[dmdctusa]

I.........When I look at the images I get with any of my DSLRs at ANY ISO setting they are far superior to a 2880 DPI scan of either slides or film......

I would probably agree if scanning at 2880, but with my Nikoncan at 4,000dpi I will disagree. I have scanned and printed negatives from Kodak's black and white TCN400 film that beat anything I was ever able to do printing in the wet darkroom. Also, so far, no image from my K10 has reached that level of quality, primarily because the it can't match the tonal range of the B&W color negative film.

[PDL]

A few months back, National Geographic broadcast (well, on their pay channel) a show about photographer Joel Sartore. It was a wonderful show. I'm pretty sure that, at one point, one of the editors at NG mentioned that Sartore is the only or one of the very few photographers working for them that still shoots to film. I found that interesting in itself. Anyway, in defense of his choice of medium, Sartore talked warmly about how exciting it is to get his prints from the processing shop and be looking at them in the car as he drives home. (He's a pro, kids. Don't Do This At Home!) I remember that excitement, too. I remember the suspense and excitement of getting into the darkroom as soon after a little shoot to see how (if?) things came out.
snip
Will

If you go to Sartore's site - you will discover that he has moved on to digital now - interesting when we talk about how many images we take per "outing", Mr. Sartore was shooting 800 rolls of film within six weeks (that is 28,800 frames) and that was a burn rate far below his "normal" rate. His section on FAQ’s has some interesting insights on being a photographer also. (Nice site – everyone should go there – great PBS special too)

You might this "Film vs Digital" quote from "busting the Megapixel Myth" by Margaret Brown, published in the autumn (southern hemisphere) edition of 'Photo Review Australia'

Film vs Digital

For photographers who are still fretting about film vs digital, PMA International offers the following comparison: A 35mm colour negative has approximately 14 million to 17 million colour dye blobs. This can be thought of as 14MB to 17MB in digital terms. If we think we need a sampling rate of two-to-one for proper sampling to surpass the resolution of 35mm film, a sensor will need to generate a file of approximately 28MB. With 24-bit colour, the threshold for non-compressed images is in excess of 8 megapixels to give approximately the same resolution as 35mm film.

As for the amount of information contained in film. The dye clouds merge to form continuous areas much larger than the largest "Pixel" in digital. The real indicator of film resolution is measured in the physical size of the silver halide crystals. In B&W film the size of the crystals are much smaller than the smallest pixel used in digital. The crystals are also randomly spread throughout the media - where pixels are stuck in a regular grid. During development of color images the silver crystals - clump - move (the distances are very small) to form pure silver, these silver clumps then interact to create dye clouds - the silver is then removed leaving only the dye clouds. The dye clouds are larger than the silver grains and they merge (remember that the dye cloud layers are 3-dimentional). The resolution of color films is much less than B&W due to the development of the dye clouds - similar to using a standard paper in your ink-jet as opposed to glossy photo paper.

When scanned - the issue of the size of the pixel elements of the scanner comes into play. If you have a 4000 dpi scanner - that is assuming that the smallest dye cloud is 1/4000 of an inch. I have seen nothing to state what the smallest dye cloud is. Perhaps we need to scan something at 10,000 dpi and see what happens. I did read (somewhere can't remember the details) that a 35mm B&W image (unknown ISO - developer - manufacturer) contains about 40 MP of information.

I always look at my digital images at 100% - just to see if I focused on what I wanted. I print at 8x12, 12x18 and 20x30. For the web I purposely down size, save JPEG's at 85% and embed my copyright in EXIF.

PDL

[Paul_C]

Everyone feel free to send me all your 120. I'll take whatever lenses you have for that c330 too.

That said, here's another interesting article on the subject:
Clumps and Chumps

[Khukri]

I am not sure if this is the right place but talking of scan quality...
Cnn someone advise me - which is the better option: to scan slides using a Nikon 8000/Canon 4000 series scanner or duplicate them on a K10D using a slide duplicator or bellows mounted macro lens?

[pgenovese]

I love digital and don't want to see myself not shooting digitally but it was film that taught me the discipline to shoot and read the light properly. This is especially true of slide film. Then there is the magic when everything comes together in a single exposure, you just pop it into the projector and voila a seriously good keeper, no manipulation or tweaking needed.

Insofar as print quality ... Have you tried Cibachromes/Ilfochromes for transparency film. They are just awesome and they are virtually indestructable to boot.
Patrick

[Khukri]

I used to live in India where cibachrome etc. is not available, only Kodakchrome and Fujichrome.

I have mostly used Velvia and Provia on Canon T90/EOS-3 and Pentax 67 film bodies. Am now forced to turn to digital as slide film is virtually not available in the entire CIS region where I presently live.

