Digital BW, The Print

> At least one review has compared it favorably
> to 645 roll film.

No 35mm digital camera compares favorably to medium-format film; even 35mm
film does not compare favorably to medium-format film.

> It is my understanding that B&W work is much
> more demanding on camera quality.

Digital is a poor choice for dedicated black and white work unless the
camera is designed specifically for black and white work (i.e., it will not
shoot color, and it does not have the color matrix filter over the sensor
that color digicams have).  Dedicated digital black and white cameras can
give excellent results, however, even if the resolution is typically lower
than that of fine-grained or larger-format B&W film.

Digital B&W also has a fixed spectral sensitivity, whereas B&W film has
sensitivity that can be changed by changing films.  To some extent this can
be mitigated by filters, but it still isn't quite as flexible as film ... if
you need that type of flexibility.

Since B&W film is easy to shoot and easy to process, and doesn't cost very
much compared to color, why would you want to do it digitally to begin with?

> How large can you print a file from this camera
> and still hold satisfactory detail?

Divide the viewing distance by 6875, then divide the dimensions of the final
print by the result.  This will give you the number of pixels required in
the image to preserve all visible detail.  Digital prints will not hold up
to this standard if you are preparing big enlargements that will be examined
at close range.  For prints that will be examined from a "standard" viewing
distance (equal to the diagonal of the print), a high-end digital with at
least 6 megapixels will usually suffice.  In black and white, the criteria
may be more stringent, because digicams lose luminance resolution because of
their matrix color filters (i.e., a 6-megapixel color digicam really doesn't
have 6 megapixels of resolution in black and white).

> I know it will never compete with a 4X5, but I won't be
> making any 16X20 prints, either. What do you folks
> think?

I don't think digital is the ultimate in B&W.  It's too easy to shoot
Technical Pan and handily whip any digital 35mm camera under the sun.
Scanning backs can do somewhat better, but I presume that you aren't
interested in scanning backs (which in turn imply large-format cameras,
AFAIK).

Thanks for the reply. That was kind of what I was expecting. A film 
only darkroom, doesn't take up that much space any way. I guess that 
will be the best route to take. Thanks again -- Jim



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > At least one review has compared it favorably
> > to 645 roll film.
> 
> No 35mm digital camera compares favorably to medium-format film; 
even 35mm
> film does not compare favorably to medium-format film.
> 
> > It is my understanding that B&W work is much
> > more demanding on camera quality.
> 
> Digital is a poor choice for dedicated black and white work unless 
the
> camera is designed specifically for black and white work (i.e., it 
will not
> shoot color, and it does not have the color matrix filter over the 
sensor
> that color digicams have).  Dedicated digital black and white 
cameras can
> give excellent results, however, even if the resolution is 
typically lower
> than that of fine-grained or larger-format B&W film.
> 
> Digital B&W also has a fixed spectral sensitivity, whereas B&W 
film has
> sensitivity that can be changed by changing films.  To some extent 
this can
> be mitigated by filters, but it still isn't quite as flexible as 
film ... if
> you need that type of flexibility.
> 
> Since B&W film is easy to shoot and easy to process, and doesn't 
cost very
> much compared to color, why would you want to do it digitally to 
begin with?
> 
> > How large can you print a file from this camera
> > and still hold satisfactory detail?
> 
> Divide the viewing distance by 6875, then divide the dimensions of 
the final
> print by the result.  This will give you the number of pixels 
required in
> the image to preserve all visible detail.  Digital prints will not 
hold up
> to this standard if you are preparing big enlargements that will 
be examined
> at close range.  For prints that will be examined from 
a "standard" viewing
> distance (equal to the diagonal of the print), a high-end digital 
with at
> least 6 megapixels will usually suffice.  In black and white, the 
criteria
> may be more stringent, because digicams lose luminance resolution 
because of
> their matrix color filters (i.e., a 6-megapixel color digicam 
really doesn't
> have 6 megapixels of resolution in black and white).
> 
> > I know it will never compete with a 4X5, but I won't be
> > making any 16X20 prints, either. What do you folks
> > think?
> 
> I don't think digital is the ultimate in B&W.  It's too easy to 
shoot
> Technical Pan and handily whip any digital 35mm camera under the 
sun.
> Scanning backs can do somewhat better, but I presume that you 
aren't
> interested in scanning backs (which in turn imply large-format 
cameras,
> AFAIK).

Thank you Anthony for your well presented and helpful reply.
Now a further question, if I may.
Is it better to take colour slides and then convert them to black and 
white before printing?
Ken
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:

> Is it better to take colour slides and then
> convert them to black and white before printing?

As compared to ... what?

As compared to shooting black and white film to begin with ... no, I don't
think shooting color slides is a better option.  There are zillions of
black-and-white films out there, each with its own characteristics, and this
gives you tremendous flexibility in getting the exact kind of B&W "look"
that you want.

Color slides, on the other hand, are designed to give lifelike colors, and
lifelike luminance.  This is fine, as long as your final image is required
to be lifelike, too.  Problems arise, though, when you remove the color,
because areas that might be very distinct in color often turn out to be
equivalent shades of gray in luminance.  The B&W conversion is accurate, but
not necessarily pleasing to the eye.  My experience is that most B&W images
converted from color look mysteriously "flat," even though they are
technically accurate as far as relative luminance goes.

