View Full Version : what really stops me from going digital
Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).
So...
Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.
The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.
In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.
So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?
Moriturii
10-10-2011, 04:54
Reason I use film is my very small lightweight full frame rangefinder camera that I can slip into my backpack easily. No alternatives for that in the digital realm except for M9 which I'll never buy. And I don't want to lug around a D700 camera either, I'd rather stop photographing. X100 is cool but I don't like or use 35mm lenses or FOV, strictly 50mm, what else? Nex7? Perhaps...
For me it would come down to not being able to use my OM-1 ... I don't have too much rangefinder lust these days! :D
cosmonaut
10-10-2011, 05:01
Not me. With digital as it stands now it is no real benefit to be full frame. There are lots of cameras on the market that comes very close to ff quality. I shot film because I like doing it and with an enlarger my film pictures are sharper and better dynamic range than a scan. But I shoot digital because it is easier to shoot things like my daughters soocer games that would be costly and impossible with an RF. I use both.
dave lackey
10-10-2011, 05:07
Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).
So...
Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.
The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.
In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.
So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?
Count me in! I would love to do certain projects in digital but I have had enough of DSLRs over the years and am only interested in digital RFs, of which there are only three options, the M8/8.2/9.
My last photo documentary was done with the M3 and my Leica R4 (SLR) because I cannot afford even one M9 used or new. Total out-of-pocket cost for film/developing less than 20 rolls of film was about $400+.
In addition to that, I needed an image character that matched the town's character. Film matched the town's character wheras any digital conversion I did failed. The town is very happy with the results and have requested a gallery starting next month.
http://www.adoramapix.com/davegt/book/meanwhile-in-grantville-georgia-1
Jamie123
10-10-2011, 05:08
I don't use any Leicas and even though I imagine an M9 would be fun, I have no real desire to have one.
The reason I stick with film despite the hassle of scanning is simply that I cannot afford a digital solution that would satisfy me, namely some large sensor digital MF back. Until I can I'm 'stuck' using MF and LF film.
I've been shooting film for nearly sixty years, and I don't see any reason to switch. Also, I really don't like automatic exposure/focus. Remember the Maxxum scare of the '80s?
For me it's a simple matter of preference. I like the results I get from film, and recreating the look with Photoshop etc. is just not for me. Instant gratification is not a thing for me, and I'm not fussy about full-frame/crops etc.
I don't move to digital because it does not appeal to me on any level, except maybe the low on-going cost, and compacts can get really tiny, waterproof etc. For photo trips when I'm going out with the express purpose of taking photos, I just don't see any advantage to digital.
For me it would come down to not being able to use my OM-1 ... I don't have too much rangefinder lust these days! :D
So much truth in this! OM's are so pleasurable to use they actually keep me using film!
I'd love to have an M9 but even if I did my M4 would probably get some regular exercise. I've fallen in love with the process of film and working in the darkroom. The tactility, the smells...
I've tried scanning as a substitute for contact sheets but it's not my cup of tea. Handy for sharing pictures online, but imho it doesn't compare to a traditional print.
hipsterdufus
10-10-2011, 05:50
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).
Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.
dave lackey
10-10-2011, 05:52
Film FF RF....
Buddha: "It is better to travel well, than to arrive".:)
Harley Davidson: It's the journey, not the destination".;)
dave lackey
10-10-2011, 05:53
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).
Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.
+1 on that...:p
Austerby
10-10-2011, 05:56
I have an M8 but I'm thinking of selling it. My NEX-3 enables me to use fast glass on a digital and whilst you lose the form factor of the lens there's a lot of lens character retained. Digital is useful and can be fun but I've no intention of stopping using film.
I have too much kit at the moment but am definitely contemplating a move to a combination of M3 and Zeiss Ikon for my 35mm, my NEX for the digital (and I may upgrade from the 3), plus my Hasselblad and Agfa 6x9 folder for my MF needs.
Roger Hicks
10-10-2011, 05:57
Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).
So...
Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.
The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.
In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.
So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?
Well, I live without a second M9, purely because I can't afford it, so I carry an M8 as a backup. Sure, the M9 is vastly more convenient, but the key word is backup: I have to use it only if the M9 packs up, or to give it a little exercise occasionally. I seem to have less trouble with changing lenses than some on this forum.
Besides, I cheat. My wife carries one film M as a main camera and a second as a backup. Sometimes I use her 'backup' camera as a second body, and sometimes she uses mine...
