High Resolution from 35mm Film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pooua@aol.com, Nov 9, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I have listened to the film-vs-digital argument for years. Inasmuch as
    I haven't had a chance to experiment with 35 mm film, I could only
    imagine the kind of resolution I could get if I had a good-quality
    system and film.

    Well, this year I began buying fairly nice photographic equipment,
    nicer and much more expensive than anything I have ever before owned. I
    have experiemented with films ranging in ISO from 100 to 3200, and even
    tried Velvia 100F (I asked my local Wolf Camera shop for Velvia film,
    and that's what they had to special order to get me). My Velvia film is
    still out of shop being developed, but I've scanned everything else.

    I have to say, I am disappointed by the results. So far, my cheapy
    little point-and-shoot Minolta Dimage G500 does as good a job--image
    quality-wise--as my 35mm Canon Rebel G with a 28-135 IS zoom lens. I
    have been tinkering with this stuff for most of this year, and I simply
    cannot take photographs with my 35mm camera that look any better than
    those on my G500. Considering that I have spent nearly 4x more on my
    film setup than on my digital camera, I am really disappointed.

    Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own
    negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special
    processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition
    for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good
    digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.
     
    , Nov 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scott W Guest

    wrote:


    > Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own
    > negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special
    > processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition
    > for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good
    > digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.


    Welcome to the club, there are a lot of us in it. It was about 2003
    that I got into seeing how much I could get out of 35mm film, not so
    much as it turns out, they is the year I gave up on film

    There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film,
    but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they
    are really getting.

    I have two friends, both of which thought they could do better with
    their 35mm film camera then I could with my digital, in both cases we
    both shot the same scenes and compared the results, in both cases
    neither has shoot film since.

    Then I hear that get really get 35mm to work you have to use just the
    right film and have a pro lab process it and then have it drum scanned,
    this is not for me. I also don't like the idea of shooting ISO 50
    film.

    I could kind of make film work, but I had a number of problems that
    made it not even close to worth it, first was the time to scan in the
    photo, then there is the fact that the negatives seem to come back
    with scratches, a lot of time using PhotoShop to clean up the scans.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bmoag Guest

    Well, everything has a learning curve.
    It is not clear what aspect of your results from film you are disappointed
    with.
    Even Ansel Adams had to start somewhere after his first Kodak Brownie.
    Velvia can be difficult to expose and scan properly and is not intended as a
    beginner or all purpose film.
    It is not clear if it is the elements of basic photography that are
    problematic for you, post scan digital image processing, color management,
    etc that is causing you difficulty. If you are happier with your P&S than
    your SLR methinks there are some problems with your grasp of the basics, but
    everyone has to start somewhere.
    I suspect that if you consistently used an ISO 100-200 negative film your
    results, with regard to exposure and scanning, would significantly improve.
    If you understand what you are doing with the scanned image in
    Photoshop/Elements you can easily make it look like it was shot on Velvia or
    shot through Velveeta.
    This stuff all has a learning curve. I had Photoshop for a long time before
    I grasped the zen of layers, sublayers, regional image adjustment and
    especially the rituals of color management.
    You may find it difficult to keep track of scanned film but with digital the
    problems can be even worse because once images are offloaded from the memory
    card they are nothing but magnetic pulses stored on impefect media.
    Once film is scanned you will not get optimal results unless you understand
    how to process the image in your imaging program. Color ink jet photo
    printing is expensive, frustrating and disappointing until you understand
    how to use color management and have a decent, preferably non-Canon, non-HP
    printer. A higher end printer from a brand that begins with an "E" would be
    a good choice.
    These latter issues are no different when using images shot with a digital
    SLR. Added to this, IMHOP, is that the dSLR is nothing more than a very
    heavy P&S unless you are going to learn how to shoot and process RAW images,
    another significant learning curve. In fact, I would far rather use a film
    SLR than a dSLR in jpeg mode.
    Simply using a D20 is not going to make you a better photographer and may
    lead you into an expensive new world of disappointing results if you do not
    understand how to take reasonably satisfying pictures with the film SLR you
    now own.
    And get out of that Wolf camera shop and find someplace decent to hang out.
     
    bmoag, Nov 9, 2005
    #3
  4. "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >
    > There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film,
    > but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they
    > are really getting.


    Me! Me! I get great resolution from film.

    Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the
    frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.)

