time I leave my (work-required) cell phone in the car when I arrive at the office. I suspect that hard disk wouldn't do very well baking in the sun and soaking in the humidity for the umpteenth time because I forgot to bring it out of the car at one end or the other.

All life is a risk, and we each have to find the point that balances our exposure with the cost of mitigating the risk. I would hate to lose all my work, but then I would get to try and do it over again. I might actually do better the second time around, heh, heh. But at least I know that I did something reasonable to manage the risk--the house burning down is a small risk, an un-backed-up hard disk is a vastly larger risk.

Rick "storage is an issue all photographers should think about" Denney

Marko

28-Jul-2009, 13:37

You overestimate me. Half the time, I have to go back into the house because I forgot my keys. And most of the time I leave my (work-required) cell phone in the car when I arrive at the office.

Now you make me feel better. I thought I was the only one doing those things. Left my wallet at home today, in fact, and had official lunch scheduled. Wish I could keep a copy of that in my car too. :D

paulr

28-Jul-2009, 14:55

Rick "storage is an issue all photographers should think about" Denney

And an issue we should give stern lectures about. I'm always warning people about their flawed backup strategies. Meanwhile, my one backup drive is in the same box as the drive it's backing up!

I could rotate backups, and bring one copy to the office every day, of course ... but I'd have to get a job first.

AFSmithphoto

28-Jul-2009, 15:25

carl geyer

29-Jul-2009, 07:19

FYI: An interesting concept which is described in the current issue of Outdoor Photography is to stitch three images in the vertical or horizontal format with 20 to 30% overlap and import in photoshop 3 or 4 and use the panoramic software. This effectively increases the CCD size in an economic fashion. The second advantage is to keep pixel size relatively large. Carl

Findingmyway4ever

2-Aug-2009, 03:50

Donald

Darkroom though is the best, the whole day experience of setting up the trays and enlargers turning on the safe light and listening to music while I try to pull some magic out of those thin strips of silver is the one of the great joys of my life.
This year I have made it possible to spend 1/2 of the year in the darkroom. It was the best decision I could have made for myself and our business. Wet printing is an very important factor in our company's existence and it is a blessing that I love the scent of fixer so much.

Bob

From all I have read, it is "select" few like you that are into enlargements in the darkroom. Most have claimed/declared the darkroom/analog print as being inferior to the properly drum scanned print.

I am curious what differences you see between the enlarged analog print from a high end scanned and printed digital one? In other words, if you sent off a negative to Lenny to have it scanned off his Aztek and then printed off one of his mega printing machines, what would you see as the fundamental difference between the analog work you produce and what he would be able to produce?

Enlargers are going so darn cheap nowadays it makes me question if I want to become one of the few left going this route. Since the thread is all over the place now, I thought I'd ask this question to you since the economy hasn't exactly been thriving, but it sounds like you have not only been able to have enjoyment in the darkroom, but have had success doing so.

Thanks!

Findingmyway4ever

2-Aug-2009, 03:57

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

I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but I really don't have the patience to wade through this entire thread.

Yes, you will DEFINATELY lose information when you scan, no matter how well you scan it and on what scanner.

You will also, however, lose some information when you enlarge optically. The question is how much are you gonna lose? Some scanners are gonna outpreform some enlargers and vice-versa. In my experience, which is limited, a top of the line enlarging lens is capable of retaing more information than a drum scan. Either though, is better than the work I typically do.

The reason you pay good money to have your 4x5 proffessionally scaned is to minimize the information that you'll lose, and to have the oppurtunity to make one change (Such as a dodge or burn somewhere) that will apply to EVERY print you make.

In an optical workflow you've got to dodge and burn every print you make. Looks great. Takes time. Mistakes cost money.

Very good post. Just responded to a person that works in the darkroom with success so I'm eager to hear his opinion on the differences with the best digital scanned print and what can be achieved optically.

So I suppose this is where things become confusing to me....

If we lose information by scanning or optically enlarging, when/where/how are we losing information with a digital (i.e. digital camera) workflow if everything is in the digital domain? Maybe more simply put, does a digital camera lose information in the scene it exposes/captures and how much vs. what an analog camera can do when we have the final prints in our hands from each type of tool?

