Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne, Jul 25, 2003.

  1. Wayne

    Wayne Guest

    Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?

    What ends up as the best result!

    35mm negative englarged to a 11x17 or 16x20 print!
    35mm negative scanned in say a Nikon Cool Scan IV ED then sent to
    process on same size print?
    Once scanned is it better to burn image on CD sent to process, or
    e-mail to one of those web-photo houses?
    What is the best color printer for under $400 for photos.
    I know….I’m a newbee and need help.

    Thanks,

    Wayne

    Regards,
    Wayne, Jul 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wayne

    Lucas Tam Guest

    (Wayne) wrote in news:2f8fca29.0307241848.36c5dc13
    @posting.google.com:

    > Once scanned is it better to burn image on CD sent to process, or
    > e-mail to one of those web-photo houses?


    You'll most likely need to send the file on CD or through FTP. High quality
    graphic files are usually too large for e-mail. You should never send files
    larger than ~2MB through e-mail (and even 2MB for e-mail is big!)


    > What is the best color printer for under $400 for photos.


    Canon i9000 series is pretty good.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Jul 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wayne

    Comrade Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:49:00 -0700, Wayne wrote:

    > What ends up as the best result!
    >
    > 35mm negative englarged to a 11x17 or 16x20 print!
    > 35mm negative scanned in say a Nikon Cool Scan IV ED then sent to
    > process on same size print?


    maybe not with the cheap scanner, but a good one, and a good printer, like
    a lightjet or a durst, and the quality is the same

    cheap scanner/cheap printer? probably reduce quality by some factor of
    price


    --
    Comrade
    see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
    the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
    http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
    Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
    we must close the door by which aristocracy arises

    Statements of supposed science, without statistics, are just as much religion,
    and ONLY statements of faith as any religion, or statement of faith,
    except they profess the supposed scientist is God, even more
    dangerous than religion or God. There is no science, without a statement of
    statistics, AND any statement without statistics, is a conjecture of faith
    by the professor of such statement, and the "believer". An ethical
    house cleaning of science and government is in order.

    "Does God want goodness? or the choice of goodness?
    Is the man who chooses bad, somehow better,
    than the man who has the good forced upon him?"
    a quote from the movie, A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick

    Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.
    Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding
    without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when
    its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution
    and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
    "Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto
    of enlightenment.
    Kant -- What Is Enlightenment? 1784

    "It all sums up into one single purpose,
    the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live...
    and I traveled the United Front road to get it."
    -- Roger Baldwin, Co-Founder ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

    "Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in
    Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in"
    MOODY BLUES

    "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."--Matthew 16:6
    (religious and political leaders that are hypocrites)

    (leaven is yeast, AIR IN BREAD, bullshit, fluff, marketing, snake oil - HYPOCRISY)

    "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."--Matthew 16:11-12

    "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."--Matthew 23:13

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."--Matthew 23:14

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."--Matthew 23:15

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."--Matthew 23:23

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."--Matthew 23:25

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."--Matthew 23:27

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,"--Matthew 23:29

    "And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod."--Mark 8:15

    "And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,"--Mark 12:38


    see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
    Comrade, Jul 25, 2003
    #3
  4. Wayne

    Lyle Gordon Guest

    With a 400DPI scanner you can produce a print with a max width of 18" if you
    print at 300dpi from a scan of a 35mm neg. so you might need a better
    scanner to eliminate pixelation occuring or you could print optically.

    -Lyle

    "Comrade" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:49:00 -0700, Wayne wrote:
    >
    > > What ends up as the best result!
    > >
    > > 35mm negative englarged to a 11x17 or 16x20 print!
    > > 35mm negative scanned in say a Nikon Cool Scan IV ED then sent to
    > > process on same size print?

