Resolution of Film Versus Digital

[.... _]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Why not?
Scanned film retains the grain look and color or tones, cleaning up dusts are perfect using digital tools. Printing digitally is far from rewarding (process-wise), but is consistent and produce good prints.

Scanning is not the weakest link if you use a proper scanner.

Why not? Because most people here obsess over having the "best" quality lenses. Then they are happy to put their film through a consumer grade scanner with a cheap lens and the inate ability to lose image detail ( a destructive process) followed by further digital destructive processes followed by banging on about how good their lenses are. Doesn't add up does it. And how many people actually use a drum scanner? Very few.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by tog

Why not? Because most people here obsess over having the "best" quality lenses. Then they are happy to put their film through a consumer grade scanner with a cheap lens and the inate ability to lose image detail ( a destructive process) followed by further digital destructive processes followed by banging on about how good their lenses are. Doesn't add up does it. And how many people actually use a drum scanner? Very few.

Ok, now you qualify your statement with "some people who scan a certain way."

In your original post, which was the one I responded to, your statement about scanning sounds like a general one.

[.... _]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Ok, now you qualify your statement with "some people who scan a certain way."

In your original post, which was the one I responded to, your statement about scanning sounds like a general one.

I'm just making the point that generally scanning isn't a good thing to do if you are worried about resolution. But most people don't really care as they don't obsess over print quality. They obsess over reputation of lenses and don't care if they throw away what the lens is capable of. Or are ignorant of what wet printing can do or don't have the facility or inclination to try it. If they cared they wouldn't scan or would get a digital camera. And even drum scans have limits. But again, most people don't drum scan. They use a flatbed or consumer grade film scanner. It doesn't make sense if you are worried about resolution and ultimate print quality.

[Photo_Smith]

I think that's a generalisation, people who spend lots on cameras and lenses often buy decent scanners. If you use one of the consumer Nikon scanners for instance you can resolve the actual grain of some films at over 4000dpi.
Drum scanners have problems sure, but on balance I'd say resolution wise they out do most optical printers by a wide margin.
From experience optical printing can have issues too with respect to ultimate sharpness; negative carriers holding negatives flat, light sources are critical, off axis projection, paper flatness (we use vacuum easels) all can have an effect.
Sure if you shoot with a Summicron on Pan F and scan on a $100 flatbed you're not getting the full benefit, but then again if you use the same equipment on pushed Tri-x you're not getting the full capabilities of the lens either.
Scanning or wet printing are fine, both are capable of outstanding quality (using say an imacon or a DeVere with Rodenstock APO lens) or less resolution (Espon V700 vs Durst 370 and cheap enlarger lens)
In the end it depends what you need the prints for, I scan and wet print, scan for web print for exhibition.

[Paul Jenkin]

For some of us, scanning negatives is the only option we have if we want to shoot film. I used to have a darkroom back in the day but I don't have anything like the room - or the time - to process my own negs and print from them anymore.

Whilst I love shooting film and digital (for me there is no "versus" when it comes to film or digital as I choose both) I "prefer" using film. Why? Because of of the grain and the fact that it slows me down and makes me think more about what I'm shooting and why. I shoot most formats from 35mm to 5"x4" and, for me at least, it isn't about the resolution or the technical stuff, it's about the medium and how I feel.

I don't believe one is better than the other but I feel happier about my film output than my digital photos. There's an old saying that goes something like "a snapshot is picture of something but a photograph is a picture about something". Not sure where I read this but although I wouldn't say I'm any great photographer, my digital work feels like good record snaps whereas my film photos evoke a feeling (for me) about where they were taken.

Personally, I'd rather concentrate on taking photos than adding to a futile debate about which box with a lens is better than the other.

[btgc]

Now this is funny...is resolution beyond certain level (offered by 95% of gear people use) so important for us, amateurs? Sure, film may look different from digital but how does it relates to resolution?

[kanzlr]

lol, I really do not care.
The 12MP AA-filterless images from my GXR are way sharper than what I get from ISO 100 film and my freshly cleaned and adjusted Coolscan...but for my 20x30 prints that does not matter, really.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by texchappy

As far as resolution, I've seen at different spots on the net where some say that modern digital cameras have now surpassed film while others say that film still has more.

Which is it? Does anybody know for sure?