Flea77

2-Aug-2009, 07:33

The first thing I wanted to say was that with all my years of shooting everything from 110 as a kid to 4x5, from 320x200 digital cameras to 20+MP, it is NOT just the photographer that makes the image. Give Ansel Adams a 110 and his images would not have had anywhere near the power they have. It is about the photographer with the appropriate hardware for their specific use.

Now following that logic, if someone BELIEVES their 110 is a better tool than their D700, they may very well find that they take better pictures with the 110, regardless of the technical merits of the format or equipment.

This leads me to saying that FOR ME, 35mm and up B&W film is superior to any and all digital capture methods. Also FOR ME, my 4x5 color images stomp anything created with any digital device, period. That does not mean that I use 4x5 for all color, but when it really really matters TO ME, I reach for the big boy.

Next, I see lots of people comparing digital storage to analog, and the analog loses because of the physical space it takes up. Being in the technical field, and in computers for 26+ years, I call BS on this one. No one takes electricity into the equations, heat loads, requirements of computers for the digital storage, and the most important of all, digital refreshes!

So what is a digital refresh? Lets assume you started keeping digital files as early as possible. This means you stored all your data on the MFM hard drives of the day. Can you get that drive out of the drawer and plug it in to a computer today to get your data off? No. Well what if I stored the controller card and cables with it? No. How about all those images I stored on Bernoulli drives? Nope. My parallel zip drive? Probably not! Every so many years you need to copy your data from one generation of hardware to the next to maintain its usability, and you do NOT have to do this with analog.

Now I am not saying analog is better or cheaper than digital storage. I am saying if you are going to all the trouble of pricing each storage sheet, binder, and the square footage required to store them, you should not leave out all the hidden expenses of digital storage either!

Allan

paulr

2-Aug-2009, 08:02

Arguments I've seen on the limits of scanning film make no sense. At 4000ppi, a drum scanner or film scanner is able to resolve 78 lp/mm with effectively zero loss of MTF. There are no large format taking lenses that can produce detail at any useable contrast at this resolution. The best enlarging lenses may be able to reproduce detail at this range, but at tremendous loss of modulation.

For example, my Apo Componon HM 150 mm lens produces contrast of only 40% at 40 lp / mm. This is the highest frequency Schneider even reports. At 78 lp/mm (a frequncy that's double what the lens was optimized for) you'd be lucky to get 20%.

For those unfamiliar with MTF, detali rendered with 20% contrast is visible, but looks like a ghost. It's not sharp. And considering the taking lens probably produces less than 10% contrast in this range, you're talking about the final result on the print being rendered at 2% MTF. Meaning, it's detectable with laboratory instruments, but you won't see it in an enlargement, however big.

The hidden superpower of scanning is that you can judiciously sharpen the captured file. A good sharpening workflow will be customized for a particular film / print size / print medium combination, and will produce no visible artifacts. It will have a separate stage for capture sharpening (compensating for any MTF loss from the scanning process) and output sharpening (compensating for any MTF loss from the printing process)

This isn't just theory. Enlargements I've made with this lens look like very good enlargements. Prints of the same size made from scans, even using my desktop Epson, look like contact prints. They're that much better. I'll be happy to show anyone prints of the same image, side-by side. I have many examples.

As I said in an earlier post, you'd reacg the limits of a desktop scanner if you made big enlargements. But I don't see how you'd reach the limits of the best drum or film scanners.

sanking

2-Aug-2009, 08:12

If we lose information by scanning or optically enlarging, when/where/how are we losing information with a digital (i.e. digital camera) workflow if everything is in the digital domain? Maybe more simply put, does a digital camera lose information in the scene it exposes/captures and how much vs. what an analog camera can do when we have the final prints in our hands from each type of tool?

There is always some loss in the analog to digital conversion, whether that is done with a digital camera or with a film scan. It is somewhat easier to quantify the amount of loss with a digital camera as the acutal resolution is probably between 20-30% less than the actual pixel count. For example, if the actual pixel count indicates theoretical resolution of 80 lp/mm the most you will get in practice is about 60 lp/mm.

