Anybody using a film camera around here?

[bobtrips]

Well, you can read what I said - digital cameras are essentially noise free at reasonable ISO settings. Film isn't.

Or you can go someplace such as the Pro forum on http://www.dpreview.com and do some reading of posts from people who routinely make big prints.

Now there is an intermediate point where film will show more detail in a fine-detail image and thus print with more resolution than will digital. But past that point grain will start degrading the film image while the digital image will continue to print larger and larger.

[mikesmith]

Bobtrips is right - I've tried printing 11x14s shot on film and scanned vs. images from my D100, and the digital versions are noticably better. I really wanted the reverse to be true, to justify all the $$ I have invested in 35mm film cameras, but sadly, it was not so.

I tried scanning at high resolutions, too, but as he says, before I hit 4000 ppi I was basically scanning grain, even with low-ASA film. I also tried shooting with Ilford 3200, exposed at 1600, vs. my D100 set at 1600 "ASA." I figured the noise from the CCD would be worse than the grain of the film, but I was wrong there, too: The digital stuff was better.

Life can be so unfair.

Mike Smith
http://www.pbase.com/mikesmith

[ray645]

Ok now I think Im getting it, if a digital file for computer printing is the goal then a 6 mg DSLR might be better (but its not my goal)

The thing that got my attention was the blanket statment that any 6 megapixel is better that any 35 film, Ilford PanF 50 came to mind also Fuji Neopan 100 Acros these gave me reason to doubt as I know what they can do when printed

I just feel film when done wet and correctly in a is still superior at 11x14, now I shoot mostly B&W and just dont see the tonality, the range of greys and black with digital that I see from film

I would like to make this very clear Im not talking about the $9.99 11x14 Ritz print, I speaking about a real darkroom print

I dont want to sound anti digital, I know the image quality is great from the D1x (only DSLR Ive used) I just dont think its at the level of 35mm film yet, and not even close to medium format

Now on the pro side I am very exicited to rent a D1x for a trip Im taking to Florida, I cant wait carry only a 80-200 2.8 and not a HUGE 300 2.8! so I will have better control over this smaller lens so Im expecting sharper photos

[bobtrips]

Ray -

I'm not a big print maker. What I know about the issues is what I've read on http://www.dpreview.com and http://www.luminous-landscape.com and a few other sites. The best idea (IMO) would be for you to spend some time on those sites and read the input of photographers who print large every day and often make their livings doing it.

My input is unfortunately hampered by my less than excellent memory, but here's a couple of impressions that I've come away with.

Wet prints are not superior to dry prints. There may be a few techniques that one can only do with wet printing, very high gloss wet prints seem to look better (especially the black areas) when looked at from an angle. Once you put them behind glass the difference disappears.

Let's leave you to pursue the more esoteric issues. You can ask those who are doing it. Some people are shooting digitally or scanning their film, doing their 'darkroom' work in the computer, printing a large 'negative' in inkjet, and making contact prints.

For the rest of us printing is something that we have done. These days if you shoot film for the most part you get digital prints. Your film is developed and then scanned into digital format. Those digital files then enter the same print stream as files that originated from digital cameras.

They're printed on real photo paper. Ritz ($9.99), Costco ($2.99), and the place that charges you $37.98 are most likely using the exact same Fuji Frontier, Noritsu, Agfa, etc. printing equipment to make those prints.

The more expensive places may use a heavier grade paper. That may feel better to the customer. It probably makes no difference once mounted.

[bobtrips]

And, a bit more...

At 11x14 you're most likely at the sweet point for 35 mm film. You're getting the benefits of resolution without hitting the distortion of grain.

In addition you seem to be speaking about B&W. I've never seen anyone say that a 6 meg digital comes close to yielding the resolution of 35 mm B&W film. The common discussion is about color.

[gerrydavid]

Actually, your number is off a bit. By about a factor of 5. The $4k Kodak 14n will out-resolve any 35 mm color film.

Hehe, in terms of computers and electronics, price is relative. So im sure my figure was acurate at one point of time. Also depends on the make and feature, so in a way I coudl still be right. *smirks*.

I wonder how big I can print my 3.2mp images before they start to look bad. Im hoping for at least 8X10, and if im lucky, 10X14. I may ahve to do some resizing in adobe though.

[bobtrips]

Well, at the time of posting your number had been out of date for a couple of years.

If you'd like to pretend that we are back in the '90s then you can say that there is no commercially digital that will resolve as well as 35 mm film. Even one that will resolve as well as APS film costs $35k.

Now, as far as your 3 meg printing question. You answer is not too complicated, involves a bit of math and a couple of depends. (No, not that kink.)

First, most people can't see any improvement if prints are made at resolutions higher than 300 dpi. The rare 10 year old can, but let's assume that we're not printing for her.

Take your array size, x pixels by x pixels and divide by 300. That will give you the maximum size print you can make at maximum quality.