    >
    > maybe not with the cheap scanner, but a good one, and a good printer, like
    > a lightjet or a durst, and the quality is the same
    >
    > cheap scanner/cheap printer? probably reduce quality by some factor of
    > price
    >
    >
    > --
    > Comrade
    > see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
    > the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem

    today
    > http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
    > Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
    > we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
    >
    > Statements of supposed science, without statistics, are just as much

    religion,
    > and ONLY statements of faith as any religion, or statement of faith,
    > except they profess the supposed scientist is God, even more
    > dangerous than religion or God. There is no science, without a statement

    of
    > statistics, AND any statement without statistics, is a conjecture of faith
    > by the professor of such statement, and the "believer". An ethical
    > house cleaning of science and government is in order.
    >
    > "Does God want goodness? or the choice of goodness?
    > Is the man who chooses bad, somehow better,
    > than the man who has the good forced upon him?"
    > a quote from the movie, A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick
    >
    > Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.
    > Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding
    > without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when
    > its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution
    > and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
    > "Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto
    > of enlightenment.
    > Kant -- What Is Enlightenment? 1784
    >
    > "It all sums up into one single purpose,
    > the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live...
    > and I traveled the United Front road to get it."
    > -- Roger Baldwin, Co-Founder ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
    >
    > "Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in
    > Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in"
    > MOODY BLUES
    >
    > "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the

    Pharisees and of the Sadducees."--Matthew 16:6
    > (religious and political leaders that are hypocrites)
    >
    > (leaven is yeast, AIR IN BREAD, bullshit, fluff, marketing, snake oil -

    HYPOCRISY)
    >
    > "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning

    bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the
    Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the
    leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the
    Sadducees."--Matthew 16:11-12
    >
    > "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the

    kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither
    suffer ye them that are entering to go in."--Matthew 23:13
    >
    > "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows'

    houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the
    greater damnation."--Matthew 23:14
    >
    > "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and

    land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more
    the child of hell than yourselves."--Matthew 23:15
    >
    > "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint

    and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law,
    judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave
    the other undone."--Matthew 23:23
    >
    > "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the

    outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion
    and excess."--Matthew 23:25
    >
    > "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto

    whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within
    full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."--Matthew 23:27
    >
    > "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the

    tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the
    righteous,"--Matthew 23:29
    >
    > "And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the

    Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod."--Mark 8:15
    >
    > "And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love

    to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,"--Mark
    12:38
    >
    >
    > see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
    >
    Lyle Gordon, Jul 25, 2003
    #4
  5. Wayne

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <ma2Ua.74903$> on Fri, 25 Jul
    2003 04:16:18 GMT, "Lyle Gordon" <> wrote:

    >With a 400DPI scanner you can produce a print with a max width of 18" if you
    >print at 300dpi from a scan of a 35mm neg. ...


    Actually 1.8"

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Jul 25, 2003
    #5
  6. Wayne

    Comrade Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:16:18 +0000, Lyle Gordon wrote:

    > With a 400DPI scanner you can produce a print with a max width of 18" if you
    > print at 300dpi from a scan of a 35mm neg. so you might need a better
    > scanner to eliminate pixelation occuring or you could print optically.


    what I like about Nikon scanners is analog mode pre-scan adjustments,
    optimizes exactly what you are going to put in the bit depth you have

    --
    Comrade
    see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
    the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
    http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
    Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
    we must close the door by which aristocracy arises

    Statements of supposed science, without statistics, are just as much religion,
    and ONLY statements of faith as any religion, or statement of faith,
    except they profess the supposed scientist is God, even more
    dangerous than religion or God. There is no science, without a statement of
    statistics, AND any statement without statistics, is a conjecture of faith
    by the professor of such statement, and the "believer". An ethical
    house cleaning of science and government is in order.

    "Does God want goodness? or the choice of goodness?
    Is the man who chooses bad, somehow better,
    than the man who has the good forced upon him?"
    a quote from the movie, A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick

    Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.
    Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding
    without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when
    its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution
    and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
    "Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto
    of enlightenment.
    Kant -- What Is Enlightenment? 1784

    "It all sums up into one single purpose,
    the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live...
    and I traveled the United Front road to get it."
    -- Roger Baldwin, Co-Founder ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

    "Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in
    Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in"
    MOODY BLUES

    "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."--Matthew 16:6
    (religious and political leaders that are hypocrites)

    (leaven is yeast, AIR IN BREAD, bullshit, fluff, marketing, snake oil - HYPOCRISY)

    "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."--Matthew 16:11-12

    "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."--Matthew 23:13

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."--Matthew 23:14

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."--Matthew 23:15

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."--Matthew 23:23

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."--Matthew 23:25

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."--Matthew 23:27

    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,"--Matthew 23:29

    "And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod."--Mark 8:15

    "And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,"--Mark 12:38


    see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
    Comrade, Jul 25, 2003
    #6
  7. Wayne

    Norman Worth Guest

    11X17 and 16X20 are pretty marginal for 35mm in any case. The scanner, if
    well aligned, should be able to do a reasonable job - about as good as
    optical enlargements for typical negatives, if you get a good scan. All
    scanners have difficulty keeping good focus beyond about 2000 dpi unless you
    have a glass negative carrier.