The situation is different with B&W film.  For example, Tri-X is relatively
insensitive to red light.  If you shoot a subject with isoluminant areas of
red and blue with Tri-X, the red areas will be a darker shade of gray than
the blue areas in the final image, even though, in theory, they should both
be the same shade of gray.  If you shoot the same subject in color and
convert to grayscale, the two areas _will_ be the same shade of gray.  The
problem here is that you might want to be able to distinguish them in black
and white, and Tri-X will allow that, whereas a simple grayscale conversion
will not.

Tri-X thus has a distinctive "look" to it.  It's not an accurate reflection
of real-world luminance--but then again, black and white isn't an accurate
reflection of the real world in the first place (since the real world is in
color).  The response of Tri-X lets you see details that might not be
obvious if you just grayscaled a color image.

Other black-and-white films offer similar advantages.  Tech Pan is unusually
sensitive to red (almost the opposite of Tri-X), so red objects tend to
"glow" a lot more in Tech Pan, giving the film its own distinctive look.
The sensitivity to red is often flattering for portraits.

Then there are issues of grain.  You can simulate grain in a converted color
photo, but you can't exactly recreate it.  Conversely, any grain that is
present cannot be removed.  So you won't be able to simulate Tri-X with
converted Velvia because Velvia doesn't have enough grain, and you won't be
able to simulate Tech Pan with converted Velvia because Velvia has _too
much_ grain.

Even more extreme examples can be given.  Infrared photography, for example,
requires infrared film; no amount of manipulation of any color image can
produce anything like it, because color images contain no information on
infrared.

All of the above applies to color digital images just as much as it applies
to color film images.  Digital images are crippled in an additional way,
though, in that they have lower resolution than equivalent film images, even
when the same number of pixels is used.  That is, since each original pixel
in a digital camera only receives one color, a significant amount of
luminance information and detail is lost in the digital image.  This is made
more obvious by a conversion to B&W.  Even with the same number of pixels,
the converted digital image may not look as sharp as an image scanned from
B&W film.

So, in my own estimation, if you want the best black and white, you must
shoot black and white film exclusively. If you are investing in a dedicated
solution for printing the best possible B&W photos, it only makes sense that
you'd want to pursue a similarly dedicated solution for taking the B&W
photos in the first place.  Black and white is more than just images without
color; it's a whole different domain.

> 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.

Keith writes:

> I suspect the comparison you were refering to
> was on www.luminous-landscape.com where micheal
> has abandoned MF for a 1Ds.

I was referring to the general statement that (35mm) digital compares
favorably to 645.  Generally speaking, (35mm) digital does NOT compare
favorably to 645.

> It also appears to be the case that the 1Ds shows
> up the flaws in all but the best lenses.

So do Provia, Velvia, and Technical Pan.

> 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.

True, although ideal electronic sensors can have an equal or greater range
(but such sensors are not used in photographic still cameras).  B&W film has
a greater density range, too, since negatives can go from practically opaque
to crystal-clear.

> 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)

Generally speaking, that is not true.  I don't even think it is true for B&W
ink-jet prints, but I may be wrong.  True B&W photographic prints have
enormous density ranges ... as prints go, that is.

> BUT - if you shoot digital, you can shoot in
> colour and apply filters  (red , yellow etc) in
> post proccessing.

That won't help.  When you record an image in color, you permanently lose
information that would have been recorded by B&W film.  There is no way to
recover that information in post-production, so there is no way to
accurately simulate B&W film by any manipulation of a color image.

> 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.

Not true for color; I'm not as sure for B&W, since I've seen some very
excellent B&W ink-jet prints.

> If you shoot MF and have a good scanner (= expensive)
> you will probably get better results (but possibly
> only really visible on BIG prints)

MF superiority is sometimes evident even on small prints, thanks to the
additional depth of modulation provided by MF in the original image.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Keith writes:
> 
> > I suspect the comparison you were refering to
> > was on www.luminous-landscape.com where micheal
> > has abandoned MF for a 1Ds.
> 
> I was referring to the general statement that (35mm) digital 
compares
> favorably to 645.  Generally speaking, (35mm) digital does NOT 
compare
> favorably to 645.

got to argue this one.  I think that in truth the jury is still out 
on this when looking at the latest high pixel count sensors.  The 
whole thing is getting into the area of real world lens resolution, 
and the actual resolution obtained by the whole process, including 
camera lens, film, processing, enlarger lens etc.





> > 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.
> 
> True, although ideal electronic sensors can have an equal or 
greater range
> (but such sensors are not used in photographic still cameras).  B&W 
film has
> a greater density range, too, since negatives can go from 
practically opaque
> to crystal-clear.

from what I gather, B&W film, properly exposed and processed can have 
about 8 stops , wheras colour and digital has about 5 at best.

> 
> > 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)
> 
> Generally speaking, that is not true.  I don't even think it is 
true for B&W
> ink-jet prints, but I may be wrong.  True B&W photographic prints 
have
> enormous density ranges ... as prints go, that is.

In terms of colour prints, I think the latest inkjet systems gives do 
give prints that are as good as any - and a whole lot easier.  It MAY 
be true that a really good colour darkroom can do better, but it's a 
lot or work.  It will also depend on what you are printing - colour 
neg or slide etc.

> 
> > BUT - if you shoot digital, you can shoot in
> > colour and apply filters  (red , yellow etc) in
> > post proccessing.
> 
> That won't help.  When you record an image in color, you 
permanently lose
> information that would have been recorded by B&W film.  There is no 
way to
> recover that information in post-production, so there is no way to
> accurately simulate B&W film by any manipulation of a color image.
> 

Your point on the characteristics of different B&W films is well 
made.  These films will pick up information differently from each 
other and from a digital sensor.  If that is what you want, then your 
chosen film (and probably your chosen developer / agitation / time )
is the only option

 
> > If you shoot MF and have a good scanner (= expensive)
> > you will probably get better results (but possibly
> > only really visible on BIG prints)
> 
> MF superiority is sometimes evident even on small prints, thanks to 
the
> additional depth of modulation provided by MF in the original image.