    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large

    (Click original to see the pixels.)

    > I have two friends, both of which thought they could do better with
    > their 35mm film camera then I could with my digital, in both cases we
    > both shot the same scenes and compared the results, in both cases
    > neither has shoot film since.


    ROFL. You are one evil dude, guy.

    > Then I hear that get really get 35mm to work you have to use just the
    > right film and have a pro lab process it and then have it drum scanned,
    > this is not for me. I also don't like the idea of shooting ISO 50
    > film.


    I've wasted much of what photo-shooting time I've had the last year playing
    with various films, only to find out that at it's best, Provia 100F is very
    very good and everything else is much worse than Provia on a bad day. Shadow
    detail is lousy, but it holds highlights almost as well as negative films
    and is nearly noiseless out of the scanner.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 9, 2005
    #4
  5. Scott W Guest

    bmoag wrote:
    > Well, everything has a learning curve.
    > It is not clear what aspect of your results from film you are disappointed
    > with.
    > Even Ansel Adams had to start somewhere after his first Kodak Brownie.
    > Velvia can be difficult to expose and scan properly and is not intended as a
    > beginner or all purpose film.
    > It is not clear if it is the elements of basic photography that are
    > problematic for you, post scan digital image processing, color management,
    > etc that is causing you difficulty. If you are happier with your P&S than
    > your SLR methinks there are some problems with your grasp of the basics, but
    > everyone has to start somewhere.
    > I suspect that if you consistently used an ISO 100-200 negative film your
    > results, with regard to exposure and scanning, would significantly improve.
    > If you understand what you are doing with the scanned image in
    > Photoshop/Elements you can easily make it look like it was shot on Velvia or
    > shot through Velveeta.
    > This stuff all has a learning curve. I had Photoshop for a long time before
    > I grasped the zen of layers, sublayers, regional image adjustment and
    > especially the rituals of color management.
    > You may find it difficult to keep track of scanned film but with digital the
    > problems can be even worse because once images are offloaded from the memory
    > card they are nothing but magnetic pulses stored on impefect media.
    > Once film is scanned you will not get optimal results unless you understand
    > how to process the image in your imaging program. Color ink jet photo
    > printing is expensive, frustrating and disappointing until you understand
    > how to use color management and have a decent, preferably non-Canon, non-HP
    > printer. A higher end printer from a brand that begins with an "E" would be
    > a good choice.
    > These latter issues are no different when using images shot with a digital
    > SLR. Added to this, IMHOP, is that the dSLR is nothing more than a very
    > heavy P&S unless you are going to learn how to shoot and process RAW images,
    > another significant learning curve. In fact, I would far rather use a film
    > SLR than a dSLR in jpeg mode.
    > Simply using a D20 is not going to make you a better photographer and may
    > lead you into an expensive new world of disappointing results if you do not
    > understand how to take reasonably satisfying pictures with the film SLR you
    > now own.
    > And get out of that Wolf camera shop and find someplace decent to hang out.


    The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these great results
    from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find.
    http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original

    There are not that many people who have even come close to being
    disappointed with their 20D.

    As for raw vs jpeg, there are cases where the raw file will save the
    shot, but this is normally if the shot was a bit over exposed. Some of
    the raw converters also do a good job of cleaning up CR, but this is
    really not much of a problem in any event.

    My own filling is that if you care about quality then you don't shot
    35mm, you shoot digital or you shoot MF. If the OP really wants to
    give film a chance then he would need to dump the 35mm gear and get a
    MF camera.

    But if 35mm works for you more power to you, but most of us are finding
    that a DSLR not only produces much better looking photos but is also a
    lot more fun to use.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #5
  6. 223rem Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >
    >>There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film,
    >>but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they
    >>are really getting.

    >
    >
    > Me! Me! I get great resolution from film.
    >
    > Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the
    > frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.)
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large
    >
    > (Click original to see the pixels.)


    Wow. No fringing at all.
     
    223rem, Nov 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Scott W Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film,
    > > but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they
    > > are really getting.

    >
    > Me! Me! I get great resolution from film.
    >
    > Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the
    > frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.)
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large
    >
    > (Click original to see the pixels.)


    But then this is what I have always said, if you want high resolution
    out of film you have to shoot at least MF.

    Scott

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #7
  8. "Scott W" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film,
    >> > but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they
    >> > are really getting.

