| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2005 08:27:28 PM · #1 |
I just went on a trip to north carolina to go surfing, and while I didn't score many waves I decided to not only shoot digital but shot a few rolls of velvia too. Just had them processed. I've never shot slides before but man are do they look amazing! I'm not talking about the photos I took but the saturation and clarity. I think I'm gonna have to do it again.
Anyone else still shoot with these sometimes? I know it's not cheap but man I'm stoked about these photos. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 08:42:21 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
I just went on a trip to north carolina to go surfing, and while I didn't score many waves I decided to not only shoot digital but shot a few rolls of velvia too. Just had them processed. I've never shot slides before but man are do they look amazing! I'm not talking about the photos I took but the saturation and clarity. I think I'm gonna have to do it again.
Anyone else still shoot with these sometimes? I know it's not cheap but man I'm stoked about these photos. |
The thing is they look beter when you look at them in the slide form, and it is always exciting to get your slides back to see what you have, but when they translate to digital through scanning what you have taken with your 8Mp camera will be much higher quality. I have about 35,000 images on slides and another 15,000 on color and B/W negs and the image quality does not compare to what I get with the digital cameras I now use.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 08:47:59 PM · #3 |
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 08:50:26 PM · #4 |
oh yeah i know scans never compare. It's pretty sweet just seeing them since I've never shot before. The colors especially look so vibrant, though I know that is lost in the scan somewhat too.
Now I'm gonna have to get my schools hasselblad and shoot some slides with that, that'll be fun.
- it does depend on the scan though I agree, but at the lab that I worked at most prints from slides didn't turn out as smooth looking as prints from a dSLR, but prosumer prints looked a bit noisier
Message edited by author 2005-03-28 20:58:50. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 09:33:54 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Niten:
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
I'd disagree unless you are shooting medium format or better. Even with a drum scan there is only so much information in a 35mm slide.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:01:48 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Niten:
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
I have to disgree with this as well, I have shot a lot of slides and have looked at what other have done. A slide has to work hard to match even a 6 MP DSRL, you should be able to get at least as good a print from your 20D as with even a very good low ISO slide film. Have you tried shooting the same scene at the same time with both a slid film and your 20D and see how the prints look? This is assuming 35mm, MF is another whole thing. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:23:45 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Niten:
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
Tim is right-on. There is more resolution in a 35 mm slide than a digital camera. The bottom line, however, is the scanner. A good film/slide scanner will produce a high-resolution digital file. A poor one will not.
I shoot mostly digital because of convenience and because it provides more than adequate quality images. If I could afford an E6 film processor, I probably would still shoot slides.
Dick
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:40:31 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
Originally posted by Niten:
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
Tim is right-on. There is more resolution in a 35 mm slide than a digital camera. The bottom line, however, is the scanner. A good film/slide scanner will produce a high-resolution digital file. A poor one will not.
I shoot mostly digital because of convenience and because it provides more than adequate quality images. If I could afford an E6 film processor, I probably would still shoot slides.
Dick |
Have you ever printed from an image captured with an 8Mp DSLR?
I have. I have also printed from images captured with an 11mp 1Ds that will rival the quality of a drum scanned 4x5. I have blown up a life size print of an 8 year old girl standing up that I am about to put in a show. You can still see the minute detail in the iris of her eyes.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:41:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
I just went on a trip to north carolina to go surfing, and while I didn't score many waves I decided to not only shoot digital but shot a few rolls of velvia too. Just had them processed. I've never shot slides before but man are do they look amazing! I'm not talking about the photos I took but the saturation and clarity. I think I'm gonna have to do it again.
Anyone else still shoot with these sometimes? I know it's not cheap but man I'm stoked about these photos. |
If you like the rich saturated feel of the Velvia film... try the demo of this little app OPanda Digital Film 1.6.5 It does film reversal that imitates Fujifilm Velvia (RVP) and Kodak T-Max100 (b/w). It works pretty well.
The demo has a watermark that can't be removed (except by cropping).
Andy |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:53:13 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
[quote=Niten]
I shoot mostly digital because of convenience and because it provides more than adequate quality images. If I could afford an E6 film processor, I probably would still shoot slides.