It may well be different, but it would be difficult to measure 
objectivly.

keith

Hi Anthony, 
I would like to thank you very much for your detailed answer.
> > Is it better to take colour slides and then
> > convert them to black and white before printing?
> 
> As compared to ... what?
Digital.
I am on a blind pension, and I thought digital was the answer to all 
my problems. I used my LS2000 to put all my slides on CD. The ones I 
took in the 1960s had turned very dark blue, so I corrected them in 
PS7. The boy next door, looking over my shoulder said: "Why do all 
the people have green faces?"
Yes, I am colour blind, so I decided to make the move to B&W. I 
started my interest in Photography 50 years age - all B&W.
I can't see what I am shooting through the viewfinder but I can crop 
straighten etc in PS 7.
I am too tight to buy the latest digital camera for next week a newer 
one will have come out and mine will have plummetted in value.
OK I will take your advice.
I live in the country and cannot drive so I will search the web for 
more details on the Nikon SLR F65. I will have to use it with a fixed 
lens to get the brightest viewfinder - a 1.4 50 mm - and shoot in Tri-
X. For years my cameras were all fixed lenses, so I will be used to 
it.
I hope this will cover the "further information".
Thanks again.
Ken
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:

> 
> As compared to shooting black and white film to begin with ... no, 
I don't
> think shooting color slides is a better option.

sorry to hear about your sight - from what you say you have 
difficulty in seeing what is in the viewfinder, but can work via a 
large screen.
If that is so, you might want to explore another possibility - yes it 
not be cheap, but it might be OK.
Some of the mid range digital cameras use an electronic viewfinder in 
place of the conventional optical one.  On these it is possible to 
connect a TV and get the viewfinder up on that.
So you could have a large screen to look at.  

Another possibility is that Olympus do a thing like a pair of eye 
glasses (called Eye-Trek)that are a TV monitor - meant for viewing TV 
from a portable MPEG player.  This might work for you.

I would guess that inkjet printing would also be the way to go for 
you - no focussing!

Good luck
Keith

Keith writes:

> I think that in truth the jury is still out
> on this when looking at the latest high pixel
> count sensors.

I've heard similar claims since the Kodak DC50 came out six years ago.
Every new camera is "better than film," as long as you don't look too
closely.

> from what I gather, B&W film, properly exposed
> and processed can have about 8 stops ...

According to the manufacturer data sheets:

Fuji Neopan Acros 100 . . . . . . . .  8-10 stops
Agfapan APX . . . . . . . . . . . . .    12 stops
Ilford FP4  . . . . . . . . . . . . .     8 stops
Ilford Pan F  . . . . . . . . . . . .     9 stops
Kodak T-Max 100 . . . . . . . . . . .  8-10 stops
Kodak Tri-X Pan . . . . . . . . . . .    10 stops
Kodak Technical Pan (pictorial) . . .     8 stops*

* The curves imply that Tech Pan could possible go to 16 stops or beyond,
under the right conditions.

For comparison, here are some color film ranges:

Fujichrome Velvia . . . . . . . . . .     7 stops
Fujichrome Provia 100F  . . . . . . .     9 stops
Kodak Portra 800  . . . . . . . . . .    12 stops
Kodak Kodachrome  . . . . . . . . . .     5 stops

These are the ranges between the start and end (toe and shoulder) of the
characteristic density curves, i.e., these are the ranges in which the film
density will vary enough to hold detail.  As you can see, the ranges are far
greater than one is ordinarily led to believe.  In particular, it looks like
the commonly-held ranges for slides date from the Kodachrome days, since
todays E-6 slide films manifestly hold a lot more.

I can verify that slides hold a great deal of detail, a fair amount of which
is not visible on the light table.  It can be recovered with a deep scan and
some Photoshop work, though.

The range of Tech Pan seems almost open-ended, depending on how you expose
and develop it.

The actual density ranges on the film itself (between clear film and maximum
silver or dye) are typically over 100:1, and sometimes as high as 3000:1
(Kodachrome and some slide films).  This represent a log density of as much
as 3.5, which can give scanners quite a bit of hard work.

> ... wheras colour and digital has about 5 at best.

Even color film does well.

As for digital, I don't have any data on that.  I do know that, in theory, a
CCD is limited mainly by thermal noise and the capacity of the photosites;
it is possible to achieve 16-17 stops, under ideal conditions.  Ordinary
digicams, though (even pro digicams) never come close to this ideal,
however, and I don't know how far they get.

> In terms of colour prints, I think the latest*
> inkjet systems gives do give prints that are as
> good as any - and a whole lot easier.

I find it cheaper, easier, and faster to get Fuji Frontier prints instead of
trying to print my own.  And the quality of the Frontier prints blows away
my own ink-jet prints.  No contest.

The situation isn't so cut and dried for black and white, however.

> It MAY be true that a really good colour darkroom
> can do better, but it's a lot or work.

Enlargers are history.  Even pro labs just do high-resolution scans of the
film, then use laser printers to expose the photographic paper.  It gives
much sharper and better results than an enlarger would.

> It may well be different, but it would be difficult
> to measure objectivly.