If you want to make 8x12, 11x14 prints then divide the array size by the physical size of the prints. That will give you the dpi (dot per inch) for each size.

Most people are quite happy with prints around 225-240 dpi. Some images in which fine detail is not important will print fine at resolutions as low as 125-150. At normal viewing distances they can look great. (Been there, done that.)

And, if you're going to get serious, there are better ways to enlarge than Photoshop.

[gerrydavid]

And, if you're going to get serious, there are better ways to enlarge than Photoshop.

I posted a question on a photogrpahy forum a while back asking about what progrma is best for enlarging, and they showed examples of like 4 different software that enlarged and they are all pretty much the same image, plus photoshop is free if you already have it. :0).

I also konw about the 300dpi being best and the lower you go the worse the image, but im just wondering how large I can get the images for them to look good up close to sell them. :0) and look great from a distance. Its prob a trial and error thing. To bad its like $12 cdn for a 12X18 from futurephoto, at least an 8X10 is $5 cdn. :0). id do it myself but im out of yellow ink I think in my printer and my printer is a bit old, like 5 years. Also I never get prints that im totally happy with with it.

[bobtrips]

You might want to check around a bit. Here we can get 8x12s for $1.99 and 12x18s for $2.99 at places such as Costco. Real prints from a Fuji Frontier or Noritsu printer. That would be what in C-dollars, ~$3 and $4.50?



And it is most likely a trial and error task. I've printed some 8x10s at 150 dpi that looked great. Obviously a 300 dpi print would be better if there is a lot of fine detail, but I'll bet most people would be happy with the 150 dpi prints from normal viewing distances.

[gerrydavid]

You might want to check around a bit. Here we can get 8x12s for $1.99 and 12x18s for $2.99 at places such as Costco. Real prints from a Fuji Frontier or Noritsu printer. That would be what in C-dollars, ~$3 and $4.50?



And it is most likely a trial and error task. I've printed some 8x10s at 150 dpi that looked great. Obviously a 300 dpi print would be better if there is a lot of fine detail, but I'll bet most people would be happy with the 150 dpi prints from normal viewing distances.

Thanks for the tips bobtrips, Ill have to check out the costco thing. Especially since Ill be a block from it a couple times a week coming up, so itll be more convienent than FuturePhoto. But I dont remember a photo place in the costco up here. I presume if ours has it, itll be over with the food court, glasses, etc.

[alchemist8122]

hi! first time to post at the forum...
and yeah, i use film for my old manual cam. some of my photos tho were taken thru an old digicam.

[geonerd]

looks like film is dead...


www.french.tk

Not quite!

A little over two years ago, I bought an Olympus C3000, 128MB flash, batteries, charger, etc. BIG mistake!

The glass is garbage, with images turning VERY soft at the wide end of the zoom range. Stopping down to F10 or so makes things tollerable. None of the reviews I'd read mentioned this little problem.

Other than that, it worked well enough...for a year or so. With only very light use it has recently begun to fall apart. The lens extension gearing occasionaly skips, focus hunts, and approximately 10 VERY hot pixels have surfaced. I've never dropped or otherwise abused it. It is simply a cheap pile of PLASTICRAP. FEH! So much for the "digital revolution!"

I've since purchased a second SLR body, two lenses, and a proper film scanner. Long live Canon FD!

The current DSLR crop looks promising, but is still WAY too expensive for someone "once bitten." When I can get a 10MP body with a full (35mm) sized sensor for ~$600, I'll give it another look.
Untill then the camera companies can KMA.

-Greg

[unrelated]

If I switch to digital SLR I will miss the crisp sound that my manual makes

[bobtrips]

Not necessarily. Some digitals have built-in sound chips to give you a nice click. Probably someone has included a big loud mirror slap sound as well.

[paulsilkphotography]

Well it's been entertaining reading this thread

First let me say I love film and digital..but then I love coffee and tea..you try telling a coffee guy why he should love tea and vice versa and what you get is what you have here differing opinions with everyone manipulating figures to make them justify there cause.

Just how you compere a continaul tone medium to a pixal medium is beyond me because once you digitize the film they are both forms of digital images..so lets turn the usall comparason around.. take the same image on 35mm velvia slide film and on a 6mp dslr pump up the saturation and whatever else you want to do to it in PS to make it match the velvia slide then write the digital file to a film reader and output it as a slide, then project both images on a 8x6 screen and you sure as hell will see what a lack of pixal resolution is like..now thats a test instead of the usuall converting the film to digital

To be honest for print there both as good as each other, to me they just have a different look thats hard to quantify so I'll just carry on using both just as i enjoy tea and coffee.

By the way when digital first made a real impact a top photographer here switched and said that in two years time the only place youd find a roll of film would be in a glass case in the bradford musium of photography with a sign that said " break only in the case of emergency"..now if anyone want to place a serius bet about film being dead in 5 or even 10 years time...I'm your man

crafty
http://www.pbase.com/craftysnapper