Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Professionally printed images - Digital vs 35mm

Reply
Thread Tools

Professionally printed images - Digital vs 35mm

 
 
The Frog
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
Hi,

I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.

I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
about 25-30Mg) with the digital.

I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this may
not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.

Any advice would be much appreciated.
cheers
Nigel

ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2 groups
may be able to shed some light.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed E.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
You're invoking beliefs from both sides of the battle line.

How about trying it for yourself? That'll give you the most accurate
answer.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
>From: "The Frog" http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

>I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
>transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
>about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
>
>I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
>trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this may
>not be the case. Any advice would be much appreciated.


You'll get dozens of replies to this variation of film vs digital Here's
mine ...

For 35 mm we shoot Canon EOS-3 bodies with "L" lenses and fine grained film.
My wife recently bought a 10D (similar pixel count to your D60 but a generation
later) and I've shot several scenes with first the film and then the digital,
using the same "L" zoom lenses (70-200 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 17-35 f/2.. Then
I would scan the film on a 4,000 dpi scanner and do all I could in Photoshop to
get both files as good as possible (I have "Adobe Certified Expert" status in
Photoshop), and then print on an Epson 2200 at 8 x 10" and 12 x 18".

I thought digital would do as well or better on portraits but when we shot
Astia 100F vs the 10D the colors were a bit better and the film images were
sharper and gave better large prints. The 10D gives very nice prints and it's
of course very handy to use, but we got even better prints from the film (with
the extra step of scanning). YMMV depending on how you do the scanning and how
much Photoshop you know, but for me and my workflow I'll take film for print
quality, digital for convenience.

We also shot landscapes on Velvia and the 10D and it's a joke to even compare
the two here, the Velvia images are so much better it's not even close.

I like shooting digital and I appreciate the many benefits of instant feedback,
no film costs, etc etc, but for higher print quality I'll still take film.

> I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
>better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.


Maybe you're talking about Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape site, where
he claims the D60 quality is pushing medium format. I enjoy reading his posts
and he has a lot of good info on many aspects of photography, but I disagree
with him on the quality merits of digital vs film. This started with the D30,
a 3 Mpix body that he claimed gives better prints than Fuji Provia 100F, and
continued with the D60 and 10D, which he says compares well to medium format
film. I just don't see it ... in my print tests 35 mm is still slightly ahead
of digital for portraits and well ahead for landscapes. I also shoot two
flavors of medium format (6x4.5 cm and 6x7 cm) and the gap between prints from
these and the 10D is even wider.

Since you have a film camera and a D60 why not run your own tests, shoot the
same things in a few situations (a good zoom makes it easy to frame them the
same) and have prints made from each format and decide what looks best for you.
That's what I did ... I wish digital WOULD win and I'm sure one day it will,
but for me that day hasn't arrived yet.

Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
The Frog
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
Thanks Bill,

I think the website you mentioned is the one I had seen.

Now I just need to get off my lazy bottom and take the comparison photos

Nigel
"Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >From: "The Frog" (E-Mail Removed)

>
> >I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
> >transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff

of
> >about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
> >
> >I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from

the
> >trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

may
> >not be the case. Any advice would be much appreciated.

>
> You'll get dozens of replies to this variation of film vs digital

Here's
> mine ...
>
> For 35 mm we shoot Canon EOS-3 bodies with "L" lenses and fine grained

film.
> My wife recently bought a 10D (similar pixel count to your D60 but a

generation
> later) and I've shot several scenes with first the film and then the

digital,
> using the same "L" zoom lenses (70-200 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 17-35 f/2..