Cheers,
R.
SteveM(PA)
10-10-2011, 06:17
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).
Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.
Yeah man. Old cameras are fun. Pure and simple. (Does anybody remember laughter? :)) The more expensive the camera, the more I feel that I have to justify the cost through taking a good picture. But more often when I'm asking for nothing from an old camera, I tend to get something. Relatively.
paulfish4570
10-10-2011, 06:21
because of space and plumbing, i am stuck with a hybrid print process. that is a key reason i am looking at buying a "prosumer" grade fixed lens digital cam, mostly for color snapshots, and reminder subject shots for MF to be shot at another time.
alexnotalex
10-10-2011, 06:26
I've started developing my own BW film, and strangely, with the scanning workflow, I feel like i've gone more digital. And after the jpegs, curves, luminosity, cleaning dust and sharpening, I feel very very far from when I loaded the Tri-X and shut the back. Hmmm.
andredossantos
10-10-2011, 06:27
I recently sold off my digital kit because I decided that I love color film, especially slides, and I want to shoot as much as I can before it either becomes too expensive or disappears. Secondary to that, yes, my preference is to use a "FF" Leica RF for 35mm film (along with my Rolleiflex for which there is no equivalent in digital that I could ever possibly afford).
Ill have plenty of time to shoot digital in the future.
f16sunshine
10-10-2011, 06:29
M8/8.2 is absolutely workable. I don't think M9 is an absolute must for a digital jump off. I miss the corners and flaws of my lenses sometimes. Certainly not often enough to spill the extra shells for a camera that has output so very similar to one costing 1/3 the price. I suggest searching photos of both the M8 and M9 printed or on screen. If you think you can tell the difference than go for an M9. If you can't, why spend all the extra dough?
Is there any affordable FF 6x6 TLR available ? If no, I continue using film.
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras.
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
For me it's about having a connection to the camera. I'm not necessarily pro-film or anti-digital, but I do find more film cameras that I can connect with. I find that most digital cameras have too many menus, and multifunction buttons and dials. All I really want is easy access to aperture, shutter speed, and maybe exposure compensation. Therefore I tend to gravitate to older, manual focus cameras, or cameras that mimic those features.
I do find myself interested in the FujiFilm X100 and the Leica M9 for those reasons; however, the Fuji's fixed lens and the M9's cost rule them out for me.
jsrockit
10-10-2011, 08:55
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
Yeah, me too. If anyone ever figures out how to drop digital sensors in old cameras, the market will make Leica lens prices look stagnant. ;)
I love the digital process and love that I can do the whole process in my home. A color darkroom in a studio apartment can be done, but it has more compromises than its digital counterpart.
I had to splurge and buy a M9 to be truly happy in digital rangefinder land. However, I'll never spend $7,000 on a camera again... so I'm hoping we continue to get rangefinder like cameras with dedicated knobs and optical VFs. The X100 is a good start.
... I just got my first digital camera, learned the menus, and took a photo of a cat ... it wasn't that impressed
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6219885617_ac8eca0bea_z.jpg
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6219885617_ac8eca0bea_z.jpg)
kshapero
10-10-2011, 09:03
I just got a Sony NEX 5N and I have to say it is a technological baby powerhouse, but I much prefer using my M3 or my Nikon F. You know the reasons and I have said it before. It's mystical.
Tim Gray
10-10-2011, 09:10
I'd probably have an M9 if it were the price of a 5DII or D700. I'd still probably shoot mostly film, but it would be nice to have digital as an option. Not for that price though.
dave lackey
10-10-2011, 09:37
I just got a Sony NEX 5N and I have to say it is a technological baby powerhouse, but I much prefer using my M3 or my Nikon F. You know the reasons and I have said it before. It's mystical.
I don't think I have heard of anyone mentioning digital and seductress in the same sentence....:p The M3 OTOH... is definitely a seductress, and I image quite a few other RF bodies.:angel:
I just developed 2 rolls of HP 5 this morning, one of them I finished off that had been in my M3 awhile. I have a fresh experience for the love of vintage cameras, the tactile feeling, simplicity, and simple fun of the process that the prior comments mention came strongly to mind reading this thread. I throughy enjoy the whole process especially printing my negatives and even scanning them.
shadowfox
10-11-2011, 12:03
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
I assume that you are not implying that all who do *like* the look of film is saying so because they feel the need to make up something.