I agree.  The difference, when it is there at all, is usually in the
"quality" of each pixel, that is, the degree to which each pixel accurate
represents a sample of the original scene.  MF gives more pixels to start
with, so the quality of the resulting pixel is higher, for a given final
resolution.  It isn't always obvious, but it seems to make a difference on
scenes with a lot of random detail.

Ken writes:

> Digital.

I think that converting from color, whether it be from digital color or film
color, is always inferior to shooting directly in black and white (whether
it be digital black and white or film black and white).  The color image is
always missing a great deal of luminance information, and trying to recreate
the luminance from that is problematic.

> The boy next door, looking over my shoulder
> said: "Why do all the people have green faces?"
> Yes, I am colour blind ...

Color blind or not, that can happen (just a bad monitor calibration will do
it).  I try to find something that is neutral in color in an image, then I
use that to set the gray balance for the whole image.  It usually works
extremely well; the only difficulty is finding a neutral reference, as not
all scenes contain one.

> I live in the country and cannot drive so I
> will search the web for more details on the
> Nikon SLR F65. I will have to use it with a fixed
> lens to get the brightest viewfinder - a 1.4 50
> mm - and shoot in Tri-X. For years my cameras
> were all fixed lenses, so I will be used to
> it.

It sounds like a good combination.  Henri Cartier-Bresson worked magic with
a similar set-up.  A good lens, a comfortable camera body, and some trusty
Tri-X are all you need.

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.

Alan-

When looking at your method it seems to me you should not be comparing 
them at 100% magnification if they are not the same size image.  
Shouldn't you have the same image area (eg the 6 flowers in the lower 
left) on the screen to make the comparison?

<snip>
>  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:
<snip>

I don't have any view about film vs digital -- I've seen amazing images 
from both. My own experience is that equipment is rarely the limiting 
factor in creating a compelling image.  Certainly some equipment makes 
some kinds of photography easier but it is always the skill of the 
photographer that makes the image.
--
Kevin

Alan writes:


> 1. Sharpness - absolutely no contest. The D30
> image was significantly sharper than scanned film.

It will be, if you compared the raw scan to the digital image.  Downsample
the scan in steps to match the digital image size, and USM at each step.
Then you might see something different.

I've just compared some of my Provia 100F scans to D30 images, and the
Provia scans win easily.  This is particularly true when I start looking at
things like color resolution (the D30 fringes a lot and shows a lot of
coarse noise, whereas the scans have no fringing, fine color detail, and
very fine noise).

> 2. Resolution - again, no contest here either.
> The D30 image clearly revealed finer details.

See above.

> 3. Grain - The scanned film showed obvious grain--
> resulting in reduced edge definition, too--where
> the D30 was just about "grain" (noise) free.

See above.

> 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.

So have you sold all your film equipment?

> Therefore, if Micheal Riechmann says that the Canon
> 1Ds compares favorably with MF so be it!

Who is Michael Riechmann, and why is his word more reliable than direct
experiment?

Alan,

I think that it is largely an artistic choice at this point. (Or economic if
you are shooting pro!) I have seen excellent prints from digital cameras and
from scanned film. They have a different character though and some may
prefer one over the other.

I do most of my "serious" work with 4x5 and 6x7 film cameras but I would be
happy to add a Canon D10 to my 35mm Canon bodies.

You don't mention it in your test below but I assume it was all done in
color. It would be interesting to repeat this experiment shooting a medium
speed B&W negative film (TMax 100 or FP4) and converting the camera file to
B&W (or shoot in B&W mode if that is an option). Finally make a print from
both workflows and see what you get. After all the print is the real test. I
suspect they will both be good but not the same.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A. Huntley" <leicam6@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] digital


> 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
(snip earlier)

Blah Blah Blah..

This entire "digital vs film" issue is essentially ridiculous in many 
ways...

I use both film and digital at ALL steps of my work from initial image 
capture to final display..

Digital is great when I need to check lighting levels, want instant 
feedback, or need quick turnaround....

CAN I create good full frame 13x19s that compare to conventional film 
13x19s.. Sure..  But I can also create 13x19s with a 35mm and  low ISO 
color negative film that compare to higher ISO transparency film MF 
images printed at the same size..

And what does that prove?

That "under controlled circumstances, using a competition weighted to 
the advantages of one system/workflow I can surpass or beat the quality 
of what is theoretically a superior system"...  And, that means that 
digital ":blows away film at 35mm"?  That's like saying that if I take 
the world's best Olympic decathlon competitor that the 30th place 
Olympic finisher in pole vault can beat him/her in a pole vault 
competition and therefore my decathlete is blown away as an athlete by 
the pole vault competitor..

I'll just list a few issues here..

1)    d30 vs film: flaws in the comparative methodology Alan used..

A)    Transparency film is closest to the exposure latitude of  digital 
- so that choice automatically weights the entire comparison in favor of 
digital.  One of the advantages of film is that even with slides (and 
significantly more so with color neg., not to mention there is not a 
fair comparison between the HUGE latitude in  B&W neg. and digital) film 
GENERALLY has a wider inherent latitude.. Want to really compare B&W 
film to your D30 digital?  (After all, this IS a DIGITAL BLACK & WHITE 
list.)  Then start with a good B&W negative on a film shot at the ISO 
for which it is designed, scan it at 16 bit @ 4000 dpi or higher with a 
pro scanner,  then compare it to a B&W created by conversion from a D30 
digital.  Whether or not YOU see onscreen or use in a direct print  all 
the info in the scan isn't the point..  The strength of film here is the 
wider tonal range ISO to ISO..