Dick |
Have you ever printed from an image captured with an 8Mp DSLR?
I have. I have also printed from images captured with an 11mp 1Ds that will rival the quality of a drum scanned 4x5. I have blown up a life size print of an 8 year old girl standing up that I am about to put in a show. You can still see the minute detail in the iris of her eyes. |
Yeah, what he said.
Well I will add a bit more. Slides can have a lot of detail, but and this is a big but where they have more detail then a digital camera tends to be only for very high contrast scenes and only at the higher line pairs per inch. But were the eye sees apparent sharpness digital cameras tend to do better since they have more contrast. You really need to shoot both and print both and be able to tell. I have done this and when a friend of mine did not believe me we both went out and shot the same scene, his scanner might not be top of the line but it was a Nikon Coolscan IV, which I gather is not too bad a scanner. Whereas he had a bit more detail in his photo he had to admit that mine looked sharper. And this was with a Sony F828, my wife’s 20D would blow it out of the water. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 11:28:56 PM · #11 |
"You really need to shoot both and print both..."
And that I have Scott. I have 20" x 30" prints made from slides on my (and others) walls that are certainly as good as and possibly better than 8 mp digital equivalents. The following //www.dpcprints.com/print.php?IMAGE_ID=79392 is from a slide taken in 1966 and scanned very recently.
I admit that there is a downside. Slides, and negatives as well, will need post processing to remove dust and scratches (unless you live in a positive-pressure clean room). Other than that, if you properly expose the image, you will capture more detail on film, slide or negative, than you will with 6 to 8 mb digital.
Beyond that, the real question is "is this detail necessary." Probably not. After all, we have given in to the lesser quality of digital audio and video over analog. Might as well go all the way.
Dick |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 12:08:14 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
"You really need to shoot both and print both..."
And that I have Scott. I have 20" x 30" prints made from slides on my (and others) walls that are certainly as good as and possibly better than 8 mp digital equivalents. The following //www.dpcprints.com/print.php?IMAGE_ID=79392 is from a slide taken in 1966 and scanned very recently.
I admit that there is a downside. Slides, and negatives as well, will need post processing to remove dust and scratches (unless you live in a positive-pressure clean room). Other than that, if you properly expose the image, you will capture more detail on film, slide or negative, than you will with 6 to 8 mb digital.
Beyond that, the real question is "is this detail necessary." Probably not. After all, we have given in to the lesser quality of digital audio and video over analog. Might as well go all the way.
Dick |
I am always willing to be proven wrong, but when I ask for a post of a full size scan from a 35mm slide I normally am greeted with silence.
But since you believe that digital sound is of a lesser quality then digital I have to believe you are pretty biased against things digital. I know exactly what both digital and analog auto can and can not do and any one who believes that analog is some how better has ears that want to hear it that way.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 04:09:37 AM · #13 |
Yes I'm A slide man thru and thru, I have just got a couple of rolls of Velvia 100 to shoot, Normally I just love Provia. Idont thik film is dying, a lot of my friends have reverted to slide filmOriginally posted by petrakka:
I just went on a trip to north carolina to go surfing, and while I didn't score many waves I decided to not only shoot digital but shot a few rolls of velvia too. Just had them processed. I've never shot slides before but man are do they look amazing! I'm not talking about the photos I took but the saturation and clarity. I think I'm gonna have to do it again.
Anyone else still shoot with these sometimes? I know it's not cheap but man I'm stoked about these photos. |
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 04:14:34 AM · #14 |
I have just viewed some of my friends landscapes taken with a Wista 4x5
view camera and his velvia trannies blow everything away. when you see a biggie on a lightbox thats when film is god, |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:20:49 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by petrakka:
I just went on a trip to north carolina to go surfing, and while I didn't score many waves I decided to not only shoot digital but shot a few rolls of velvia too. Just had them processed. I've never shot slides before but man are do they look amazing! I'm not talking about the photos I took but the saturation and clarity. I think I'm gonna have to do it again.
