panos.v wrote:
To answer to the original question, the scanner will record whatever information the film has.
Unfortunately this just isn't true. I don't want to sound like one of those all analog or nothing guys, cause I'm not, but scanners fail in a couple ways.
1- dmax, only the very best scanners can manage the dmax of dense films like Velvia.
2- range between dMax and dMin. The latter Nikon scanners give you the ability to increase the lamp brightness to penetrate the dMax, but you'll quickly clip off the highlights if you try to take this too far.
3- color shifts. Scan enough and you'll recognize that some films tend to shift color between what the scanner sees and what you see when viewing the film on the light table.
#4- resolution. Unfortunately, most scanners can't optically match their stated resolutions.
Drum scanners can almost always address #1. The PMT technology has a big advantage with shadow details. They also help with #2 because many provide the ability to control the amplification, giving the ability to keep different dMax to dMin ranges at the top and bottom of the scale with the bit between linear and using the full bit range of the scanner. But item #3 is tricky. You can use profiling software to level this out with film specific targets, but you might lose some of the character of the film in the process and the profile still might not account for certain situations.
I do recognize your point though. Different films have different characters, and this does come through in the scan. With a good enough scanner, so does all the resolution/detail.
But I also agree with Veroman in many ways. Many films were specifically tailored to give superior skin tones or superior saturation or great B&W scale... Seriously, few would shoot portraiture on Velvia, but E100G or Portra produce wonderful natural looking skin tones with no fuss. Digital sensors seem to be tailored to provide a swiss army knife. Kinda OK at everything, but master of none. Really, you never hear anyone talk about how the sensor in the Nikon D192843s produces such amazing skin tones or how the Canon 1DMk37 produces the most vivid landscapes... Some of the RAW converters are known for their abilities, but the sensor has to be able to get the right info first and the filters on the bayer array will impact this.
mrladewig wrote:
Unfortunately this just isn't true. I don't want to sound like one of those all analog or nothing guys, cause I'm not, but scanners fail in a couple ways.
1- dmax, only the very best scanners can manage the dmax of dense films like Velvia.
2- range between dMax and dMin. The latter Nikon scanners give you the ability to increase the lamp brightness to penetrate the dMax, but you'll quickly clip off the highlights if you try to take this too far.
3- color shifts. Scan enough and you'll recognize that some films tend to shift color between what the scanner sees and what you see when viewing the film on the light table.
#4- resolution. Unfortunately, most scanners can't optically match their stated resolutions.
Drum scanners can almost always address #1. The PMT technology has a big advantage with shadow details. They also help with #2 because many provide the ability to control the amplification, giving the ability to keep different dMax to dMin ranges at the top and bottom of the scale with the bit between linear and using the full bit range of the scanner. But item #3 is tricky. You can use profiling software to level this out with film specific targets, but you might lose some of the character of the film in the process and the profile still might not account for certain situations.
I do recognize your point though. Different films have different characters, and this does come through in the scan. With a good enough scanner, so does all the resolution/detail....Show more →
...and tubes win again for fidelity! Just kidding! Sort of.
PMT:
A vacuum tube that converts light into electrical energy and amplifies it. Photomultiplier tubes are used in high-end drum scanners, because they are more sensitive to light than the CCD elements used in lower-cost devices.
this is exactly why i ditched film as soon as DSLR resolution got acceptable. i was tired of film's noise making itself known and i consider any noise a loss in quality. that and essentially never having accurate color.
Herb...
Ben Horne wrote:
I could tell the image was digital because it was too clean. Since I switched back to film (large format), I have seen an increase in my print quality. The prints seem to have so much more depth because of the grain. Also, the color and contrast is interpreted differently on film --- which gives some subjects a more 3D feel.
Ben Horne wrote:
Digital looks great on screen, but doesn't do as well in print. It is very clean -- which translates to a beautiful photo on a computer monitor, but it looks rather sterile in print. The lack of a background texture (grain) allows you to see the true extent of the resolution, and any digital artifacts.
Film on the other hand doesn't look amazing on a computer monitor, but it does VERY well in print. Fine grain makes for a beautiful print, and gives the appearance of detail beyond what is actually there......
I agree totally. If you judge a scanned film shot based on how it looks on your monitor ... particularly at 100%! ... you'll be inclined to trash it. But print it and it comes alive with a richness and "you-are-there" quality that digital seems to smooth over. As always, the printed image is where the rubber meets the road.
HerbChong wrote:
... i consider any noise a loss in quality .....
Herb...
So do you consider the work of Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Cartier Bresson, Henry Sandbank, Ansel Adams, etc., etc., etc., to be of low or inferior quality compared to digital?
mrladewig wrote:
...Kinda OK at everything, but master of none. Really, you never hear anyone talk about how the sensor in the Nikon D192843s produces such amazing skin tones or how the Canon 1DMk37 produces the most vivid landscapes... Some of the RAW converters are known for their abilities, but the sensor has to be able to get the right info first and the filters on the bayer array will impact this.
