If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much... 1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B? (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However, higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never get. Question one is: How does the digital camera that competes "resolution" wise, extract more detail than film, and if this is true, why would "anyone" with 10K-25K worth of film based equipment still own it when they will never get that detail a digital camera can get? 2) In terms of the "color" produced by the two formats, pro digital and mf film, it has been argued that the pro digital cameras excel in color with some exceptions going in favor of print (C41) based film. I have to agree that the array of color is simply amazing in what the digital can do, but is the "flat" look of film that many refer to not what life really looks like??? I don't know how many shots I have seen by pros that use the very best digital camera to make a scene look like it is tahiti when it is just San Diego. Sand is colored brownish when it is white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more "pale/lifeless" in a sense. It isn't to say the film looks inaccurate, but is to say that the digital makes things "appear" realistic, but are much more based on aesthetic appearance and catching the eye...but doesn't one ever wonder how in the world a bird with beautiful color suddenly looks like an angel with remarkable color one has never even seen on this bird??? I don't want to debate the color issues with digital because you can say the same things about film. I have seen some of the most saturated or dense looking film based images that are in no way looking like life, but they surely make for a beautiful artistic look, just like the digital can do the same. So please pay attention to this last part where I say that both can exaggerate or "make" their own color to look a certain way, but that at the same time, I feel that digital by and large makes life look a lot different than film when both are aimed to reproduce it in an "accurate" looking way. *****The primary reason I raise the color thing is because I have never seen a photo "on the web" from a pro digital camera that looks like film.***** I can see many are trying to achieve a look of film, but without the grain, of course...but never have I seen an MF photo look like a Canon 5D photo. They can look similar in some instances, but I'm more or less referring to context of streetlife, nature, architecture/etc. 3) Going back to this resolution thing, and that some claim the 5D or 1DSMKII can outresolve film in MF...what about the counter-argument of digital "adding" detail to the photo that isn't even there? I know the example I posted above was about counting hairs and so I take it this person either counted the person's hairs after the photo was developed or they just "assumed" from what they saw that that person had more hairs. Either way, it's interesting that there is a counter to the notion that pro digital and digital in general "adds" artifacts/extra information that the film does not. And this obviously complicates things because one then has to point out that film cannot produce the information that exists in life whereas digital can...one format, in other words, can produce what we see in life while the other is either not capable of doing so or is adding artificial context to the image. So number 3 deals with my final question: Does digital indeed have the ability to outresolve film? That is, is film simply not capable of producing the same detail of life? Again, how in the world can "anyone" care to use film if they know it is not reproducing life faithfully and is leaving out details that digital is able to capture??? I personally care for "the look" of the image, but if I know my setup cannot produce life, why even bother using it when I can get "close enough" if not the same "look" from the device that is able to get more information/reproduce life more faithfully. Why only get 10 of my cat's 12 whiskers when I can get all 12 of them??? The reason I ask these questions is because: 1) If the better pro digital cams can do more than MF film can, it only takes $2200 plus $1800 in Zeiss/Rollei lenses to completely humiliate MF film setups that cost upward of $10-$20K!!!...let alone the scanner that can be drum scanned for rediculous prices or go for the Nikon 9000 which goes for $1800. That's 2-5X the price of the digital setup which can take a million photos before that MF system can get in 100. 2) Why is there still a market for all this MF stuff if the digital has proven dominance over it? 3) Why does this MF market continue to maintain stability while the digital one coninues to drop? Yes, one can say better digi-toys come out every year, but what about MF stuff...this has been around for tons of years yet it either increases in price or stays the same. As an example, to get a Contax 645 system, you must shell out big bucks...same with a Hassleblad system and how about them Schneider lenses=$$$$$$$$ Why won't these Schneider lenses come down to $100-$500 when the digital stuff like the 5D is going to be at $800 soon??? I'm ranting and raving because I'm really frustrated about which direction to go at this point. To me, in a perfect world where the Canon 5D is indeed on par or even superior to MF, it makes zero sense to spend 2-5X the amount of money to get an MF setup. If the 5D can be disputed by the MF crowd and that 2-5X difference has some kind of warrant (not for arrest of course), then it seems getting into maybe even a lower budget MF setup that is capable of competing with higher end setups in the film MF world would be the better step. I'll leave this one up to discussion/debate/whatever that can help me find a decision here on what is the best move to make at this point. Thanks all!!! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
: I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some : things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much... : 1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that : the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B? : (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the : LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that : the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since : the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best : available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next : to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe : said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or : better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One : pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not : on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture : "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film : have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However, : higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never : get. The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative. One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange. -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