    "Wayne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?
    >
    > What ends up as the best result!
    >
    > 35mm negative englarged to a 11x17 or 16x20 print!
    > 35mm negative scanned in say a Nikon Cool Scan IV ED then sent to
    > process on same size print?
    > Once scanned is it better to burn image on CD sent to process, or
    > e-mail to one of those web-photo houses?
    > What is the best color printer for under $400 for photos.
    > I know….I’m a newbee and need help.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    > Regards,
    Norman Worth, Jul 25, 2003
    #7
  8. Wayne

    Tammy Combs Guest

    Anyway, a 3 or 4 mp digital camera is considered top of the line in
    affordable dc. . . if you scann your prints with a 2700dpi scanner, it
    turns a 24x36mm full-frame 35mm image into a 2496x3776-pixel scan: 9.4
    megapixels. a 400 dpi scanner furns a full-frame 35mm into a
    3762x5646-pixel scan: 21.2 mp!!!
    Tammy Combs, Jul 25, 2003
    #8
  9. Wayne

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 25 Jul 2003 11:45:33
    -0700, (Tammy Combs) wrote:

    >A good rule for printing those digitals pic.s is: you need 300 dpi
    >per inch at the printed size. Usually you can print a good 8x10 from
    >a 2 megapixel and an 11x14 from a 3 mp. Anyway, you divide the
    >camera's pixel image dimensions by 300, and that is how big you can
    >print. So, a 2 mp image (1600x1200) can print up to 5.3x4 inches, and
    >a 3 mp (2048x1536) up to 6.8x5.1 inches.


    My own rule:

    Assuming that the image has been taken with a good lens, for printing figure
    at least 130 PPI (pixels per inch) for acceptable results (at normal viewing
    distances), and up to 230 PPI for excellent results. With current technology,
    anything more than 300 PPI is pretty much wasted.

    4x6 5x7 8x10
    ------ ------ ------
    Acceptable: 0.4 MP 0.6 MP 1.4 MP
    Very good: 1 MP 1.4 MP 2.5 MP
    Excellent: 1.4 MP 2 MP 4 MP
    Best: 2.1 MP 3 MP 7 MP

    640x480 = 0.3 MP
    1024x768 = 0.8 MP
    1600x1200 = 1.9 MP

    Note that there is much more to the quality of digicam images than the raw
    pixel count. The quality of the lens is an important item that is often
    overlooked -- I'd usually go for 1.4 MP taken with a high-quality lens over
    2.1 MP taken with an inexpensive consumer lens.

    Note also that the above is only my own opinion, and that opinions can and do
    vary widely. ;-)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Jul 25, 2003
    #9
  10. (Wayne) wrote in
    news::

    > Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?
    >
    > What ends up as the best result!
    >


    My experience is that you'll get a better enlargement from the digital
    image.

    Here's a test I did to satisfy my own curiosity:
    http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html

    When anti-digital people here saw this page, they laughed and said "Kodak
    100 Gold! That's crap film! You shoulda used Fuji Velvia slide film. Velvia
    will blow away your digital image".

    So, I got some Fuji Velvia ISO 50 slide film, and came up with this:
    http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Five Megapixels.html

    Then, the anti-digital people here who saw this page said "The scan you got
    is crap! Also, your Canon EF 35-80mm lens is crap! A good scan of a Velvia
    slide taken with a good lens will blow away your digital image. BTW, we
    don't know of any place you can send your slides to get a good scan - you
    really have to buy a $2000 film scanner and do it yourself.".