This isn't entirely true. Many dslr companies are adjusting cfa filters for high iso performance, so there are color decisions being made. MFDB and Sony dslr tend to take the color over high iso approach.
they had no choice. i have one and i made it. given the choice between noise and no noise, no noise almost always wins unless i am deliberately imitating something older and film-like. you don't know what they would have done given the choice.
Herb...
veroman wrote:
So do you consider the work of Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Cartier Bresson, Henry Sandbank, Ansel Adams, etc., etc., etc., to be of low or inferior quality compared to digital?
HerbChong wrote:
they had no choice. i have one and i made it. given the choice between noise and no noise, no noise almost always wins unless i am deliberately imitating something older and film-like. you don't know what they would have done given the choice.
Herb...
Noise, in my opinion is so overrated these days...it becomes obsessive in people. A photo with emotion is a photo with emotion. The only photos that are analyzed to death as far as noise goes are the ones lacking emotion. Focus more on emotion and less on noise and you'll be miles ahead. If film allows you to focus more on whats in the viewfinder, then shoot film...otherwise shoot digital, but don't get hung up with noise.
chez wrote:
Noise, in my opinion is so overrated these days...it becomes obsessive in people. A photo with emotion is a photo with emotion. The only photos that are analyzed to death as far as noise goes are the ones lacking emotion. Focus more on emotion and less on noise and you'll be miles ahead. If film allows you to focus more on whats in the viewfinder, then shoot film...otherwise shoot digital, but don't get hung up with noise.
chez wrote:
If film allows you to focus more on whats in the viewfinder, then shoot film...otherwise shoot digital
Definitely. These film/digital debates always degrade into whether strawberry or chocolate ice cream tastes better. Of course this isn't what the OP was asking, but many pages later it always seems to rear its head!
but don't get hung up with noise.
Yes, but related to your first point for certain photographers the noise is what it is all about. Digital really has been a revolution in things like indoor sports photography and photojournalism where ISO800 film was once a severe compromise. So anyway, don't get hung up on the noise unless of course the type of photography you do is completely limited by the noise!
philip_pj wrote:
PS Freedom from choice can focus the artistic mind marvellously.
Really eloquently put, I totally agree.
chez wrote:
Noise, in my opinion is so overrated these days...it becomes obsessive in people. A photo with emotion is a photo with emotion. The only photos that are analyzed to death as far as noise goes are the ones lacking emotion. Focus more on emotion and less on noise and you'll be miles ahead. If film allows you to focus more on whats in the viewfinder, then shoot film...otherwise shoot digital, but don't get hung up with noise.
Yup, if you're not doing technical photography (sports, commercial portraits, etc) people will look right past the noise if your subject is strong enough. It's come to the point, with me, that if people first notice the grain, or lack of grain, or blur, or sharpness, that I'm disappointed. What of the subject?
and if you have all that too? noise is noise. it's not part of the signal. that is the definition of noise. i've gotten past all the artistic requirements. once you get good enough, the equipment matters again. that is one of the reasons for going medium format digital and why large format film's tonality is superior to small format. the piece of film hasn't changed.
Herb...
chez wrote:
Noise, in my opinion is so overrated these days...it becomes obsessive in people. A photo with emotion is a photo with emotion. The only photos that are analyzed to death as far as noise goes are the ones lacking emotion. Focus more on emotion and less on noise and you'll be miles ahead. If film allows you to focus more on whats in the viewfinder, then shoot film...otherwise shoot digital, but don't get hung up with noise.
HerbChong wrote:
and if you have all that too? noise is noise. it's not part of the signal. that is the definition of noise. i've gotten past all the artistic requirements. once you get good enough, the equipment matters again. that is one of the reasons for going medium format digital and why large format film's tonality is superior to small format. the piece of film hasn't changed.
Herb...
Well ... this debate is finally over as far as I'm concerned, and my conclusion proves me a bit wrong in some assumptions I've made and even expressed here.
I was on my way to Washington, DC and stopped at the Maryland House Visitor's Center for a cup of coffee and a snack. There happened to be an exhibit there of some photography of Chesapeake Bay and a few boating events. Two or three of the images really caught my eye ... quite outstanding and printed to about 20" X 30". I looked at them really up close (6" away) and assumed they were shot medium format film. In fact, I would have sworn to it in court! The detail of even the smallest elements was really tack sharp and remarkable. The "look" of the images wasn't "film-like," it WAS film ... at least, to my eye.
The photographer's name and email were provided next to the photos, so I contacted him, congratulated him and asked about his gear. It turned out to be a Canon 1Ds II and 400mm f/5.6L.
So ... end of story for me. It appears that digital HAS matched MF film in most respects and if handled properly. I remain amazed ...
I print my digital files myself (up to A2) on baryta-based paper, gold fibre silk or similar papers, doing a lot of canson-stuff lately, and I have quite often gotten "nice darkroom work there lad!"-kind of comments from old-timers with lot of film background.. :P