It's truly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by texchappy

Bonus question: if you are going to scan then does the detail of 50 iso film versus 400 really matter?

Yes, for any sensibly chosen film scanner. You can see grain structure in film easily at as low as 1600 ppi.

[Nermi9]

I always thought film had just enough resolution... however, I always look at pictures as a whole frame. Small details don't concern me that much. I also like to look at nice tones and how naturally they relate from one element to the next. I think film is just perfect for me.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Nermi9

I always thought film had just enough resolution... however, I always look at pictures as a whole frame. Small details don't concern me that much. I also like to look at nice tones and how naturally they relate from one element to the next. I think film is just perfect for me.

+1
Like.
Fav.

[kanzlr]

Originally Posted by kanzlr

lol, I really do not care.
The 12MP AA-filterless images from my GXR are way sharper than what I get from ISO 100 film and my freshly cleaned and adjusted Coolscan...but for my 20x30 prints that does not matter, really.

on the other hand, I just picked up a Coolscan 4000 to replace my Coolscan IV and I do appreciate the higher resolution

[Ihmemies]

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12...ra-comparison/

There's 8x10 (landscape shot is underexposed), 4x5, 6x7, 80mpix mf digital back, 24mpix Fx digital etc. comparison.

[carbon_dragon]

My first real digital serious camera was a Konica Minolta 5D at 6.1MP. Not bad, but not enough. The Leica M8 at 10.3MP (and no AA filter) is very adequate and compares well with my Nikon Coolscan V scanner, scanning 35mm at 4000dpi. My current camera is an APS-C 24MP sensor and that's more than adequate too. So for 35mm, this isn't scientific, but I think somewhere between 10 and 12MP.

[EdwardKaraa]

I recently visited an exhibition where the prints were done by my local pro lab. A mixture of 35mm Velvia and digital captures (17mp 1Ds2) printed at 120x180 cm. I was surprised to see that film prints looked so much better. The problem I see is that you need to spend a lot of money to get such results (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.)

[Nermi9]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

The problem I see is that you need to spend a lot of money to get such results (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.)

Film is ahead of its time. The closer you look at it (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.), the better it gets. I don't see that as a problem.

[RattyMouse]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

I recently visited an exhibition where the prints were done by my local pro lab. A mixture of 35mm Velvia and digital captures (17mp 1Ds2) printed at 120x180 cm. I was surprised to see that film prints looked so much better. The problem I see is that you need to spend a lot of money to get such results (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.)

Exactly. That's a problem that film will never overcome it seems.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

I recently visited an exhibition where the prints were done by my local pro lab. A mixture of 35mm Velvia and digital captures (17mp 1Ds2) printed at 120x180 cm. I was surprised to see that film prints looked so much better. The problem I see is that you need to spend a lot of money to get such results (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.)

Originally Posted by RattyMouse

Exactly. That's a problem that film will never overcome it seems.

You make it sound like it has always been this way. I would suggest instead that there is really nothing to overcome, depending on your choice of film.

The problem you say that (transparency) film will never overcome did not even exist until recently. Up until 2003 or 2004 you could make prints from slides on Kodak color positive paper using R-3 / R-3000 process. And until quite recently, Cibachrome was another option for producing prints from color positive materials. Both methods were far less expensive than a drum scan and chromogenic or inkjet print.

For negative materials, you don't need to scan the film at all in order to print it. You can produce optically enlarged RA-4 prints inexpensively.

If a print is the intended final display format and you are shooting film, then you should use color negative film, not slide film. That's why they call it "print film".

[cepwin]

I think the high end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 are at the point that the fine art folks are looking at them seriously. I will say if I really want to make sure I capture the image the DSLR wins as I can see what I've got immediately and have the opportunity to adjust and not miss the moment. However, I got a Nikon FG at the end of May and love shooting with it as I'm sure I will the Yashica Electro GS that I just picked up on ebay. (yeah!!!) I'd think 35mm film would out resolve a crop sensor based DSLR....medium format even more so.

