Film V Digital - DPChallenge Forums

03/22/2005 09:59:36 AM · #1

I have a question.

Over the past few years some of my clients have been asking for digital images. Ok I got a film scanner to scan my 2 Â¼ transparencies and was sending my 4x5s out for drum scans. The quality I was getting was very good, the clients were very happy with the results. They wanted faster turn times. This meant shooting with a digital camera. But, and this is the question. Is it just me or do high res scans from film look more natural? Digital images from digital cameras seem to me to look flat. Is this just me?

03/22/2005 10:00:31 AM · #2

Originally posted by sofap:

It's just you.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/22/2005 10:04:38 AM · #3

Originally posted by sofap:

If you think images from your 10D are going to compare to what you were getting from a drum scanned 4x5 then you are terribly mistaken. If you are looking for that resolution and quality I would suggest getting a 1Ds or a 1Ds Mark II.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

03/22/2005 10:06:41 AM · #4

Our wedding photographer used a large format camera and then had the resulting negatives scanned and put onto a pair of CDs.

His pictures are awesome, at the same time, they just seem flatter then the digital images I take with my 300D. Perhaps it has something to do with the scanning process.

That's just me too.

Prof_Fate

03/22/2005 10:07:22 AM · #5

Post processing can work wonders, or screw it up. Almost all digitally captured images need or could use some work to look better. There are camera settings as well that can change the end look of an image.

03/22/2005 10:08:06 AM · #6

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It's just you.

nsbca7, Don't be rude

Message edited by author 2005-03-22 10:08:36.

03/22/2005 10:09:56 AM · #7

Originally posted by di53:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It's just you.

nsbca7, Don't be rude

Me? Rude? Sarcastic, but never rude!

Message edited by author 2005-03-22 10:11:11.

03/22/2005 10:13:00 AM · #8

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Post processing can work wonders, or screw it up. Almost all digitally captured images need or could use some work to look better.

The same is also true for scanned images.

03/22/2005 10:13:10 AM · #9

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by di53:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It's just you.

nsbca7, Don't be rude

Me? Rude? Sarcastic, but never rude!

::puts on THAT mom look:: that wasnt sarcastic.. that was rude

03/22/2005 10:13:55 AM · #10

Most of what I shoot is in the studio, product etc. But yesterday I shot some aerials with digital and with the Blad, scanned the trans. from the Blad and the diffrence was quite marked. I do notice that the studio shots with digital look good and have been happy with the results. If going to the D1 is the ansuer, thin prehaps I will.

Thanks nsbca7

03/22/2005 10:15:10 AM · #11

Originally posted by di53:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by di53:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It's just you.

nsbca7, Don't be rude

Me? Rude? Sarcastic, but never rude!

::puts on THAT mom look:: that wasnt sarcastic.. that was rude

Sorry mom!

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

03/22/2005 10:17:33 AM · #12

Originally posted by sofap:

have you looked to see if you canget a digital back for your 4x5?

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/22/2005 10:17:44 AM · #13

2 1/4 inch square scanned with 1200 dpi is 29 MP image.
Dynamic range of a film is better than digital,you get more deeper tones.
Digital image have sharper lines because of JPG processing,can be done same with film scans even better by using PS or PSP.

cloudsme

Canon EOS R5

03/22/2005 10:22:20 AM · #14

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

03/22/2005 10:24:30 AM · #15

I don't know if it's all to do with resolution. I don't understand it fully, but I prefer drum scanned images to anything I have been able to produce on digital.

03/22/2005 10:24:54 AM · #16

Yes Di43, however the cost is quite high.

03/22/2005 10:27:13 AM · #17

Originally posted by sofap:

Yes Di43, however the cost is quite high.

Maybe you can rent a back for a day or two to see how it looks. Iknow theres a rental place here in Toronto that you can do that with.

03/22/2005 10:28:46 AM · #18

It's beginning to sound like Digital has a place and film has a place. The best thing may be ot lind the line and not cross it. I do like shooting with the D10. I have used it for several jobs.

03/22/2005 10:32:06 AM · #19

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Drum scanned will be much higher then that. 1200 dpi is considered low res in film scanning. A low end drum scanner scans at 3200 ppi, with the norm being over 6400 and the average film scanners now scan at about 4000 dpi. And if he is talking high end output I doubt the images will ever see JPG.

03/22/2005 10:32:32 AM · #20

Yes di53 I had an instudio demo from one of the mfg. reps. The results wrer good, however you need set lights the exposures are very long and flash will not work. Oh the subject can not move.

03/22/2005 10:33:15 AM · #21

Originally posted by sofap:

Yes di53 I had an instudio demo from one of the mfg. reps. The results wrer good, however you need set lights the exposures are very long and flash will not work. Oh the subject can not move.

Doesn't sound worth it then.

03/22/2005 10:34:48 AM · #22

Not to me. Thats why I got the D10 to see how I would like it befor I spent the money for a D1 etc.

03/22/2005 10:37:45 AM · #23

Originally posted by di53:

Originally posted by sofap:
Yes di53 I had an instudio demo from one of the mfg. reps. The results wrer good, however you need set lights the exposures are very long and flash will not work. Oh the subject can not move.

Doesn't sound worth it then.

At 16Mp the 1Ds MkII can compete with the medium format backs at a much lower cost. And with none of the problems usually associated with medium format digital.

03/22/2005 10:41:16 AM · #24

That's what I am counting on. I was able to pick up the 10D used and at a good price so I thought I'd try it and see. I have found that I get as good results with it as I have been from 35mm scans. I will be using the 10D insted of 35mm.