B)    Since we're discussing ISO let's discuss it further..  How does 
your D30 do at 25 or 6400 ISO...?  Oh, right it doesn't shoot at those 
speeds... Silly me..  Unfortunately, film does.. We have films that do..

C)    ISO again..  You didn't mention what ISO you shot at..  I'm 
guessing it was between 200 and 400... Why? That's where digital images 
will look the best..  That's all well and good if I have control over my 
lighting and can pick and choose ISO, assuring I shoot in that range.. 
 BUT, compare a 1600 ISO film image on pro neg. to a 1600 ISO image from 
the D30.. The noise on the D30 image is just ridiculous compared to a 
well exposed 1600 ISO B&W negative of a film designed for that speed..

D)    Noise vs grain: "which a viewer prefers"..  This is so subjective 
as to be idiotic...  It's like saying someone likes watercolors better 
than pastels..  Nice observations, but hardly an objective criterion.

E)    Lens multipliers...  The D30 has a 1.6 lens multiplier.. That may 
be nice for shooting long.. But try shooting with a field of view 
equivalent to 20mm... Happen to have that 12.5 mm lens handy?  NO SLR 
that has a lens multiplier is comparable here..  Why? Lenses for 35 mm 
have decades of development for that format..  Come back with a full 
frame comparison..

F)    Resolution vs apparent resolution.  Whatever your eye sees 
onscreen, the fact is that a high resolution scan of a properly exposed 
LOW ISO film image will have more actual resolution...  People here seem 
to equate sharpness or clarity to resolution.  IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.. 
 What you see onscreen tends to be the greater apparent acutance of 
digital.. Big deal, NOT!  There have always been ways of developing 
films to enhance acutance or apparent sharpness in B&W wet darkroom 
work.. I can "sharpen" in PShop an image to make it "look" better.  That 
doesn't mean the image itself was sharper..  Digital captures are 
weighted towards higher acutance (it helps make up for lower 
resolutions), so, in your case, this is another false comparison.. -- 
This item is very close to the idiocy of those who check for 
over-sharpening at a 100% onscreen resolution.. In MANY cases what is 
over-sharpening at that level looks better on a final print (and doesn't 
belie any over-sharpening) than a perfectly sharpened image...  C'mon 
we've known that in digital printing, especially in magazine work, for 
aeons.. It's irrelevant to which image or original is better..

G)    More resolution issues... The D30 has an effective pixel 
resolution of 2160 x  1460... Even a 4000 dpi scan of 35 mm is about 
6000 x 4000 pixels..  Onscreen the images when sized to fit may look the 
same or digital may win..  You certainly can make great 13x19 digital 
prints from the D30 images.  But what happens if I need to do 
significant cropping?  Then film really surpasses digital (for the time 
being -- and let's not even compare this to MF).  The fact is, magazine 
imagery in particular is more highly cropped and edited.  Advantage is 
still with film here.. (and lets not EVEN get into the fact that the 
best scans don't approach the full resolution of fine-grained B&W 
films... if we really want simply the best resolution we'd all simply 
shoot MF fine-grained B&W, but choices aren't so simple either)

H)    Resolution again..  The way you compare is weighted towards 
digital again..  Choose the same area of an image and compare..

I)    Tonal range again.. Even a top level scanner generally needs a 
high end and low end (in the sense of histograms or levels) scan to 
gather anywhere near the available info from a good color neg., much 
less a B&W one...  Does that mean the D30 print will not "look" better 
in a final print?  Certainly not...  If you expose perfectly, a D30 can 
give you a mush faster workflow through to that image.  However, all the 
info you don't have in that D30 image is simply not available if you 
need to do serious dodging and burning etc.. The fact that film gives 
you data that is beyond the contrast/tonal range of prints is a BIG 
advantage..  That means I can reclaim and emphasize detail (especially 
with a two or more scans)  that a 100% digital workflow still cannot 
hope to match (again, for the time being).

J)    Density.. Film gets denser than good scans can capture in a single 
scan.. Fact of life.. You axiomatically throw away data then.. So, if a 
two scan  image has more data than a digital capture add inthe missing 
unscanned data and the comparison is just not even worth talking about.

K)    More film choice issues: to clearly understand the point, let's go 
to an extreme... Loaded the D30 up with a roll of Kodak HIE?  OOps, it 
won't fit.. Can you make pseudo HIE B&W IR images (esp if you start with 
false colour IR images) with a D30...? Sure... Will they have ALL  the 
same qualities of HIE...?  Not a chance..  So, does digital look the 
same as TriX, APX25, TechPan,  the "looks" of each are different..  With 
a film camera I do have more choices to begin with though..  

L)    To illustrate the real issues more clearly think of it this way.. 
Can a D30 image be made into a better 800 x 600 JPG image than that from 
film.. ? Sure... But you've thrown away a ton of data in that process.. 
and NOW you'd compare the 800 x 600 images and pronounce digital the 
winner?  No-one would do that and call it a relevant comparison..

M)    Continuing that line... At 9 x 12 Olympus E10 color prints done 
with a dye-sub or better quality inkjet can beat traditional SLR film 
images in apparent sharpness, color saturation, clarity, resolution, 
etc.. AND?  I guess that's ok if I always print that way..

N)    Need I mention here that the sRGB color space of a D30 is almost 
automatically going to look better onscreen unmanipulated as compared to 
a similar scanned image?  If you don't understand why (the realities of 
color spaces used by monitors), you shouldn't even be trying a 
controlled comparison unless you are trying to engage in selective 
perception to selectively reinforce a purchasing decision you've already 
made..