    So, the bottom line is this: film MIGHT be able to produce better
    enlargements IF you use the right film, and IF your lens is good enough,
    and IF you can obtain a "good" scan, and IF IF IF IF IF...
    Tony Whitaker, Jul 26, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <Xns93C45BB031F44newsgroupstonywhitak@198.99.146.10>, Tony Whitaker <newsgroups@t_o_n_y_whitaker.com> wrote:

    >A good scan of a Velvia
    > slide taken with a good lens will blow away your digital image. BTW, we
    > don't know of any place you can send your slides to get a good scan - you
    > really have to buy a $2000 film scanner and do it yourself.".
    >
    > So, the bottom line is this: film MIGHT be able to produce better
    > enlargements IF you use the right film, and IF your lens is good enough,
    > and IF you can obtain a "good" scan, and IF IF IF IF IF...


    If you want a good scan from a 35mm slde try Artography in Baltimore
    they use a high res Imacon scanner, depending on the file size
    the scans start at $20 dollars each higher res equals more bucks
    and 80mb file might cost you $60. Be assured though if your original
    is not a good one thats what you get in the end. You can't make a silk purse from a
    sows ear.

    www.artography.com

    --
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

    Considering eating out?; You may end up spending a fortune in cookies.
    Gregory W. Blank, Jul 26, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <>, Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > Tony Whitaker writes:
    >
    > > So, the bottom line is this: film MIGHT be able to produce better
    > > enlargements IF you use the right film, and IF your lens is good enough,
    > > and IF you can obtain a "good" scan, and IF IF IF IF IF...

    >
    > That is exactly right. If you use the right film, a good lens, and a
    > very good scan, you can indeed whip digital with film. But it's a lot
    > of work, as you can see. Most photographs do not merit that kind of
    > work, unless technical image quality is of paramount important for you.


    True the fallacy promoted by digital low end users is that film should be
    just as simple as the digi cam, not understanding the many years film
    based photographers in general have spent learning the craft of photography,....most pro
    imagers, if using digital cameras are going to go with the highest end camera they can afford.
    Never the less they will understand the benefits and limits to the digi cam verses
    the benefits and limits of film (if there are any IMHOP),
    but will the following generations, not likely.


    > That is why digital is doing so well in many areas: It provides photos
    > of very good quality with a minimum of fuss. It does not outperform
    > film; HOWEVER, unless you are in a position to spend the time and energy
    > required to get the best results from film, anything you shoot on film
    > is likely to look worse than digital.
    >
    > This is especially true for online use (as opposed to something like
    > prints), because digital cameras produce digital images that can
    > practically be uploaded to a Web site or e-mail as is, whereas film
    > requires careful scanning and other tweaking in order to produce a good
    > digital file. If it's done right, the film result will look better in
    > the end, but if it's done anything less than right, it will look worse.
    >
    > This problem isn't limited to digital vs. film; you see it in 35mm vs.
    > MF, MF vs. LF, on-camera flash vs. multiple external flashes, and so on.
    > The general rule is that the higher the quality you need, the more
    > disportionate the work required to get it; so if you don't need the
    > highest quality, it's a lot cheaper and easier to settle for a little
    > bit less (and dirt cheap if you're willing to settle for a lot less).


    All good points, if you like what your doing and what your getting
    as a result of that effort, it does not seem like work to use
    film and a scanner.

    --
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

    Considering eating out?; You may end up spending a fortune in cookies.
    Gregory W. Blank, Jul 26, 2003
    #12
  13. Tony:
    I downloaded your digital-velvia comparisons and looked at them.
    It is obvious that the film images are blurred due to camera
    shake during the exposure. Unless you have a really sturdy
    tripod, camera shake is more and more a problem as you go
    to higher resolution. Similarly, the flare in your images
    (e.g. see the purple fringing on building edges) shows some
    serious optical problems with your lens.

    To achieve high quality, you need a good lens, sturdy tripod,
    and a good scan. Yes these are "IFs" but these apply to whether
    or not your camera is digital. Your lighter digital camera
    apparently did shake with your tripod like the 35mm camera did.
    What tripod did you use? A velvia test requires a Bogen
    3021 class tripod or better!

    Your 35mm image, scanned at about 2500 dpi) makes a rather
    fuzzy 8x10 enlargement, not at all what a quality 8x10 image
    will print at.

    Fujichrome velvia is a very high resolution film. A 4000 dpi scanner
    is just beginning to show the grain, and does not get all the detail.
    I've done 6000 dpi drum scans to approach getting all the detail
    that is on the film. I have 18x28 inch prints from velvia that
    are much sharper than your image at 8x10. So don't confuse
    improper technique for fundamental quality issues.

