Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DSLR, MF digital...... :D  (Read 18458 times)
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« on: May 10, 2008, 04:21:30 PM »
ReplyReply

There is alot of discussion about DSLR vs MF digital and more about that a 8MP will easily outresolve a good MF scan.

Well.....
We talked alot about that and I thought let's post a sample to show something about that 5MP statement.

Not a good photo but I only have shot one roll of film that I got back today and most was testing to get used to the camera.
Scanning was done with a relativly cheap V700 Epson scanner, when using a better scanner you can expect ALOT more detail and sharpness.

So just for fun to show what is possible with a cheap solution scanner and 6x7 slidefilm.

And remember we don't even talk about the different DOF, better glass, better dynamic range (for digital) etc.
Although I'm a big fan of my Leaf Aptus digital back I have to say that the 6x7 film scans have impressed me very much, taking into consideration that the V700 is one of the cheapest MF scanners.



Greetings,
Frank
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2008, 04:43:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Frank, I think the image is gorgeous. Skin tone and detail...
But at the same time you underestimate the V700. I did comparisons with my Imacon and the edge is too small actually. There's one thing that the Imacon does best and that's color rendition, but the Epson's are fully capable of producing almost equally detailed images. They are a bit soft compared but that's easily fixed.
Anyway, each time a look at my slides I miss my Imacon. Try not to look at them too much.  
Logged
Grayhand
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2008, 04:49:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Really impressive!

I am for the moment heavyly involved in the process of buying a digital back for my RZ pro2.
But when I bought the camera there was a freezer full of film that was included with the camera.
So maby a scanner is a better option than a digital back considering IQ. It is at least cheaper  
Or at least until the freezer is empty
(edit: More bad English)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2008, 04:54:34 PM by Grayhand » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2008, 04:55:56 PM »
ReplyReply

@Samual,
I recently got a scan from one of my slides from Mauro Franic and was impressed with the quality, he uses a Coolscan 9000.
I have to admit that his scan made me motivated enough to reset the whole betterscanning tranny and start over again and there is now ALOT more detail in my scans, I will have to wait untill I get my slides back from Mauro to scan it again to see how the V700 compares to the coolscan 9000.

But for the time being I'm more than pleased with the Epson.

I will never totally change my workflow to film, I love the Leaf Aptus way too much, however I often am searching for a certain film look and somehow digital never gave me the exact look I'm looking for and Portra film does so sometimes I will just shoot portra to get the instant look I want.

For the rest alien skin exposure 2 does a good job for the fake/good looks of film.

But most of my work is not film related, so that is 100% digital without filters.

It does take some time indeed, drop the film at the lab, wait 3-4 days and scan.
On the other hand it's fun to do

But on the V700 you are absolutly right, what it does for the price is STUNNING.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2008, 04:58:01 PM »
ReplyReply

@Grayhand,

I only recently got the RZproII and am waiting for the convertor plate for the Leaf so I have no choice to shoot film at the moment (can't wait to test the camera ).

You will LOVE the RZproII but remember that you will have to measure EVERYTHING, unless you use the prism with AE but to be honest I bought the camera for the waste level finder, for the other work the 645AFD will do just fine.

The Epson scanner is a great option and cheap indeed.
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 597


« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2008, 07:07:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Frank,
That's an impressive scan from the Epson.

It looks even better with a quick chrominance reduction (color noise removal).  I didn't even use noise reduction software, just brought the crop into Canon DPP software and did Chrominance Reduction set to high.  Gets rid of that "digital" look, and color blobs.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2008, 07:44:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I only purchased a back after running a budget for a series of self promo/editorial shoots where costs were coming out of my pocket.  Film, messengers, processing, contacts, etc would all cost about $8k US.  I figured I could buy a back and sell the 1ds2 and come out even in a year or so, but I keep shooting film alongside the P30+.  My commercial/editorial work is still 50% film.