I could list the areas digital has an advantage in, but for the sake of 
limiting this tome, I've restricted myself to exposing a FEW of the 
flaws in your comparison..

Now, all this said... I use digital and film..

I use 100% digital workflows... I use hybrid workflows where I scan film 
and print digitally.. I still do some 100% analog (wet darkroom) 
printing..  Others have made conventional silver prints from digital 
image captures.... Each workflow has advantages for particular situations..

For many working event  photogs and newspaper Photo-js, digital is a 
clear winner..

For ultra anal fine-arts photogs film still wins hands down for the 
initial imaging..

In the interstices between those extremes the choice of digital vs film 
is still one of toolsets...

Neither approach objectively and  inherently "blows away" the other...

Can I make a great statue of a bear from a log using a chain saw? Yes... 
(OK, I can't but others do)

Can I make a great image with a Holga..? Definitely...

Can I make great 4 x 6s with a Sinar 8 x10..? I guess so..

Can I make a better image at 12 x 18 or 13 x 19 of a particular image 
with a D30 than I can with an image shot on film by an F4 or F5?  Sure, 
in the right circumstances..

Do I use digital in some circumstances over film? Yes

Will I be buying a Nikon full-frame SLR this Fall and shooting more 
digital than I now do?  Sure..

Will it replace film for more of my uses..? Sure..

Does that mean digital "blows away" film..?  Umm... Nope, to say so 
would only demonstrate my inherent ignorance of film, digital, and all 
the factors involved in making my choice of tool..

Tools simply aren't the same...  Pastels create different images than 
oils.. Digital and film will create different images (and yes, one can 
make them look similar, just as one can make media in painting look 
similar -- but that's a false comparison)..

This debate (for the time being) is still like a Mac vs PC debate... 
It's an issue of toolset, subjective preferences, and needs.. Neither is 
a clear winner in all ways under all circumstances...

One final note as to why I think this debate is inherently silly..

I can take a Holga and shoot images of the same scene as a less skilled 
amateur using the best all automatic SLR... Hand over the images to a 
3rd party who is skilled in PhotoShop and that 3rd party might well 
create better final images from my Holga shots... Why?  Because ART is 
not about simply choosing the tool that is objectively "best".. If that 
were so, the people with the most money to spend on materials (in 
traditional arts) or cameras (in photo)  would produce the best 
imagery...  That's simply not the case, as we all know..  This is ART 
not some objectified documentary holographic data capture meant to 
exactly replicate the real world.. It's about emotion, expression, and 
vision...

I don't give a rat's ass if someone can produce the highest resolution 
comparative images possible or the most technically perfect negatives.. 
 Those kind of comparisons are the retreat of mediocre artists who may 
be skilled technicians.. (the kind of people who crete images that are 
technical opuses, but which never touch the souls of anyone - including 
in many cases them - which I believe is why some choose this excessive 
focus on tool) The only real measure in the end as an artist is how your 
art is received by others and how you feel about it yourself.. Stop 
believing that technique or tool is the supreme determinant of the 
success or failure of your images.. It isn't and never will be for 
images that are "art."  AND what image that is not a holographic perfect 
representation of reality is NOT in the final analysis art..?

To close, I'll again recommend looking at some of Jerry Olson's images 
at <http://www.westernechoes.com>.  If he had used a more objectively 
"perfect" imaging solution would the images have had more passion, more 
soul, or spoken more loudly to the spirit?  I think not..  Because, in 
the end, that art was, even with Jerry's obsessive focus upon the 
highest dMax, more about the artist and what he imparted to the images, 
what we could feel from them, than it ever was about the highest dMax or 
the best initial in-camera image..

Tools can give us greater or lesser ranges of or options for expression 
in our art. But, art isn't about cold sterile bits, bytes, or numerical 
values.. If it was, computers would have replace artists as they have 
most book-keepers or type-setters..

Art is not about dpi and resolution when it all is said and done.. Take 
joy in making imagery. Take joy in your art... But please try and always 
remember that we create art to  express ourselves, to illuminate a chord 
within ourselves and the greater world, to reach out across the walls 
that always divide beings who come into this world and leave it isolated 
and alone, and touch the souls of others from within that space we each 
inhabit..

I hope each of us can step back an use Jerry's imagery and his own 
examples of endless debate on the "best" technical option to understand 
that very real fact.. While Jerry would debate endlessly and always 
wanted better options as a route to express himself, the lack of the 
"perfect" option makes his images no less stunning.  When all is said 
and done, Jerry's images were great for what they are imbued with and 
transmit of the artist's soul.

I only wish that I had the opportunity or "balls" to say that before his 
passage...
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is a full-frame digital Nikon rumored or announced to be in the works 
for release this fall?

I expect to stay with Canon, but I'm hoping Keith is right and that 
Canon expects to have more competition sometime soon.

Thanks.

Sam

Sam McCandless
samcc@...


At 3:52 PM -0400 5/18/03, Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>[snip]
>Will I be buying a Nikon full-frame SLR this Fall and shooting more
>digital than I now do?  Sure..
>[snip]

From those of us that use D1 day in and day out going from ine coverage to
another- God, I hope not!

Seth

=From: Sam A. McCandless [mailto:samcc@...] 
=
=Is a full-frame digital Nikon rumored or announced to be in the works 
=for release this fall?
=

And from those of us that use an Nikon F4 or F5 day in and day out- God, I
hope so!

