Digital or Traditional?

[Bacardi]

sparkyjohn said:

That's far from the truth at this point in the development of digital. 6 megapixel images will be visibly worse than film images above A4 size, 11 megapixel is approaching film quality and, in the circumstances outlined above, will give an image close to indistinguishable from 35mm film, but to suggest that it's close to medium format ? Not by a long way,

So I take it you didn't read Michael Reichmanns review above then? I quote:

"The transition from medium format film to high-end digital is very new, but it is happening very quickly. During the past few months I have personally spoken and had correspondence with a number of leading professional photographers on this topic. Universally their comments echo those of Melvin Sokolsky, one of America's top photographers, as reproduced here from a recent commentary made on this site's Discussion Forum.

For the past year I have been shooting for various magazines, - Vogue… Harper’s Bazaar…Vibe – with the Canon 1D and recently with the 1Ds. I was told by the math-bound technocrats that I could not print a double page spread with the 1D. - a Vogue spread is 11x17 - only to prove them wrong by printing a Kodak Approval print for the 1D file against the 6x7 film 200mg file drum scanned on a Crossfield. When I asked the printer to pick the Kodak Approval he thought was best; he picked the 1D Kodak Approval. No contest!

.... It is my experience that the 1Ds images appear to be almost grainless and sharper than 6x7 film. Compare prints — any size — from each format and the 1Ds print is chosen every time. — Melvin Sokolsky"

www.sokolsky.com/

sparkyjohn said:

even the very best digital slrs show some artifacts which give an air of 'artificiality'. You can get pictures at close the quality of medium format, or at least as close as makes no difference after reproduction, but the technology to do so is well into 5 figures.

Well it's horses for courses but, most high quality photography is usually destined for reproduction in print, magazines, books and posters, either large format ink-jet or 4 colour. So if it makes no difference there's not much point arguing about it. But, respectfully, I will argue. To say a a 6 megapixel image is visibly worse than film printed above A4 (you don't say litho but will assume you mean that as it is the least forgiving) is incorrect as proven in the above quote. And, if you are not aware, the 1D in the above illustration is only 4 megapixel!

As for 'artifacts which give an air of 'artificiality' , maybe you have seen some samples from a Kodak 14n which does exhibit some 'strangeness', but then that is a crap camera. You cannot compare like for like or compare one resolution of one camera to another. I must admit that I haven't been blown away by the images I get from my 1ds in the same way I was from my Phase One Light Phase back which, although is in another ball park in terms of price, is nearly half the resolution of the Canon. But this is down to bit depth. Most DSLRs capture in 12 bits per colour were as the pro backs backs capture in 14. But both of them absolutely pi$$ all over 35mm film in terms of detail, sharpness, colour accuracy, exposure latitude, noise & grain free. They also don't suffer from what Kodak used to call 'anomalous reflectance syndrome', where certain colours, mainly greens and browns would 'flip' to another colour. The worst problems with digital is dust on the sensor (DSLRs only) and very occasional moire patterning when shooting fabrics.

Just before I went digital I shot a set of brochures for a large Insurance company. Mainly People, lifestyle shots on 35mm film. A year or so later I had to update one of the shots and I shot it digitally. Trouble was the shot was soooooo much better than the drum scanned trannies that had to sit on the opposite page, the agency were crapping themselves that we would have to re-shoot on film. In the end we degraded the digital file with by continually blurring and adding noise until it was close to the film scans, but it was hard work.

I used to shoot mainly on medium format & 5X4 transparency film for my clients but for the last 4 years have been shooting exclusively digitally with my 'inadequate' 6 megapixel back up to A2 with no problems. My clients love it, I think, I if suggested going back to film they would murder me.

...with respect.

[luca brazzi]

nubbin said:

I've just bought one of the Canon 300D jobbies, because I have been waiting for the first affordable digital slr - I've gradually gone from film, to digital, to digital with electronic viewfinder, and now back to a proper SLR but with "digital film"...... .....It is a sheer pleasure to be handling and SLR again, and to be honest I don't mind the fact that it's digital - it still takes great pictures....

Me too...got the 300D 10 days ago (early Xmas pressie to me)....reminded how much I missed SLR too. Agree with everything you've written....even the bit about imagination

LB

[Nacnud]

I'm with Barcadi here.....

I've had two Sprint front covers with images that weren't full frame and a Sprint double page spread. Quality wasn't an issue, it was more than aedequate!