    I have extensive testing of scanned velvia (35mm to large format)
    versus digital at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

    The summary of 35mm film versus digital is at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    where I show velvia is 10 to 16 digital megapixel equivalent
    (10 for intensity and 16 for color detail).

    You will note on my pages that I use digital cameras a lot so I am
    not one of those "film fanatics." I use the best tool I can for
    the situation. Sometimes that is digital (like wildlife action
    photography), others it may be a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera (like
    landscapes when there is no wind).

    So, Tony, please study your technique, and look for ways to
    improve. That is what I continue to do--always learn and
    strive to improve.

    Roger Clark
    Photography, digital info at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com



    Tony Whitaker wrote:

    > (Wayne) wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?
    > >
    > > What ends up as the best result!
    > >

    >
    > My experience is that you'll get a better enlargement from the digital
    > image.
    >
    > Here's a test I did to satisfy my own curiosity:
    > http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html
    >
    > When anti-digital people here saw this page, they laughed and said "Kodak
    > 100 Gold! That's crap film! You shoulda used Fuji Velvia slide film. Velvia
    > will blow away your digital image".
    >
    > So, I got some Fuji Velvia ISO 50 slide film, and came up with this:
    > http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Five Megapixels.html
    >
    > Then, the anti-digital people here who saw this page said "The scan you got
    > is crap! Also, your Canon EF 35-80mm lens is crap! A good scan of a Velvia
    > slide taken with a good lens will blow away your digital image. BTW, we
    > don't know of any place you can send your slides to get a good scan - you
    > really have to buy a $2000 film scanner and do it yourself.".
    >
    > So, the bottom line is this: film MIGHT be able to produce better
    > enlargements IF you use the right film, and IF your lens is good enough,
    > and IF you can obtain a "good" scan, and IF IF IF IF IF...
    Roger N. Clark, Jul 26, 2003
    #13
  14. (Gregory W. Blank) wrote in news:WhoWill-
    :

    > If you want a good scan from a 35mm slde try Artography in Baltimore
    > they use a high res Imacon scanner, depending on the file size
    > the scans start at $20 dollars each higher res equals more bucks
    > and 80mb file might cost you $60.


    Oh yeah! I forgot to mention that your 35mm film enlargements will cost
    MUCH MUCH more.

    Woo wee! You might get a better enlargement from film if you pay $60 to
    have Artography in Baltimore scan your slide for you.
    Tony Whitaker, Jul 26, 2003
    #14
  15. "Roger N. Clark" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Your lighter digital camera
    > apparently did shake with your tripod like the 35mm camera did.
    > What tripod did you use? A velvia test requires a Bogen
    > 3021 class tripod or better!


    Oh my goodness. So, even my tripod wasn't good enough? It's a Slik medium
    size tripod I've had since 1987 or thereabouts. It's not a monster tripod
    like you might need to use to get the best results with Fuji Velvia film,
    but it isn't a lightweight tripod, either.

    My goodness. There are so many factors to consider when trying to make 35mm
    film do as good a job as a good digicam.

    Any others you can think of? How about the alignment of the planets? I
    think Jupiter might have been aligned with Saturn when I took that picture.
    Tony Whitaker, Jul 26, 2003
    #15
  16. Tony,Tony,Tony.

    Hey I shoot 35mm, 6x6, 4x5, 8x10 don't whine to me about cost, chucklehead, I've been
    doing this way too long.

    With no equipment cost factored into to the equation, I make my own conventional
    8x10 film to photo paper enlargements for about 55¢.

    If I scan the slides and print the image on inkjet paper its about the same maybe a little
    more.

    In article <Xns93C495CAAD099newsgroupstonywhitak@198.99.146.10>, Tony Whitaker <newsgroups@t_o_n_y_whitaker.com> wrote:

    > (Gregory W. Blank) wrote in news:WhoWill-
    > :
    >
    > > If you want a good scan from a 35mm slde try Artography in Baltimore
    > > they use a high res Imacon scanner, depending on the file size
    > > the scans start at $20 dollars each higher res equals more bucks
    > > and 80mb file might cost you $60.