On 5/19/03 1:14 PM, "Seth Rossman" <seth@...> wrote:

> From those of us that use D1 day in and day out going from ine coverage to
> another- God, I hope not!
> 
> Seth
> 
> =From: Sam A. McCandless [mailto:samcc@...]
> =
> =Is a full-frame digital Nikon rumored or announced to be in the works
> =for release this fall?
> =
>

Take a gander over to the D1 list.  WHY spend $4000 on a 300 2.8, when the
80-200 now does the job?  Why spend $7000+ on a 400 2.8, when the 300 2.8
works.

If it's any clue, read the specs on the new 12-24G.  The COI is made for the
current CCD. It will not work on film cameras --except as an artsy lens. 

As one person over there also pointed out, it's not the size or shape of the
CCD that is now as important, it's the quality and resolution they are
concentrating on.  Canon is doing the same thing.

Think of it as: 120 comes in this size, 35mm comes in this size, and digital
comes in this size.  The D series - either Nikon or Canon, is NOT 35mm.
They are working bodies adapted to digital.

Seth

=Subject: Re: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was 
=Re: [DigitalBW] digital)

=And from those of us that use an Nikon F4 or F5 day in and day 
=out- God, I hope so!
=
=On 5/19/03 1:14 PM, "Seth Rossman" <seth@...> wrote:
=
=> From those of us that use D1 day in and day out going from ine 
=> coverage to
=> another- God, I hope not!
=> 
=> Seth
=> 
=> =From: Sam A. McCandless [mailto:samcc@...]
=> =
=> =Is a full-frame digital Nikon rumored or announced to be in 
=the works 
=> =for release this fall? =
=>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, James Klebau 
<jklebau@i...> wrote:
> And from those of us that use an Nikon F4 or F5 day in and day out- 
God, I
> hope so!

On photo.net two weeks ago one of the regular posters linked to a 
photo industry website with an interview with a senior Nikon R&D 
manager, who said "not for a long time, if ever".

I really think Nikon has got itself into deep doo-doo on this problem.

If they are going to stick with a 60% sensor size then they will 
forever be at the competitive disadvantage of making bodies and 
lenses with all the size and weight and cost of a full-format 35, but 
without the advantages.   Canon's cameras and lenses will, of course, 
be the same size, but at least with them you can use full-format.   
Other competitors such as olympus and Pentax will have smaller 
sensors, but with smaller, lighter, cheaper bodies and lenses to go 
with them.     So Nikon is sticking its customers with the worst of 
both worlds.

Nikon  would not be making new DX lenses if a full-frame was coming. The DX
lenses are made just for the D100, D1, D1x, D1h. The first one, the 12-24/f4
is due soon. Makes it a 18-35 on those cameras.

Canon is way ahead of Nikon.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam A. McCandless" Subject: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall?
(was Re: [Digital BW] digital)

> Is a full-frame digital Nikon rumored or announced to be in the works
> for release this fall?
>
> I expect to stay with Canon, but I'm hoping Keith is right and that
> Canon expects to have more competition sometime soon.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam
>
> Sam McCandless
> samcc@...

Chris writes:

> Nikon would not be making new DX lenses if
> a full-frame was coming.

Why not?

Kevin,

> When looking at your method it seems to me you should not be comparing
> them at 100% magnification if they are not the same size image.
> Shouldn't you have the same image area (eg the 6 flowers in the lower
> left) on the screen to make the comparison?

I guess I don't understand your response here...I'm always open to learning
something more about PS. At actual pixel level in PS, aren't we looking at
one image pixel to one screen pixel. Therefore, it seems to me that image
size doesn't matter. Sure, one image might be 6x9 from a digital camera and
the other film scanned image could be, say, equivlent to 16x20, but does any
of this matter? One-to-one pixel mapping is what it is, yes?
>
>
> I don't have any view about film vs digital -- I've seen amazing images
> from both. My own experience is that equipment is rarely the limiting
> factor in creating a compelling image.  Certainly some equipment makes
> some kinds of photography easier but it is always the skill of the
> photographer that makes the image.

I totally agree. It has always been the person behind the camera that
creates the image. I only wish that my own personal photography could live
up to what any of my equipment is capable of delivering! I keep trying
though..............

Best regards,
Alan Huntley

Anthony,

Thanks for your suggestions. Between your response and Kevin's I think I
have something to learn with regard to pixel mapping in PS. I will try your
downsampling suggestion. Is there some percentage of image size or other
formula that you use for each step down? Also, what would you recommend for
USM settings at each interval?

No...I have not sold off my film equipment. I'm thinking about selling some
MF gear because I don't use it much anymore. However, I will never part with
my LF equipment no matter how good (or not) digital ever gets. Mr. Reichmann
owns and runs www.luminous-landscapes.com and has written many articles on
all things digital. However, as you said, anyone's opinion is exactly that:
opinion! That is why I wanted to produce the best slide that I could using
the best film equipment that I had, and, then, have it drum scanned. From
everything I've read a Tango scan is about the best you can get; albeit
based on the experience of the operator, of course.

