wanting to convert film to digital

Adnan EROL · 12-19-2008, 02:56 PM

Film taste is different than digital.
you're right, noise is not the precise expression. What I really mean is that: I would get a spotless face and more crisp leaves if I had taken that shot with K10D instead of a film camera.
I want to see if I had a slide copier (or a macro lens) and K20D, would I get a digital image from film on my screen so clear that as if I shot it with digital camera?

Gooshin · 12-19-2008, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Adnan EROL

Film taste is different than digital.
you're right, noise is not the precise expression. What I really mean is that: I would get a spotless face and more crisp leaves if I had taken that shot with K10D instead of a film camera.
I want to see if I had a slide copier (or a macro lens) and K20D, would I get an image from film so clear that as if I shot it with digital camera?

were you not satisfied with the magazines that you read up until 2003ish, or all those fashion shoots?

ive seen images made with medium and large format cameras spread over 10X15ish pages in a book that would cause envy to any photographer in terms of crispness and sharpness

images made long before you and i were on this planet.

digital is simply convinient, and cheaper, and works a heck of a lot better in low light, but film is by no means inferior.

Adnan EROL · 12-19-2008, 03:13 PM

yep, I forgot all those days.

I'm a newbie digital boy.
Surely film is by no means inferior, but I think I should find a better way for film2digital conversion.

artobest · 12-19-2008, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

digital will always be better at the pixel level

esp at the 10MP mark and higher

Until you start cropping. Which we all do, don't we?

Gooshin · 12-21-2008, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by artobest

Until you start cropping. Which we all do, don't we?

you can crop film too...

Gooshin · 12-21-2008, 09:31 PM

got to use the scanner today (Nikon Coolscann 5000)

unfortunetly i dont have many quality films to scan yet

the original is a 4000X6000 ish 16bit tiff

, i um... reduced the size a bit

now, this was done with Ilford Delta 400 "professional", personaly i find this film waaayyy to grainy

currently i have a roll of Illford HP5 400, we'll see how that turns out.

anyway:

original (well, reduced size jpeg): http://fork.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p874742416.jpg

k100d · 12-21-2008, 09:49 PM

isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy?

Gooshin · 12-21-2008, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by k100d

isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy?

we'll find out

once this roll is done though i'm gonna stock pile on fuji neopan, my buddy shot with it and i like his pictures better than all the stuff that i shot so far.

elkarrde · 12-22-2008, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

anyway:

original (well, reduced size jpeg): http://fork.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p874742416.jpg

i like that photo very much! great work!

artobest · 12-22-2008, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

you can crop film too...

That's my point. A closely cropped film image will always look better than a cropped digital image. Especially if you are able to appreciate the beauty of grain.

Gooshin · 12-22-2008, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by artobest

That's my point. A closely cropped film image will always look better than a cropped digital image. Especially if you are able to appreciate the beauty of grain.

you dont really have a point though...

if you have a poor scanner or enlarger your cropping efforts are still going to be hindered.

ryan s · 12-22-2008, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

now, this was done with Ilford Delta 400 "professional", personaly i find this film waaayyy to grainy

currently i have a roll of Illford HP5 400, we'll see how that turns out.

The Deltas (and also higher ISO films) are meant to be tweaked in development...ie...Delta 3200 shot at ISO 1200. Or pulled...shot at 3200 developed for ISO 1600 etc.

Meaning...they have more latitude when it comes to processing than for actual exposure latitude. That's the price we pay for manipulation...also, what developer was used? I'm so jealous you get to use a Coolscan

HP5 seems to be the film for me. I have 2 rolls to shoot this week, but from all I've seen, I like it better than Tri-X. We'll see in practical use...

Originally posted by k100d

isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy?

It is. Using Ilford's DD-X creates a decently fine grain vs. the Kodak T developers. It seems to my eyes, though, that the grain structure is smoother in the HP5

Originally posted by Gooshin

once this roll is done though i'm gonna stock pile on fuji neopan, my buddy shot with it and i like his pictures better than all the stuff that i shot so far.

Which ISO level? I have 2 rolls of 1600 to use, but I've heard good things about this film in general. Definitely let us know how you like it!

Gooshin · 12-22-2008, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by ryan s

Which ISO level? I have 2 rolls of 1600 to use, but I've heard good things about this film in general. Definitely let us know how you like it!

you can see my friends Neopan 400 random shots here:

Paul Kounine | 35mm gallery 2: neopan 400

as for the developer, i just dumped it at our local "pro" camera store.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why is film still better than digital?	krypticide	Photographic Technique	116	11-06-2010 07:56 AM
Film to digital	octavmandru	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	9	04-13-2010 02:00 PM
digital to film... what do i need to know?	65535	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	12	05-15-2009 11:20 AM
Film and/or Digital..?	shiestmiester	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	32	04-18-2009 01:04 PM
Film vs Digital	dylansalt	Photographic Technique	23	06-30-2008 08:42 AM

12-19-2008, 02:56 PM	#46
Adnan EROL Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 120	Film taste is different than digital. you're right, noise is not the precise expression. What I really mean is that: I would get a spotless face and more crisp leaves if I had taken that shot with K10D instead of a film camera. I want to see if I had a slide copier (or a macro lens) and K20D, would I get a digital image from film on my screen so clear that as if I shot it with digital camera?