Frank Pittel wrote:
The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative. Kind of hard to do this over the internet, whereas scans are pretty easy. One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange. Planing on coming to Hawaii anytime soon? You let me use my tripod and you will loose, I have a very good tripod. Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
"Frank Pittel" wrote:
The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative. Most people who have actually compared projection prints with scanned prints find the scanned prints just as good if not better. Projection printing involves an enlarger lens that imposes its own degradation to the image, just as scanning does. One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange. Anything less than the 5D would show the 645 to be better. The 5D gives 645 a run for its money, though. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
Frank Pittel wrote:
One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange. I agree and like you, all I ever see is people comparing film scans to Dslrs, most of the time using sub optimal scanning techniques. -- Stacey |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
Frank Pittel wrote: Progressiveabsolution wrote: : I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some : things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much... : 1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that : the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B? : (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the : LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that : the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since : the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best : available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next : to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe : said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or : better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One : pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not : on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture : "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film : have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However, : higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never : get. The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative. One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange. This is actually the test that convinced me digital was here. A friend shot for a minor league baseball team, he had a 6mp Kodak DCS760. The time came for the team picture, he used the Kodak as back up and his Mamiya 645 for the primary neg. Admittedly his 645 was old and somewhat beat. But looking at the 16x20 print and the file from the 645 it was obvious that the faces of the players were better deliniated on the digital file. Took a little to convince the team that a digital pic was our best output, their printer loved it. They printed the 18x20 team picture from the Kodak file, this was 2002. The next year the team president loaned my friend his Hassleblad, saying that film wouldn't be out done. That year there was a lot of rain, the team came up from Florida late so the they shot with the Hassleblad and the Kodak. The printer said he wanted the picture the next morning, guess which file they used again. The photographer printed the Hassleblad image. Yes it was better than the digital file but not by much, but the C41, even with rush processing was too late (the team was too cheap to keep the lab opened after hours a $500 charge). The rest is history. Tom |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
Scott W wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote: : The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that : you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would : be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative. : Kind of hard to do this over the internet, whereas scans are pretty : easy. If you want to compare a scanner with a dslr then it's a reasonable test. : One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod : and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with : the digital camera of their choice. We would then make a 16x20 print and put the : prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up : on that challange. : Planing on coming to Hawaii anytime soon? : You let me use my tripod and you will loose, I have a very good tripod. I have a very good tripod too. Alas I don't see going to Hawaii anytime soon. -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
"Frank Pittel" wrote in message ... One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange. You're on, Frank. Full contact info is on my website (on the "Ordering" link.) Email me off-line and we'll work out the details. The best digicam I own at present is a 10D, but at 16x20", I'm not too worried. In a pinch, I can borrow a co-worker's 5D. I've got a set of three 20" x 30" prints in a room here where I work. Two were from 645 MF, (scanned on LS-8000) and one from the 10D. All three prints were made by a local lab on a Durst Epsilon (basically, a LightJet.) To date, nobody has guessed correctly which print came from the 10D. You'd think, with 33% odds, at least one of these would have guessed by now. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
rafe b wrote:
"Frank Pittel" wrote in message ... One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange. You're on, Frank. Full contact info is on my website (on the "Ordering" link.) Email me off-line and we'll work out the details. The best digicam I own at present is a 10D, but at 16x20", I'm not too worried. In a pinch, I can borrow a co-worker's 5D. I've got a set of three 20" x 30" prints in a room here where I work. Two were from 645 MF, (scanned on LS-8000) and one from the 10D. Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point! -- Stacey |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)
Stacey wrote:
Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point! So far there has not been one person who has shown an optical print is better then one from a scanned negative. There have been a lot of people who have made that claim but to date I have not seen any thing to back up this claim. On the other hand I have seen lots of data showing a print from a scanned negative is better then an optical print from the same negative. But anyway believe Rafe as talking about an exchange of prints Scott |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film) | Progressiveabsolution | Digital Photography | 185 | October 19th 06 01:03 PM |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Photographing Nature | 15 | December 7th 05 11:03 PM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
Anti-digital backlash continues ... | Bill Hilton | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 284 | July 5th 04 05:40 PM |