The issue is more complicated for comparing film scans because the final image quality depends not only on the scanner but on the type of film used and the quality of the optical system of the camera. Epson consummer flatbed scnaners are not able to capture more than 50% of the stated resolution in dpi. However, that might be ok for a negative made with a Holga camera, but won't come close to pulling all of the detail out of a B&W negative made with a Leica or Mamiya 7 camera in optimum condition. For that you would need a much higher quality scan, drum quality probably.

Many people just ignore the issue of resolution whenever it comes up but detail is one of the major reasons many people became interested in LF photography and remains a important issue for most photographers. That is not to suggest that detail is the only importnat consideration in a photograph, but it is a major one for many people.

Sandy King

bob carnie

2-Aug-2009, 08:30

Difficult question to answer.

Someone here stated that whether you scan or optically print you lose something, I agree with this and the trick IMO is in how you control what you do not lose either way.

I have onsite a ICG scanner which is some what like the Astek, as well top end enlargers with glass. ( so from the get go I have no excuses with equipment not meeting current standards )
Who does the work IMO is most critical whether it is scanning/PS or optically printing and here is where all the variables start.
To date I am printing optically or digitally each day and the % seems to vary by season.

We started in 2002 experimenting with Lambda and wet fibre printing, at that time I was using Agfa Classic and at the same time we bought our first Ink Jet Printer .
I am currently still using the Lambda (RGB laser Printer) and we have a Cannon IPF9000 which we have been using for a couple of years.
We have not stopped Enlarger Printing in fact we are doing more wet fibre prints today from negatives than ever. I started my Lab in 1991 and at that time I was 100% prints from Enlargers (colour and black and white).

We never got into Cone Inks or Piezography for the simple reason we were already set up with fibre prints off our Lambda and Enlarger, so we saw no need for these ink sets.

The last four years I have invested thousands of dollars in workshops , countless hours video internet training, books and thousands of attempts of different techniques and I have figured a way to mimic my printing style in the darkroom using PS and am quite comfortable on my Mac.

So to the question which process is better.

We let the client decide..

Digital Fibre Wet

1.For example if someone has in their past been competent darkroom printers and have made the switch to PS and want to control the look of their work through PS then they usually want the digital wet fibre prints.
If the work is from photographers who have definative collections but the negatives may be in suspect shape or the photographer is not able to spend the hours getting to know us over a couple of years and visits it then would be digital wet fibre print.

2.If the work is slated for Museum, *currently working on two projects for this purpose* the photographer in one case is handling the PS work as he was an excellent printer and I am helping in specific areas to tweak to match the rest of the exhibit which is travelling now but will land in Toronto in September, the other artist has captured small video/ameture film reels of her family's history to digital file and my job is to take these very small files to large prints without showing a major amount of artifacting.
Both these artist, are bringing to the table old input which needs work to produce good output.
Both these cases are times when we will print digitally onto wet process.

3.The artist only has digital files , we will go wet lambda

4. There is no budget for me to make Optical Prints in Black White fibre.

Optically Enlarger

1. A museum wants to add a edition of prints of an artist and have it look exactly like the time it originally was done.* 1970's film pulled out of the Archives , sent to us , samples made on current paper to mimic the look of original paper, then sent to artist to approve, then edition printed , signed by artist and off to museum.
This scenerio is quite frankly my little piece of paradise and it shocks me to here printers , getting rid of the wet room in favour of a all digital workflow.
I shouldn't say this but most gallery curators, or artists that I deal with and are no longer capable of printing *for various reasons* absolutely want the real deal.. wet fibre print .(history is now all the 70's , 80's and 90's which there are millions and millions of film archives floating about still not made into shows)

2. A client or Curator is not comfortable with archival claims and require enlarger prints.

3. I started my film business in 91 and still have a loyal group of clients who only have shot film, will only shoot film, and trust me to make prints as I know there work inside out. * This group for me is what keeps me going and now 20 years later some of them are starting to become very adapt and their work is selling and will continue to sell.** I amazes me that wet printers who work with clients would abandon their craft and clients, I mean all it takes is 20 years and some of them will hit pay dirt and hope to be printing their work for the ride.

4. Fourth Group, young/new photographers who want to look to the past for inspiration and style who are into this stinky old darkroom... *** For all the teachers of photography in schools today, It is beyond belief that these wet rooms are being still ripped out, when in fact I believe the smart school will embrace the digital wet and enlarger prints.