    >
    > Oh yeah! I forgot to mention that your 35mm film enlargements will cost
    > MUCH MUCH more.
    >
    > Woo wee! You might get a better enlargement from film if you pay $60 to
    > have Artography in Baltimore scan your slide for you.


    --
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

    Considering eating out?; You may end up spending a fortune in cookies.
    Gregory W. Blank, Jul 26, 2003
    #16
  17. (Gregory W. Blank) wrote in
    news::

    > Tony,Tony,Tony.
    >
    > Hey I shoot 35mm, 6x6, 4x5, 8x10 don't whine to me about cost,
    > chucklehead, I've been doing this way too long.
    >
    > With no equipment cost factored into to the equation, I make my own
    > conventional 8x10 film to photo paper enlargements for about 55¢.


    "Chucklehead"? That doesn't sound very nice.

    Sure - if you've got the equipment to do the work, it'll be cheap. But
    spending $60 to get a good scan so you can get a good enlargement from a
    35mm slide makes the cost WAYYYY too high for almost everybody.
    Tony Whitaker, Jul 26, 2003
    #17
  18. Wayne

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Roger N. Clark writes:

    > Fujichrome velvia is a very high resolution film. A
    > 4000 dpi scanner is just beginning to show the grain,
    > and does not get all the detail.


    I agree.

    This image was shot on a tripod, with the mirror locked up, using a
    cable release:

    http://www.mxsmanic.com/FullScan.jpg

    This is 100% of the original scan size. See a lot of grain here? I
    don't.

    The scan is pulling essentially everything off the film in this image; I
    checked. However, the limiting factor in this case may have been the
    lens, not the film (although it was a good lens).

    > I've done 6000 dpi drum scans to approach getting all the detail
    > that is on the film.


    Do you see more usable detail in these scans (for suitably stabilized
    shots)? Even if the film records it, many lenses won't.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 26, 2003
    #18
  19. Wayne

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Tony Whitaker writes:

    > There are so many factors to consider when trying to make 35mm
    > film do as good a job as a good digicam.


    Digicams have the same problem.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 26, 2003
    #19
  20. Tony Whitaker wrote:

    > "Roger N. Clark" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Your lighter digital camera
    > > apparently did shake with your tripod like the 35mm camera did.
    > > What tripod did you use? A velvia test requires a Bogen
    > > 3021 class tripod or better!

    >
    > Oh my goodness. So, even my tripod wasn't good enough? It's a Slik medium
    > size tripod I've had since 1987 or thereabouts. It's not a monster tripod
    > like you might need to use to get the best results with Fuji Velvia film,
    > but it isn't a lightweight tripod, either.
    >
    > My goodness. There are so many factors to consider when trying to make 35mm
    > film do as good a job as a good digicam.


    No, the same factors. But as image detail and dynamic range goes up, it gets
    harder to record.

    > Any others you can think of? How about the alignment of the planets? I
    > think Jupiter might have been aligned with Saturn when I took that picture.


    This kind of response shows you are not seriously looking at your
    images, nor to what I said. Investigate the evidence.
    If one person is able to get more detail out of velvia than
    you do, then maybe there is something to investigate,
    rather than making off-handed comments about planetary
    alignments. Go to Norman Koren:
    http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

    His results fall exactly with mine. So do many others.
    Thus, there is a preponderance of evidence that shows what
    velvia can do and what sharp images can impart in the
    visual experience.

    Now if you want some additional advice, your digital images
    are overexposed. The brightest clouds are blocked high.
    That makes for a poor cloud rendition. You would do better
    to close down a stop or so, then adjust sky and ground
    separately in image editing software. or use a split
    density filter. Your images would then have more impact.

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark, Jul 26, 2003
    #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. Stu

    Enlargements from Digital?

    Stu, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    701
    Scott Elliot
    Sep 29, 2003
  2. Jack

    Nikon Digital for enlargements

    Jack, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    256
    [BnH]
    Dec 29, 2004
  3. mark.worthington

    Digital vs Film for enlargements

    mark.worthington, Mar 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    788
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Mar 7, 2005
  4. Rainbow Girl Sue

    Good Online Digital Photo Enlargements

    Rainbow Girl Sue, Mar 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    364
    Stewy
    Mar 30, 2006
  5. Best Digital Enlargements?

    , Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    245
Loading...

Share This Page