agillot

you can adapt 35mm lenses of any brand to any digital camera with a fotodiox adapter , i wonder if you could use those 3 lenses on a DSLR ? with some kind of adapter .so all is not lost

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I think that the film vs digital debate brings out a lot of hooey, a bit like similar discussions in Audio. There's no doubt that film is different to digital but that doesn't make it better, just different. Yes film has a more gradual transition into highlight clipping but there again, digital has more dynamic range meaning that it's easy to control the clipping. Yes, some may prefer film grain and some can well do without it and so on.

You can have a look at this 4x5/digital comparison. but the article is well out of date and we now have much higher resolution sensors available so things have moved considerably forward.

I'm not saying that 4x5 is a complete no-no; if you already have the camera and don't take many images, it can work out Ok but remember a good drum scan can cost up to £30 a frame plus your film and processing costs.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

Nalu,

Your contact across the Pond may be referring to the difference between a film contact print, and a digital > JPG file. There will be a difference when viewed through a magnifying device.

Digital cameras have the options to save the captured exposure in RAW format, and JPG format. The RAW file is equivalent to a film exposure after chemical processing. We cannot view a RAW file without some type of visual conversion. This is where the camera’s supplied software comes in handy; it makes a visual conversion in the computer so we can view the exposure with our eyes. We cannot print that file, or share it with others unless others have that camera’s RAW conversion application.

Assume, for the moment, you have a 4 x 5 film camera with ISO=200 film installed, and you set-up a still shot of an Orange. You photograph this for maximum sharpness and DOF.

You perform the same task with a 4 x 5 digital backed camera, Set ISO=200. This time set the camera for RAW +JPG

You process the film exposure with the appropriate chemicals, and then make a contact print and process the paper with chemicals.

With the digital exposure display only the RAW image on the computer screen, make a screen shot of the image.

Now open the digital version of the JPG image and compare the fine details of all three visual presentations, use a magnifying device to compare the indentations of the Orange skin.


The difference you will see is the compression process between the raw image and the camera processed image to jpg.

Michael G

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

In scanning film, one needs to keep the original silver halide grain size in mind. Knowing this enables one to scan to the level of detail theoretically possible. Scanning at higher resolutions can not add detail and could add noise. Above grain size is the actual detail captured on the negative. As scanning onoy consumes time, you could scan at three resolutions and compare the results to see which matches your tastes.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I would suggest you go to Ken Rockwell's site and search around - he has left many opinions regarding film as being the ultimate in image capture - at least that was my take - he shows many examples too ........

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I have shot 8X10 and 4X5. These days when I shoot film, I keep it to 6X9 ( wide angle) and 6X4.5 (telephoto) on 120 film to control costs.

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

I have scanned files of 6x7 slides taken with my Pentax 67II and Pentax Lenses, usually on a tripod, but not always.. The images I have printed from this scans are terrific. I think they better than anything I have done using my digital camera. Particularly sunset or other landscapes with a large range of tones. I use a Canon 1DS III, with all "L" lenses. I do not use the Pentax often because the high quality scans at my local camera shop cost between $35-$50 each. That is after I buy the film, I use Extachrome, and pay to have it processed. I have thought about purchasing a scanner, but they are between $800 - 2000. I keep looking for a good quality used scanner. So I keep my Pentax and every once and a while take it out, but the Canon gives me very good prints as large as 16 x 20.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

A high quality scan from medium or large format film, is a thing of beauty. You will be blown away with the results.

Rickyb

It is worth a scientific try. I have found that most film (35mm) does not have the information that equi. dig does.
A 4x 5would have a greater numbers of hits points per scene and an difference in artistic semblance than dig film. It is worth a try. How many things did we try in film era when there was no other way?? Now things are too easy!

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

You would see a much higher image quality of coarse ( with the film image that is). Digital just can't touch film!!!

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

I've had some of my 2X3 Crown Graphic with 6X7 roll film back slides scanned as late as last summer and WOW, big difference. There is so much more information available on the scan that there is almost no comparison with even mega-pixel DSLR's. Given sensor sizes of full frame DSLR's and medium format or even large format (4X5) scans, a good scan should create a 30 to 40 plus meg file to work with. Pixellation should not be an issue unless you're doing enlargements of 8X10 FEET.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Different films had different characteristics and curves. I also shot a Linhof and loved that camera. Sheet film made me a more careful photographer.

But as far as I can see, there was nothing in the various film characteristics that cannot be closely duplicated in post-processing a digital.

Nostalgia is a powerful force and I do miss my Mamiyaflex, Linhof and earlier Speed Graphic, but I don't think the reality was better. And we were doing a real disservice to the environment with all the toxic chemicals I was using.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Here's a link to a skeleton of an article page I started, but never got around to revising. There are several examples of the detail one can obtain from a film image. Photographing from the same location, using the same focal length on a digital would not enable one to extract that kind of detail.

http://malarz.com/articles/

--Bob

Kuzano

If you have not done any scanning with a flatbed... (I keep buying Epson V series flatbeds in the hope they will improve), my suggestion would be to take your best film negs or transparencies and first buy a couple of drum scans from a pro lab.

If that meets your standards, then consider a flat bed. Prepare to be disappointed (perhaps).

I have purchased over time two V500 Epsons, one V700 and one V750. All of my money and many hours spent have been wasted. Film flatness, better film holders, dust, Ok for 35, horrible for 120 or sheet film.

Fortunately there is a well (professionally) equipped rental lab about 100 miles away that can afford "real" scanning equipment. Complete developing, enlarging and printing, so that I can stay "WET"!!!

Otherwise it's drum scans. I won't waste any time or another penny on lesser equipment.

William J Renard

The 4 x 5 area on a film exceeds that of a digital camera, unless you have a
digital camera with a 4x 5 area. the scanned image from a 4x 5 film at the same
mega pixels as the digital camera, the 4 x 5 should outdo the digital camera.
if I could get a digital back for my Linhoff and my hasselblad, I would not need
a digital camera. In the old days we knew that the large format, always
outdid the 35mmm or 120 size