36 Megapixels vs 6×7 Velvia

steveo_mcg

steveo_mcg

Messages
6,320
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
This is interesting, basically top end Nikon DSLR compared with they toys we use all the time.

The detailed resolved by the Mamiya 7 still nuked the 35mm sensor in artificial tests. I'm not going to start film vs digital (films better :)) we all know the relative benefits of both but the raw resolution under a microscope so not even scanning is actually impressive.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
 
interesting but it all comes down to the scan

"Fortunately I run a drum scanning business so we had unlimited access to high end flatbeds and drum scanners."

That kinda sums it up. Im owning a D800, 5x4 and Medium format but limited to scans on a v750. Due to that ive pretty much given up on 35mm film in favour of an aps-c fuji. Good article though so long as your prepared for the costs of a decent drum scan for the special negs :)

And just to be a complete name dropper, i thought i recognised his name, he's following me on flickr :) god knows what he thinks of all the crap ive been posting on there lately!
 
Last edited:
Scans are a make do and mend solution for displaying film images, no matter what the scanner cost.
 
joxby said:
Scans are a make do and mend solution for displaying film images, no matter what the scanner cost.
Click to expand...

This is of course your opinion but not necessarily an established fact. You might find this post on large format info interesting.

While there are issues with even the best scanners equally enlargers are very far from perfect too and as I have recently pointed out elsewhere unless you can prise someones stash of ilfachrome from their cold dead hands there is no option to print colour transparencies except via scanning you can of course have that printed on RA-4 but thats going to be done via a lightjet Durst Lambda et al.

For most people still using the minilabs these all operate via digitail output to the printer.

People are welcome to prefer whatever form of print they like.

You could sumarise Tim Parkins article to ...if you really want to get the best out of scanned 35mm you need a good scanner as you go up in format size that becomes less critical but all this is as always more of a consideration if you want to significantly enlarge the originals.

Also just because you can scan something at 8000dpi it doesn't automatically mean you should do so.
 
So what you are saying is, scanners are a make do and mend solution for displaying film images, no matter what the scanner cost
 
No I am not saying that at all.

What should have been clear is that they are people other than just myself out there who prefer inkjet prints to wet darkroom ones and that there are plenty of sound reasons why they can be of higher technical quality.

As ever people will have their own preferences which may even vary from subject to subject.

Digitail is not perfect and film sure is not either people chose either where it suits their purpose / aesthetic or even combinations of the two.

Realistically scanning of colour transparency has been the standard since the mid 90's at least.
 
So the ulitmate resolution comes from 8x10 and industrial film scanner... we sort knew that already.

But let's not forget that the humble 36MP Nikon (or a 18MP doorstop canon 1DX) is more than capable of stunning and sharp large poster prints. You could easily shoot soul-less crap on 8x10 looking for the ultimate sharpness and take up space on your commercial blog and petapixel. Each to to their own I guess.
 
abbandon said:
While there are issues with even the best scanners equally enlargers are very far from perfect too and as I have recently pointed out elsewhere unless you can prise someones stash of ilfachrome from their cold dead hands there is no option to print colour transparencies except via scanning you can of course have that printed on RA-4 but thats going to be done via a lightjet Durst Lambda et al.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Can you not print a transparency via internegatives?

daugirdas said:
So the ulitmate resolution comes from 8x10 and industrial film scanner... we sort knew that already.

But let's not forget that the humble 36MP Nikon (or a 18MP doorstop canon 1DX) is more than capable of stunning and sharp large poster prints. You could easily shoot soul-less crap on 8x10 looking for the ultimate sharpness and take up space on your commercial blog and petapixel. Each to to their own I guess.
Click to expand...

The Nikon D800 is hardly humble; it costs £2000. You could put together quite a collection of medium or large format equipment for that amount of money.

Personally, I find the digital images soul-less, but each to his own, I guess.
 
skysh4rk said:
The Nikon D800 is hardly humble; it costs £2000. You could put together quite a collection of medium or large format equipment for that amount of money.
Click to expand...