    >>
    >> Me! Me! I get great resolution from film.
    >>
    >> Here's a 6MP crop from a 90MP raw scan (from 6x7). (That's 1/15 of the
    >> frame, so it's like a 0.5 MP crop from a 20D.)
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/large
    >>
    >> (Click original to see the pixels.)

    >
    > But then this is what I have always said, if you want high resolution
    > out of film you have to shoot at least MF.


    We're on the same page there. I started out in MF, and every time I've
    bought a 35mm camera, I've been aghast at what comes out. I just don't get
    it...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 9, 2005
    #8
  9. "bmoag" <> writes:

    > Well, everything has a learning curve.
    > It is not clear what aspect of your results from film you are disappointed
    > with.
    > Even Ansel Adams had to start somewhere after his first Kodak Brownie.
    > Velvia can be difficult to expose and scan properly and is not intended as a
    > beginner or all purpose film.
    > It is not clear if it is the elements of basic photography that are
    > problematic for you, post scan digital image processing, color management,
    > etc that is causing you difficulty. If you are happier with your P&S than
    > your SLR methinks there are some problems with your grasp of the basics, but
    > everyone has to start somewhere.


    I remember back in 2000, when I got my first digital camera (an Epson
    850Z, 2.1MP) after 33 years of 35mm photography, I found myself doing
    nearly all my work with it, despite the various limitations of that
    camera. I'd been working with scanned 35mm for at least 5 years at
    that point, so digital wasn't completely new to me. You may, of
    course, conclude that *I* also lack any grasp of the basics. I don't
    feel that way myself, but who knows?

    > I suspect that if you consistently used an ISO 100-200 negative film your
    > results, with regard to exposure and scanning, would significantly improve.
    > If you understand what you are doing with the scanned image in
    > Photoshop/Elements you can easily make it look like it was shot on Velvia or
    > shot through Velveeta.
    > This stuff all has a learning curve. I had Photoshop for a long time before
    > I grasped the zen of layers, sublayers, regional image adjustment and
    > especially the rituals of color management.


    Particularly since Photoshop didn't *have* color management for the
    first some-number-of-years that I had it :).

    > You may find it difficult to keep track of scanned film but with digital the
    > problems can be even worse because once images are offloaded from the memory
    > card they are nothing but magnetic pulses stored on impefect media.


    I find digital much easier to keep track of and find later, myself.

    > Once film is scanned you will not get optimal results unless you understand
    > how to process the image in your imaging program. Color ink jet photo
    > printing is expensive, frustrating and disappointing until you understand
    > how to use color management and have a decent, preferably non-Canon, non-HP
    > printer. A higher end printer from a brand that begins with an "E" would be
    > a good choice.


    <grin>

    > These latter issues are no different when using images shot with a digital
    > SLR. Added to this, IMHOP, is that the dSLR is nothing more than a very
    > heavy P&S unless you are going to learn how to shoot and process RAW images,
    > another significant learning curve. In fact, I would far rather use a film
    > SLR than a dSLR in jpeg mode.


    That seems silly; unless the jpeg modes on other cameras are a lot
    worse than on my Fuji S2. I resort to RAW mode for extreme situations
    or really critical shots, but the vast majority of the time jpeg is
    fine.

    To me the big difference is the ability to go from 12mm to 300mm
    easily, use extension tubes, etc.

    > Simply using a D20 is not going to make you a better photographer and may
    > lead you into an expensive new world of disappointing results if you do not
    > understand how to take reasonably satisfying pictures with the film SLR you
    > now own.


    Getting the Fuji S2 sure made me a better photographer.

    > And get out of that Wolf camera shop and find someplace decent to hang out.


    Always a good plan.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 9, 2005
    #9
  10. On $DATE , wrote:

    > I have listened to the film-vs-digital argument for years.
    > Inasmuch as I haven't had a chance to experiment with 35 mm film,
    > I could only imagine the kind of resolution I could get if I had
    > a good-quality system and film.
    >
    > Well, this year I began buying fairly nice photographic
    > equipment, nicer and much more expensive than anything I have
    > ever before owned. I have experiemented with films ranging in ISO
    > from 100 to 3200, and even tried Velvia 100F (I asked my local
    > Wolf Camera shop for Velvia film, and that's what they had to
    > special order to get me). My Velvia film is still out of shop
    > being developed, but I've scanned everything else.
    >
    > I have to say, I am disappointed by the results. So far, my
    > cheapy little point-and-shoot Minolta Dimage G500 does as good a
    > job--image quality-wise--as my 35mm Canon Rebel G with a 28-135
    > IS zoom lens. I have been tinkering with this stuff for most of
    > this year, and I simply cannot take photographs with my 35mm
    > camera that look any better than those on my G500. Considering
    > that I have spent nearly 4x more on my film setup than on my
    > digital camera, I am really disappointed.
    >
    > Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan
    > my own negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the
    > special processing I need for slide film, and film is just a
    > losing proposition for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the
    > bullet and buy a good digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.