I have yet to get the same depth, tonal range and colour from my 350D using the same Canon L series glass. Maybe the EOS 5D full frame camera (given its $2000+ price tag) will do the trick but am not sure.

Meanwhile, I am looking at the best option to digitize my slide collection...

[Yaron Kidron]

Ok.. I know I'm new here, but I've been shooting film a digital a long time now, side by side. I'm going to shatter a few myths.

Digital is great. It's new, it's brilliant, it's evolving. I still shoot film-- about 20 rolls a week to be exact. Why? because it's different, it's more intimate to me, and yes-- when done properly, it beats digital again and again.

I don't use cheap lenses, not on my Pentax, or Nikon, or Voigtlanders, or 4x5. If you haven't used a good lens on a good film camera, with some professional class B/W or Chromes, and then scanned it on a good scanner-- with GOOD scanning techniques, then digital is certainly EASIER to bring on the goods, but with severe limitations.

First, It's easy to dismiss film as being more expensive. It isn't. It's not even more time consuming. I'm NEVER looking forward to processing hundreds of digital RAW files after a shoot. I do enjoy sorting out chromes or negs (I can view and parse negs very easily). Digital workflow, administration, calibration, filing and storage, is not a trivial thing. Sometimes I feel as if I've been morphed into a computer administrator from a photographer. Very often it's easier for me to shoot 10 rolls of Portra, and have it processed and printed by outsourcing it all to an external lab. But I do digital or film, on demand-- as required by my clients.

It's very easy to trash film on a digital screen. This is not home turf for film-- it's a much more welcoming environment for digital. Therefore, most measurebating comparisons are simply unfair. I compare my photos in their final stage: prints. Although I own very highend printers, and frequently outsource my bigger prints to even higher-end printing services-- a high end silver print (b/w) will demolish any inkjet b/w print, and yes, I can tell the difference immediately.

I'm very happy to shoot digital, and I'm very happy to shoot film. Hell, if there was a way to shoot on another medium, and there would be enough client demand for it, I'll shoot it too. It's all photography to me...

[Yaron Kidron]

I am not sure if this is the right place but talking of scan quality...
Cnn someone advise me - which is the better option: to scan slides using a Nikon 8000/Canon 4000 series scanner or duplicate them on a K10D using a slide duplicator or bellows mounted macro lens?

This might be of interest to you..

[Bob Wallace]

Ok.. I still shoot film-- about 20 rolls a week to be exact.


First, It's easy to dismiss film as being more expensive. It isn't. It's not even more time consuming. I'm NEVER looking forward to processing hundreds of digital RAW files after a shoot. I do enjoy sorting out chromes or negs (I can view and parse negs very easily). Digital workflow, administration, calibration, filing and storage, is not a trivial thing. Sometimes I feel as if I've been morphed into a computer administrator from a photographer. Very often it's easier for me to shoot 10 rolls of Portra, and have it processed and printed by outsourcing it all to an external lab. But I do digital or film, on demand-- as required by my clients.

Doesn't feel to me as if you're being intellectually honest here. Let's look at a couple of things.

First, the number of frames that you might shoot using film or digital. 20 rolls of 36 exp. film is 720 images. If you're shooting that over a week's time (assuming an active pro) and shooting "hundreds of digital RAW" are you really comparing equal numbers. Or are you shooting less film?

Second, the time savings. You process your digital shots thus using some of your time. You hire someone else to process your film shots thus using someone else's time. Time is saved, it's just moved to someone else's clock. You could just as easy hire someone else to process your digital images.

Filing and storage? Digital wins by a huge margin. If you're spending more time filing digital shots than film you need to revisit your storage routine. Massively large hard drives prices have fallen to very reasonable levels and in no way can one find a specific negative as rapidly as a properly stored digital file.

Further you say that film is not more expensive. That needs some more fleshing out. Digital bodies no longer cost thousands of dollars more than film bodies. Film and processing are reoccurring costs.

"Twenty rolls of film" are probably costing you $200 to $300 per week, around a thousand dollars a month, twelve thousand dollars a year.

[Yaron Kidron]

Doesn't feel to me as if you're being intellectually honest here. Let's look at a couple of things.

First, the number of frames that you might shoot using film or digital. 20 rolls of 36 exp. film is 720 images. If you're shooting that over a week's time (assuming an active pro) and shooting "hundreds of digital RAW" are you really comparing equal numbers. Or are you shooting less film?

Second, the time savings. You process your digital shots thus using some of your time. You hire someone else to process your film shots thus using someone else's time. Time is saved, it's just moved to someone else's clock. You could just as easy hire someone else to process your digital images.

