Digital equal to film ?

Father Kodak writes:
Unfortunately a LightJet is way out of the price range of ordinary
mortals.

A minilab is also way out of the price range of ordinary mortals, but
that didn't stop film shooters from using them at the drugstore.

Father Kodak wrote:
On 04 Dec 2005 12:03:46 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:


For 35mm film the resolution achieved on film varies *really widely*
depending on technique and film used. Using first-rate lenses and
with the camera on a tripod and using slow high-resolution film,
numbers in the range of 12MP to 25MP seem to be popular. Hand-held
using a 5:1 zoom on ASA 400 film is a very different story.

Why a tripod? If the film camera and digital camera are about the
same size and weight, and the same lens is used on both, why does the
film camera image improve with use off a tripod? But the tripod isn't
necessary for the digital image?

Good prime lens, I agree, is important. Photographer steadiness is
also important. But it seems almost intuitive that almost any
subject with a lot of detail will be rendered better on either film or
digital with use of a tripod.


Film needs a tripod more then digital because you can't shoot fast film
and expect good results. Digital on the other hand can be shot at ISO
800 with large loss in quality.

For the same reason a digital camera can often use a less expensive
lens. If you are shooting with say a 500mm lens using film and you are
hand holding the camera the 500mm lens need to be pretty fast to avoid
motion blur from camera shake. But on my 20D I can use a 300mm lens
(the crop factor puts it back to the same as a 480 lens) and stop it
down. If you put the good lens on the digital then you can shoot hand
held in much less light then is needed for the film camera.

The other part about digital is it sharpens much better then film, so
here again a lens that would be too soft when used on a film camera
will tend to give sharper photos when used on the digital camera.

Scott


Pere Kodak

In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:
Father Kodak writes:
Unfortunately a LightJet is way out of the price range of ordinary
mortals.

A minilab is also way out of the price range of ordinary mortals, but
that didn't stop film shooters from using them at the drugstore.


Hmm... business idea: rent time at a fully equipped photo lab?
--
"Very well, he replied, I allow you cow's dung in place of human
excrement; bake your bread on that." -- Ezekiel 4:15

Father Kodak writes:

On 04 Dec 2005 12:03:46 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:


For 35mm film the resolution achieved on film varies *really widely*
depending on technique and film used. Using first-rate lenses and
with the camera on a tripod and using slow high-resolution film,
numbers in the range of 12MP to 25MP seem to be popular. Hand-held
using a 5:1 zoom on ASA 400 film is a very different story.

Why a tripod? If the film camera and digital camera are about the
same size and weight, and the same lens is used on both, why does the
film camera image improve with use off a tripod? But the tripod isn't
necessary for the digital image?

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't necessary for the digital camera. To
get a maximal value on either one, you need a rock-solid camera
support, and people seemed interested in *maximum* values.

Good prime lens, I agree, is important. Photographer steadiness is
also important. But it seems almost intuitive that almost any
subject with a lot of detail will be rendered better on either film or
digital with use of a tripod.

Agreed.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Scott W wrote:

Father Kodak wrote:
On 04 Dec 2005 12:03:46 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:


For 35mm film the resolution achieved on film varies *really widely*
depending on technique and film used. Using first-rate lenses and
with the camera on a tripod and using slow high-resolution film,
numbers in the range of 12MP to 25MP seem to be popular. Hand-held
using a 5:1 zoom on ASA 400 film is a very different story.

Why a tripod? If the film camera and digital camera are about the
same size and weight, and the same lens is used on both, why does the
film camera image improve with use off a tripod? But the tripod isn't
necessary for the digital image?

Good prime lens, I agree, is important. Photographer steadiness is
also important. But it seems almost intuitive that almost any
subject with a lot of detail will be rendered better on either film or
digital with use of a tripod.


Film needs a tripod more then digital because you can't shoot fast film
and expect good results. Digital on the other hand can be shot at ISO
800 with large loss in quality.

Whoopsee. I think you mean with *no* large loss in quality.

This whole question, debated at length in many threads, usually boils
down to those on the film side quoting resolution, definition, etc, ad
nauseum, based on Velvia, Kodachrome, or other favorite s-l-o-w,
finegrained film, or else ringing in MF and even LF to counter digital
users' claims. I haven't seen anybody trying to justify 35mm film rated
above 100 ISO, even against digital images shot at up to 1600 ISO.

snip

Colin D.

Colin D wrote:
Whoopsee. I think you mean with *no* large loss in quality.

That is indeed what I meant to say.

Scott

Father Kodak wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:36:41 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:


I do Lightjet prints from scanned large format film,
Fuji Crystal Archive prints (and Cibachrome, but
it is no longer offered). The Lightjet is a traditional
photographic paper exposed by a colored laser
writer, then developed by a traditional wet chemical
development process. The prints are simply stunning.

Roger


Unfortunately a LightJet is way out of the price range of ordinary
mortals.

That is why I use a photo lab to make my prints.
One needs not invest $300,000 to get a print,
just use a photo lab. I preview with small
prints (up tp 13x19) with an inkjet, then
cut a CD and have a big print made.

Roger