12-19-2008, 03:01 PM	#47
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adnan EROL Film taste is different than digital. you're right, noise is not the precise expression. What I really mean is that: I would get a spotless face and more crisp leaves if I had taken that shot with K10D instead of a film camera. I want to see if I had a slide copier (or a macro lens) and K20D, would I get an image from film so clear that as if I shot it with digital camera? were you not satisfied with the magazines that you read up until 2003ish, or all those fashion shoots? ive seen images made with medium and large format cameras spread over 10X15ish pages in a book that would cause envy to any photographer in terms of crispness and sharpness images made long before you and i were on this planet. digital is simply convinient, and cheaper, and works a heck of a lot better in low light, but film is by no means inferior.

12-19-2008, 03:13 PM	#48
Adnan EROL Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 120	yep, I forgot all those days. I'm a newbie digital boy. Surely film is by no means inferior, but I think I should find a better way for film2digital conversion.

12-19-2008, 04:25 PM	#49
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	Originally posted by Gooshin digital will always be better at the pixel level esp at the 10MP mark and higher Until you start cropping. Which we all do, don't we?

12-21-2008, 09:25 PM	#50
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by artobest Until you start cropping. Which we all do, don't we? you can crop film too...

12-21-2008, 09:31 PM	#51
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	got to use the scanner today (Nikon Coolscann 5000) unfortunetly i dont have many quality films to scan yet the original is a 4000X6000 ish 16bit tiff , i um... reduced the size a bit now, this was done with Ilford Delta 400 "professional", personaly i find this film waaayyy to grainy currently i have a roll of Illford HP5 400, we'll see how that turns out. anyway: original (well, reduced size jpeg): http://fork.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p874742416.jpg

12-21-2008, 09:49 PM	#52
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy?

12-21-2008, 09:53 PM	#53
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by k100d isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy? we'll find out once this roll is done though i'm gonna stock pile on fuji neopan, my buddy shot with it and i like his pictures better than all the stuff that i shot so far.

12-22-2008, 03:12 AM	#54
elkarrde Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 387	Originally posted by Gooshin anyway: original (well, reduced size jpeg): http://fork.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p874742416.jpg i like that photo very much! great work!

12-22-2008, 06:53 AM	#55
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	Originally posted by Gooshin you can crop film too... That's my point. A closely cropped film image will always look better than a cropped digital image. Especially if you are able to appreciate the beauty of grain.

12-22-2008, 07:02 AM	#56
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by artobest That's my point. A closely cropped film image will always look better than a cropped digital image. Especially if you are able to appreciate the beauty of grain. you dont really have a point though... if you have a poor scanner or enlarger your cropping efforts are still going to be hindered.

12-22-2008, 03:45 PM	#57
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Originally posted by Gooshin now, this was done with Ilford Delta 400 "professional", personaly i find this film waaayyy to grainy currently i have a roll of Illford HP5 400, we'll see how that turns out. The Deltas (and also higher ISO films) are meant to be tweaked in development...ie...Delta 3200 shot at ISO 1200. Or pulled...shot at 3200 developed for ISO 1600 etc. Meaning...they have more latitude when it comes to processing than for actual exposure latitude. That's the price we pay for manipulation...also, what developer was used? I'm so jealous you get to use a Coolscan HP5 seems to be the film for me. I have 2 rolls to shoot this week, but from all I've seen, I like it better than Tri-X. We'll see in practical use... Originally posted by k100d isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy? It is. Using Ilford's DD-X creates a decently fine grain vs. the Kodak T developers. It seems to my eyes, though, that the grain structure is smoother in the HP5 Originally posted by Gooshin once this roll is done though i'm gonna stock pile on fuji neopan, my buddy shot with it and i like his pictures better than all the stuff that i shot so far. Which ISO level? I have 2 rolls of 1600 to use, but I've heard good things about this film in general. Definitely let us know how you like it!

12-22-2008, 03:52 PM	#58
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by ryan s Which ISO level? I have 2 rolls of 1600 to use, but I've heard good things about this film in general. Definitely let us know how you like it! you can see my friends Neopan 400 random shots here: Paul Kounine \| 35mm gallery 2: neopan 400 as for the developer, i just dumped it at our local "pro" camera store.