Filing and storage? Digital wins by a huge margin. If you're spending more time filing digital shots than film you need to revisit your storage routine. Massively large hard drives prices have fallen to very reasonable levels and in no way can one find a specific negative as rapidly as a properly stored digital file.

Further you say that film is not more expensive. That needs some more fleshing out. Digital bodies no longer cost thousands of dollars more than film bodies. Film and processing are reoccurring costs.

"Twenty rolls of film" are probably costing you $200 to $300 per week, around a thousand dollars a month, twelve thousand dollars a year.

Bob, I really don't want to put you down. I'd be happy to review my business expenses with you. Let's just say my time is worth quite a lot. More than $150/hour. That's what I charge per hour when I'm out photographing. When Im at the studio massaging DNG's I'm not making money.

I shoot more digital snaps compared to film, because I bracket more often with digital. This is not because digital is "cheaper". It's because it lacks the latitude to compete with film. Some once-in-a-lifetime shoots cannot be redone later, and with film I get better exposure results, because it is not linear. No, postprocessing does not help here.

Film cameras cost zip and last years. Digital needs to be constantly updated. Digital peripheralia needs to be constantly updated. That includes computers, screens, software, and guess what.. DVDs need to be burnt, rotated every 2 years (because they just die! yes, even the archival ones). It's different when you shoot 200 snaps a week on your digital and keep them online or in that 2 Gig SD card: it's much simpler.

Hard drives are not a valid backup device. They fail more often, and I cannot afford Terrabytes of HD storage, mirroring all over the place. I run a photography lab, not a computer farm.

So yes, film costs money, and processing costs money. So far, outsourcing film work is cheaper than outsourcing digital work, and since I have many business ties with film-experts, I tend to use their services, because they relieve me to actually shoot. No, nobody will backup my shots later on, or updated my Macs, or calibrate my printers/screens, or postprocess my shots to my standards-- not for what I claim to be a reasonable price.

There's nothing wrong with digital. It's a perfect medium for many things. I wouldn't want to shoot color film at ISO 800 or higher, digital is much better there. But film has it's benefits too. I do enjoy shooting digital-- but it's no heaven; if it was for my own personal use (i.e. snaps of family/friend) i'd be shooting only digital.

[Bob Wallace]

Bob, I really don't want to put you down. I'd be happy to review my business expenses with you. Let's just say my time is worth quite a lot. More than $150/hour. That's what I charge per hour when I'm out photographing. When Im at the studio massaging DNG's I'm not making money.

Then it's time to hire help. There are people out there (stay at home parents, students) who would kill for a part time $25-$50 an hour job doing your editing, backups, mail runs. If you can spend your time shooting at $150 then the difference between $150 and $50 flows to your bank account.

I shoot more digital snaps compared to film, because I bracket more often with digital. This is not because digital is "cheaper". It's because it lacks the latitude to compete with film. Some once-in-a-lifetime shoots cannot be redone later, and with film I get better exposure results, because it is not linear. No, postprocessing does not help here.

It should only take seconds per frame to check histograms and pick the shot that is best to send on to editing. Plus, since you can review your shots before you leave the shoot you stand a much better chance of getting home with what you need.

Have you read the article on Galbraith's site about the first National Geographic feature article shot exclusively with digital? The photographer talks about how he ended up shooting far fewer frames as he was able to review the day's shot and didn't have to burn a lot of "insurance" film.

Film cameras cost zip and last years. Digital needs to be constantly updated. Digital peripheralia needs to be constantly updated. That includes computers, screens, software, and guess what.. DVDs need to be burnt, rotated every 2 years (because they just die! yes, even the archival ones). It's different when you shoot 200 snaps a week on your digital and keep them online or in that 2 Gig SD card: it's much simpler.

That's not true any longer. We're past the days of needing to update every two/three years to get enough pixels and rapid response. A digital that produces what you need today will continue to produce those shots for years.

Computers have also matured. There's no need to chase clock speed any longer.

And read up on archival DVDs.

Hard drives are not a valid backup device. They fail more often, and I cannot afford Terrabytes of HD storage, mirroring all over the place. I run a photography lab, not a computer farm.

And investigate on line mass storage. You might find it advantageous to turn your storage over to professionals. A fast web connection and a cheap desktop could send your day's shots off to a very reliable storage facility.

Or hire someone to design and set up an easy to use "computer farm". You should have a system that allows you to come in from a shoot, stick your card in a slot, push a button or two, and have your RAWs automatically copied to multiple hard drives, some located in a separate physical location.

Unlike film, digital files are easy to protect from fire, theft, angry significant others....