Did I assume correctly?
rogerzilla
10-13-2011, 12:06
I'm in exactly the same situation as the OP, except I'm happy with film as long as I can still get Neopan Acros and Reala. The M9 is the only palatable alternative to my M2/M3 and it's just too expensive for most people trying to support a family, pay off a mortgage and save for retirement.
The current plan is to save - over a period of many years - for an M9 or its successor in case the sky falls and film disappears completely. I have enough b/w film in the freezer to last until then. I haven't bothered to stockpile colour film as I don't know about the availability of C41 commercial processing. I'll just buy and shoot colour as long as I can.
It will be a sad day if I ever press the shutter on the last frame of my last film but the Leicas will get a good run before then. Who knows - someone might even make a digital back for the M3!
noimmunity
10-13-2011, 12:25
M8/8.2 is absolutely workable. I don't think M9 is an absolute must for a digital jump off. I miss the corners and flaws of my lenses sometimes. Certainly not often enough to spill the extra shells for a camera that has output so very similar to one costing 1/3 the price. I suggest searching photos of both the M8 and M9 printed or on screen. If you think you can tell the difference than go for an M9. If you can't, why spend all the extra dough?
Well said.
The M8 is fun and the images at low ISO are brilliant.
Teuthida
10-26-2011, 04:00
when i want simething quick and easy an NON-ARCHIVAL, I shoot digital.
When I want something PERMANENT, I shoot film.
For those really important subjects - family and friends - I always shoot film.
emasterphoto
10-27-2011, 19:46
when i want simething quick and easy an NON-ARCHIVAL, I shoot digital.
When I want something PERMANENT, I shoot film.
For those really important subjects - family and friends - I always shoot film.
Digital is non-archival only if you have poor data management skills. Images I took 12 years ago still look exactly as the day I tripped the shutter. By contrast, I have film images as old and far, far older that I wish I could say the same thing for.
LeicaFan
10-27-2011, 20:11
I'm young so I figure that I might as well enjoy film while I can. In 20-30 years, who knows if film will still be around, and if so, will it be such a niche market (e.g., Polaroid --> The Impossible Project) that a roll of film will cost $30?
johnfenn
10-27-2011, 21:28
I have not taken a decent photo for about 20 years, when I owned an Olympus Trip 35. I thought my sight was too poor to focus properly and to see the little LCD on the back of the camera. Then I saw a documentary on the Leica camera and learned that there were 2 basic types of focusing mechanisms.
Checked out the Leica M8, M9, M10m way too expensive.
So I bought an Olympus 35 RC and all the accessories for about $200 on ebay and have just shot my first film. So we shall see.
I must say I have enjoyed the tactile feel of the camera and the focusing, setting and shooting of it.
John Fenn
York WA
Teuthida
10-30-2011, 04:03
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
Fair enough. But In 20 years, when you can't retreive a single digital file you've ever taken between 2005 and 2020, you'll be missing film a lot.
This is the digital elephant in the room. Archival permanence. begatives will be there long after you are dead. Digutal files? I seruously doubt your current files will be retreivable in 10 years ( absent herioc constant viglence on your part) let alone in 50.
rogerzilla
10-30-2011, 04:26
Barring EMP, if you keep the digital files on a network-connected drive you should have no problems. Even optical discs are a pretty safe medium-term bet since the 12cm disc is well-entrenched and all new players (Blu-Ray) read old formats like CD.
EMP certainly would mess everything up, though, and (oddly) probably wouldn't fog unexposed film to a great extent.
I have DSLR for digital. So for RF, I stick with film and do not miss m8/m9 at all.
emasterphoto
11-03-2011, 20:09
Fair enough. But In 20 years, when you can't retreive a single digital file you've ever taken between 2005 and 2020, you'll be missing film a lot.
This is the digital elephant in the room. Archival permanence. begatives will be there long after you are dead. Digutal files? I seruously doubt your current files will be retreivable in 10 years ( absent herioc constant viglence on your part) let alone in 50.
Why do you keep harping on this when it's total BS?
I've had and Olympus Pen E-P1 for the better part of a year now, my M6 for a bit less than that and my M4 which I got about two months ago. The E-P1 works and ... er ... that's it. No magic, nothing to admire about it, no "feel" that makes you want to pick it up and use it. It somehow removes the joy from photography, the mystery is no longer there. In any event, being electronic, it will one day go kaputt and be beyond repair.