You are missing a lot of irony in my post. It's been a long day...

skysh4rk said:
Personally, I find the digital images soul-less, but each to his own, I guess.
Click to expand...

medium should not and does not matter. Only the person creating (snapping) the images without any vision can make them soul-less. If you are not creating art in the film processing stage, then you may as well save some cash and shoot digital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
daugirdas said:
medium should not and does not matter. Only the person creating (snapping) the images without any vision can make them soul-less. If you are not creating art in the film processing stage, then you may as well save some cash and shoot digital.
Click to expand...

I'm not really thinking about art or artistic vision when I say soul-less, clearly those concepts rest with the photographer. I'm talking about the way the two media render images. The differences are subtle, but they do not record light in quite the same way.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
I'm not really talking about art or artistic vision when I say soul-less, clearly the concepts that you are talking about rest with the photographer. I'm talking about the way the two media render images; the differences are subtle, but they do not record light in quite the same way.
Click to expand...

The physics and chemistry behind each method are certainly very different. Considering that fact the post-processed results are (can be) actually very close, or close enough to be irrelevant most of the time. There are much more important things to worry about than that.
 
skysh4rk said:
I don't think that's true. Can you not print a transparency via internegatives?.
Click to expand...


It's a fair cop, I won't edit in directly as in you can not directly print it,but from a quality perspective I wouldn't want to go there with an internegative.

daugirdas said:
So the ulitmate resolution comes from 8x10 and industrial film scanner... we sort knew that already.

But let's not forget that the humble 36MP Nikon (or a 18MP doorstop canon 1DX) is more than capable of stunning and sharp large poster prints. You could easily shoot soul-less crap on 8x10 looking for the ultimate sharpness and take up space on your commercial blog and petapixel. Each to to their own I guess.
Click to expand...


Not a lot of people want to accept that though.

Personally I won't print larger than A3+ from a D600 your mileage may varry.

daugirdas said:
You are missing a lot of irony in my post. It's been a long day...



medium should not and does not matter. Only the person creating (snapping) the images without any vision can make them soul-less. If you are not creating art in the film processing stage, then you may as well save some cash and shoot digital.
Click to expand...


Ceratainly an interesting image is more important than a technically perfect but uninteresting one.

I may not know much about art but I know what I like

but then I don't do art I just take pictures for my own twisted amusement
 
AshleyC said:
interesting but it all comes down to the scan


And just to be a complete name dropper, i thought i recognised his name, he's following me on flickr :) god knows what he thinks of all the crap ive been posting on there lately!
Click to expand...

I quite liked your leaves piccies ;-)
 
daugirdas said:
The physics and chemistry behind each method are certainly very different. Considering that fact the post-processed results are (can be) actually very close, or close enough to be irrelevant most of the time. There are much more important things to worry about than that.
Click to expand...

For many people, yes, they're so close as to be almost irrelevant, but they aren't the same and it doesn't make sense to me to shoot digital to just make it look like my film photos. Film allows me to spend less time behind a computer and more time taking photographs, which is a win-win in my book.
 
Last edited:
AshleyC said:
interesting but it all comes down to the scan

"Fortunately I run a drum scanning business so we had unlimited access to high end flatbeds and drum scanners."

That kinda sums it up. Im owning a D800, 5x4 and Medium format but limited to scans on a v750. Due to that ive pretty much given up on 35mm film in favour of an aps-c fuji. Good article though so long as your prepared for the costs of a decent drum scan for the special negs :)
Click to expand...

Yes the beauty of film is that you can always get a better scan. So even those shots from 40 years ago can be scanned at a better quality in the 2000s than when they were taken. And they can be post processed and printed digitally if you like.. It's a great time to own both film and digital (as you know!)

p.s. Some of the sharpest scans I've had are from a Screen Cezanne Elite Pro flatbed - more resolution than both of my drum scanners and I got it for £200.. You don't even have to wet mount!

Tim
 
skysh4rk said:
For many people, yes, they're so close as to be almost irrelevant"
Click to expand...

But for fine art photography it's the minor nuances that can really make an image shine. Most artists are obsessive about these small details that many 'punters' may find irrelevant - but all of those small details add up to the final work.

For me though, it's about how I use the camera as much as what the camera is capable of. Using a view camera does change the way you look for pictures and the cost of taking a picture does force you into taking a lot more care over each image. You can do the same with digital but as much as I try I don't end up doing so - it's hard not to take pictures when they are all free and taking pictures stops you thinking about them sometimes..
 
timparkin said:
But for fine art photography it's the minor nuances that can really make an image shine. Most artists are obsessive about these small details that many 'punters' may find irrelevant - but all of those small details add up to the final work.