I also regularly blow up to 15" x 10" for camera club usage (so it has to be spot on quality wise) and at this size the results I get from my digital are better than 5 of the 6 lenses I have on my EOS 5.

Which digital camera do I have ?
Canon Powershot S40; a 4Mpixel compact camera, looks silly on a UniLoc tripod but hey-ho!

[Nacnud]

Having said that - you can't beat the sound of an EOS 5 on full chat. Gorgoeus!

Sort of like a camera equivalent of the Rover V8

[sparkyjohn]

Bacardi said:

So I take it you didn't read Michael Reichmanns review above then?

Naturally I did, but it fails to compare like with like. It's comparing the highest quality obtainable from a 1Ds with a, frankly, diabolical 'drum scan' (though if that's a $300 drum scan I'm the Pope). A more realistic like for like would be between a wet print from the 6x7 and a top quality print from the 1Ds.

What's clearly indicated is that a good digital file is superior to a bad film scan. This is news to no-one.

To say the 1Ds lacks a digital artificiality is clearly nonesense, one need only look at the fringing in the upper enlarged shots of the skyscrapers.

If one is to produce images for cmyk print then digital is clearly easier, cheaper (when all costs are considered) and can produce images of excellent quality. If one is producing images for archive or for photographic 'wet' reproduction I would strongly argue that film continues to be the superior medium.

Film also shows advantages in the 'real world'. It's far cheaper and there's a 35 year history of useable 35mm slrs many of which can use lenses to at least the quality of those available today. One could put together a set-up of professional quality for well under £500 a feat as yet unobtainable in digital.


>> Edited by sparkyjohn on Saturday 29th November 00:58

[TT Tim]

Nacnud said:

I'm with Barcadi here..... I've had two Sprint front covers with images that weren't full frame and a Sprint double page spread. Quality wasn't an issue, it was more than aedequate! I also regularly blow up to 15" x 10" for camera club usage (so it has to be spot on quality wise) and at this size the results I get from my digital are better than 5 of the 6 lenses I have on my EOS 5. Which digital camera do I have ? Canon Powershot S40; a 4Mpixel compact camera, looks silly on a UniLoc tripod but hey-ho!

Now I think you're on stoney ground.

Whilst I think that Sprint is an excellent magazine, the quality of some of the images is only just acceptable, some shots have simply been enlarged too much.

Tim

[Bacardi]

I think we will have to agree to differ.

sparkyjohn said:

Naturally I did, but it fails to compare like with like. It's comparing the highest quality obtainable from a 1Ds with a, frankly, diabolical 'drum scan' (though if that's a $300 drum scan I'm the Pope). A more realistic like for like would be between a wet print from the 6x7 and a top quality print from the 1Ds. What's clearly indicated is that a good digital file is superior to a bad film scan. This is news to no-one.

Mr Reichmann is a well respected reviewer of digital technologies in the professional world he, being among a few, who get there hands on manufacturers pre production models for testing. As for comparing to wet prints he says:

"What else is there to say? Someone will inevitably ask — why didn't you do a comparison with a traditional wet darkroom print? The answer is because I no longer do them, and the reason is because current inkjet prints surpass chemical prints in every respect. No contest."

I agree with him. The difference between the Imacon scan and the drum scan, from experience, looks about right to me. The difference between the drum scan and the 1ds is sod all, yet on the previous page you say "to suggest that it's close to medium format ? Not by a long way" is clearly incorrect. Your comment about " 6 megapixel images will be visibly worse than film images above A4 size" is, it would seem, also incorrect unless you are seriously questioning the professional capabilities of Vogues repro dept.

sparkyjohn said:

If one is to produce images for cmyk print then digital is clearly easier, cheaper (when all costs are considered) and can produce images of excellent quality.

Glad we agree on something.

sparkyjohn said:

If one is producing images for archive or for photographic 'wet' reproduction I would strongly argue that film continues to be the superior medium.

Disagree. The most beautiful prints I have ever seen come from an ink-jet and digital files. As for archival prints unless you are printing Cibachromes or lock your C types away in a climate controlled dark room. Your prints will fade. The newer inks are more light fast than C types (the manufacturers claim up 100 years but obviously the verdict will be out on that one for a while), you can produce a far wider gamut of colours and the quality and tonal range is much better. You have to do a little work to achieve this, like using the right printer/ink combination and then have a custom profile written for your printer, but give me an ink-jet every time.

sparkyjohn said:

Film also shows advantages in the 'real world'. It's far cheaper and there's a 35 year history of useable 35mm slrs many of which can use lenses to at least the quality of those available today. One could put together a set-up of professional quality for well under £500 a feat as yet unobtainable in digital.