Inkjet Prints

Well , every one is in love with Ink, the experts and manufactures tell us they will last the test of time, every day a new and better product is coming that will make us all better printers and artists.
Around five years ago I was one who would pound my chest and say there was no f... way inkjet could match wet and was all crap.
I think basically now I was afraid of the financial and learning curve issues I was about to enter. five years later the pain is almost over , I still do not own a house as my Lambda Printer took care of that, I have not travelled to Europe and Asia as the PS training took care of that.

I have seen out of my shop Ink prints that rival any wet print I have made, the colour gamut is different , the sharpness of print is different, the look of images on rag paper is beautiful beyond belief , at least to my eyes.
How long they last are probably the most important factor for me , and I do not have any answers on any products.. But I will admit that I am moving to tricolour gum or carbon for full continuous tone by making separation negs on the Lambda for colour or black and white , as I am pretty confident in their archival attributes.

Colour

The big difference between enlarging directly from the negative , compared to a good scan and PS work IMO are subtle and I will try to explain.
I think if you put in a colour negative in an enlarger and make a good dodge/burn colour balance print, the image will look somewhat smoother and sharper.*do not mistake this for Unsharp mask sharper but a feeling of the image sits well on the paper.
If you scan the same colour negative and work in PS, the resulting print will have the benifit of local contrast, local colour control, local sharpening and dodge and burn which will trick the viewer . **please make no mistake in the old days one could do this with hand masks , in fact I was one of those people, but take two days out of your life to make one print, to get somewhere near where you can get in 15min in PS.
For me it is Hands Down in favour of digital out put for Colour over an enlarger print.

Black and White

I am a split grade printer, or better stated a multiple filter printer , and as of today I would pick an Enlarger Print over any digital print made either by my Lambda, or any kind of inkjet.

For some reason I find the tonal balance much more smoother and by magic hands and various filters, and critical post process toning and bleaching the results can be outstanding,,, lots of control over every aspect of the print.
With that said , unless one is extremely capable under the enlarger and willing to experiment endlessly with the image to get the final result, then adigital print will win out because of some of the reasons above that PS offers you.

For my eyes there is room for both processes , the differences are subtle and quite frankly maybe only 10% of the population would see the nuances and actually give a shit.

To date I have made enough prints different ways to state that it is all in the eye of the beholder.
I have compared enlarger and scan, enlarger and phaseback/betterlightback/CannonNikondslr,and I honestly cannot say one is better than the other.. they are different and have their one pallette (fancy word).

IMO
2009 - Colour - hands down digital workflow
Black White- Enlarger Print under good hands.

Not interested in getting rid of my stinkin darkroom any time soon ..... Bob

From all I have read, it is "select" few like you that are into enlargements in the darkroom. Most have claimed/declared the darkroom/analog print as being inferior to the properly drum scanned print.

I am curious what differences you see between the enlarged analog print from a high end scanned and printed digital one? In other words, if you sent off a negative to Lenny to have it scanned off his Aztek and then printed off one of his mega printing machines, what would you see as the fundamental difference between the analog work you produce and what he would be able to produce?

Enlargers are going so darn cheap nowadays it makes me question if I want to become one of the few left going this route. Since the thread is all over the place now, I thought I'd ask this question to you since the economy hasn't exactly been thriving, but it sounds like you have not only been able to have enjoyment in the darkroom, but have had success doing so.

Thanks!

Marko

2-Aug-2009, 08:53

Next, I see lots of people comparing digital storage to analog, and the analog loses because of the physical space it takes up. Being in the technical field, and in computers for 26+ years, I call BS on this one. No one takes electricity into the equations, heat loads, requirements of computers for the digital storage, and the most important of all, digital refreshes!

So what is a digital refresh? Lets assume you started keeping digital files as early as possible. This means you stored all your data on the MFM hard drives of the day. Can you get that drive out of the drawer and plug it in to a computer today to get your data off? No. Well what if I stored the controller card and cables with it? No. How about all those images I stored on Bernoulli drives? Nope. My parallel zip drive? Probably not! Every so many years you need to copy your data from one generation of hardware to the next to maintain its usability, and you do NOT have to do this with analog.