The M4 is, however, the antithesis of the E-P1: a mechanical masterpiece which is a privelege to use. Sometimes I find myself handling it simply because it is so fascinating. I wonder if one of the reasons for the success of the M9 is that they have made such a tremendous effort to make it fit in with the M series of cameras? I've played with one in a camera shop and it was more acceptable than the E-P1 but it still didn't have a patch on the M4 or M6.
The problem with the digital world in general is that it all boils down to 1 or 0, on or off. There's a great and absolute precision in that but precious little which has anything to do with humanity or the world as we perceive it, indeed the world for which we have evolved as a species. So I'm relaxed and comfortable with "proper" cameras, probably because they feel as though they evolved alongside humanity.
I know that is all very subjective but it works for me.
Martti K.
11-06-2011, 23:37
Why do you keep harping on this when it's total BS?
It's not total bull****, but as well not the whole truth either I think. One can preserve his digital documents if he converts them to newer formats from time to time. At the same time digital documents does bring some major problems to archives and museums. And for future historians. Digital documents does not last as long as paper (or papyrus, stone, wood etc) documents if not taken proper care of. It's much more propable that a 100 year old photograph is still in somewhat good condition than a 100 years old flash memory. It might well be that our grandchildren doesn't even have the faintest idea what a usb stick is. Even if it worked they have no idea that it may contain priceless pictures about their grandparents. I think it's rather sad if this happened to them. I'm glad I have found some old pictures of my ancestors. Past and roots are not important to everyone, but for some they are of very great importance.
PhD Istvan Kecskemeti, development director of Finnish national archives, has discussed much about this kind of problems (for example in his doctoral thesis From papyrus to megabytes: Conservation management of archival and photographic collections). I haven't read his thesis, but I know some of his thoughts from lectures of museology. One of them is a light, obviously not dead serious remark that digital document last for five years or eternity depending on which comes first.
One if issues I'm coping with is that cheap film gear has spoiled me and if I'd want to get digital kit of same usability and quality, it would cost me more than I've spent on all my film stuff alltogether. But I simply do not take such amount of pictures to have feeling I'd get return of investment....which in fact isn't investment because in few years it would cost next to nothing....well, except I'd get top level kit. So I'm going to shoot film even if gets more expensive and of less varieties, as it happens now.
FWIW, I have lost Digital images, Due to technical issues.
For some reason tho, My wife still has every Analog picture in a box in her office that she wanted to keep, and We can drag them out and look at them whenever we want.
I now keep multiple back ups of all my Digital media, And blame most of my "losses" on how I have managed them. Since I was not born in the digital age I guess it comes down to how I learn things about Digital storage.
Still, I can stick my analog images in a nice folder and barring my house burns down they will be there long after I'm gone.
Vintage Photographs are constantly found in yard sales/estate sales and even when no effort has been made to store them properly they still seem to mostly look ok, Sometimes remarkably so considering their age. (The classic shoebox in the closet)
FWIW, I have lost Digital images, Due to technical issues.
Let me correct you - in digital world data is lost due to insufficient planning and implementation of backups. People assuming their only copy is safe enough haven't experienced failure yet. Media fails, metadata catalogs fail, logical structures fail, tools working with data fail. Digital is instant, in all meanings - to come and also to go if no measures are taken.
Brian Sweeney
11-07-2011, 16:08
I use Digital files from 30 years ago. FORTRAN source code.
My oldest DSLR will be 20 years old soon. It still works, and the files are still readable.
You just transfer them to the new system.
I know a lot of people that throw out old pictures. By the boxload. That is the analog equivalent of not transferring your files.
People have lost analog images. Fire, flood, humid basements.
People have lost analog images. Fire, flood, humid basements.
And some people lose track of rolls of exposed film and develop them 15 years later. Not that that has happened to anyone I know ... :D:D:D
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1106/1487446180_85ae4ff731_o.png
Martti K.
11-08-2011, 01:21
I use Digital files from 30 years ago. FORTRAN source code.
My oldest DSLR will be 20 years old soon. It still works, and the files are still readable.
You just transfer them to the new system.
I know a lot of people that throw out old pictures. By the boxload. That is the analog equivalent of not transferring your files.
People have lost analog images. Fire, flood, humid basements.
That is true, but there is one major difference I think. Digital documents must actively have been taken care of, while negatives and prints have relatively good chances of surviving without active care. Things we now take granted and think that it doesn't need or deserve to be preserved could be very valuable for future generations.
