why do digital supporters compare it to digitized film?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Henley, May 29, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest


    "I have an 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds and large prints (ie, above 11x14")
    from this
    camera are noticeably better than prints from *****scanned*****
    fine-grained 35 mm film even though 4,000 dpi film scan files are much

    So for practical purposes we're there already, as far as I'm

    The six megapixel models are getting close (comparing print quality)
    but aren't
    quite there yet."

    I really really really would like someone to tell me that a large
    print from an 11Mpixel Canon 1Ds is better than an
    *****analog/optical***** enlargement from 35mm film.

    You know, the one done so easily on a basic enlarger, similar to the
    one that my brother had in the 1980s. Put a transparency between a
    light and lens and let it shine on paper in a tray, if i remember
    right. Nothing revolutionary about that, just ordinary film stuff.

    Why *****scan***** film to enlarge it?

    Why such convoluted logic? I really find it absolutely bizarre that
    people would commit so passionately to such an obviously flawed
    comparison. Could it be that they have to justify their $8000 purchase
    beyind any doubt?

    I'm not advanced into photography, but I did an MSc and i know that if
    you want to compare things then you have to eliminate bias and
    confounding factors as much as possible, and it strikes me that
    someone would actually go to such lengths to obfuscate an otherwise
    simple comparison.
    Mike Henley, Jun 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Henley

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that (Mike Henley) stated that:
    Most of us here (both film & digital users), aren't quite that
    irrational. ;)
    Actually, we've just had a thread here on that exact issue, in which it
    was pointed out that scanning film is pretty much the only possible
    method of comparing the quality of film vs digital on a website. A
    couple of people also said that a printed enlargement from scanned film
    is actually /better/ than a purely optical enlargement.
    Lionel, Jun 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike Henley

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Since the comparisons are presented on computers, for evaluation by
    others, just how ELSE to get the film image viewable by others on their
    computers? I am sure you are correct for the limited situation in which
    YOU make the test, and compare, but then you are faced by the need to
    prove your conclusion to others not physically near you. What then?
    Ron Hunter, Jun 17, 2004
  4. Mike Henley

    Mark Weaver Guest

    If you're shooting color (which most people are -- at least some of the
    time), then doing darkroom enlargements is not simple, ordinary stuff.
    Doing color in the darkroom was a slow, tedious, pain in the butt, fumbling
    around in the pitch black without a safelight. And not cheap either. Now I
    haven't done color darkroom work since I was in high school, so possibly
    there was a revolution in color darkroom equipment and techniques that I
    missed that now makes it simple and easy, but I don't think so.
    Unless you print your own color, more and more that's what a lab is going to
    do as well--e.g. scan the negative and print from that. And commercial
    customers are going to want scans. So digital vs scanned film ARE the valid
    points of comparison.

    Mark Weaver, Jun 17, 2004
  5. Mike Henley

    gsum Guest

    They invented Cibachrome which is a very easy and forgiving
    but is horribly oversaturated and pretty expensive.

    gsum, Jun 17, 2004
  6. Didn't we let this thread die a few weeks ago?
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.