Are DSLR captures & Negs scans comparable?

[Daniel Balfour]

Just curious actually... I posted a thread just a few minutes ago asking about some math I've done on (scan) image resolution. I thought to follow it up with yet another question, albeit more pertinent to this forum then that of my earlier post.

Is there any practical/tangible/appreciable difference I should be aware of, between an image captured using a DSLR (and transferred to computer) and an image captured on film & scanned (and subsequently transferred to computer)?

REASON BEING:

IF there is NO difference, then a $25 Holga is worth more, pixel for pixel, dollar for dollar, then a Canon 1Ds Mark-III.

[keithwms]

Okay, first of all, I don't think that you really want to think about this in terms of pixels

Sorry but I fear that this is going to become a rambling stream-of-consciousness essay....

The digital era has trained us to think in pixels... we see pixelated images all the time and sort of learn to accept them. We also review images, more and more, on glowing screens- TVs or computers. But the tonality of a pixelated image on a glowing screen is not directly comparable to that of a film image printed traditionally or a tranny on a lightbox.

Also there are about a zillion different workflows for either route (scanned film or digital), and a lot of variation in the competence of people who do scans, or conversely, digital conversions. I swear to you, I know people who have never shot a film image and see a digital print with that linear tone scale and think it's just fine. I also see crappy film scans all the time. And we've all seen crummy traditional prints too. I think the relative value of the route you pick depends very much on your dedication to doing that particular path with the highest possible care and dedication.

How you compare the relative value of a digital or film photograph depends very, very much on the intent of your final output.

I think what you will find is that the pixel count turns out to be far less important than how much shadow and highlight information you have to work with, and how good you are at curving your source file (be it digital or scanned film) and getting that information into a print.

Now.. on the extremes of pixel count.... I feel that when I have 6x6 slides drum scanned I get ~30+ credible megapixels, easily. And those are 30 million coloured pixels, not Bayer interpolated. So certainly I feel that my mamiya 6 can go head to head with just about and dSLR on the market, in terms of $/pixel or just in terms of total pixel count per "capture." But frankly, that's only in that fairly limited and specialized ~ISO 100 arena. At ISO 1600 my film is toast. I have ISO 1600 images from my baby travelcam, a Nikon d40x, which are far cleaner than anything I've seen at that ISO from colour neg film in any film format. And I do shot 5x7 and 8x10 trannies so I know of what I speak

But b&w is a different game altogether.... in that case, tonality and dynamic range take center stage and think film does indeed still have many advantages in almost any format and any ISO. There are still very good reasons to shoot 35mm b&w film, no doubt about it. But there are also good reasons to shoot a colour image on a dslr and do a conversion.

I just don't think that one can compare them (dslr captures and scans) head to head in most cases. They simply have very different strengths, and I think most of us use both.

[claudermilk]

Skipping Keith's stream-of-consciousness rambling I am in agreement with the last comments. Film & digital are different tools with differnet strengths and weaknesses. You certainly cannot compare a Holga to a 1Ds Mk III. Totally different looks.

I am beginning to use both (getting back into film again) and there's some places I'll use digital exclusively and some where I'm starting to think of my film camera first now. It really depends on the situation and my intent.

[Greg_E]

Better digitall black and white can be had by using a monochome sensor. The only ones I know of are from MegaVision and up to 39 megapixels and nearly full frame for the 645 format. Wish I had the money for one of those.

[Daniel Balfour]

I am beginning to use both (getting back into film again) and there's some places I'll use digital exclusively and some where I'm starting to think of my film camera first now.

What would be an example of one such situation?

[Daniel Balfour]

How you compare the relative value of a digital or film photograph depends very, very much on the intent of your final output.

What would be an example of "final output" warranting film over digital capture and why? (black/white)

[keithwms]

What would be an example of "final output" warranting film over digital capture and why? (black/white)

Well, one example is infrared. I do a fair amount of b&w infrared, and I do it via film (and not because I have to). Now, I want a lot of detail, I want controlled grain, and most importantly perhaps, I want good tonality.