[moreammo]

IMO
with film it isn't so much resolution as it is how clean the print looks at the size i want to print it... i don;t consider this resolution even though it is.

with Digital resolution only matters because at some point you will get a digital look; by this mean that the further you drill into the digital file the more blocky the pixels look, because they are square. this does not happen with film because the further you blow it up... the lines still look smooth, because it is a chemical reaction. other factors may limit going bigger, contrast, sharpness etc. as someone already said it has a lot to do with the photographer as well.

how much resolution digital needs for me is simple... enough to over come the digitized, blocky pixels being visible at the size i want to view it; either on a monitor or on a print. For me that happened with my D300 at 12MP. but all pixels are not created equal the 10MP M8 can go further (lack of an AA filter).

right now i have an M9 and 5DmkII and no problems; i'm good with resolutions i get.

for me the reasons for digital have far more to do with work flow and time than anything else. Just my opinion.

and the reasons for film with... well can't give a reason but there is one, enjoyment i guess.

-Jon

[Stuart John]

Thats pretty much the same conclusion I came to. I usually like my prints to be pretty clean so I am not that interested in making large prints that show up noise or grain. I used to print my 6x6 medium format negs at 7x7 inches sometimes smaller. Much of my 35mm B&W prints I printed on 3.5x5 or 5x7 inch paper. I just like the tonality that comes with small traditionally enlarged prints. The small prints from medium format have an almost jewel like quality tack sharp, full of tiny details with great tonality. Digital looks different to me. I can't recreate that look I got by printing MF small but I can do other things with digital that I would have struggled to do in a traditional darkroom. Having both available is a win win situation.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stuart John

Thats pretty much the same conclusion I came to. I usually like my prints to be pretty clean so I am not that interested in making large prints that show up noise or grain. I used to print my 6x6 medium format negs at 7x7 inches sometimes smaller. Much of my 35mm B&W prints I printed on 3.5x5 or 5x7 inch paper. I just like the tonality that comes with small traditionally enlarged prints. The small prints from medium format have an almost jewel like quality tack sharp, full of tiny details with great tonality. Digital looks different to me. I can't recreate that look I got by printing MF small but I can do other things with digital that I would have struggled to do in a traditional darkroom. Having both available is a win win situation.

Exactly. I have a weakness for 3x enlargements off Linhof's 56 x 72mm 'ideal format', which look very much like whole plate (6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch, 165 x 216mm) contact prints. Well, all right, 3-up off 56 x 72mm is 168 x 316 mm instead of , but 3mm on one side seems OK to me.

But that's B+W. In colour, I'm happy enough with 18 megapixels. As you say, why not take advantage of both?

Cheers,

R.

[Turtle]

To answer the question, all the evidence I have seen suggests that in terms of realistically achievable resolution (i.e. at ISO ranges that people actually shoot), digital wins in resolution, but the reality is that triumph does not matter a bit.

The factors that I think matter are:

The 'look'. They do look different. Most people have a preference.
Workflow. They are a very different experience.
Process Cost. Cost of the whole process is much lower for digital most of the time, but can be cheaper for film if you are an expert printer. The cost of having digital files worked on by a master printer can be astonishingly high. If you do a low print run, digital is not necessarily cheaper.
Capital Outlay. The price of digital cameras is much higher.

I shoot both and frankly resolution is the last thing I think about. Quite often the look of film, specifically the lower resolution examples, are the very reason I shoot the stuff!

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by Turtle

To answer the question, all the evidence I have seen suggests that in terms of realistically achievable resolution (i.e. at ISO ranges that people actually shoot), digital wins in resolution, but the reality is that triumph does not matter a bit.

The factors that I think matter are:

The 'look'. They do look different. Most people have a preference.
Workflow. They are a very different experience.
Process Cost. Cost of the whole process is much lower for digital most of the time, but can be cheaper for film if you are an expert printer. The cost of having digital files worked on by a master printer can be astonishingly high. If you do a low print run, digital is not necessarily cheaper.
Capital Outlay. The price of digital cameras is much higher.

I shoot both and frankly resolution is the last thing I think about. Quite often the look of film, specifically the lower resolution examples, are the very reason I shoot the stuff!

Me, Well I'm a piker compared to most of you guys. Right now I'm using relatively old cameras(Canon P), only having my film processed at the drug store/scanned to a disk . Then I fix them at home. Any good ones get taked to Wallie world for that big-----big 8x10 treatment!!!!! My home "wet room" still needs the timer, light, chemicals, and lots and lots of experience. Well maybe a lot of photo paper too! Anyway nobody's lining up to buy my work , that being said, by the time I learn to use the eguiptment I have a top of the line scanner& a M9 ought to be selling for peanuts.