Then
> I would scan the film on a 4,000 dpi scanner and do all I could in

Photoshop to
> get both files as good as possible (I have "Adobe Certified Expert" status

in
> Photoshop), and then print on an Epson 2200 at 8 x 10" and 12 x 18".
>
> I thought digital would do as well or better on portraits but when we shot
> Astia 100F vs the 10D the colors were a bit better and the film images

were
> sharper and gave better large prints. The 10D gives very nice prints and

it's
> of course very handy to use, but we got even better prints from the film

(with
> the extra step of scanning). YMMV depending on how you do the scanning

and how
> much Photoshop you know, but for me and my workflow I'll take film for

print
> quality, digital for convenience.
>
> We also shot landscapes on Velvia and the 10D and it's a joke to even

compare
> the two here, the Velvia images are so much better it's not even close.
>
> I like shooting digital and I appreciate the many benefits of instant

feedback,
> no film costs, etc etc, but for higher print quality I'll still take film.
>
> > I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
> >better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.

>
> Maybe you're talking about Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape site,

where
> he claims the D60 quality is pushing medium format. I enjoy reading his

posts
> and he has a lot of good info on many aspects of photography, but I

disagree
> with him on the quality merits of digital vs film. This started with the

D30,
> a 3 Mpix body that he claimed gives better prints than Fuji Provia 100F,

and
> continued with the D60 and 10D, which he says compares well to medium

format
> film. I just don't see it ... in my print tests 35 mm is still slightly

ahead
> of digital for portraits and well ahead for landscapes. I also shoot two
> flavors of medium format (6x4.5 cm and 6x7 cm) and the gap between prints

from
> these and the 10D is even wider.
>
> Since you have a film camera and a D60 why not run your own tests, shoot

the
> same things in a few situations (a good zoom makes it easy to frame them

the
> same) and have prints made from each format and decide what looks best for

you.
> That's what I did ... I wish digital WOULD win and I'm sure one day it

will,
> but for me that day hasn't arrived yet.
>
> Bill



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bowsér
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
Zealots see what they want to see. I've done the comparison, and the best
prints I've seen are Ilfochromes from chromes. After that, scanned chromes
produce the best prints, after that, prints from negs, after that prints
from digital cams. The digicam prints all look flat to me. Not bad, but not
as good as film. Personally, I wanted to see prints from digicams that were
better, since that workflow is way ahead of traditional, and just a lot
easier and more flexible.

"The Frog" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bob2hm$kia$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
> then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.
>
> I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
> transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff

of
> about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
>
> I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
> trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

may
> not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
> better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated.
> cheers
> Nigel
>
> ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2

groups
> may be able to shed some light.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Barrett Benton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
This was reinforced for me when I took a walk through PhotoPlus Expo
here in New York last week. A lot of the (quite large) prints I saw -
particularly at the Canon booth (where it's a fair bet that the vast
majority of images on display were digital in origin) - seemed more like
poster reproductions than photographs, exhibiting what I can only call
an "insistent pallor". Their size, in fact, seemed almost an attempt to
compensate for their general dullness (subject matter, in a number of
cases, didn't help). These expositions are generally more about hardware
than craft, and more about craft than "art", but the visual bar appears
to have lowered a bit from previous Expos, IMO.

- Barrett

In article <hD9qb.148$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Bowsér" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Zealots see what they want to see. I've done the comparison, and the best
> prints I've seen are Ilfochromes from chromes. After that, scanned chromes
> produce the best prints, after that, prints from negs, after that prints
> from digital cams. The digicam prints all look flat to me. Not bad, but not
> as good as film. Personally, I wanted to see prints from digicams that were
> better, since that workflow is way ahead of traditional, and just a lot
> easier and more flexible.
>
> "The Frog" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bob2hm$kia$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
> > then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.
> >
> > I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
> > transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff

> of
> > about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
> >
> > I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
> > trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

> may
> > not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
> > better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.
> >
> > Any advice would be much appreciated.
> > cheers
> > Nigel
> >
> > ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2

> groups
> > may be able to shed some light.
> >
> >

>
>


--
BWB
_______________________
Impatience is virtual
 
Reply With Quote
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
Hello Bill,
I was probably the one that mentioned how I was getting great results with
my D60. I told the group that I was getting great 20x30 prints from
www.imagestation.com and it started a firestorm. I know what I am looking at
and the prints they make look great. Better than my Canon ElanII but not as
good as my 500c/m or Fuji GA645. BUT very sellable prints!!!
here is a sample. http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_0904.JPG
I even offered to send Bob Hatch a sample of the 20x30 for his inspection.
http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_1004.JPG
David
www.HollidayPhoto.com
the image is everything


Hi,

I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.