Alan Huntley

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] digital


> Alan writes:
>
>
> > 1. Sharpness - absolutely no contest. The D30
> > image was significantly sharper than scanned film.
>
> It will be, if you compared the raw scan to the digital image.  Downsample
> the scan in steps to match the digital image size, and USM at each step.
> Then you might see something different.
>
> I've just compared some of my Provia 100F scans to D30 images, and the
> Provia scans win easily.  This is particularly true when I start looking
at
> things like color resolution (the D30 fringes a lot and shows a lot of
> coarse noise, whereas the scans have no fringing, fine color detail, and
> very fine noise).
>
> > 2. Resolution - again, no contest here either.
> > The D30 image clearly revealed finer details.
>
> See above.
>
> > 3. Grain - The scanned film showed obvious grain--
> > resulting in reduced edge definition, too--where
> > the D30 was just about "grain" (noise) free.
>
> See above.
>
> > 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.
>
> So have you sold all your film equipment?
>
> > Therefore, if Micheal Riechmann says that the Canon
> > 1Ds compares favorably with MF so be it!
>
> Who is Michael Riechmann, and why is his word more reliable than direct
> experiment?
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Martin,

Agreed. That is why I will never sell my LF gear no matter how good or cheap
digital gets. As you said, it's an artistic choice! No digital camera, EVER,
will give me the image control flexibility of LF, or the sheer joy of using
one. I'm getting a little "long in the tooth" to be schlepping my 8x10
around, but I continue to be mesmerized by the image on an 8x10 groundglass.
Peering through a teeny, tiny little hole just doesn't cut it sometimes!

Yes, my testing was done in color. I have scanned MF B&W negs, but only on
my Epson Expression 1680 flatbed. This hardware seems to work great for 4x5
and 8x10 film (B&W or color), but I've never really been able to get any MF
scans that sing for me. As I type this message I'm looking at an A3 size
print of the Grand Tetons done by Paul Roark that is absolutely
beautiful...MF (Bronica RF) scanned on a Nikon 8000. I guess MF really needs
a film scanner to really do it justice, but I, honestly, cannot afford one.

Agreed...the proof is in the print...I think I have some more playing to do,
for sure!

Alan Huntley

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] digital


> Alan,
>
> I think that it is largely an artistic choice at this point. (Or economic
if
> you are shooting pro!) I have seen excellent prints from digital cameras
and
> from scanned film. They have a different character though and some may
> prefer one over the other.
>
> I do most of my "serious" work with 4x5 and 6x7 film cameras but I would
be
> happy to add a Canon D10 to my 35mm Canon bodies.
>
> You don't mention it in your test below but I assume it was all done in
> color. It would be interesting to repeat this experiment shooting a medium
> speed B&W negative film (TMax 100 or FP4) and converting the camera file
to
> B&W (or shoot in B&W mode if that is an option). Finally make a print from
> both workflows and see what you get. After all the print is the real test.
I

> suspect they will both be good but not the same.
>
> Martin Wesley

Alan-

If I understood the description of your method correctly, the image 
dimensions of the scanned image is much larger than that of the digital 
image (19meg vs couple hundred meg).  If you view each at the pixel 
level you cannot make a direct comparisons.  The one viewed at a higher 
magnification will look less sharp have more apparent grain etc.

If you are trying to compare the sharpness of a page of printed text 
from a typewriter with one from a laser printer it wouldn't be 
reasonable to use a loupe to view one and the naked eye to view the 
other.

As Martin said, the print is the real test though, Prints from both 
would likely be very good and the difference lost on the average print 
purchaser.

--
Kevin

>>
>
> I guess I don't understand your response here...I'm always open to 
> learning
> something more about PS. At actual pixel level in PS, aren't we 
> looking at
> one image pixel to one screen pixel. Therefore, it seems to me that 
> image
> size doesn't matter. Sure, one image might be 6x9 from a digital 
> camera and
> the other film scanned image could be, say, equivlent to 16x20, but 
> does any
> of this matter? One-to-one pixel mapping is what it is, yes?

Kevin writes:

> If I understood the description of your method
> correctly, the image dimensions of the scanned
> image is much larger than that of the digital
> image (19meg vs couple hundred meg).  If you
> view each at the pixel level you cannot make
> a direct comparisons.  The one viewed at a higher
> magnification will look less sharp have more
> apparent grain etc.

Yes.  When you look at a scan at 100% ("actual pixels") in Photoshop, you're
looking at the equivalent of a very, very large enlargement of the image.
For example, when I look at a 6x6, 4000 dpi scan at 100% on my 20-inch
monitor, this is the equivalent of examining a 7x7-foot print from 18 inches
away!  Naturally, grain is visible at this degree of magnification.

For this reason, scans almost always look soft when viewed at 100%.  The
softness is sometimes the result of the scanner (some scanners are better at
achieving their nominal resolution than others), sometimes the result of the
lens (some lenses cannot resolve well enough to profit from the maximium
resolution of a scan, so the image on film is not as sharp as it could be),
and sometimes the result of film (some films run out of resolution, at least
when it comes to higher-speed films ... this isn't a problem for Tech Pan!).

> As Martin said, the print is the real test though,
> Prints from both would likely be very good and the
> difference lost on the average print purchaser.

Moral:  If the scan looks soft on your screen at 100%, don't despair.  It
will still look razor sharp when you print it.

Hi Kevin,

You are correct. Actually, the scanned image is 100MB which, of course, is
significantly larger than 17MB. I'm going to play around with downsampling
the scan and see what I see in same size comparisons.

Alan Huntley

----- Original Message -----

From: "Kevin Gulstene" <kevin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] digital


> Alan-
>
> If I understood the description of your method correctly, the image
> dimensions of the scanned image is much larger than that of the digital
> image (19meg vs couple hundred meg).  If you view each at the pixel
> level you cannot make a direct comparisons.  The one viewed at a higher
> magnification will look less sharp have more apparent grain etc.
>
> If you are trying to compare the sharpness of a page of printed text
> from a typewriter with one from a laser printer it wouldn't be
> reasonable to use a loupe to view one and the naked eye to view the
> other.
>
> As Martin said, the print is the real test though, Prints from both
> would likely be very good and the difference lost on the average print
> purchaser.
>
> --
> Kevin