Anyone else still shoot with these sometimes? I know it's not cheap but man I'm stoked about these photos. |
The thing is they look beter when you look at them in the slide form, and it is always exciting to get your slides back to see what you have, but when they translate to digital through scanning what you have taken with your 8Mp camera will be much higher quality. I have about 35,000 images on slides and another 15,000 on color and B/W negs and the image quality does not compare to what I get with the digital cameras I now use. |
I can see that you have the 1D not the 1Ds so image quality on the slides exceed the quality of your digital, there are only 2 digital cameras that compare in quality with the slides, that is the 1Ds II 16.7Mpixel and hasselblad H1D 22Mpixel.
a reguar ASA 100 film equals 16Mpixels in a full size sensor, the 1D II doesn´t even come close. sorry to dissapoint you.. the 1D II is still a nice camera, but a full frame camera is needed to compete with film.
but I think you just have a bad scanner if your scanned slides aren´t as good as your digital pictures, a scanner that cost $100-$10.000 is just a hobby scanner and will never aquire full details from a slide, the store that scannes my slides uses a scanner that cost about $163.000 so the quality in scanned images from them exceeds the 20D by far, I get a 400MB file for each slide they scan :) |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 12:40:07 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by petrakka:
I just went on a trip to north carolina to go surfing, and while I didn't score many waves I decided to not only shoot digital but shot a few rolls of velvia too. Just had them processed. I've never shot slides before but man are do they look amazing! I'm not talking about the photos I took but the saturation and clarity. I think I'm gonna have to do it again.
Anyone else still shoot with these sometimes? I know it's not cheap but man I'm stoked about these photos. |
The thing is they look beter when you look at them in the slide form, and it is always exciting to get your slides back to see what you have, but when they translate to digital through scanning what you have taken with your 8Mp camera will be much higher quality. I have about 35,000 images on slides and another 15,000 on color and B/W negs and the image quality does not compare to what I get with the digital cameras I now use. |
I can see that you have the 1D not the 1Ds so image quality on the slides exceed the quality of your digital, there are only 2 digital cameras that compare in quality with the slides, that is the 1Ds II 16.7Mpixel and hasselblad H1D 22Mpixel.
a reguar ASA 100 film equals 16Mpixels in a full size sensor, the 1D II doesn´t even come close. sorry to dissapoint you.. the 1D II is still a nice camera, but a full frame camera is needed to compete with film.
but I think you just have a bad scanner if your scanned slides aren´t as good as your digital pictures, a scanner that cost $100-$10.000 is just a hobby scanner and will never aquire full details from a slide, the store that scannes my slides uses a scanner that cost about $163.000 so the quality in scanned images from them exceeds the 20D by far, I get a 400MB file for each slide they scan :) |
I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken. First of all I do own a 1Ds. If you had checked my profile or read this entire thread you would have seen that. Second the file from a slide at 16Mp does not increase the information of the original slide. There is only so much information on a slide regardless of how large the scanned file is. I too have had drum scans done and even though the files sizes are large does not mean the image quality will improve after a certain point. I've tried to blow up images, both scanned and on an enlarger (which I would consider the higher quality method) and I can do considerably better with both my 1Ds and my 1D Mark II.
This is from personal experience.
I have also seen the results from photographers working with B/W film shot with medium format cameras and in most cases the 1Ds exceeds the quality of that process. Photographers who have worked in that medium for decades are amazed (as was I when I first tried) at what I have been able to do with images taken with the 1Ds.
It is nothing to be able to expand an image to 40x60 with the 1Ds and 32x50 with the 1D Mark II while still retaining great detail that can be inspected at inches from the print without noticing any graininess or degradation of quality. The best I have ever been able to do with low ISO Provia in the 35mm format is 20x30 .
I have nothing but respect for Provia slide film and I consider it one of the best slide films in the world for its purpose, but technology has exceeded what can be done with this medium. That is the only reason I could have been pried from shooting with it.
Message edited by author 2005-03-29 13:09:01.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:00:11 PM · #17 |
I took a photography class last year, instructor wanted us to use slide film. So on the field-trips I took my D70 along with my dad's old rangefinder - a Minolta Model 2. The minolta is 100% manual (there isn't even a battery or a light meter).