    I have just switched to digital, (well, aside from a little
    640x480 Penn Cam), and I'm really looking forward to the
    convenience. Still a 35 mm colour negative should be roughly the
    equivalent of 20 Mega Pixels if it was skillfully taken, well
    focused, etc. You loose some of that if you're just using a home
    scanner and especially if you're scanning the 35mm negative...
    you'll loose a lot. I've got a slide copier for me scanner and
    sometimes copy old slides to preserve them, but it's a real battle
    to get proper detail and you can forget about dynamic range. If
    you wanted to get fancy, scan the slide twice if your scanner
    allows for darkening or brightening the scan results. Then you
    might combine the two a la Fuji S3 to get some dynamic range, but
    it's a real pain when you could be doing something more
    productive.
    I was able to get some reasonable results going from film to
    digital by taking a well made, sharp 4x6 print and scanning it at
    300 dpi. I know it's supposed top be too high a resolution for
    that print, I was very pleased with the results. I could zoom
    right in on portions of the result and see several shots contained
    in the one photo. It's sort of like exploring. (These were
    scenic, nature shots, which I love to take). However I would be
    fooling myself if I didn't believe there was considerable loss in
    the process.
    Yes, the detail *is* there in the negative, assuming the negative
    was well produced, but the difficulty is getting it printed.
    Every step in the process has it's losses. Even in the image
    editor, (whichever you use), if you rotate the image one degree,
    you will loose something in that operation. (Rotate 90 degrees and
    you may be OK).
    My old optics professor used to explain to us that the best images
    in the world are made from *one* optical surface, (a telescope
    mirror), because each surface on a lens has it's own distortion.
    Similarly, each operation on an image, which in essence, lenses
    do, introduces it's own losses. So in a way you were right to
    skip the print step in scanning the negatives instead, but unless
    you have a rather unusual scanner I am pretty sure it cannot match
    the detail of the negative you were scanning. Translating an
    analog image from film to a digital image and then comparing them
    to pure digital images, (although the reality you photographed was
    analog to start with, OK), will not be a fair comparison. You'd
    need a dark room and an enlarger with optical qualities at least
    as good as your camera, and produce a print large enough to do
    justice to the detail available in the film. Then compare. You'd
    see the difference in your results, but it might not be a huge
    difference. Film *is* fast becoming an art form, if it's not
    already there.
    The advantage of digital capture, storage and processing is that
    it puts the quality technology in the hands of the common person.
    I'd say right now the bottleneck is in the printing process, but
    who knows where we'll be in ten years.


    --
    Regards,
    Fred.
    (Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)
     