You can certainly buy a cheap camera and lens but lens technology improves along with everything else over time. The optics and multi coatings of modern lenses are far superior to a lens made 35 years ago. £500 will buy you a very usable camera capable of high quality results but, for the price, digital is not far behind and digital quality is improving by the month. We used to try the latest film to see how it had improved sensitivity, finer grain & better colour. Well, now we have it, it's called digital. Film on the other hand is in decline. In September Kodak announced "heavy losses in
their film division", & "and have announced that they will make no more major investment in consumer film". That's from the horses mouth.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate film, it does have a unique quality of it's own. There is nothing like the magic of being in a dark room and by the glow of a red lamp watch an image appear on a piece white of paper as you dip it in the dev. But, like Victorian gas light technology or the vinyl record, its days are numbered in the 'real world'.

If I am so wrong about this why does 70% (and rising) of the worlds professional photographers (not including the wedding and portrait jockeys) shoot digitally? Are you seriously suggesting we have all taken a major step backwards and supply our clients with inferior quality than they were used too?

Fortunately we live in a free country and we have the choice about how we want to take pictures and, at the end of the day, it's the image that matters.
So, if you use film, digital or daguerreotype and wet collodion (now, they really are magical), happy snapping.

Cheers
Paul
getsoff

[Bacardi]

TT Tim said:

Now I think you're on stoney ground. Whilst I think that Sprint is an excellent magazine, the quality of some of the images is only just acceptable, some shots have simply been enlarged too much.

To be fair to Nacnud, we don't know which were his shots, but would have to agree, there have been some terrible pics in there, unless of course they are there as 'art'? In which case anything goes.

[ehasler]

TT Tim said:

As for scanning, short of spending proper money on a scanner you will not get decent results from a home scanner, having said that there is a Umax 3000 on eBay ate the moment at a rediculously cheap price, I paid £4K for mine! As for negatives, even the best repro houses won't scan negs, the conversion software is just too hit or miss. Just don't do it. Have a print done and scan that. Tim

How much would you define "proper money" as?

I've got a 4000dpi Canon FS4000 film scanner, which seems to do pretty decent scans, however they never look as sharp as the original slide on screen, although when printed out in A4 look OK.

I've never seen a proper comparison between this sort of scanner, and a pro quality one, and would be interested to know what the difference actually is.

Also, you say that it's not worth scanning a negative, however I've personally found that I've got better results from scanning the negs than scanning the print that accompanied them, although admittedly most of my print films have been developed on the high street (Snappy Snaps in the main).

Would you really get better results from scanning the print, as opposed to the original negativem even if you used a decent film scanner?

[sparkyjohn]

Bacardi said:

I think we will have to agree to differ.

Indeed (although if you stop using the phrase "with respect" it'll make that easier )

With regards to the growing use of digital, it's become accepted not for its quality, but rather for its cost, ease of use and speed. A photojournalist or, for that matter, a product photographer, for the bulk of their work, is more motivated by speed and efficiency than by the outer limits of quality. The visual (as opposed to technocratic) elite in photography is just beginning to embrace digital as the quality begins to catch that of film. Patrick Lichfield has gone over to digital, but his set up was £70k. Terry O'Neill and Mario Testino (from the world of portraiture) and Colin Prior (in landscapes) shoot film.

I'll leave it at that, I'm off to brew up some Bennett's Formula Mmm, Potassium Ferricyanide, tasty

[ehasler]

Bacardi said:

Disagree. The most beautiful prints I have ever seen come from an ink-jet and digital files. As for archival prints unless you are printing Cibachromes or lock your C types away in a climate controlled dark room. Your prints will fade. The newer inks are more light fast than C types (the manufacturers claim up 100 years but obviously the verdict will be out on that one for a while), you can produce a far wider gamut of colours and the quality and tonal range is much better. You have to do a little work to achieve this, like using the right printer/ink combination and then have a custom profile written for your printer, but give me an ink-jet every time.

What sort of ink-jets are you talking about here? I've got an Epson 2100, and have been very impressed with it so far, but don't think I've yet got to grips with it in terms of getting the best performance from it. My only (very slight) gripe is that due to the archival inks it uses, you don't get such a glossy finish, however the prints are still very impressive.

Most of the reviews I've seen are aimed at the home buyer with budgets of up to £200, so I've yet to really find out how something like the 2100 compares to the more pro end of the market, and technologies like Dye-Sub etc...