Brian Sweeney
11-08-2011, 12:44
Hard to say. I've seen a lot of nice slides show up in the thift stores with the trays and projectors that were donated by someones kids or grand-kids. I was just given several trays full of slides from the 1940s through 1960s. I'll keep some, but the basement is only so big.
Now- I know my Elvis pictures are somewhere in MY basement. I need to scan them, will be easier for me to find them. I do still use the Vivitar 283 flash bought for the concert.
Elvis Presley saw that flash.
Roger Hicks
11-08-2011, 16:48
I use Digital files from 30 years ago. FORTRAN source code.
My oldest DSLR will be 20 years old soon. It still works, and the files are still readable.
You just transfer them to the new system.
I know a lot of people that throw out old pictures. By the boxload. That is the analog equivalent of not transferring your files.
People have lost analog images. Fire, flood, humid basements.
Dear Brian,
Not exactly. Failing to transfer a digital file is not the same as deleting it.
And unless you throw out your old pics/negs, they'll last, at least if you leave 'em in a half-tolerable environment (e.g. attic), for a very long time indeed.
Cheers,
R.
Jonathan Paul
01-07-2012, 08:49
Like many others have stated here, the best results almost always come from film. The day that digital catches up (at a price I can afford) will be the day that I switch.
sc_rufctr
01-07-2012, 19:03
For me it's the look of traditional B&W film. Even scanned it looks better than a digital image IMHO.
Put simply, Digital B&W does not look as good regardless of post processing.
And who wants to post process their images in a computer anyway???
I earn my living using a computer and the last thing I want to do is use one to process my images.
So everyday snapshots are done on my iPhone and the stuff I take more seriously is done on film. (My NEX5 is rarely used since getting an iPhone. :mad:)
People often comment on how beautiful my film photos are so I must be doing something right.
What I'm most concerned about is film, chemicals and paper becoming so expensive that it becomes ridiculously expensive.
My inkjet prints are equally museum/gallery-adequate (my images don't quite qualify) from both scanned film and DSLR. Post processing of both is done identically and consists mostly of contrast adjustment, dodging/burning, and toning...same idea either way. Intuitive perhaps.
I like grain (old 2475, Neopan/Rodinal), don't like solvent developers, but don't care to fake grain digitally. Can't imagine shooting film and not liking grain anyway. I think B&W 90% of the time. Lightroom, Epson 3800/ABW driver. Ultra-blacks, long tonal scale.
My Leica and Durst enlargers are gathering dust. No enlarger can rival a common Nikon scan and inkjet print for detail resolution, corner to corner and any tonal scale issues reflect my skills, not the technology.
I doubt anybody can tell the difference between a DSLR file on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk or Crane Museo and a fine grain film file on any similar-textured silver paper.
It's only your film if you develop it (B&W anyway), and only your print if you print it (color or B&W). :-)
As to "archival," Epson inkjet prints on good paper will last as long as anybody's silver prints (less chemistry, better paper).
My Leica and Durst enlargers are gathering dust. No enlarger can rival a common Nikon scan and inkjet print for detail resolution, corner to corner and any tonal scale issues reflect my skills, not the technology.
Sorry, but this has been proven totally wrong several times by scientific studies (e.g. Zeiss, Antora; Seemann; Seeger; Kodak, Fleischer; Franic; Parkin et al).
Even 8000 ppi drum scans cannot resolve all the detail which is in modern films.
You get much better resolution and finer grain (no grain aliasing by the scanner) with optical enlargement with APO enlarging lenses and with slide projection.
And the Nikon 4000 ppi scanners can not compete at all with the optical imaging chain.
I've had a Nikon Coolscan 5000 by myself. The resulution limit was about 70 lp/mm.
With modern ISO 100 - 400 slide films I've got about 100 - 140 lp/mm on the screen when projected.
With Delta 100 and T-Max I've got 120 - 140 lp/mm on paper with optical enlarging.
With high resolution BW film (Agfa Copex Rapid) I've got more than 160 lp/mm on paper.
My scans with 8000 ppi drum scanners made by professional scan services showed 30-40% less resolution and coarser grain.
Cheers, Jan
mdarnton
03-02-2012, 05:59
The thing that brought me BACK to film was digital. I had stopped using film because of the inconvenience of having a darkroom (and also from hating the darkroom thanks to an intermittent series of darkroom jobs throughout my life) and the scanning problem (being able to find a cheap scanner that would match the quality that my PhotoSmart film scanner from the 90s would do). Then about a year ago I got the idea to try "scanning" my film with my Nikon D300 in a copy setup. It went so well that I'm back to film, but scanning with my camera.
