dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Erich's previous post on Kodak's shaky future and the differences of film images to digital images prompted me to post this for comment. I too feel that in some cases the subtle differences that film has are a better fit for the mood of a scene. I must stress that I personally have no preference of one over the other as I find that most film vs digital discussions go nowhere and because I too scan the negatives then edit and print digitally, film only plays a small part in the process.

Kodak BW film is not carried in the few stores in my area still selling film and chemistry and there are no labs here processing BW. MF colour must be mailed to a shop in Vancouver.
I have a collection of film cameras that I like to play with but I feel that they are on their way to being ornaments in a few more years.
.

Evening. Ketchican Harbour

(Download)

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

and your shot certainly has that ethereal quality - with the surreal traffic in the approaching gloom/fog. I like this image very much. You did a nice job with the B/W treatment I think. The lights on the ships emphasize the feeling of loneliness and space, not much different than seeing a lit house on Christmas Eve from a dark road.

tramsey Loc: Texas

I agree that there are qualities of film that just are not seen in digital photography, yet. My last film camera was a Nikon FA. I was glad to get rid of the chemicals and saying good by to the time between the shot and the result. But from the first dslr to now the industry has come a long way in a short time. I think in a few years dslr will leave film in its dust. There won't be any qualities of a film camera that dslr won't be able to surpass. It might not even be that long.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I agree with Piet about the lonely feel. Odd because there is a lot going on. The gray tones and weather, soft feel - all contribute. I find all the elements very interesting to view. I like this shot very much!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Before I was willing to retire my film camera, I did an experiment which convinced me that a 6mp digital image would contain all the detail in a Kodachrome 25 slide. So, a modern digital image is sharper than a film image was. What other specific differences are there between film and digital? What characteristics inherent to the image explain what we are seeing?

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I took a good look at this in download and I love the tones in the water. I also think that the grain enhances in this case the fog and gives it that certain look. A very good example of a scanned film image. I don't have a preference really between film and digital. I actually think they are both good and both have their place. If you are developing your own film and are looking for a place to buy chemicals, I buy mine from :

http://stores.photoformulary.com/

If the link does not work properly you can google "Photographers formulary". They have lots of different chemicals. I use the FA-1027 developer. They charge a lot for shipping; but I still think it is worth it.

May I add again that I really like your photograph.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

A thanks to all who replied. I left right after I posted this shot so acknowledgement is tardy. I'm certain that a digital image of the same scene would be comparable and even if different still convey the mood of this one. I don't do comparative shoots as if I venture out with film gear, the digital stays home and vice versa. Just a personal thing.

Thanks for the link Erich. I have heard of this store especially as a source of alternative processes supplies. Ordering stuff from the US can get pricey here as our $0.74 CAD along with shipping and duty gives a considerable extra hit.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I understand that. The company also charges a lot for shipping. Just an idea. I'm sure there are plenty of sources withing Canada that would be a better fit for you.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I agree with you about the ethereal quality. This one has a dreamlike mood that seems to isolate each element in the mysterious looking atmospherics.

Trying to emulate these sorts of things in digital captures is probably an art form in and of itself. One tool I use when dabbling (unsuccessfully for the most part) in this sort of emulation is the NIK Analog Effects plugin which is now free as a part of the whole NIK package. The Analog plug in used as a one click emulation seldom looks very good, but with tinkering across layers it can be tailored.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

I have been playing with the NIK software since it became free. My brother who has more experience with it was able to work my BW negative scans with surprising results using the silver efex filters.

Just for fun, here's one is from my Canon A590 rated at 8 MPX. Low light noise along with some silver efex fiddles gave me this shot that has a filmy look.
.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I sure do love the look of those tall trees on the right side - the tones and shapes are super.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Thanks Linda. This is my take on the obligatory aspen shot

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

This is beautiful Dan. Very nice processing for the effect, great management of the tones and contrast.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That is a difficult comparison to make unless you use a very detailed Kodachrome slide scanned with a good scanner.

I have been using a Coolscan 9000 scanner (4000 dpi) for several years. If you do the math, this can produce a scanned image of over 21 MP.

I have compared the result of printing an 11x14 version of the scanned images printed on an Epson 2880 vs. the same image at the same size on Cibachrome from 30 years back. It's impossible to demonstrate the comparison over the internet without a lot of effort but I find that the Cibachrome version is sharper despite the additional optical step of going through the enlarger lens.

A Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanner at 6300 dpi would do a better job of scanning 35 mm Kodachrome 25. This works out to over 50 MP. But here are some caveats:

1. The best lenses that I used for the Kodachrome 25 images were 50 and 35 mm f/1.4 Nikkors. I don't think they were up to the level that would justify scanning at more than 21 MP.
2. Only the finest grained films like Kodachrome 25 and the slowest current B&W and color films would stand up to this test.
3. Only today's most expensive full frame prime lenses are really capable of holding their own above about 24 MP.

As a result of my tests I have been relying on medium and large format film whenever I want bigger prints. I still use some film for lower resolution full frame stuff, just for fun.

I have also stopped at 24 MP for full frame 35 mm sensors because I don't want to go to the expense of upgrading my prime lenses for higher resolutions.

But the real difference in film vs. digital is not in the resolution. It is in the difference between the naturally non-linear characteristic film curve. It tends to record higher mid-tone and lower highlight and shadow contrasts. To achieve the same result you need to bend the straight-line characteristic response in the digital image through post processing. Film just gives you a head start.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My testing was as follows:

(1) I selected some Kodachrome 25 slides which had identifiable detail on them, such as reading material, railroad equipment with small lettering, rivets, weld lines, and other things that might matter to me. I tried to pick slides which I had felt all long did not capture the sharpness available in the original situation, meaning that this rendition was the best Kodachrome 25 was going to do (*)

(2) I sent the slides to a professional, who scanned them and returned them with a CD of 3000 x 2000 JPEG images

(3) I set my projector up next to our computer, and put the screen across the room

(4) For each slide, I looked for every identifiable detail.

In every case, I was able to find every identifiable detail from the slide on the image. For years I stated my conclusion as "at the level I'm willing to pay for, a 6mp image has as much detail as I was getting from Kodachrome 25", and I kind of wondered how the 50mm f/1.7 lens kitted with my Pentax Super Program {the system used to take most of those slides} had affected my results.

Last year, I switched back away from Canon Rebel cameras, and got myself a Pentax K-30. For the first time in twenty years I was able to use that Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens - for the first time ever on a digital system - so, of course, I did so. I was shocked, and thrilled, when the results were at least as sharp as what I was getting with my more modern Pentax lenses, and sharper than anything I had ever gotten with Kodachrome 25; thus, I concluded that lens had never been the weak spot in my system. I am sure medium format would have given me more sharpness, but I doubt if any 35mm system would have delivered more sharpness than I am getting with my entry-level Pentax DSLR camera today.

(*) Yes, I know that there is always focus accuracy to deal with. However, because of my interest in context, my natural inclination has always been to use f-stops around f/8 {or even f/11 with film}, so I am quite confident that focusing did not cause the minor issues I was aware of.

added: I own an elderly Nikon LS-2000 scanner. It seems to do a reasonable job of catching what is on my slides.