[TT Tim]

ehasler said:

TT Tim said: As for scanning, short of spending proper money on a scanner you will not get decent results from a home scanner, having said that there is a Umax 3000 on eBay ate the moment at a rediculously cheap price, I paid £4K for mine! As for negatives, even the best repro houses won't scan negs, the conversion software is just too hit or miss. Just don't do it. Have a print done and scan that. Tim How much would you define "proper money" as? I've got a 4000dpi Canon FS4000 film scanner, which seems to do pretty decent scans, however they never look as sharp as the original slide on screen, although when printed out in A4 look OK. I've never seen a proper comparison between this sort of scanner, and a pro quality one, and would be interested to know what the difference actually is. Also, you say that it's not worth scanning a negative, however I've personally found that I've got better results from scanning the negs than scanning the print that accompanied them, although admittedly most of my print films have been developed on the high street (Snappy Snaps in the main). Would you really get better results from scanning the print, as opposed to the original negativem even if you used a decent film scanner?

I'm sure you can get a sharp scan from a colour neg, but if you re-read my posting, the problem is the software. Things may have changed in the last couple of years, and I'm prepared to hear from a repro bureau who feel that they are confident in producing an accurate colour scan from a neg original, until that time I stand by my opinion.

Tim

[Bacardi]

sparkyjohn said:

Bacardi said: I think we will have to agree to differ. Indeed (although if you stop using the phrase "with respect" it'll make that easier )

But, with respect, I don't think I used it in my last post

sparkyjohn said:

With regards to the growing use of digital, it's become accepted not for its quality, but rather for its cost, ease of use and speed. A photojournalist or, for that matter, a product photographer, for the bulk of their work, is more motivated by speed and efficiency than by the outer limits of quality. The visual (as opposed to technocratic) elite in photography is just beginning to embrace digital as the quality begins to catch that of film. Patrick Lichfield has gone over to digital, but his set up was £70k. Terry O'Neill and Mario Testino (from the world of portraiture) and Colin Prior (in landscapes) shoot film.

Press guys don't give a monkeys about the quality, after all it's only going to be printed on bog paper. It's the content of the shot which is important. Not sure how you categorise a product photographer. I photograph products for catalogues, brochures, magazines and advertisements and I care about quality very much, as do my colleagues. We jump up and down with excitement when a new back or camera comes out just like we did for a new film.

Patrick Lichfield went over to digital four years ago, I know because he bought the same kit as me. I'm sure he's upgraded but the most expensive back he could buy at the moment is, IIRC, the Sinar 54 back at about £25k or if he stayed with Phase one, their H25 back (same 22 megapixel chip) is about £20K. £70k would comfortably include all bodies, lenses, lighting and a fully loaded G5. Not sure if he would upgrade to the highest res capture because the shooting rate is about a shot every 4 secs, painfully slow when working with models.

Can't speak for Terry O'Neill or Mario Testino (his real name is Martin Testicle by the way and comes from Watford, not Peru. It's a fact, you have to have a trendy sounding name to succeed in the world of fashion photography and invent a new persona. Paul Barker sounds like a gas fitter from Croydon, hence, I am now known as Paolo Bacardi from Milan ), they are celebrity snappers but there are plenty of above the line photographers who been digital for years. As I implied before, at the end of the day, ultimately, it's the image which is important, not the method of capturing it. The irony is that, technically, the quality of image capture is getting better and better yet all the stuff I do, as is the trend these days, is all blurred and out of focus.

for now
Paolo

[Bacardi]

ehasler said:

What sort of ink-jets are you talking about here? I've got an Epson 2100, and have been very impressed with it so far, but don't think I've yet got to grips with it in terms of getting the best performance from it. My only (very slight) gripe is that due to the archival inks it uses, you don't get such a glossy finish, however the prints are still very impressive. Most of the reviews I've seen are aimed at the home buyer with budgets of up to £200, so I've yet to really find out how something like the 2100 compares to the more pro end of the market, and technologies like Dye-Sub etc...

Best prints I have seen are from Iris printers but to be fair, they're big bucks. However you can achieve outstanding results from lesser printers. I have a 2100 too and printing on gloss is a problem. Epson were going to bring out another gloss paper but, as yet, haven't. I used to use Tetenol gloss but that's hopeless, ink just sits on in puddles. To be honest I don't do much printing, just contact sheets that I supply with CDs as a reference for the clients.