For me though, it's about how I use the camera as much as what the camera is capable of. Using a view camera does change the way you look for pictures and the cost of taking a picture does force you into taking a lot more care over each image. You can do the same with digital but as much as I try I don't end up doing so - it's hard not to take pictures when they are all free and taking pictures stops you thinking about them sometimes..
Click to expand...

Yep, I identify with a lot you've said there, although I don't think anyone will be mistaking my photographs for fine art, that's for sure. ;)
 
timparkin said:
But for fine art photography it's the minor nuances that can really make an image shine. Most artists are obsessive about these small details that many 'punters' may find irrelevant - but all of those small details add up to the final work.
Click to expand...

There was a stage when I felt similarly - obsessed about detail and occasionally missing the whole picture. The buyers of landscape imagery are rarely photographers, let alone large format film photographers (your market may be different). Many people just can't appreciate subtle detail in a way you can. However, bigger qualities like scale, colour balance, light, subject matter, mood and composition get noticed more easily. If you miss any of those, the film slide is largely wasted. How close do you look at images anyway? When I go to galleries I typically stand at least 2m away for a start.
I know, a large format scan can let you print across a large wall, and that is great. On the other hand A1 prints will look damn close to well-processed full frame Canon.

timparkin said:
For me though, it's about how I use the camera as much as what the camera is capable of. Using a view camera does change the way you look for pictures and the cost of taking a picture does force you into taking a lot more care over each image. You can do the same with digital but as much as I try I don't end up doing so - it's hard not to take pictures when they are all free and taking pictures stops you thinking about them sometimes..
Click to expand...

I am looking for images with my eyes (shocker!). I don't need a camera until I find what I am looking for. This is different to making the most of a remote travel location, and in such case I am very glad of the options that digital gives me.
I am not sure it is a good feeling to go on a longer hike with just 10 frames that will cost you almost £1k to sort out.
 
daugirdas said:
There was a stage when I felt similarly - obsessed about detail and occasionally missing the whole picture. The buyers of landscape imagery are rarely photographers, let alone large format film photographers (your market may be different). Many people just can't appreciate subtle detail in a way you can. However, bigger qualities like scale, colour balance, light, subject matter, mood and composition get noticed more easily. If you miss any of those, the film slide is largely wasted.
Click to expand...

I'm presuming these small issues are 'as well as' not 'instead of'. And I do think that the average man on the street does react to quality - they may not know what they are reacting to but that doesn't mean they're not reacting.

daugirdas said:
I am looking for images with my eyes (shocker!). I don't need a camera until I find what I am looking for. This is different to making the most of a remote travel location, and in such case I am very glad of the options that digital gives me.
I am not sure it is a good feeling to go on a longer hike with just 10 frames that will cost you almost £1k to sort out.
Click to expand...

Well what works for you is great.. I'm just explaining what works for me and why..
 
timparkin said:
For me though, it's about how I use the camera as much as what the camera is capable of. Using a view camera does change the way you look for pictures and the cost of taking a picture does force you into taking a lot more care over each image. You can do the same with digital but as much as I try I don't end up doing so - it's hard not to take pictures when they are all free and taking pictures stops you thinking about them sometimes..
Click to expand...

This is my view as well. Although I don't shoot large format (yet!!!) I find that I much more enjoy the whole process of making images with my medium format (and also 35mm) equipment than I do with digital. Digital is great, I have taken some images I am extremely proud of on digital cameras but I find it a bit, to quote RJ, soulless to use.

I think this thread is descending into a film v digital debate and has lost its way a bit. The fact of the matter is that for most of us still shooting film the best way to display our images is by scanning and putting them online. Yes, the quality is probably not the same as seeing them printed out from the negative by a master printer and displayed in a gallery but we do not have that option. It is a very elitist and short term view that this is the only way to deal with film, times change and we must change with them. For my work a V500 and PS Elements works, I'm happy with the output. Later when I have more time I will hopefully have a little darkroom where I can print my work and I very much look forward to this as it is the 'proper' way of doing it and is a natural end point to the process but for now its a scan a bit of PS and load 'em up for you lot to mock...:D.
 
