Digitized film vs digital: In another post I mentioned that I had gone to a local camera store to explore selling my old Linhoff 4x5 Tech with three Schneider lenses. After listening...

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

In another post I mentioned that I had gone to a local camera store to explore selling my old Linhoff 4x5 Tech with three Schneider lenses. After listening to his offer, which was nothing, the salesman said "why don't you give it a try with a high quality scan of the film". His logic, there are certain characteristics of film, especially with a 4x5 negative or transparency that you can't get even with a full framed digital slr, like my Canon D6. I went, HMMMMMMMM? So for you experts out there, considering I were to do a landscape, what differences would I expect to see if I had identical photos with a scanned 4X5 transparency vs. the same image from my D6. I'm curious. If I am going to go through the film process, timely and a few extra bucks, what would I anticipate to see? Assuming of coarse all else being equal.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Nalu wrote:

.. what differences would I expect to see if I had identical photos ..

With identical photos, there would be no differences at all.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Leitz wrote:

With identical photos, there would be no differences at all.

Not according to the salesman, who is a professional photographer. He said there would be different "characteristics". And that is what I am trying to understand. I think the film purists would comment differently than "identical". This is an asthsetic (sp?) question.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Nalu wrote:

In another post I mentioned that I had gone to a l... (show quote)

Dust is a huge problem on my scanned slides.

Although a film print can be higher detail I can't imagine maintaining that with a scan compared to using today's high MP sensor cameras. Might have been true ten years ago.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

MtnMan wrote:

Dust is a huge problem on my scanned slides.

Although a film print can be higher detail I can't imagine maintaining that with a scan compared to using today's high MP sensor cameras. Might have been true ten years ago.

I'm talking about a large transparency here, with a high resolution scan. Detail is one characteristic, but there are many others as well.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Nalu wrote:

Not according to the salesman, who is a professional photographer. He said there would be different "characteristics". And that is what I am trying to understand. I think the film purists would comment differently than "identical". This is an asthsetic (sp?) question.

If there are differences, the photos could not possibly be identical, could they?

Haydon

Don't be blind that the salesman is most interested in your money regardless of him being a professional photographer.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Leitz wrote:

If there are differences, the photos could not possibly be identical, could they?

No, they wouldn't be. Same composition, but different characteristics, at least according to the pro. How are they different? That's the question.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Nalu wrote:

No, they wouldn't be. Same composition, but different characteristics, at least according to the pro. How are they different? That's the question.

This is interesting talking to someone in Jolly old London and I'm on the west (left) coast of California.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Haydon wrote:

Don't be blind that the salesman is most interested in your money regardless of him being a professional photographer.

He has nothing to sell me, other than some film and processing.

RLSeipleSr Loc: North of Boston

Nalu wrote:

He has nothing to sell me, other than some film and processing.

If your cost is film and processing ... and the cost is not that great ... try it for yourself and see ... !

Leitz Loc: Solms

Nalu wrote:

No, they wouldn't be. Same composition, but different characteristics, at least according to the pro. How are they different? That's the question.

I was being facetious, of course. My own experience has led me to consider film of any size to be best for wet printing, although high resolution drum scans, especially from 4x5 and larger negatives or transparencies, can be stunning. Unless you are making gigantic prints, the expense is difficult to justify, in my opinion.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Leitz wrote:

I was being facetious, of course. My own experience has led me to consider film of any size to be best for wet printing, although high resolution drum scans, especially from 4x5 and larger negatives or transparencies, can be stunning. Unless you are making gigantic prints, the expense is difficult to justify, in my opinion.

Added: The main advantage of a view camera is the swing, tilt and shift controls.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Movements and far higher resolution. Scanned 4x5 is still higher in resolution than digital. If you are working with bw or color negative, the dynamic range is far better than digital.

Also, remember that as digital evolves, large format backs could emerge and become increasingly cheaper. You could eventually get one.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Darkroom317 wrote:

Movements and far higher resolution. Scanned 4x5 is still higher in resolution than digital. If you are working with bw or color negative, the dynamic range is far better than digital.

Also, remember that as digital evolves, large format backs could emerge and become increasingly cheaper. You could eventually get one.

Thanks for that comment. I think by the time a digital back is available for a 4X5 that I don't have to sell my home to get, I will be long gone.