I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
about 25-30Mg) with the digital.

I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this may
not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.

Any advice would be much appreciated.
cheers
Nigel

ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2 groups
may be able to shed some light


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Hatch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
"David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Y5aqb.81348$mZ5.556407@attbi_s54...
> Hello Bill,
> I was probably the one that mentioned how I was getting great results with
> my D60. I told the group that I was getting great 20x30 prints from
> www.imagestation.com and it started a firestorm. I know what I am looking

at
> and the prints they make look great. Better than my Canon ElanII but not

as
> good as my 500c/m or Fuji GA645. BUT very sellable prints!!!
> here is a sample. http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_0904.JPG
> I even offered to send Bob Hatch a sample of the 20x30 for his inspection.
> http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_1004.JPG
> David
> www.HollidayPhoto.com
> the image is everything
>
>

I know you did. But what you offered to send me was a print from a digital
camera (D60) to prove that you were getting great prints from your D60. I
don't need the proof from an outside source because I've printed up to 24 x
30 from my D60. I don't use an outside source for any print larger than
8x10. All larger prints are done on my Epson 7600.
--
"Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
http://www.bobhatch.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
FOR7b
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
>Hello Bill,
>I was probably the one that mentioned how I was getting great results with
>my D60. I told the group that I was getting great 20x30 prints from
>www.imagestation.com and it started a firestorm. I know what I am looking at
>and the prints they make look great. Better than my Canon ElanII but not as
>good as my 500c/m or Fuji GA645. BUT very sellable prints!!!
>here is a sample. http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_0904.JPG
>I even offered to send Bob Hatch a sample of the 20x30 for his inspection.
>http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_1004.JPG
>David
>www.HollidayPhoto.com
>the image is everything


Hello David,

I've been looking for a service to do a 20x30 in the near future. I checked out
the site but details are few unless you sign up first. You would think it would
be the other way around. I'm curious as to a few things like what kind of
photo paper is Sony using? Also what was the final file size that you used? Did
you upsample the D60 file? Finally, what was your sharpening levels for such a
size print. Any other details like the type of printer they use and color space
would be nice if you know that too. Thanks.




(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
Hi Bob,
I did not mean to hit a nerve. I am still waiting on the cat (Caladon?)
picture I think it was. I would rather send out my images, it is much more
cost efficient for me. I find my Epson 1280 too slow and expensive to use
for large photos. IMO
Talk to you later


David
> www.HollidayPhoto.com
> the image is everything
>
>

I know you did. But what you offered to send me was a print from a digital
camera (D60) to prove that you were getting great prints from your D60. I
don't need the proof from an outside source because I've printed up to 24 x
30 from my D60. I don't use an outside source for any print larger than
8x10. All larger prints are done on my Epson 7600.
--
"Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
http://www.bobhatch.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Learn the language of HTML, css professionally AZ sites aprofessional education with the Music Video a professional and a wonderfuleducational books available on the internet الحوت HTML 0 11-06-2010 01:38 PM
Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR? einst_stein@yahoo.com Digital Photography 8 06-03-2005 11:25 PM
what do i need to do to be able to professionally develop in .NET Peter ASP .Net 2 04-10-2005 10:25 AM
Where can I get digital images printed onto black and white photographic paper (UK)? Phillip Rhodes Digital Photography 1 05-05-2004 08:44 PM
how to learn java professionally Bluelava Java 1 02-11-2004 02:48 PM



Advertisments