PKR
Mentor
Film has its characteristic curve, sensitivity drops off gradually, but you may have to deal with reciprocity; digital is linear (either responds or doesn't) and has no reciprocity problem/features.
If you have a film-to-digital workflow, then you really have to manage backwards from the IQ possible (and associated problems) on monitors and in the venues you want to see your images. One way of thinking about this is: What is the lowest level of image quality you are willing to live with?
Ahh, what the hell. Just get the camera.
Ben Marks[/quote]
Hi Ben;
You are the first post I've found on this site that has some understanding of sensors. I suggest you give Fuji Acros 100 a try. Look at the Reciprocity Failure for this film. It's not infinite but it's very good and a change from past emulsions. I work in both digital and film worlds. I tend to work backward when picking a format and "photon-reaction storage device" .. FX, DX, Film. Is it web use, print (if print how big), for my use (I'll almost always use film) or is a client going to pay for a lot of post on the project (could the camera be destroyed). Long live film scanners. If you haven't tried a Creo Wet scan, you're in for a treat. p.
If you have a film-to-digital workflow, then you really have to manage backwards from the IQ possible (and associated problems) on monitors and in the venues you want to see your images. One way of thinking about this is: What is the lowest level of image quality you are willing to live with?
Ahh, what the hell. Just get the camera.
Ben Marks[/quote]
Hi Ben;
You are the first post I've found on this site that has some understanding of sensors. I suggest you give Fuji Acros 100 a try. Look at the Reciprocity Failure for this film. It's not infinite but it's very good and a change from past emulsions. I work in both digital and film worlds. I tend to work backward when picking a format and "photon-reaction storage device" .. FX, DX, Film. Is it web use, print (if print how big), for my use (I'll almost always use film) or is a client going to pay for a lot of post on the project (could the camera be destroyed). Long live film scanners. If you haven't tried a Creo Wet scan, you're in for a treat. p.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
TMax100 also has a less-than-scary reciprocity curve. In fact, for long exposures it is "faster" than Tri-X. So I was generalizing. For general use, even with film, reciprocity won't be much of a factor. I guess what I was trying to say was that when you choose your medium, you choose its limitations. So, as I think your post states quite nicely, the answer to the question of "which fits my needs film or digital?" depends as much on how you feel about the mediums' limitations as their strengths.
I was looking at some portraits I did earlier this year with Kodak CN400 and an M5 and then scanned with a Nikon 4000 . . . I was really pleased with the look, even in a web-sized image I could identify the differences. Was the IQ "better" than the D3 would have produced? I don't think so, by any objective measure (sharpness, graininess, motion blur introduced because of the film's modest speed compared to the D3's high ISO performance). But the portraits worked and had a certain something that was very pleasing. Reproducing those effects with digital may have been possible, but would have been a lot of work. With film + scanner, they were just _there_.
The OP's question can be unpacked into many parts. In general, I think that the masses have chosen. But anyone who is getting consistently satisfying results with conventional film has a familiarity with his medium and a set of skills worth keeping sharp.
Ben Marks
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
To me it's quite simple.
I use film because a) I like to use vintage manual cameras, and b) I like darkroom printing.
Otherwise my E-P2 is enough for me.
I use film because a) I like to use vintage manual cameras, and b) I like darkroom printing.
Otherwise my E-P2 is enough for me.
PKR
Mentor
Years ago one of the Nikon reps told me the lens designers were upset that film hadn't kept up with the lens resolution in their lenses.
I think if you're creative, and know your stuff, you (intelligently) pick the correct tool for the project. If you get the "look" you want you are a master of your craft. p.
I think if you're creative, and know your stuff, you (intelligently) pick the correct tool for the project. If you get the "look" you want you are a master of your craft. p.
PKR
Mentor
There is much in your approach I envy. p.
Finder
-
I have made 16x20 prints from my E-P1 using cv 12mm and 21mm lenses. I would say the results are very similar to the work I have done with my Hexar AF with 400ISO color film.
wgerrard
Mentor
I didn't mean to suggest anyone was trying to to start that debate, something that happens often here, but to try to keep the thread on topic: the tradeoffs between using a m4/3 or similar camera while traveling versus my current RF/film/scanning routine.