Andysnap said:
This is my view as well. Although I don't shoot large format (yet!!!) I find that I much more enjoy the whole process of making images with my medium format (and also 35mm) equipment than I do with digital. Digital is great, I have taken some images I am extremely proud of on digital cameras but I find it a bit, to quote RJ, soulless to use.
Click to expand...
Soulless is a bit harsh but there doesn't seem to be a sense of artefact that comes with a film shot. This is only a perception to the photographer though - I'd be hard pushed to tell a difference between a film and digital shot from MFDB without resorting to recognising colour characteristics or spotting digital artefacts

Andysnap said:
I think this thread is descending into a film v digital debate and has lost its way a bit. The fact of the matter is that for most of us still shooting film the best way to display our images is by scanning and putting them online. Yes, the quality is probably not the same as seeing them printed out from the negative by a master printer and displayed in a gallery but we do not have that option. It is a very elitist and short term view that this is the only way to deal with film, times change and we must change with them. For my work a V500 and PS Elements works, I'm happy with the output. Later when I have more time I will hopefully have a little darkroom where I can print my work and I very much look forward to this as it is the 'proper' way of doing it and is a natural end point to the process but for now its a scan a bit of PS and load 'em up for you lot to mock...:D.
Click to expand...

There are still a few labs that make darkroom prints at reasonable sizes. Scanning is definitely a great way to get things done though. I'm looking forward to playing with contact printing from inkjet internegs though! (especially Pt/Pd like processes)
 
I think perhaps that I mean the process rather than the result is a bit soulless, possibly not quite the right word, maybe clinical would be better. The process of finding a spot, setting up, wandering around until I get the right place, metering, focussing and making an exposure all seems to be more gratifying with film. I know you can still do all this with digital, and maybe its just my need to make things more difficult than necessary, but it doesn't 'feel' the same. Digital cameras feel like tools, film cameras, especially older ones, feel more like well-crafted machines that have a 'soul'... mmm there's that word again.
As to internegs... well Sebastiao Salgado doesn't do to bad with his does he. ;)

Andy
 
Agree Andy and it's pointless going to film ver digital argument as on this forum we all know the advantages of digital at times and are here because we enjoy using a film camera of all sorts (even a pinhole) and some enjoy developing negs etc.
 
Reading back over it, I was surprised how much detail 35mm could resolve. I always thought it was beaten when dslr passed 8mp, admittedly it needs a scanner the size of a chest of drawers but still.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Reading back over it, I was surprised how much detail 35mm could resolve. I always thought it was beaten when dslr passed 8mp, admittedly it needs a scanner the size of a chest of drawers but still.
Click to expand...


If you use microfilm, 35mm can be very good......... just one example of film that might still be available


http://www.frugalphotographer.com/Publications/process001.pdf
A properly exposed and processed 35mm Bluefire Police negative can be enlarged to as much as 100x without losing image detail to grain.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Reading back over it, I was surprised how much detail 35mm could resolve. I always thought it was beaten when dslr passed 8mp, admittedly it needs a scanner the size of a chest of drawers but still.
Click to expand...

Yep indeed, 8MP is nowhere near the amount of useful information some films in 35mm are capable of recording. I've been quite stunned at the amount of detail that the Screen Cezanne can pull from those little frames if the image is sharp!
 
steveo_mcg said:
Reading back over it, I was surprised how much detail 35mm could resolve. I always thought it was beaten when dslr passed 8mp, admittedly it needs a scanner the size of a chest of drawers but still.
Click to expand...
Actually the Imacon can get more resolution than most drum scanners for 35mm film (when they're configured correctly - which is fairly rare to be honest)
 
A different perspective: the quality of image achievable by either medium is irrelevant. In my opinion, there is not, and hasn't been anything wrong with digital for a long time. Average people like me with average scanning capability cannot match the average digital camera image for image resolution. For example, I typically get about 7 megapixels out of a 35mm image once sharpened (I could scan at a higher resolution but that doesn't get me more detail) and 30ish from a frame of 6x7 from my RB67. I'll typically downscale my medium format images to 12-18 megapixels. In all cases, I have plenty more resolution than I need given that I don't (ever intend to) print posters from my photos.