    Fred Williams, Nov 9, 2005
    #10
  11. Cuz Guest

    Scott W <> wrote:
    || bmoag wrote:
    ||| Well, everything has a learning curve.
    ||| It is not clear what aspect of your results from film you
    ||| are disappointed with.
    ||| Even Ansel Adams had to start somewhere after his first
    ||| Kodak Brownie. Velvia can be difficult to expose and scan
    ||| properly and is not intended as a beginner or all purpose
    ||| film.
    ||| It is not clear if it is the elements of basic photography
    ||| that are problematic for you, post scan digital image
    ||| processing, color management, etc that is causing you
    ||| difficulty. If you are happier with your P&S than your SLR
    ||| methinks there are some problems with your grasp of the
    ||| basics, but everyone has to start somewhere.
    ||| I suspect that if you consistently used an ISO 100-200
    ||| negative film your results, with regard to exposure and
    ||| scanning, would significantly improve. If you understand
    ||| what you are doing with the scanned image in
    ||| Photoshop/Elements you can easily make it look like it was
    ||| shot on Velvia or shot through Velveeta.
    ||| This stuff all has a learning curve. I had Photoshop for a
    ||| long time before I grasped the zen of layers, sublayers,
    ||| regional image adjustment and especially the rituals of
    ||| color management.
    ||| You may find it difficult to keep track of scanned film but
    ||| with digital the problems can be even worse because once
    ||| images are offloaded from the memory card they are nothing
    ||| but magnetic pulses stored on impefect media.
    ||| Once film is scanned you will not get optimal results unless
    ||| you understand how to process the image in your imaging
    ||| program. Color ink jet photo printing is expensive,
    ||| frustrating and disappointing until you understand how to
    ||| use color management and have a decent, preferably
    ||| non-Canon, non-HP printer. A higher end printer from a brand
    ||| that begins with an "E" would be a good choice.
    ||| These latter issues are no different when using images shot
    ||| with a digital SLR. Added to this, IMHOP, is that the dSLR
    ||| is nothing more than a very heavy P&S unless you are going
    ||| to learn how to shoot and process RAW images, another
    ||| significant learning curve. In fact, I would far rather use
    ||| a film SLR than a dSLR in jpeg mode.
    ||| Simply using a D20 is not going to make you a better
    ||| photographer and may lead you into an expensive new world of
    ||| disappointing results if you do not understand how to take
    ||| reasonably satisfying pictures with the film SLR you now
    own.
    ||| And get out of that Wolf camera shop and find someplace
    ||| decent to hang out.
    ||
    || The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these
    || great results
    || from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find.
    || http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original
    ||
    || There are not that many people who have even come close to
    || being disappointed with their 20D.
    ||
    || As for raw vs jpeg, there are cases where the raw file will
    || save the
    || shot, but this is normally if the shot was a bit over
    || exposed. Some of
    || the raw converters also do a good job of cleaning up CR, but
    || this is
    || really not much of a problem in any event.
    ||
    || My own filling is that if you care about quality then you
    || don't shot 35mm, you shoot digital or you shoot MF. If the
    || OP really wants to
    || give film a chance then he would need to dump the 35mm gear
    || and get a
    || MF camera.
    ||
    || But if 35mm works for you more power to you, but most of us
    || are finding
    || that a DSLR not only produces much better looking photos but
    || is also a
    || lot more fun to use.
    ||
    || Scott

    What did you do to that picture? Is it an enlargement? What
    setup did
    you shoot it with?

    I shot 35mm and MF for years, still shoot MF but have went to
    digital
    for the smaller format for reasons other than picture quality.

    --
    "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." -- Benjamin
    Franklin
     
    Cuz, Nov 9, 2005
    #11
  12. Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    > bmoag wrote:


    [snip]

    > The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these great results
    > from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find.
    > http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original


    Yeah, that's what my scans look like.

    Last year, I took a trip through Ruidoso, near El Capitan, in New
    Mexico. I stopped at a scenic area and took several photos with my
    Rebel G film camera. When I returned to my home, I developed and
    scanned my negatives, scanning around 2000 dpi.

    A friend who is a strong film-proponent heard my complaint that the
    scans weren't what I had hoped, so he examined my setup. He said that I
    had lots more detail that I could pull out of my negatives using higher
    resolution. So, I took the resolution up to about 3000 dpi. The little
    fuzzy branches now were bigger fuzzy branches.

    > My own filling is that if you care about quality then you don't shot
    > 35mm, you shoot digital or you shoot MF. If the OP really wants to
    > give film a chance then he would need to dump the 35mm gear and get a
    > MF camera.


    In which case, we are no longer comparing similar formats between
    digital and film.

    I have considered getting a larger format camera (MF or LF), but that
    is a lot of money and a completely unfamiliar world for me. I don't
    know what I should get?
     
    , Nov 9, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    says...
    > I have listened to the film-vs-digital argument for years. Inasmuch as
    > I haven't had a chance to experiment with 35 mm film, I could only
    > imagine the kind of resolution I could get if I had a good-quality
    > system and film.
    >
    > Well, this year I began buying fairly nice photographic equipment,
    > nicer and much more expensive than anything I have ever before owned. I
    > have experiemented with films ranging in ISO from 100 to 3200, and even
    > tried Velvia 100F (I asked my local Wolf Camera shop for Velvia film,
    > and that's what they had to special order to get me). My Velvia film is
    > still out of shop being developed, but I've scanned everything else.
    >
    > I have to say, I am disappointed by the results. So far, my cheapy
    > little point-and-shoot Minolta Dimage G500 does as good a job--image
    > quality-wise--as my 35mm Canon Rebel G with a 28-135 IS zoom lens. I
    > have been tinkering with this stuff for most of this year, and I simply
    > cannot take photographs with my 35mm camera that look any better than
    > those on my G500. Considering that I have spent nearly 4x more on my
    > film setup than on my digital camera, I am really disappointed.
    >
    > Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own
    > negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special
    > processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition
    > for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good
    > digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.
    >
    >