Another solution is to try other inks like Lyson:

www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html

The key to higher quality printing is to get a custom profile written for your printer for any given printer/ink/paper combination. This costs about £160. Rather than type it all out you can read about it here:

www.neilbarstow.co.uk/profiling_inkjets.html

HTH

[ehasler]

TT Tim said:

I'm sure you can get a sharp scan from a colour neg, but if you re-read my posting, the problem is the software. Things may have changed in the last couple of years, and I'm prepared to hear from a repro bureau who feel that they are confident in producing an accurate colour scan from a neg original, until that time I stand by my opinion. Tim

I wasn't suggesting that your opinion was wrong - just that I'm curious as to why you say that you'd getter a more accurate scan from a print produced from a negative rather than the original negative. I'm pretty new to this area, and I'm keen to understand why this would be.

I am also interested in the difference between a film scanner aimed at the consumer (even an expensive one like the Canon or Nikon models) compared to a top-notch version used by pros. Like I said, I've never seen a comparison done between the two, and I'd be interested to know just how much more quality you get when you start paying big bucks for "proper" scanning equipment.

[ehasler]

Bacardi said:

Best prints I have seen are from Iris printers but to be fair, they're big bucks. However you can achieve outstanding results from lesser printers. I have a 2100 too and printing on gloss is a problem. Epson were going to bring out another gloss paper but, as yet, haven't. I used to use Tetenol gloss but that's hopeless, ink just sits on in puddles. To be honest I don't do much printing, just contact sheets that I supply with CDs as a reference for the clients. The key to higher quality printing is to get a custom profile written for your printer for any given printer/ink/paper combination. This costs about £160. Rather than type it all out you can read about it here:

I've been using Konica Professional Photo Glossy paper and have been pretty impressed by the results on this. It's not as glossy as other printer demo prints, but the prints still look very good.

I've also tried to create my own printer profiles with Pantone PrintFix, and so far, I've been very impressed with the output. I'm still fidling with my system, and need to try calibrating my monitor again, but I am getting very near to being able to get the same colours on my prints as I see on screen.

If I get into this any more than as a bit of fun, I would consider getting proper profiles made, but the Pantone system seems pretty good for what I want at the moment.

[Bacardi]

It sounds like you're heading in the right direction.

Are you mac or PC? I'll guess PC as they seem to have more trouble matching screen to output, at least, most PC uses I know have trouble in this area and fiddle with their print settings and monitor setting to get a match. This only gets you into a 'closed loop' colour managed workflow which is fine if you are doing your own scanning and printing. The trouble starts when you decide you want a poster from one of your files and take it to a lab for printing and it comes out looking like mush. Pretty sure Martin evening covers this in his book.

[ehasler]

I'm PC based.

I'd be happy if I can get a decent workflow to get the same output from my printer as on the original slides, as I don't have any plans yet to send any files for printing elsewhere.

I guess that if I did, I'd have to send a proof print as well as the digital file to show how I expect the output to look?

[leszekg]

Not sure what all the fuss is about. At the end of the day it's the image and what you do with it that counts.

Personally, I still use film and chemicals. I have my own darkroom and do my own colour and black and white printing. Sooner or later I will probably be using digital (hopefully as well as my darkroom rather than instead of). I belong to a local photographic club and enjoy seeing the fruits of both digital and darkroom work. In particular, it's good to see that digital is bringing in more 'new blood' and raising the profile of photography as a hobby that anyone can enjoy.

I'm one of only 2 darkroom people in my local club of 30-40 members. Despite this, for the last 3 years I've picked up all the print trophies so sticking to conventional darkroom printing has not done me any harm! The cost of scanner, printer, computer and related software have prevented me from hurrying in to digital rather than necessarily any argument about relative quality. 'Quality' goes further than just number of pixels - to my mind it's more about the quality of light at the time that the picture was taken, what the photographer has managed to make of the scene (be it in the camera or subsequent manipulation), the choice of paper for the particular subject, the quality of the darkroom or digital manipulation performed by the photograher, the chemicals or inks used, the time and care spent to get the image 'right' etc etc.

I've seen some innovative and stunning work produced using pin hole cameras and polaroids and don't recall anyone questioning the quality of the images produced. What was clear was that the photographers who produced these had clearly enjoyed creating the images and that's probably what's most important at the end of the day.

[malc350]

Even though I use a digital SLR almost exclusively (I won't be without a 35mm SLR though) the last post sums it up perfectly IMHO.