There are a couple of advantages, including being able to easily capture the density range of film, and speed. All of the recent B&W additions to my Flickr page have been done this way.
My D300 is adequate for the daily photography I do at work, but the thing that would cause me to buy a new D800e is the upgrade it would give my film scans. Go figure. . .
Unlike HH above, I'm not concerned with the maximum amount of quality I can squeeze out of any system because I never make prints large enough to justify that. . . and I doubt that few people do. So that kind of thing is just theoretical for me, and of no interest at all. I just want what I actually do to be good enough to keep my happy with the final prints. Drum scans are completely irrelevant to most people's actual usage needs, I suspect. I'd rather spend my money on other things in my life.
I'd like to see his supposed 160 lp/mm on paper, because as far as I can remember, photo paper, itself, maxes out at around 14 lp/mm--anything above that is money down the drain.
Anyway, it hardly matters, since I only shoot Tri-X :-)
While I principally agree with the statement above, I'd like to add that achieving top-notch results using an enlarger requires much more time, effort and careful work than scanning & inkjet printing. The average amateur with a DIY darkroom will hardly achieve technically perfect enlargements with well above 70 lp/mm on a regular basis due the amount of error-prone steps required.
thomasw_
03-02-2012, 07:31
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better.....
this is incorrect. a statement of motive such as this example is that of a preference or an explanation. an excuse is a "reason put forward for concealing the real reason for an act or to justify a fault." neither part of this disjunction applies with regard to a statement of preference for using film over digital capture, unless you wish to make the ludicrous claim that there is a moral flaw in one having an aesthetic preference for the rendering of film.
While I principally agree with the statement above, I'd like to add that achieving top-notch results using an enlarger requires much more time, effort and careful work than scanning & inkjet printing. The average amateur with a DIY darkroom will hardly achieve technically perfect enlargements with well above 70 lp/mm on a regular basis due the amount of error-prone steps required.
I dunno ... I think you need equal experience. I struggle with scanning to approach the results I can get with wet printing. I had years of continuous experience with traditional darkroom printing, and maybe 1/10 that amount with scanning. I suspect many, especially younger, photographers have a fair amount of experience with scanning and post processing compared to their darkroom experience.
codester80
03-02-2012, 16:40
What I take away from the conversation on this thread is a bunch of people trying to justify their decision on using film or digital. There are arguments for using either but it seems so many people are uncomfortable with their choice of workflow. Everyone should stop peeping over the fence at the greener grass and focus on tending their own lawn. We'd all be a lot happier as well as productive.
I'd like to see his supposed 160 lp/mm on paper, because as far as I can remember, photo paper, itself, maxes out at around 14 lp/mm--anything above that is money down the drain.
Well, probably my explanation was not exact enough (probably due to my very bad English).
I have 160 lp/mm on the film (a resolution pattern with clearly separated lines, similar to the USAF test charts, but with lower object contrast).
Then I've printed this pattern with an optical enlarger on BW photo paper (12x enlargement resulting in a 30x40cm print).
On the print I can also clearly see this pattern which represents 160 lp/mm on film.
This 12x linear enlargement of the negative means of course that the distance between the separated lines on the print is bigger than on the negative, resulting in 13,33 lp/mm directly seen on the print. But it is the 160 lp/mm on the film pattern.
You can see it clearly on the print. It has been transferred to the print, no resolution loss.
Due to Ilford the resolving power of BW photo paper is in the 60-80 lp/mm range.
Anyway, it hardly matters, since I only shoot Tri-X :-)
:D indeed, Tri-X is one of the worst films concerning resolution.
Cheers, Jan
While I principally agree with the statement above, I'd like to add that achieving top-notch results using an enlarger requires much more time, effort and careful work than scanning & inkjet printing. The average amateur with a DIY darkroom will hardly achieve technically perfect enlargements with well above 70 lp/mm on a regular basis due the amount of error-prone steps required.
I have to disagree here. From time to time I teach younger photographers. So far all of them have been surprised how easy it is to make prints in the wet darkroom.
All of them said scanning is much trickier, more effort and time is needed to get satisfying results.
And with enlarging you can exploit the full potential of film. With amateur scanners the resolution is limited at 50 - 70 lp/mm and you get grain enhancement by scanner noise.
Cheers, Jan
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.