    In order to get optimal results from 35mm film you must be careful
    at every step. You should shoot color negative film, instead of slides.
    The film has more latitude and will capture details in the highlights
    and shadows better. It also has less grain (but is slightly less sharp).
    Also you need to shoot a slower speed film (100 ISO).

    When taking the picture you need to focus carefully and you need to
    eliminate camera shake. This is a very common cause of loss of detail.

    Trying to handhold at a slower speed than is optimal, for example.
    Some cameras are easier to hold steady than others. You may be doing
    better with a light weight digital than an SLR with mirror movement
    and a different center of gravity.

    Superzooms are in many cases less sharp than single focal length
    lenses. Many people use them because of the convenience and live
    with the limitations.

    After you get the film back you need to use a high quality scanner
    such as the Minolta 5400 to capture all the detail. If you shot
    color negative you won't have any problems with dynamic range.

    After scanning you need to learn how to resize and sharpen the image
    for the appropriate output usage.
    A slip up at any stage can cause unhappiness.

    Here is an example of what 35mm can do:

    http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html
    --
    Robert D Feinman
    Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
    http://robertdfeinman.com
    mail:
     
    Robert Feinman, Nov 9, 2005
    #13
  14. <> wrote:
    >
    > I have considered getting a larger format camera (MF or LF), but that
    > is a lot of money and a completely unfamiliar world for me. I don't
    > know what I should get?


    Get a used Fuji GS645S (rangefinder), or maybe a Rolleiflex TLR (3.5E with a
    Xenotar) (although TLRs are a bit of an acquired taste). Get an Epson 4990,
    scan at 4800 dpi and downsample to 2000 ppi. That'll give you a 3000 x 4400
    pixel file (or 4400 x 4400) that'll make nicer 11x14s than 35mm or 6/8 MP
    dSLRs can dream of. All for either well under US$1000 (Fuji) or not a whole
    lot over (Rollei). Shoot Provia 100F or Reala.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 9, 2005
    #14
  15. Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <p3ncf.17288$>,
    cuz@_cousins.org says...

    > || The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these
    > || great results
    > || from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find.
    > || http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original
    > ||

    <snip>
    > What did you do to that picture? Is it an enlargement? What
    > setup did
    > you shoot it with?


    To me it looks like a normal result, the typically output of scanning a
    35 mm negative. You don't really believe that a 35mm negative gives you
    18 million sharp pixels, do you ? Usually a good scan of a 35mm negative
    will give you at most 6 (and in any case less than 8) MP of information
    content. And this under optimal conditions (good lens, no camera shake
    etc.). See what you get if the lens is not perfect:

    http://www.ddde.de/Scan.jpg

    Scanned at 4000 dpi, resized to 2000 dpi, applied unsharp mask. By the
    way, there is some vignetting, as you may have noticed.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
     
    Alfred Molon, Nov 9, 2005
    #15
  16. Scott W Guest

    Cuz wrote:
    > Scott W <> wrote:
    >
    > What did you do to that picture? Is it an enlargement? What
    > setup did
    > you shoot it with?
    >
    > I shot 35mm and MF for years, still shoot MF but have went to
    > digital
    > for the smaller format for reasons other than picture quality.
    >


    That was not my photo, I went to PBase.com and looked to see how got
    film photos
    are, you can look at photos based on what camera took them. The photo
    was
    pretty typical of what I see when looking at photos from a 35mm film
    camera.

    The fellow who took the photo put the detail along with the photo, i.e.
    Nikon F100 using Fujichrome Velvia 100F, By looking at the exif data I
    can see it was
    scanned at 4000 dpi.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #16
  17. Scott W Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <p3ncf.17288$>,
    > cuz@_cousins.org says...
    >
    > > || The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these
    > > || great results
    > > || from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find.
    > > || http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original
    > > ||

    > <snip>
    > > What did you do to that picture? Is it an enlargement? What
    > > setup did
    > > you shoot it with?