Digital IR, in my opinion, has a big problem with highlight differentiation- the IR sensitivity is so high (out to 1200 nm) that a spring leaf very easily becomes a pure white object. No tonality. Highlights look posterized. Now one might think that this can be solved by simply underexposing. But that's not really true, the digital sensor is still seeing out to 1200 nm where the IR transmission of the relevant leaf pigments is zero and so you're still not going to differentiate much tonal detail in the leaf! You get posterized greys instead of posterized whites. No thanks.

I think that to get digital IR to work the way I want, I need to use a high cutoff filter at around 850-900 nm, and I will try that eventually. But... I do IR by film because I like lots of detail too... quite often I do it with 4x5 film or using a 6x9 or 612 back and roll film. The result is low grain, lots of detail, and a tonality that to me doesn't shout IR but rather incorporates it into the composition in a subtler way. There is also the simple equipment issue that shooting IR with a rangefinder is easy peasy and the current selection of DRFs does not appeal to me in terms of $/detail.

Sometimes because of a problem with a neg I have to have it scanned and then I have an LVT made etc. In that case I have it drum scanned to try to do my very best at preserving the grain structure, and the LVT compromises very little of the "look" of the original neg...and the final output is traditional. Film grain is a pretty big part of the look of IR, I am pretty careful to keep it real even when I have to scan the neg.

Another example pertinent to IR- some people like halation. I don't, but anyway, halation is something very particular to IR film and it is unique. You can sort of simulate it via digital capture but will you ever get the same effect?

Thre are many other examples... there are still many, many reasons to use b&w film. A book could be written on this subject, seriously.

[Greg_E]

And one of the best reasons to still use film is be because you like it. There really doesn't need to be a concrete reason.

That said one more concrete reason is long exposures. During long exposures the CCD accumulates noise that will be very apparent, especially if the CCD is not actively cooled. Pinhole images come quickly to mind here, as does available light night photography, and as mentioned the IR photography.

It may be as simple as this... If you are on a budget, you can either shoot and develop a little film each week, or you can save your money for what could be several years so that you can afford a digital camera that will do the same things. I know the offset of the scanner price really makes this an exaggeration, but it give you an idea. With a good small format film scanner going for $2000, and a new digital SLR for $1000 you have to pause a moment and reflect on the other reasons to shoot film to decide which way you want to go.

Depending on your point of view, use the tools that you like best. If you are going to be scanning film, when you get your technique "mastered", you may want to consider shooting only positive films. This may require that you have B/W film developed to produce a positive. There was some talk on the B/W Yahoo group more than a year ago about this, and the consenus was that B/W from a positive scanned better than a negative in the broadest range of scanners. It had to do with trying to see through the dense silver areas to pull highlights out of the images. The brighter the light source, the less trouble in this area. But if you had the film processed to give you a positive, you don't have all that silver to try and look through for the critical highlight areas.

If you are going to scan B/W negatives, it was found that the dye based films scanned better (c41 process).

[jens g.r. benthien]

Short answer if you don't shoot sports events, Formula 1 and the like:

--------------------//--
Get a clean analog camera with either a Nikon, Zeiss, Fuji, Schneider or Rodenstock **prime** lens - be it 35mm or 6x9 or even larger.

Use Fuji Provia 100F or Astia or Velvia 50.

Subcontract an excellent lab to have your slides processed (example: Kodak Q Labs do an excellent job because they are quality controlled)

Get a rock solid scanner like the LS 5000 for 35mm or the LS 9000 for MF. Don't waste your funds on an Imacon - it's only a tiny tad better in the shadows, but costs some 5x as much as the Nikon.

Get a good software like VueScan.

Learn scanning. Learn scanning. Learn scanning...

Enjoy to blow away any digital stuff and start printing your brains off

For the perfect overkill contact a lab that features a LightJet 500 XL - nothing else even comes close to this photographic laser imager:



If you are willing to pursue this way, chances are high you'll never ever ask again
--------------------//--

[claudermilk]

What would be an example of one such situation?

For dance shows I shoot, I use digital. I have the gear to accomplish no-flash shooting and still freeze the motion, I can get the color correct easily, and distribution to the performers is relatively quick & easy. Another convenience is the speed & ease of swapping CF cards, and the near limitless storage space I can carry along.

For landscapes, I am leaning to using my 645 film rig more as it enforces a slower, more thoughtful approach that is suited to the subject.

Just a couple of quick examples. What works for me doesn't necessarily work for everyone, of course.