gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Could you go back to film? | |
From someone who is eminently qualified to speak about such things...
https://luminous-landscape.com/4x5-film-vs-digital/
Subscription required, unfortunately. I read the article before it was placed behind the paywall (and Charlie is a friend, so we have talked about these things), so I know that he conducted extensive tests of MF digital before switching several years back.
Indeed, MF digital cannot be "the same" as LF film, but on balance it was his decision that moving from LF film to digital MF was a good move and that the technical quality of his photographs did not decline, but rather improved, and that there were other advantages. (Among them, cost! But also, the ability to photograph transitory things that cannot be completely predicted, such as moving water.). He is among a large group of long-time LF film photographers who have made the move. (And, yes, among that same group there are a few who took much longer to switch, who switched only partially, or who still prefer film.)
Dan
MAubrey wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
robgo2 wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
robgo2 wrote:
George Orwell wrote:
tonyespofoto wrote:
Scanning old negatives, even large format ones, shows up how much more information digital cameras capture.
You are very much mistaken here. What you saw was the limitation on the scanner, not the film.
tonyespofoto wrote:
It is an incredible tribute to Ansel Adams that he was able to produce such perfect prints from such an imperfect and inconsistent recording medium.
This. When you view an Adam's print, you get the full "information" contained in the photographic negative.
You have everything backwards.
All this talk about information skirts the more important issue of signal to noise ratio (SNR). There is no question that the SNR for digital capture is much higher than for film capture, which is why digital images may look more detailed even if they contain no more information. Low SNR is a significant limitation of film that cannot be overcome even with the best scanners.
Rob
Rob you are right, but the size of the capture medium is crucial for SNR. A big area to capture light means a lot more signal so the signal to noise ratio gets a lot larger. Film still has some huge capture media compared to digital a 4 X 5 film or a 5 X 7 and even 8 X 10 inch film is so much larger than even the largest digital sensors that the blanket statement that SNR is better for digital is not correct. I am pretty sure that 8 X 10 inch film will have a better signal to noise ratio than FF 35mm, and not by a small amount.
I do think that 35mm film does not have as good of a SNR as a good 35mm digital sensor, and the 35mm digital sensor probably even has a resolution advantage over most 35mm film, but if you are comparing even the best 35mm FF sensor or even the new miniMF sensors (which are very good) to 8 X 10 film, I think the much much larger film capture will have both a better SNR and better resolution.
So, we should all be careful what we are comparing when we make statements. For full disclosure, although I haven't shot film for a couple of years. I enjoy doing so, and I didn't really know how to answer the poll so I didn't. I don't really shoot film anymore, but I am considering getting some large format technical view camera lenses that I will use on digital, but I might at the same time get a large format camera. I am interested in trying at least 6 X 9mm and 4 X 5 inch film to see what it produces. I will not be surprised at all if it is, at least in some important ways, still quite a bit ahead of even the best digital images.
Steve,
Think about what you are doing here--comparing a 35mm FF sensor to 8x10 film. That's evidence for just how good digital sensors have gotten. How about a comparing a medium format sensor to 8x10 film?
Rob
Digital medium format sensors still aren't that large, so I still think 8 X10 film would outperform it quite noticeably. Film still has that advantage of offering a much much larger capture area than even the largest digital sensors.
Just as an anecdote for the question:
I get pixel level sharp scans around 35MP from 6x4.5 medium format black & white film. My A7rII can't keep up resolution-wise with my shots on 6x9 medium format. You'd probably need at least a 100MP Phase One sensor to achieve anything close to competitive resolution compared to 4x5, much less8x10. My profile picture is actually a 115MP scan of a 4x5 photo I took on Ilford Harman Direct Positive film. It looks great and it would be even sharper if I had stopped down the lens--it was shot white open with a 135mm f/3.5 Schneider Xenotar (f/3.5 on 4x5 ~ f/1 on 35mm). The resolution potential of large format is only just beginning to be encroached upon.
|