    >
    > To me it looks like a normal result, the typically output of scanning a
    > 35 mm negative. You don't really believe that a 35mm negative gives you
    > 18 million sharp pixels, do you ? Usually a good scan of a 35mm negative
    > will give you at most 6 (and in any case less than 8) MP of information
    > content. And this under optimal conditions (good lens, no camera shake
    > etc.). See what you get if the lens is not perfect:
    >
    > http://www.ddde.de/Scan.jpg
    >
    > Scanned at 4000 dpi, resized to 2000 dpi, applied unsharp mask. By the
    > way, there is some vignetting, as you may have noticed.
    > --
    >


    As I said in my last reply the photo was not mine but is typical of
    what I see.
    I can't the link to your photo to work BTW.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #17
  18. Scott W Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > I have considered getting a larger format camera (MF or LF), but that
    > > is a lot of money and a completely unfamiliar world for me. I don't
    > > know what I should get?

    >
    > Get a used Fuji GS645S (rangefinder), or maybe a Rolleiflex TLR (3.5E with a
    > Xenotar) (although TLRs are a bit of an acquired taste). Get an Epson 4990,
    > scan at 4800 dpi and downsample to 2000 ppi. That'll give you a 3000 x 4400
    > pixel file (or 4400 x 4400) that'll make nicer 11x14s than 35mm or 6/8 MP
    > dSLRs can dream of. All for either well under US$1000 (Fuji) or not a whole
    > lot over (Rollei). Shoot Provia 100F or Reala.
    >

    I had a cheap TLR when I was a kid, a lot of fun I wish I had keeped
    it. Cheap as it was it took better photos then any 35mm camera that I
    have seen.

    The problem with shooting MF for me in part is that there is no place
    to process 120 film locally.

    What kills me is that it was not untill large enlargements got really
    cheap that I cared for much beyond 35mm, now I really wish I had spent
    the last 25 years shooting MF instead
    of 35mm.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #18
  19. Scott W Guest

    Fred Williams wrote:

    > I have just switched to digital, (well, aside from a little
    > 640x480 Penn Cam), and I'm really looking forward to the
    > convenience. Still a 35 mm colour negative should be roughly the
    > equivalent of 20 Mega Pixels if it was skillfully taken, well
    > focused, etc.


    35mm does not come even close to 20 MP, I have not seen a scan of
    color film yet that has any significant detail past 2000 ppi, which
    puts it just a bit past 5 mp. This is not to say that the best film is
    like a 5 mp
    digital camera, digital cameras also don't fully resolve their pixels
    and need to be down sampled to make
    the pixels look very sharp. But in the end the best 35mm can do is
    maybe 8 MP, some believe maybe as high as 10 MP but I have need seen
    then for myself.

    If you don't believe this take a film image that has been scanned at
    4000 ppi, down sample it to 2000 ppi and then up sample to 4000 again.
    Overlay the two and flip back and forth, you will have to look very
    hard to see any differences at all, in a print you would not be able to
    tell.

    If you want a sharp print from film printed at 300 ppi you better not
    scan much over 2000 ppi. This works out to a magnification of 2000/300
    or 6.5 to one, others will tell you film should be limited to more like
    4.5 to 1.

    There will be people who talk about the great large prints they make
    from their 35mm shoots, to many they might look sharp but not all. I
    made a 12 x 18 inch print from a 8 MP photo, at a distance it looks
    great but up close it is pretty soft, but when I show it to people they
    all think it looks sharp. Old eyes even using bifocals just don't
    see that well up close.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #19
  20. Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > 35mm does not come even close to 20 MP, I have not seen a scan of
    > color film yet that has any significant detail past 2000 ppi, which
    > puts it just a bit past 5 mp.


    Scott, I am not arguing, just clarifying so that our metrics are clear -
    are you referring to drum-scanned 35mm color negative at 8-bits? Honest, I
    am not going to get into arithmetic, but like you I am interested in
    real-world outcomes.

    Thanks,
    li
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Nov 9, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    428
    Ed E.
    Oct 22, 2003
  2. Chris Street
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    801
    Chris Street
    Oct 30, 2004
  3. germano

    Film 35mm :Equivalent resolution with 20 MPXL

    germano, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    532
  4. Dan
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    666
    Joe Pucillo
    May 14, 2005
  5. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    102
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page