I don't know crap about the relative resolution of the images - but I found that the shots I took with the minolta were great (relative to my usual photos I mean) - as where the ones I took on the D70 of the same things.
The reason for this, I am sure, is psychology. It's easy to rip a couple hundred digital photos, but when I only have one roll of film I spend a lot more time setting up the shot and paying attention to what I am doing and what I want. That translates into better and more rewarding photography no matter what camera I have in my hand. When it's digital, hopefully I'm now doing a better job of getting the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:07:55 PM · #18 |
I just got a set of Velvia 50 slides back, and yes they're nice. I'd agree with nsbca7 about the digital quality thing, but I'd challenge anyone to get the quality I get out of a print from a digicam the size of my Contax TVS, which I can carry anywhere and forget about until I need it.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:18:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I am always willing to be proven wrong, but when I ask for a post of a full size scan from a 35mm slide I normally am greeted with silence.
|
The reason you are greeted with silence from me(until now), is because I'm not about to get back into that argument. Do what ever you like and what works for you.
Dont mistake silence as a concession.
love,
tim ;) |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:23:55 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Niten:
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
Perhaps there is a difference in image quality between the 8Mp 20D and the 8Mp 1D Mark II, because I have yet to see the advatage to 35mm slide quality over the 8Mp images I am getting from my 1D Mark II.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:50:22 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Niten:
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
Perhaps there is a difference in image quality between the 8Mp 20D and the 8Mp 1D Mark II, because I have yet to see the advatage to 35mm slide quality over the 8Mp images I am getting from my 1D Mark II. |
Then I sugest you shoot all your pictures with the 1D Mark II.
T |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 04:07:44 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Niten:
I still shoot landscape type stuff with slide film. You just cant beat it. I just dont get to shoot much lately.
I disagree about the scanning thing, it all depends on who is doing the scanning and what scanner they are using. For large prints a slide will kill a 8mp camera photo.
Tim |
Perhaps there is a difference in image quality between the 8Mp 20D and the 8Mp 1D Mark II, because I have yet to see the advatage to 35mm slide quality over the 8Mp images I am getting from my 1D Mark II. |
Then I sugest you shoot all your pictures with the 1D Mark II.
T |
No. I think I will still use my 1Ds from time to time if you don't mind. But if what you meant with your offer of advice was that I should shoot only digital I would say that I plan to do just that. I sold all of my 35mm film cameras. The last of them were sold about a month ago, with the only film camera left for my use a Pentax 6x7. That is how much I am convinced of the superiority of high end digital over film.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 04:18:21 PM · #23 |
If you are so convinced then why are you asking which camera you should be useing?
T |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 04:31:29 PM · #24 |
Just my 2bits on slide vs 8Mp, as that seems to be what this has come down to.
For projection, slide is stunning, the colour saturation and percieved sharpness is very pleasing to the eye, assuming your image is correctly exposed, in focus etc. Digital projection just dosn't do the job as well, limitations of the current technology and all that.
As for prints:
Well, how long can we argue about it?
8Mp is certainly good for large prints, as is a 35mm slide if the enlargement is done optically. The problem there is that most labs use digital plant now, and their workflow is not as 'clean' for enlargements as a more traditional optical enlarger, so you loose the colour saturation and contrast advantages the slide had over digital.
If you really want to post-process your slides digitally there are quite a few issues with getting a decent 4000 lpi scan from a slide, which is what is requried to get equivalent resolution to 8Mp. Then you're more than likely going to reduce the colour gamut significantly when you print or send it to the lab.
For my use 8Mp is great, and I'll probably not use another film camera (Given I've now sold my last one to pay for a lens for the 20D...).
I agree with Niten: Go with what works for you, and what you like to look at. If you're a pro, go with what your customers will pay for.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 04:32:16 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
...I have yet to see the advatage to 35mm slide quality over the 8Mp images I am getting from my 1D Mark II. |
Interesting that Popular Photography magazine just did a comparison between the Mark IIds and Fuji Velvia film (if memory serves) a month or two ago. For both color accuracy and resolution (enlargements), the film lost convincingly.
Message edited by author 2005-03-29 16:34:21. |
|
