jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I’m curious if anyone shooting both film and digital have noticed what I think I’m seeing.

I have two systems that are typically used, one a modern 18 mb DSLR with a high quality lens, the other a Rolleiflex E-3 f2.8 Planar. Several times I have taken identical pictures with both cameras, using the same tripod position. I develop the film (TMax 100) and scan it at 2400 ppi. In both cases the images are worked on in CS5 and cropped to 11x14 or so. I think I am seeing more detail in the film-based image when observed on the monitor at 200-300%, but when observed at "normal" size (25-100%), the DSLR image appears more crisp and sharp. This difference appears to carry over to the finished prints. The finished prints definitely have a different "look".

I don't have a good explanation for why this might be the case and am wondering if I need a better scanner to take advantage of the Rollei's good lens. I am currently using an old Epson Perfection 2450 scanner. I have a relative who owns an Epson V750 scanner and will see I can have her scan a negative for me and compare it to my scan.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I'm thinking it has to do with the scanner. Could you please post cropped (the full file is not necessary) examples and not resized?

Thanks.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Humm, are you playing digital,DVD, or analogue, vinyl, music in the background when you examin these photos?

jsutter Loc: Silver Spring, MD

This Wiki article on the optical transfer function covers many of the issues involved in the comparison being discussed. It describes a method of integrating the effect of system contrast on observed sharpness. The section labeled "Example" describes a set of circumstances where a lower resolution image from an oversampling scanner can appear sharper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation_transfer_function

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Thank you jsutter, it is tech articles such as this one, surly slow digestion, that helps us understand tech of optics and preception. Not that it make better photographers of us, but it is facinating knowledge to know. The science behind our chosen hobby/profession can lead to inovative use of our equipment or inovations to improve or simply better use of our equipment settings. Example regular,fast, and slow synk of flash (front/back curtain) discussion in todays forum list,,, it was an Oh, moment, my Sony has a slow sync choice.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, from what I have been able to gather, Shooting a quality lens on medium format and larger with a quality film like T-Max 100 or Velvia and doing a quality scan surpasses current digital stuff.......

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

To me medium format means 2 1/4 square.
Anyway, so many variable are involved here from the developing process, scanning, etc. For the digital side, the type of sensor, full frame or crop, sharpening method, etc.
The best scan you can get is with a drum scanner.
Film, I guess, should give a different look since the silver crystals are suspended at different levels in the gelatin medium.
I read reports that digital and regular 35mm film are equal in the range of 21 to 26 megapixels (big debate about the the range).
Of course lens can contribute to the differences. Like I said, a lot of variables.

jolly1

All the digital cameras and computer programs in God's world will never surpass the good old Film Cameras and film.

Film is professionalism at it's best. Digital cameras are simply toys made for children to amuse themselves with.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Well, indeed, when I time travel with an eye lope into the world of the late 1800 I see detail that is not surpassed by the square pixel crystals of the digital world. The superb details of the old silver process was amazing. With a lope I can see clothing fabric details of the people on the porch of old homes in the 1890s. Truly time travel.


I have a 1927 photo of my sisters taken with one of those fantastic lensed cameras... the Kodak 2A Brownie.... I was able to make a useful 8x10 of each 1/2 face after scanning with an epson scanner.

But, I love my digital world... it is affordable and the colors are better than those "everyone had one" cameras of the 1970. The crap plastic lens cameras... There were of course good cameras... true my Rico 35mm of the period was great and took fantastic b/w. For color I used Seattle Film Works...Have you looked back at the Seattle Film Works CDs of your shots... hay we have come a long way!!!

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

The Epson 750 is a far better scanner than the 2450. The trick is, knowing how to use it to its potential.

Past Epson, consider a used Imacon Precision 2 glassless drum scanner. Most are SCSI interface, which is a bummer, but those scanners cost about the same as a family car when they were new, well over $10,000. I bet used ones could be fairly cheap these days.

The Imacon is a very serious scanner. e.g. I did a multi gigabyte scan with it which recreated a recording studio - life size - from a 4x5 chrome. It worked out at about 300 dpi by 20 feet wide and about 8 feet high. Also did a life size scan of the Grammy Award winning owner from Hasselblad 6x6cm chrome. I scan TMAX 35mm black and whites at about 150 MB each.

The Imacon is the digital darkroom for film people who do not want to spend a few hundred thousand on a REAL high end scanner.

As for myself, I am holding on to my Imacon for the time being. Still considering working with a few hundred thousand frames of the past shot in 4x5, 6x6cm, and 35mm.

Turns out the formulas for Agfapan 25 and Rodinal have been resurrected by some intrepid foreigners, available at Freestyle here in L.A. I plan to indulge my past.

Richard Brown

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

You have to compare 35mm file to 35mm digital. Comparing 35 digital to medium (2 1/4 sq) film is ridiculous. Compare digital 2 1/4 to film 2 1/4.

My digital 35mm surpasses any of my 35mm film. I can take photos that would be impossible with film.

8x10 film, scanned beats everything but that's comparing apples to oranges. But there will be a day when there is a digital 8x10.

jsutter Loc: Silver Spring, MD

No kidding. Cameras that smush bracket series to make printable images from wide SBR compositions are fabulous. And post vis: I've known my way around wet silver and dye imaging processes since the 60's but using a computer, Photoshop enables things I didn't know to want.

Even so, like vinyl and tubes for audio, retro media are none the less capable of rendering resonant images that sometimes aren't quite so true after they're scanned. I'm reminded of the story of the explorer who, upon sighting smoke signals on the horizon, remarked to his native american guide that he wanted to learn to interpret them. His companion replied that he didn't get it - the smoke was just to get your attention.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Haha. It's digitized music from the 20s and 30s.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Thanks for all your comments. I guess my main point is that I was expecting (hoping?) that my scanned medium format images would be far superior to my decent DSLR system. There is apparent consensus that my scanner is marginal, and I fully agree. I am thinking also that b/w film with its grain is inherently difficult to scan at high resolutions.

The V750 has the ability to to scan oil-wetted negs. Does anyone here know if that helps with the grain issue.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

All I know is that drum scanners are considered the best but the average person can not afford one. It costs a lot to have an image scanned by one. A medium (2 1/4 square) negative will produce a more detailed image than a full frame digital 35mm image. However, since the digital has a higher ISO the comparison is only good for low ISO film.