So yes, film costs money, and processing costs money. So far, outsourcing film work is cheaper than outsourcing digital work, and since I have many business ties with film-experts, I tend to use their services, because they relieve me to actually shoot. No, nobody will backup my shots later on, or updated my Macs, or calibrate my printers/screens, or postprocess my shots to my standards-- not for what I claim to be a reasonable price.

Have you talked to those "film-experts" whose business is most likely shrinking by the day? Are they forward looking enough to see that there might be a business opportunity for them to start doing digital editing and storage?

I'll bet they would be glad to do the job for $100 an hour, thus freeing you from work you don't like and letting you put an extra $50 in your jeans.

[jfdavis58]

I am starting this thread to deliberately start a riot.

I read a ton of complaints about white balance, funny color shading, noise, vertical and horizontal patterns, etc....

Has anyone scanned ALL thier film shots?? have you looked at the garbage that the film recorded which no one complained about, simply because that is all that was possible???

When I look at the images I get with any of my DSLRs at ANY ISO setting they are far superior to a 2880 DPI scan of either slides or film.

Are they perfect? HELL NO! but I think too many people are spending too much time in front of the computer and not enough behind a camera

Hi Lowell,

I don't know if you feel you got riot or not, but I'll do my best to stir the pot.

I've scanned an extensive portion of my film library; in fact, I've scanned everything I've shot on film over the last 12 or so years. Burned up three scanners in the process--just plain wore them out. 2880 ppi scans don't really compare to digital; not so much apples and oranges, more like green and red. Scan on a 4000ppi device would be a better evaluation.

But the junk is still with us; we cjust all it by different names. And just like days gone bye, some of us spend far to much time discussing the junk than actually taking photographs.

I think your major point and the discussion faded a couple messages back and when I scrolled back to see the OP I was quite surprised by the ending. So here comes your riot.

The last two posters are what I would call posers; I've got a skateboarder in the house. Find someone who knows or is a skateboarder and you will understand the term 'poser'.

The cost of any small business (well, most small business) is seldom the business. For photographers that business would be cameras, lenses, film or digital media, batteries, etc. This is the small part! and film or digital, it's statistically unchanged.



The cost to small business is really in the incidentals. I call these the incendiaries (a purposeful slanging of incidental): money up in smoke! Here's a list of the most common incendiaries: advertising, licensing, regulation and taxes, insurance, utilities, rent. Transportation. Legal fees. With the possible exception of some of the rent and part of the utilities costs, ALL these items take without immediate benefit to the small business operator.

Incendiaries have out-paced 'business' costs by a wide margin and any discussion that fails to include incendiaries must be a discussion by posers. The cost of 'business' is actually quite constant.

[Bob Wallace]

Poser?

Well, that's rather insulting. But if that inflates your ego....

[Donald]

a few comments...

Most scanners use a linear ccd, rather quite different image capture and interpolation than a dslr array sensor. Here's what one looks like, and it's (Sony) lens removed...


But I'm interested in jfdavis58 scanning: slides, negatives, prints? About how many, storage, group or one at a time, post-scan processing time, do you use them much?

Here we have a photographer laying out his business modus operandi, and someone arguing with him why he's all wrong. I agree somewhat with the 'poser' comment: ad nauseum argument always is technology is the answer to your problems. Any business that has invested in such technology solutions also incurs costs to install, use, train, maintain, replace, etc. Know your process is the solution, not technology, which is what Yaron interestingly described.

As a business owner I will tell you the cost to small business is really in the labour. Same for business of all sizes, ignoring merger, acquisition and debt costs that silly transnationals mire themselves in.

[Bob Wallace]

a few comments...

Here we have a photographer laying out his business modus operandi, and someone arguing with him why he's all wrong. I agree somewhat with the 'poser' comment: ad nauseum argument always is technology is the answer to your problems. Any business that has invested in such technology solutions also incurs costs to install, use, train, maintain, replace, etc. Know your process is the solution, not technology, which is what Yaron interestingly described.

As a business owner I will tell you the cost to small business is really in the labour. Same for business of all sizes, ignoring merger, acquisition and debt costs that silly transnationals mire themselves in.

OK, I'm a "poser".

I'm also a successful professional (in the original meaning of the word) and businessman who made all the money he needed for the rest of his life by the time he was 44 and retired to do the things that most interested him.

The issue discussed was whether the professional photographer was making the best possible decisions regarding labor. Should he use his $150 per hour "employee" to do $20 per hour work or should he use his employees more efficiently. It seemed to me that he was allowing himself to operate using false assumptions and hampering his bottom line.

YMMV. Have a nice day.