On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:03:29 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
> film.)
I guess you've never seen prints from Kodak Ektar 25 color negative film
then. ISO 25. No grain. Smooth tonality. Too contrasty for normal
bright sunlight. No exposure latitude. A difficult film to work with,
but if you knew what you were doing, you could make 20 x 30 prints that
would knock your socks off. And, it came in 120 roll film, too! Too
bad, neither lasted.
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>>> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
>>>>>> Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm
>>>>>> format,
>>>>> Don't get snotty!
>>>> Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy
>>>> for digital to trounce it.
>>> Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them
>>> a note.
>>
>> People keep telling how wonderful NG is, but I'm rarely impressed with
>> the photography therein. In the last issue I bought, the photography
>> didn't do anything for me (lots of underexposed bogus moody shots) and
>> there were two articles on places I happen to know something about; both
>> were serious BS.
>
> Hmm. I guess you're in the minority. Certainly not every shot is an
> absolute beauty, but they produce fantastic photography in any case. Even
> secondary magazines they produce of photography not used in the journal is
> stunning (and larger format).
I wonder what you are comparing it to? My two favorites are a Japanese
bimonthly landscape magazine (8.5 x 11.5", better printing than NG and
mostly 645 and larger; seriously stunning color landscape work) and
Lenswork, which is smaller than NG (and doesn't do double page spreads) but
uses much better printing and does push the envelope of photography as art.
NG isn't close to either. So I don't get the NG hagiography.
On Aug 27, 12:24*pm, That80sGuy <cl...@griswold.com> wrote:
> In messagenews:183a2a75-ecd9-43c1-a50a-6a480ddb5f08@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>
> "RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jro...@roushstudios.com> done wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the
> >> current c
> > rop
> >> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
> >> (Remem
> > ber
> >> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>
> >> --
> >> Bob D.
>
> > I don't think there is a proper comparision. *A print is a second
> > generation from a negative or slide.
>
> Or from a digital.
>
> > so comparing a digital file which
> > is first generation to a print which is second generation is not truly
> > a fair comparison.
>
> Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. *In fact, nobody
> CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. *A UXGA
> (1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp.
> The highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
> displaying a native 12mp file. *Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
> contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
> crap.).
>
> So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
> resolution.
>
> > Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
> > original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
> > contest. *However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
> > out a scan, which is a second generation again.
>
> Ever heard of projectors? *Ilfochrome? *You're a "photo instructor"?
> Yikes.
>
> > So, my point it this,
> > does it really matter?
> > Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files
>
> Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
> to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. *Pfft.
You comments are correct, but most people don't have access to any
type of projection system that could possibly be of any quality.
Plus, he wasn't asking about "what would BE the best comparison
technique" - he was referring to prints in his statements. Full res
on a the best monitor you can find/afford is the only way to view them
acurately - agreed - but once again few have that type of system to
view image files of any type.
Jeff Roush
photo instructor http://www.roushphotoonline.com
On Aug 27, 4:50*pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
> > Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Just curious what people think about this comparison...
>
> > Depends on what speed you used. If you used a fast film,
> > 400 or 800 or higher, then I agree. 100 print film did
> > make fine 8 x 10s, though.
>
> I've found that ISO 100 has also generally been fine when digitized
> and then printed at 8 x 12 with an inkjet. *Of course, there's also
> been ISO 64, 50 and 25 for finer grain, plus there's still something
> about the luminocity of a projected slide...
>
> > That being said, I haven't used my film camera...
>
> Once we've crossed certain "resource" threshholds (eg, computer,
> printer, storage, etc), digital is a lot like a music CD versus
> classical vinyl: *it may not necessarily be some so-called "ultimate"
> in performance, but there's not much reason to debate that because
> what it does do is make it "very easy" to be "very good".
>
> As such, digital imaging has now clearly progressed to the point where
> it raises the bar of what can be expected to be achieved on 'average',
> which is effectively also why it has been embraced by the
> mainstream.
>
> And what this also means is that the question of if it also exceeds
> the 'ultimate' performance potential of the medium of film really
> isn't germane to the basis of why the mainstream adopted it.
>
> -hh
Very well said - most of us shooting high end digital really don't
have systems to view the real quality, nor do we have printers to view
the same. Thus the reasons for my comments. 95% of what I shoot
leaves my workstation in Large Hi Res Tiff files and goes to a
commercial printer for publication - not to a printer at Sams Club or
Walgreens. Are the results better than 15 years ago in the finished
printed materials ? of course they are - commercial printing has also
excelled parallel to the digital cameras.
Jeff Roush
photo instructor http://www.roushphotoonline.com
On Aug 28, 12:32*am, Stefan Patric <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:03:29 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:
> > Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
> > crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
> > (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
> > film.)
>
> I guess you've never seen prints from Kodak Ektar 25 color negative film
> then. *ISO 25. *No grain. *Smooth tonality. *Too contrasty for normal
> bright sunlight. *No exposure latitude. *A difficult film to work with,
> but if you knew what you were doing, you could make 20 x 30 prints that
> would knock your socks off. *And, it came in 120 roll film, too! *Too
> bad, neither lasted.
>
> Stef
That was great film. I shot many rolls of it as a tester for Kodak.
Those days are gone, sad.
Jeff Roush
photo instructor http://www.roushphotoonline.com
Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:25 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <904bb4pdjs6d46f9hpqg208uun31djm5e2@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
>> <jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes
>>> "RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>>> Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,
>>> I repectfully disagree.
>>>
>>> First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.
>> Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
>> in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
>> into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.
>
> You're right, you can view the RAW sensor data. But it won't look
> like a picture you're used to seeing. Probably the best way to view
> it is just hex data. If you try to visualize it without converting it
> into somethine else, you'll be very dissapointed. Your RAW processor
> converts the RAW sensor data into something you can see that looks
> like a picture. *THAT* is 2nd generation and different RAW processors
> might make different looking images from the RAW sensor data.
One could argue a 35 mm slide is second generation, as the data is first
recorded on the film, but then has to be processed (developed) to
produce an image. You could take that argument back further and consider
the lens does processing. Hence talking of first or second generation in
this context is a bit pointless IMHO
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jro...@roushstudios.com> wrote:
> Stefan Patric <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess you've never seen prints from Kodak
> > Ektar 25 color negative film then. *ISO 25.
> > No grain....A difficult film to work with,
> > but if you knew what you were doing...
>
> That was great film. *I shot many rolls of
> it as a tester for Kodak.
> Those days are gone, sad.
*Almost* gone.
There's still a few rolls stashed in cold storage, although it is
becoming questionable as to how well it would be holding up after so
many years on ice.
FWIW, who would you recommend as a trustworthy C41 developer for now-
obscure emulsions such as this?
"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jro...@roushstudios.com> wrote:
> Stefan Patric <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess you've never seen prints from Kodak
> > Ektar 25 color negative film then. ISO 25.
> > No grain....A difficult film to work with,
> > but if you knew what you were doing...
>
> That was great film. I shot many rolls of
> it as a tester for Kodak.
> Those days are gone, sad.
*Almost* gone.
There's still a few rolls stashed in cold storage, although it is
becoming questionable as to how well it would be holding up after so
many years on ice.
FWIW, who would you recommend as a trustworthy C41 developer for now-
obscure emulsions such as this?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I thought that "C41" was the name of the developing process used for those
films.
If you don't mind B&W, there's gigabit film. And TMX100, which is a very
nice film regardless of grain size, is pretty close in grain size as well.
(6x7 TMX100 is the only thing I've seen that'll outresolve the 5D for
real-world images.)
"Bob Donahue" <bobmgtd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CdGdnTewPdk5wyjVnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
> film.)
Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.
"David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> I thought that "C41" was the name of the
> developing process used for those films.
You are correct.
And FYI, the Kodak Ektar 25 {was/is} a C41 chemistry film, which was
why I asked the question.
> If you don't mind B&W...
Then I'd shoot B&W.
Fortunately, I still have a reasonably broad amount of good films
available to use. The general challenge I've run into is all of the
local developers who were of professional grade quality have closed
operations, so I'm searching for equal-quality mail-order
alternatives.
I've found a place that does good work on E6, but I'm still looking
for C41.
FWIW, I still have some Kodachrome too, so recommendations for a good
K-14 developer would be nice too...its just not as high of a personal
priority, as I think the last time I shot any K64/K25 was in Peru in
2004, which was done very specifically for the timeless Kodachrome
look.
Re: 35mm film VS digital 
Linear Mode