I scan for placement only on a Microtek 120tf. I scan 4x5 on an Epson 700.  They work fine, a little too much color aliasing on negatives, but they both work very well.  These scans are nice, make nice prints, but are really just for giving the retouchers a guide to what I want.   Lamount, Pixel Perfect, Box etc do drum scanning/retouching for press. One thing they taught me is never to scan negative film over 2400 dpi.  You are just scanning film grain at that level.
Logged
marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2008, 10:55:37 PM »
ReplyReply

maybe I am missing the point here, but when comparing film and digital wouldn't it help to have a digital capture of the same, other than that, yes a good scan, but..........
m*
Logged

dergiman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2008, 12:00:15 AM »
ReplyReply

i shot with a mamiya rb this week for the first time and the large film size is amazing! i scanned it on my epson v700 and the quality is awesome.

could you please explain your scanning technique? my scans are a bit of hit and miss. i found that scanning at 3200 or 4800 ppi and downsampling later works quite well.

how do you sharpen your scans (which usm settings work best?) i get ugly artifacts all the time.
Logged

Philipp Derganz Photography
www.philippderganz.com
Architektur Photo
Wien, Austria
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 597


« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2008, 12:23:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
maybe I am missing the point here, but when comparing film and digital wouldn't it help to have a digital capture of the same, other than that, yes a good scan, but..........
m*

I think the point is that for a cheap setup of an RZ and a flatbed scanner (minus film costs), you can get decent results if you can't afford a MF back, however, I think an identical shot taken with an Aptus 75 interpolated to 240 Megapixels would have the same, but most likely much better results than the film.

That would be a 40someting x 60something inch print at 300dpi.  I think a close focused portrait from a sharp digital file (especially an Aptus 75) can be enlarged to just about any size with excellent results, even from a Canon 5D.  This is where digital excels (close focused/head and shoulders portraits).
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2008, 12:35:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the point is that for a cheap setup of an RZ and a flatbed scanner (minus film costs), you can get decent results if you can't afford a MF back, however, I think an identical shot taken with an Aptus 75 interpolated to 240 Megapixels would have the same, but most likely much better results than the film.

That would be a 40someting x 60something inch print at 300dpi.  I think a close focused portrait from a sharp digital file (especially an Aptus 75) can be enlarged to just about any size with excellent results, even from a Canon 5D.  This is where digital excels (close focused/head and shoulders portraits).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree.  A head a shoulders shot even with an 11mpx dslr can print very large and show great results.

Where this falls down is in full length, especially with continuous lighitng, then you can see a real difference in mpx and digital compared to film.

I find it funny, 3 years ago this would have raged on that digital has absolutley no chance to match film resolution, now it's 180 trying to show that a 6x7 film scan can match a 645 digital capture.

Regardless which one is better, and "better" covers a lot of territory, if you don't shoot under deadline and you don't shoot for immediate commerce, the deals in older and still very good film cameras are astoudning.  The price of Pentax 6x7's, RZ's, blads and Fuji 680's are below bargain basement prices.

JR
Logged

dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2008, 01:29:19 AM »
ReplyReply

well, compare to an old heidberg7100, the flat scanner loose a lot in the dark area and a way softer. film is good, it's just inconvenient--develop, scan, fix the stain etc.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 01:48:52 AM by dustblue » Logged

dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2008, 01:33:54 AM »
ReplyReply

buy a used roll scanner is another option...the price is nearly the same with a high end DB, but you need a trained operator which may be expensive...one of my friend got a heideberg3900 instead of a DB, and send his wife to the training center...

Quote
Really impressive!

I am for the moment heavyly involved in the process of buying a digital back for my RZ pro2.
But when I bought the camera there was a freezer full of film that was included with the camera.
So maby a scanner is a better option than a digital back considering IQ. It is at least cheaper 
Or at least until the freezer is empty
(edit: More bad English)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194913\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2008, 03:44:18 AM »
ReplyReply

To make it clear there is no intention to compare it to digital.

