«

I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...

1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
(forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
"reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
get.

Question one is: How does the digital camera that competes "resolution"
wise, extract more detail than film, and if this is true, why would
"anyone" with 10K-25K worth of film based equipment still own it when
they will never get that detail a digital camera can get?

2) In terms of the "color" produced by the two formats, pro digital and
mf film, it has been argued that the pro digital cameras excel in color
with some exceptions going in favor of print (C41) based film. I have
to agree that the array of color is simply amazing in what the digital
can do, but is the "flat" look of film that many refer to not what life
really looks like??? I don't know how many shots I have seen by pros
that use the very best digital camera to make a scene look like it is
tahiti when it is just San Diego. Sand is colored brownish when it is
white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of
appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more
"pale/lifeless" in a sense. It isn't to say the film looks inaccurate,
but is to say that the digital makes things "appear" realistic, but are
much more based on aesthetic appearance and catching the eye...but
doesn't one ever wonder how in the world a bird with beautiful color
suddenly looks like an angel with remarkable color one has never even
seen on this bird??? I don't want to debate the color issues with
digital because you can say the same things about film. I have seen
some of the most saturated or dense looking film based images that are
in no way looking like life, but they surely make for a beautiful
artistic look, just like the digital can do the same. So please pay
attention to this last part where I say that both can exaggerate or
"make" their own color to look a certain way, but that at the same
time, I feel that digital by and large makes life look a lot different
than film when both are aimed to reproduce it in an "accurate" looking
way. *****The primary reason I raise the color thing is because I have
never seen a photo "on the web" from a pro digital camera that looks
like film.***** I can see many are trying to achieve a look of film,
but without the grain, of course...but never have I seen an MF photo
look like a Canon 5D photo. They can look similar in some instances,
but I'm more or less referring to context of streetlife, nature,
architecture/etc.

3) Going back to this resolution thing, and that some claim the 5D or
1DSMKII can outresolve film in MF...what about the counter-argument of
digital "adding" detail to the photo that isn't even there? I know the
example I posted above was about counting hairs and so I take it this
person either counted the person's hairs after the photo was developed
or they just "assumed" from what they saw that that person had more
hairs. Either way, it's interesting that there is a counter to the
notion that pro digital and digital in general "adds" artifacts/extra
information that the film does not. And this obviously complicates
things because one then has to point out that film cannot produce the
information that exists in life whereas digital can...one format, in
other words, can produce what we see in life while the other is either
not capable of doing so or is adding artificial context to the image.

So number 3 deals with my final question: Does digital indeed have the
ability to outresolve film? That is, is film simply not capable of
producing the same detail of life? Again, how in the world can
"anyone" care to use film if they know it is not reproducing life
faithfully and is leaving out details that digital is able to
capture??? I personally care for "the look" of the image, but if I
know my setup cannot produce life, why even bother using it when I can
get "close enough" if not the same "look" from the device that is able
to get more information/reproduce life more faithfully. Why only get
10 of my cat's 12 whiskers when I can get all 12 of them???

The reason I ask these questions is because:

1) If the better pro digital cams can do more than MF film can, it only
takes $2200 plus $1800 in Zeiss/Rollei lenses to completely humiliate
MF film setups that cost upward of $10-$20K!!!...let alone the scanner
that can be drum scanned for rediculous prices or go for the Nikon 9000
which goes for $1800. That's 2-5X the price of the digital setup
which can take a million photos before that MF system can get in 100.

2) Why is there still a market for all this MF stuff if the digital has
proven dominance over it?

3) Why does this MF market continue to maintain stability while the
digital one coninues to drop? Yes, one can say better digi-toys come
out every year, but what about MF stuff...this has been around for tons
of years yet it either increases in price or stays the same. As an
example, to get a Contax 645 system, you must shell out big
bucks...same with a Hassleblad system and how about them Schneider
lenses=$$$$$$$$ Why won't these Schneider lenses come down to
$100-$500 when the digital stuff like the 5D is going to be at $800
soon???


I'm ranting and raving because I'm really frustrated about which
direction to go at this point. To me, in a perfect world where the
Canon 5D is indeed on par or even superior to MF, it makes zero sense
to spend 2-5X the amount of money to get an MF setup. If the 5D can be
disputed by the MF crowd and that 2-5X difference has some kind of
warrant (not for arrest of course), then it seems getting into maybe
even a lower budget MF setup that is capable of competing with higher
end setups in the film MF world would be the better step.

I'll leave this one up to discussion/debate/whatever that can help me
find a decision here on what is the best move to make at this point.

Thanks all!!!

Progressiveabsolution <> wrote:
: I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
: things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...

: 1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
: the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
: (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
: LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
: the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
: the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
: available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
: to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
: said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
: better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
: pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
: on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
: "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
: have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
: higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
: get.

The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.

One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the
prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
on that challange.

--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Frank Pittel wrote:
> The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
> you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
> be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.
Kind of hard to do this over the internet, whereas scans are pretty
easy.

> One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
> and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
> the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the
> prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
> on that challange.
Planing on coming to Hawaii anytime soon?
You let me use my tripod and you will loose, I have a very good tripod.

Scott

"Frank Pittel" <> wrote:
>
> The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
> you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test
> would
> be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a
> negative.

Most people who have actually compared projection prints with scanned prints
find the scanned prints just as good if not better. Projection printing
involves an enlarger lens that imposes its own degradation to the image,
just as scanning does.

> One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
> tripod
> and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot
> with
> the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
> put the
> prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
> taken up
> on that challange.

Anything less than the 5D would show the 645 to be better. The 5D gives 645
a run for its money, though.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Frank Pittel wrote:

>
> One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
> tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and
> another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make
> a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison.
> Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange.
>


I agree and like you, all I ever see is people comparing film scans to
Dslrs, most of the time using sub optimal scanning techniques.

--

Stacey

Frank Pittel wrote:
> Progressiveabsolution <> wrote:
> : I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
> : things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...
>
> : 1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
> : the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
> : (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
> : LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
> : the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
> : the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
> : available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
> : to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
> : said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
> : better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
> : pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
> : on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
> : "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
> : have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
> : higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
> : get.
>
> The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
> you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
> be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.
>
> One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
> and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
> the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the
> prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
> on that challange.

This is actually the test that convinced me digital was here. A friend
shot for a minor league baseball team, he had a 6mp Kodak DCS760. The
time came for the team picture, he used the Kodak as back up and his
Mamiya 645 for the primary neg. Admittedly his 645 was old and somewhat
beat. But looking at the 16x20 print and the file from the 645 it was
obvious that the faces of the players were better deliniated on the
digital file. Took a little to convince the team that a digital pic was
our best output, their printer loved it. They printed the 18x20 team
picture from the Kodak file, this was 2002. The next year the team
president loaned my friend his Hassleblad, saying that film wouldn't be
out done. That year there was a lot of rain, the team came up from
Florida late so the they shot with the Hassleblad and the Kodak. The
printer said he wanted the picture the next morning, guess which file
they used again. The photographer printed the Hassleblad image. Yes it
was better than the digital file but not by much, but the C41, even
with rush processing was too late (the team was too cheap to keep the
lab opened after hours a $500 charge). The rest is history.

Tom

Scott W <> wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: > The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
: > you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
: > be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.
: Kind of hard to do this over the internet, whereas scans are pretty
: easy.

If you want to compare a scanner with a dslr then it's a reasonable test.

: > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
: > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
: > the digital camera of their choice. We would then make a 16x20 print and put the
: > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
: > on that challange.
: Planing on coming to Hawaii anytime soon?
: You let me use my tripod and you will loose, I have a very good tripod.

I have a very good tripod too. Alas I don't see going to Hawaii anytime soon.

--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

"Frank Pittel" <> wrote in message
news:-...

> One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
> tripod
> and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot
> with
> the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
> put the
> prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
> taken up
> on that challange.


You're on, Frank.

Full contact info is on my website (on the "Ordering" link.)
Email me off-line and we'll work out the details.

The best digicam I own at present is a 10D, but at 16x20",
I'm not too worried. In a pinch, I can borrow a co-worker's 5D.

I've got a set of three 20" x 30" prints in a room here where
I work. Two were from 645 MF, (scanned on LS-8000)
and one from the 10D. All three prints were made by a local
lab on a Durst Epsilon (basically, a LightJet.)

To date, nobody has guessed correctly which print came
from the 10D. You'd think, with 33% odds, at least one
of these would have guessed by now.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:

>
> "Frank Pittel" <> wrote in message
> news:-...
>
>> One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
>> tripod
>> and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another
>> shot with
>> the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
>> put the
>> prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
>> taken up
>> on that challange.
>
>
> You're on, Frank.
>
> Full contact info is on my website (on the "Ordering" link.)
> Email me off-line and we'll work out the details.
>
> The best digicam I own at present is a 10D, but at 16x20",
> I'm not too worried. In a pinch, I can borrow a co-worker's 5D.
>
> I've got a set of three 20" x 30" prints in a room here where
> I work. Two were from 645 MF, (scanned on LS-8000)
> and one from the 10D.

Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point!
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

> Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point!

So far there has not been one person who has shown an optical print is
better then
one from a scanned negative.

There have been a lot of people who have made that claim but to date I
have not seen
any thing to back up this claim.

On the other hand I have seen lots of data showing a print from a
scanned negative is better then an optical print from the same
negative.

But anyway believe Rafe as talking about an exchange of prints

Scott