What you are describing is called rotation. Every medium has its workflow and storage requirements and scheduled data rotation is one of the crucial requirements for digital, just like archival materials are a requirements for analog storage. The other big one is redundancy. Yes, it means having to maintain not one but at least two or more identical copies in order to minimize risk and impact of any "accident".

The space analog storage takes is not the main complaint in this comparison. It's the fact that there is only one original. When that is lost or damaged, it's gone. With digital, you can have as many identical copies, bit for bit, as you want, in as many places. And you don't even have to physically carry them over. Or to do anything beyond setting up a script that will do it automatically.

Compare this with LEO and cost of making a copy of a piece of film. And it still won't be an identical copy but a second generation at best.

With all this in the picture, so to speak, having to maintain multiple copies and to periodically move them from medium to medium is therefore not a negative but a big advantage of digital, IMO&E.

Flea77

2-Aug-2009, 10:10

Jim collum

2-Aug-2009, 12:14

Marko,

We call rotation when you rotate through multiple backups or copies, primarily for off site backup. Refresh is when you move data from one generation to the next generation of storage media. Of course we all have our own terms.

One of the points I contend is that short of fire (which a fire safe can solve), analog is not susceptible to the same problems as digital. Dyes on optical media just deteriorate in time which can leave not one image, but thousands lost. Magnetic media is susceptible to not just magnetism, but ESD, brownouts, etc. And of course, a negative processed 50 years ago is still just as viable today as it was then, unlike digital.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not bashing digital, they both have pros and cons. I just get frustrated when people show all the pros of digital storage and fail to show all the cons (and there are a bunch!).

Allan

I agree, there are definite archival issues that must be addressed in the digital realm... however, film has it's own problems in this area. With the exception of B/W, the dyes in both color negative and slide film fade with age.. and quickly. Those browsing this forum are a minority in the film (and digital) world. Most images are on color negative film. Since Kodak came out with color film, the majority of photographs taken in the world are color, not B/W

If you've looked at images from the 60's, 70's and 80's.. you'll see that at a minimum, a full 3 decades of color images have been lost to most of the photographers (we are not 'most'.. 'most' have thrown their negatives into a shoebox, put their prints in non-archival albums, etc ). If we, as photographers, are interested in archiving our color images, then we need to be making 3 color separations of all of our negatives.

paulr

2-Aug-2009, 17:34

Many people just ignore the issue of resolution whenever it comes up but detail is one of the major reasons many people became interested in LF photography and remains a important issue for most photographers. That is not to suggest that detail is the only importnat consideration in a photograph, but it is a major one for many people.

The issue of resolution needs to be understood with some perspective. How much resolution you need (or more specifically, how high a resolution you need to render at a high modulation) depends 100% on the size of the enlargement.

Our perception of sharpness and clarity depends almost entirely on the level of modulation of detail at frequencies between 1 lp/mm and 5 lp/mm, when looking closely at a print. Resolution up to 11 lp/mm can be detected--in certain prints, under good lighting, by people with excellent vision. But detail this fine has a surprisingly small impact on our subjective sense of image quality. Detail up to 17 lp/mm can be detected by people with perfect vision who are looking at laboratory test targets. But it has nothing to do with how a print looks, unless you look at your prints with a loupe.

So it comes down how big your'e going to print. My biggest black and white prints that I've made digitally are 11.5 x 9", from 4x5 negatives. My desktop scanner's optical resolution is somewhere between 2200 and 2300 dpi. This gives me more than enough resolution to create files at the final pixel resolution of the printer, which is 720 ppi. This allows a theoretical print resolution of 14 lp/mm on the final print, although in reality, the surface texture of the paper obscures most of the difference between 14 lp/mm and 7 lp/mm final resolution. Either setting makes prints that look like the sharpest contact prints I've ever seen; the lower one is succeptible to aliasing under some circumstances, so I use the higher one.

I belive that with the best black and white negatives, it would be worthwhile using a higher resolution scanner than this if you were going to make significantly bigger prints. But I don't think there will be any meaningful image information available above 4000 dpi.

sanking

2-Aug-2009, 17:58

I belive that with the best black and white negatives, it would be worthwhile using a higher resolution scanner than this if you were going to make significantly bigger prints. But I don't think there will be any meaningful image information available above 4000 dpi.

