Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] An old comparison of scanned film vs microphotograph of film

Subject: Re: [OM] An old comparison of scanned film vs microphotograph of film
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:48:59 +0200
Your scanning technique is impeccable, and the film shot holds up very  
well.
I wholeheartedly agree that, for a "hybrid" workflow, and 35mm film,  
it is clear
that something like the 5DII has the edge.

Just from my own experience, doing B&W, and optical prints, it's quite  
a different story.
Have not compared to a 5D/5DII yet, but a careful test with an OM-1 +  
90/2.0 and an
E-3 + 50/2.0 certainly showed that the 35mm film (Ilford FP4, grainy)  
produced the output
which had much greater resolution. This is when looking at the final  
print.

But your examples prove that, while film is still pretty good, the  
arguments in favour of 35mm
are less and less. Especially colour, in my opinion.

Your examples also so vividly illustrate that which we know about film  
vs. digital - how even slide
film has much better highlight roll-off, and how digital has much  
better shadow penetration. One
of the best example comparisons I've ever seen.

I agree with Ken, I wish the illustrious Mr. Michael Reichmann (who  
had access to a much better scanner than yours)
had the technique to make such a comparison himself, instead of  
propagating the absurd myths back in the
day that the D30 is better than Provia slide film.

Well done.

I have all but completely given up scanning film on my Epson V700, I  
am now just scanning optical prints,
it's slower, but the results are much much better. I find that I  
*cannot* replicate the tonality of
my optical prints via purely digital means, the images are just  
completely different.

Scanned B&W film always look so - "forced" to me. The images look  
crunchy. I am afraid that after starting to make
small 5x7in prints from 6x7cm negatives, I am going to have to get a  
big camera and take to contact printing,
I am becoming addicted to the "information overload" look, it's so  
incredibly detailed. It's amazing how, with such
a small print, the difference between 35mm and MF is so clearly  
visible, even though our eyes are supposed to be
limited in terms of resolving power when we get to such high  
resolutions.

On 25 Oct 2009, at 2:43 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:

> Film may have very high absolution resolution (for B/W lines) but  
> the pixel
> quality of digial image is just better, see here a scan of RVP50 at  
> 4000dpi
> with 4000ED and a 21MP 5D II capture, both taken with 24/2.
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/ST-10004.jpg (6.8MB)
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0918.JPG (5.5MB)
>
> C.H.Ling


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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