I'm a 99% digital photographer, and 95% MF in that case
This is the first roll of film I got in from the lab and scanned it last night and thought after reading all that megapixel crap about comparing the 1DsIII with MF backs that when you want to only look at MP's there is still no comparision to film as I found out.....

There is SO much more in a system.

As James stated try to shoot a full body for a big billboard with a DSLR and you will see the softness in the fine details, now shoot it with a digital back and it's better.
I think (don't know from experience) that film properly scanned can even hold more details.

The question remains, does the client still need it....
Over here the quality of advertising shots, magazines etc. have gone downhill in an alarming rate, there hardly is any real spectaculair photography, when I stand close to most big advertising photos I see sharpening errors, digital harshness etc. and that should not have to happen anymore.

So the post is pure as entertainment and to show what film looks like from a semi budget flatbed scanner, nothing I want to prove in anyway, I'm very pragmatic in my approach I will use what I need for any given assignment, as long as it works and the client is happy
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2008, 04:48:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to shoot 6x7 before buying a P25 and to me there is no comparison, the DB blows film out of the water in every respect. Things like detail, dynamic range, scalability, post-production handling  are all far superior with digital. Then there's the obvious advantages like instant preview. This is all just my own experience of course, everyone needs to make up their own mind. I used to be a die-hard film lover though, now I wouldn't dream of shooting film again. I've also owned the V700, it's a great scanner for the price but by no means professional.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2008, 04:54:46 AM »
ReplyReply

The good thing about the MF system is that you can shoot whatever you want, if I want to shoot digital I connect the Leaf (99%) when I want to shoot film I connect the film back.

I just love an open system

I agree on the advantages of film, let's make that clear by the way.
However the look I get from some films is very hard if not impossible to emulate in photoshop.
But I'm talking FREE work here, I never had a client that looked for a certain film look.

To be 100% honest I see film as the playground (for me) it gives me a kick to shoot on film, scan it and browse through the large scans.
The workflow is terrible compared to digital, the files are much more muddy in the shadows etc.

But.....
as with most things it has it's charm, but I would not think about using it on a daily basis again.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2008, 04:58:38 AM »
ReplyReply

@James,
You nailed exactly what I thought

I bought the RZ67 Pro with a 180mm and a 110mm f2.8 and a film back including shipping to the Netherlands for 850.00 euros.
It's in a PERFECT condition.
Add 550 euros for the adaptor plate for my Leaf aptus and I could not resist.
It's a great system for me with the 1/400sync and the way it handles (I'm a sucker for waste level finders)

The only problem is my blackframe is missing and they shipped me a 90mm instead of the 110mm f2.8.
I bought it from adorama and have been trying to contact them the last week but I get no response from them (normally they are quick).
Will try to call them next week.
The 110 f2.8 was high on my wishlist.

Greetings,
Frank
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2008, 09:32:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
@James,
You nailed exactly what I thought

I bought the RZ67 Pro with a 180mm and a 110mm f2.8 and a film back including shipping to the Netherlands for 850.00 euros.
It's in a PERFECT condition.
Add 550 euros for the adaptor plate for my Leaf aptus and I could not resist.
It's a great system for me with the 1/400sync and the way it handles (I'm a sucker for waste level finders)

The only problem is my blackframe is missing and they shipped me a 90mm instead of the 110mm f2.8.
I bought it from adorama and have been trying to contact them the last week but I get no response from them (normally they are quick).
Will try to call them next week.
The 110 f2.8 was high on my wishlist.

Greetings,
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You could not pay me to take film into the labs EVER again..
I am quite happy being my own lab...:+]
Snook
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2371


« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2008, 09:44:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't dare to touch film anymore, I am much too afraid I will like it. I haven't touched the stuff since '98.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 09:46:24 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2008, 11:11:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh I LOVE digital don't get me wrong
But why not sometimes just shoot something to get that certain look when you can.

The rolls are app 5 euro and the developing is 4 euro so for 7 euro I get 10 shots and the only thing I have to do is scan.

My workflow is 99% digital as mentioned before but I also love to go larger than my MF back can give me SOMETIMES
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad