Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-19-2008, 02:56 PM   #46
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
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Adnan EROL Quote
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
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
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
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
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by artobest Quote
Until you start cropping. Which we all do, don't we?
you can crop film too...
12-21-2008, 09:31 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy?
12-21-2008, 09:53 PM   #53
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 370
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
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
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
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
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by artobest Quote
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
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
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...
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
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
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
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
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote

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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
files, film
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 9 04-13-2010 02:00 PM
digital to film... what do i need to know? 65535 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 12 05-15-2009 11:20 AM
Film and/or Digital..? shiestmiester Pentax Film SLR Discussion 32 04-18-2009 01:04 PM
Film vs Digital dylansalt Photographic Technique 23 06-30-2008 08:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:26 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top