Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: My personal Film vs. Digital tests - II

Subject: [OM] Re: My personal Film vs. Digital tests - II
From: "John A. Lind" <jalind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:55:36 -0500
At 07:11 PM 5/9/2005, Moose wrote:
[snip]
I won't dispute that optical print from film is at the mercy of the optical 
train in the enlarging system . . . it is very much so . . . and it is the 
print-making with which I have some serious issues regarding the care taken 
by consumer labs . . . not just the optical train and its maintenance, but 
the filter pack for color balancing (and how well it's used . . . or in 
many cases not used).

I had no idea what film could record in information and in color (for color 
films) until I went to using the chromes.  My preferred method of examining 
what I have on film is via projection . . . and I am quite finicky about 
the optical train used in doing so . . . if it's sloppy it will degrade the 
image on film.

>As Simon says :) , if the desired viewing medium is projection, film wins 
>hands down. If it is big prints, I don't know the answer.

The answer for me is not allowing sloppy print-making and I have become 
such a PITA about it with the small prints my Other Half wants done by the 
local 1-hour for the Family Photo Album they cringe when they see me coming 
for reprints.  I've had as many as three and four 
"do-overs."  Acceptability is a real rarity the first time around.  If the 
rest of their customers were as demanding (if they only knew what can be 
had in a print) they'd clean up their act.  They're sloppy because the 
average Joe Consumer doesn't know better and them lab can get away with 
handing a customer just about anything.  IMVHO their sloppiness in printing 
from film is hurting them in the long run.

There's another issue as well . . . some labs switching over to digitally 
scanning the film and printing from a temporary scan.  There is a 
difference in a properly made optical print and a print from digital 
scan.  I've seen it.  For large prints from chromes I use a professional 
lab that makes Ilfochromes.  Those prints (if they're large enough) reveal 
the film content and it's when I started having them made that I discovered 
what one can achieve in a print.

>If it is modest sized prints, I don't think there is a winner, both are 
>capable of outstanding results. AG says for B&W prints film is the winner 
>and who am I to argue with a master printer.

I agree from an aesthetics standpoint.  Somehow the chromogenics and color 
digitally converted to B/W doesn't look the same . . . and I believe it's 
in the use of color layers in the chromogenics and how colors are rendered 
in grayscale for color photographs converted to B&W.  True B&W film has the 
thinnest emulsion of any type of film and for similar granularity and 
contrast it has finer edge definition as a result.  For the same reason, 
Kodachrome has finer edge definition that belies its granularity compared 
to the E-6's.

>Since I am certainly never going to choose to have a color darkroom, my 
>personal tests are for use with a digital darkroom and digital printer. 
>I'm not satisfied I have given film scanning it's best shot yet, but I 
>think my overall approach is reasonable for my chosen presentation media.

Those that make large gallery quality prints for sale using a Chromira (or 
similar) digital printer from film will have the film drum scanned (there 
are a couple alternative machines on the market now that rival drum scans 
such as the Imacon).  Properly done, it is . . . hands down . . . the 
digital scanning methods that captures the greatest detail of what's on the 
film.  It's also quite expensive . . . the motive for having a drum (or 
Imacon) scan made must rise to the level of its cost.

However . . . a single-pass scan from an Imacon with *zero* interpolation 
produces a 490-500 MB file from standard 35mm.  From my 645, the file size 
would be 1.3-1.4 GB if machine constraints for the film format didn't limit 
it to ~1.2 GB.  These are loss-less file formats (e.g. TIFF).  I wish color 
depth were greater and dMax larger, and some would argue the human eye 
wouldn't be able to detect it very well if it were . . . but I've seen the 
smoothness of tonal scale that at least medium format and larger can create 
when optically printed.  It's why I'm starting to use it more.

Is this relevant to 4x6's and 5x7's for the family photo album . . . likely 
not . . . but it is relevant to the making of gallery presentation prints 
from digitally scanned film.

A couple comments about film . . .
I found the consumer C-41 (e.g. Kodak Gold), even ISO 100, to be hideously 
coarse.  The professional films of similar film speed are quite noticeably 
finer grained and although granularity may not directly show in small 
prints, it indirectly shows in the smoothness of tonal scale.  I use a 
variety of film speeds . . . along with type . . . color and B&W negative 
and color and B&W chromes . . . from ISO 25 to ISO 1600 and EI 3200 . . . 
it depends on the subject material, lighting levels and what I want at the 
end (typically printed).

-- John Lind
[who has been astounded by 11x14's from ISO 400 Portra NC when it's 
optically printed . . . *properly*]


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz