Digital BW, The Print

Keith/Anthony/et al,

I have read over and over, again, these endless posts regarding digital vs.
film but have never felt the need to jump into the fray. No more! I'll
probably get flamed heavily for the following, but it's in Jerry O's spirit
that I offer my two cents...FWIW...

I currently have and use a Canon D30 with a small cadre of lenses. BTW, I
own only one "L" series piece of glass. My primary 35mm film camera has been
the Nikon F4, all f/2.8 lenses (i.e., pro-level), for many years. Recently,
I was considering whether to upgrade my DSLR to the new Canon 10D and get a
couple of more Canon lenses, or buy a 35mm film scanner. As I said, I have
read the many posts stating "digital cannot possibly match scanned film
(even from the cheapest scanners)", that "digital (even the lowly D30)
surpassed 35mm scanned film", etc. I have read many pages on the web related
specifically to this topic. But, and this is a BIG but, I had never actually
done a direct comparison for myself. I should mention that I scan MF / LF on
a Epson Expression 1680, and have compared these scans to my D30 images, and
have a couple of opinions here, but I leave those for another day.

The setup: I loaded my Nikon F4 with a roll of what is considered to be one
of the best transparency films available (I won't mention which one because
someone will say that I didn't use the "right" film!), clicked on my
35-70/2.8, grabbed the tripod and my D30 and headed off early one morning to
my favorite local area of the desert. The desert was in bloom so there was
color everywhere! Every subject that I recorded on film I also recorded with
the D30. I had the film processed by a local professional lab, picked an
image to work with, and sent it to West Coast Imaging to have a Tango drum
scan (100MB) done. I picked WCI because of their reputation and the fact
that photographers of the caliber of Robert Glenn Ketchum use them. I
anxiously awaited the CD to come back from WCI. I thought to myself, how
could a 17MB file from the D30 possibly hold up--even in the slightest
way--to 100MB's worth of data from a clean, sharp, well exposed, drum
scanned transparency?

Upon receiving the scanned image I opened it in their default color space
(PS 7.0.1) and set viewing to 100% pixel level. Then I opened the same
subject taken with my D30 (Adobe color space) and set that image to 100%
viewing. In side-by-side comparisons I found the following:

1. Sharpness - absolutely no contest. The D30 image was significantly
sharper than scanned film.
2. Resolution - again, no contest here either. The D30 image clearly
revealed finer details.
3. Grain - The scanned film showed obvious grain--resulting in reduced edge
definition, too--where the D30 was just about "grain" (noise) free.
4. Smoothness of tonality and colors - I preferred the D30 image probably
because the lack of "grain" just made it look "cleaner" and, therefore,
richer and more pleasing to look at.

BTW, I should also mention that the Canon lens used on the D30 was the
consumer level 28-135 IS zoom. Not reported to be one of Canon's best. I
would expect even better results from the D30 using "L" series glass.

Bottom line...I'm now fully convinced that the D30, in particular, and I'm
sure any of the most recent DSLR offerings from Canon/Nikon/Fuji, clearly
blows away 35mm film scanned on ANY scanner for prints up to 13x19. Can the
same conclusions be drawn for larger prints? Don't know...don't care. Super
B size is the largest that I ever print. Therefore, if Micheal Riechmann
says that the Canon 1Ds compares favorably with MF so be it! Others of
respected opinions have stated the same. If I could afford the 1Ds, I'd get
one in a heartbeat. But, I'll probably have to wait for a more prosumer
level full-frame digital camera at a more reasonable cost. Are you listening
Canon?

As I said...just my two cents...flame retardant suit in place. Let the games
begin.................

Alan Huntley

----- Original Message -----
From: "keith_r_smith2003" <keith@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] digital


>
> > No 35mm digital camera compares favorably to medium-format film;
> even 35mm
> > film does not compare favorably to medium-format film.
> >
>
> Carefull here.  I suspect the comparison you were refering to was on
> www.luminous-landscape.com where micheal has abandoned MF for a 1Ds.
> The important thing here is that he states that the 1Ds gives better
> results FOR WHAT HE DOES - that is produce prints up to 13*19
> occasionally bigger , colour.  The comparison he makes is that while
> MF may have greater resolution, the gains of the digital workflow get
> most of it back again.
> It also appears to be the case that the 1Ds shows up the flaws in all
> but the best lenses.
>
> BUT - from what I gather, one major problem may be that B&W film has
> a greater dynamic range that any colour film or digital sensor.
>
> BUT I also read that inkjet prints can have a greater contrast range
> than the best conventional prints (don't flame me  - look at
> www.piezography.com)
>
> BUT - if you shoot digital, you can shoot in colour and apply
> filters  (red , yellow etc)in post proccessing.
>
> My analysis (FWIW) is:
> If you use 35mm ,then shooting digital (on a good DSLR),and inkjet
> printing will probably produce final prints that are essentially
> indistingishable from conventional prints.
>
> Or you can shoot B&W film, scan it on a good scanner (don't use a
> flatbed), and get the same result.
>
> If you shoot MF and have a good scanner (= expensive) you will
> probably get better results (but possibly only really visible on BIG
> prints)
>
> let the flames begin.