So why stick to film for the most part? My answer is simple - because of the cameras and the look of the film. When it comes to medium format vs. 35mm digital, the main benefit of medium format is the use of generally longer focal lengths, and the perspective difference that gives. That and the fun factor of using medium format cameras.
 
I think this confirms my opinion that for the same film/sensor size, the resolution of film and digital is about the same now. Both technologies have matured to a point where the laws of physics are the limiting factors.

Film still has the advantage of higher dynamic range and sensor manufacturers should be working on this rather than trying to pack even more pixels into the same space.


Steve.
 
I think transitions are better on film too, graduations of colour/tones especially in bright areas often is a bit harsh on digital, and having to shoot 48bit to get the best out of the file makes them rather large. That been said I enjoy both, film is fun and more of a process and I enjoy the look and feel of different films. Digital is great for the liberating feeling of firing 20 different shots of same thing and not caring about the cost and getting instant feedback.
 
Andysnap said:
...I find that I much more enjoy the whole process of making images with my medium format (and also 35mm) equipment than I do with digital...
Click to expand...

For me it's simple as that and, in my opinion, film vs digital debates are a big waste of time and energy.
 
ariel7515 said:
For me it's simple as that and, in my opinion, film vs digital debates are a big waste of time and energy.
Click to expand...

Well for the usual arguments I agree, but I'm interested in what digi cameras can do just to keep up with what's going on.....e.g digi shots produced for panos that you would need to use a roll of film to compete for just one image :eek: using Photoshop.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well for the usual arguments I agree, but I'm interested in what digi cameras can do just to keep up with what's going on.....e.g digi shots produced for panos that you would need to use a roll of film to compete for just one image :eek: using Photoshop.
Click to expand...

True but you can do your pano with a single shot rather than messing around with funny tripod heads and stitching.
 
steveo_mcg said:
True but you can do your pano with a single shot rather than messing around with funny tripod heads and stitching.
Click to expand...


Not if you want a wide angle shot using a 50mm or 80mm lens (or whatever) which gives a much better result for some subjects than just using a wide angle lens where everything is small....e.g a castle set in attractive grounds.
After all it's only doing what your eyes do when you pan a scene as IIRC eyes are equivalent of about 40-50mm lens.
 
Last edited:
I've done panoramas hand held using the built in functions of a couple of digital cameras, most recently with a Sony a7r; it works when you use a non-standard lens.

Personally, given the size I print etc, 35mm is a dead duck. Far too small for a decent print either scanned or in the darkroom. For colour, given the lower resolution of the three layered colour films, I'd pick the a7r over scanned colour negatives from my RZ67. For black and white - which is what I normally use - I still prefer the RZ67 or 5x4, with 5x4 winning because I have a full range of movements as well as a larger negative.

As to blacking out a room - Nova did a darkroom tent that you could set up anywhere and put an enlarger in. I think I saw one for sale recently. I'm fortunate in having a permanent area for a (small) darkroom. It's a size up from my 5x4 film, being 5x7 (although the dimensions this time are feet not inches).

N.B. I can get better black and white prints by scanning and inkjet printing than I can in the darkroom, so that is my preferred printing method now.
 
StephenM said:
I've done panoramas hand held using the built in functions of a couple of digital cameras, most recently with a Sony a7r; it works when you use a non-standard lens.

Personally, given the size I print etc, 35mm is a dead duck. Far too small for a decent print either scanned or in the darkroom. For colour, given the lower resolution of the three layered colour films, I'd pick the a7r over scanned colour negatives from my RZ67. For black and white - which is what I normally use - I still prefer the RZ67 or 5x4, with 5x4 winning because I have a full range of movements as well as a larger negative.

As to blacking out a room - Nova did a darkroom tent that you could set up anywhere and put an enlarger in. I think I saw one for sale recently. I'm fortunate in having a permanent area for a (small) darkroom. It's a size up from my 5x4 film, being 5x7 (although the dimensions this time are feet not inches).

N.B. I can get better black and white prints by scanning and inkjet printing than I can in the darkroom, so that is my preferred printing method now.
Click to expand...

H'mm interesting so 35mm digi cameras have now equaled or overtaken 6X7 film, I suppose next would be LF....A7R and nice camera beats my 50p boot sale buy for a Kodak 1mp compact to play with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top