If you are looking at this only from the perspective of 4X5 and larger film I think you are probably correct in that there is no meaningful information in the film with a scan where the effective resolution is 4000 spi. That would not be true, however, of high quality MF and 35mm equipment with high resolution B&W film. I scan my 6X7 cm Mamiya 7II negatives with a professional quality scanner at 5080 spi (effective resolution of about 4500 spi) and examination of the film with a microscope shows that there is some detail that the scanner is not picking up. I believe that for these negatives I need a drum scan of at least 6500 spi to get it all. And some of the Leitz aspheric glass is capable of recording *more* than 150 lp/mm on high resolution B&W film, and even an Aztek Premier drum at 8000 spi might not get it all.

Sure, ultimately it depends on how large you print, but that is different from what is needed in a scan to capture all (or most) of the detail.

Sandy King

Brian Ellis

2-Aug-2009, 19:16

. . . One of the points I contend is that short of fire (which a fire safe can solve), analog is not susceptible to the same problems as digital. Dyes on optical media just deteriorate in time which can leave not one image, but thousands lost. Magnetic media is susceptible to not just magnetism, but ESD, brownouts, etc. And of course, a negative processed 50 years ago is still just as viable today as it was then, unlike digital.

I have hundreds of old family photographs dating from the late 19th century through the 1960s. But I don't have a single negative. The family members didn't care about the negatives once they had the prints (or, in cases where a professional photographer made the photographs, they probably never had the negatives in the first place).

The historical society of a city in which I used to live has thousands of prints made by professional photographers in the early part of the 20th century, documenting what the city looked like back then. But they don't have a single negative. Somewhere along the line the negatives were lost or destroyed.

Those are just two situations I happen to be familiar with. I don't think they're unusual. In fact I'd guess that keeping the print and not worrying about the negative is the norm rather the exception for most photographs. The point being that just as someone needs to take care to copy digital photographs periodically as technology changes, so a similar degree of care must be taken to preserve negatives. If the negative wasn't preserved and maintained in a place where it can be accessed it doesn't matter how archival it is.

paulr

2-Aug-2009, 19:18

If you are looking at this only from the perspective of 4X5 and larger film I think you are probably correct in that there is no meaningful information in the film with a scan where the effective resolution is 4000 spi. That would not be true, however, of high quality MF and 35mm equipment with high resolution B&W film. I scan my 6X7 cm Mamiya 7II negatives with a professional quality scanner at 5080 spi (effective resolution of about 4500 spi) and exam

That makes sense, sure. I was definitely talking about LF. Some of the smaller format lenses have pretty amazing MTF capabilities.

Flea77

2-Aug-2009, 21:05

I have hundreds of old family photographs dating from the late 19th century through the 1960s. But I don't have a single negative. The family members didn't care about the negatives once they had the prints (or, in cases where a professional photographer made the photographs, they probably never had the negatives in the first place).

The historical society of a city in which I used to live has thousands of prints made by professional photographers in the early part of the 20th century, documenting what the city looked like back then. But they don't have a single negative. Somewhere along the line the negatives were lost or destroyed.

Those are just two situations I happen to be familiar with. I don't think they're unusual. In fact I'd guess that keeping the print and not worrying about the negative is the norm rather the exception for most photographs. The point being that just as someone needs to take care to copy digital photographs periodically as technology changes, so a similar degree of care must be taken to preserve negatives. If the negative wasn't preserved and maintained in a place where it can be accessed it doesn't matter how archival it is.

But we are talking about two different things. Losing the negative is like losing the original digital capture. Either one is bad. The discussion I was having was concerning the preservation of the original image, analog negatives, and digital files. I am quite sure a lot of home photographers lose or delete images off their hard drives after they make their prints too, so the point of losing negatives is moot.

As for care being needed, this is true with a big BUT.... the negatives will not suddenly fail because the head of the hard drive got a piece of grit in it, it will not fail to make a print because no machines have 8 bit ISA slots anymore so I can not put the SCSI card in. Digital takes more constant care over time than negatives to ensure reliability and accessibility, period. I deal with this every single day (not necessarily images, but data in general) and can not tell you how often people bring in old data on some ancient storage medium wanting us to retrieve it for them. Fortunately, they pay large amounts of money for me to play with the old technology, it is fun and quite profitable for me :D

Allan