No one here has said a large difference in quality exists between m4/3 images and scanned filmed images, which is interesting. Some have said they see a more subjective difference between digital images and film images after scanning. I'm inclined to think so many variables exist that a comparison between images from any single digital camera and images from a single brand of film scanned on a single kind of scanner is pretty meaningless.
The point about the web is, I think, important. As I mentioned, I don't print largely for reasons of lack of interest and inconvenience, but no one has ever asked for a print. What they ask is: "Where did you post it?". They don't want me to bundle up a stack of paper pictures and ship it to them. They want a URL.
All which makes me wonder, every so often, why I don't take the easy way out.
PKR
Mentor
Again, I think it depends on the final use (output). If you have a digital camera, you can email images as you travel. 4/3 cameras, are a great format. I like the models without the mirror box. Most of the better digital SLR cameras are on the big side. You have to be able to charge batteries with a digital camera. If it were me, I would pack my film camera and take a small P&S digital. I have a Nikon P6000, that will allow file upload with out a computer. It has a RJ45 port on the camera. I just like to travel light. I don't like packing a lot of unnecessary stuff. p.
kxl
Social Documentary
On the question of scanning v. digital:
1) For color, use digital.
2) For B&W - how are your traditional darkroom skills? How are your "digital darkroom" skills?
The only reason I even develop B&W in a "wet darkroom" is nostalgia. I still enjoy the workflow. If I didn't, I'd shoot digital exclusively.
On the question of a travel camera, the relevant question: Is an EVF an absolute MUST? If YES, then your want the E-P2. If NO, then I think the advatange of the NEX5 (bigger sensor) is more appealing.
I went though the same thought process, and decided that, for me, a larger sensor was more important than an EVF. I am now having LOTS of fun with my NEX5, and seriously considering using it (along with my ZI) INSTEAD of my DSLR on my upcoming trip to Costa Rica.
1) For color, use digital.
2) For B&W - how are your traditional darkroom skills? How are your "digital darkroom" skills?
The only reason I even develop B&W in a "wet darkroom" is nostalgia. I still enjoy the workflow. If I didn't, I'd shoot digital exclusively.
On the question of a travel camera, the relevant question: Is an EVF an absolute MUST? If YES, then your want the E-P2. If NO, then I think the advatange of the NEX5 (bigger sensor) is more appealing.
I went though the same thought process, and decided that, for me, a larger sensor was more important than an EVF. I am now having LOTS of fun with my NEX5, and seriously considering using it (along with my ZI) INSTEAD of my DSLR on my upcoming trip to Costa Rica.
Last edited:
goffer
Well-known
Supposedly there is an EVF for the NEX line that is in the works.
wgerrard
Mentor
douglasf13
Well-known
The great thing about the NEX is the manner in which the screen tilts up 80 degrees. It is like a waistlevel view finder, and it allows you to press the camera against your chest for stability, and it also doesn't draw attention by being up against your face. IMO, it is one of the main reasons to buy the camera (although I do hope an EVF is offered.) It's like a stealth mini-Rollei.
__--
-
Bill:
Some people seem to be reaching conclusions on "film-is-better-then-digital" from your two sets of pictures, which look like knee-jerk reactions to me. Those two sets of pictures are so differently lit, and so different in tonality, that they are not at all comparable. You could have processed the digital ones in Silver Efex Pro and easily achieved the tonality of the film set, which, to be frank, is not exceptional.
You mentioned that you don't like composing on the LCD. My feeling is the oppsosite: I much prefer to compose using Live View on the LCD. I used to like the Leica-M viewfinder because one sees what is outside the frame, but the way I use the LCD on the Ricoh GXR/A12 and the GRD3 that I now use, I like better: I use the LCD only to establish, roughly, the edges of the frame and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. This, for me, leads to a looser, or more fluid, shooting style that I value, particularly for street photography.
My advice is to try using Live View for a while without any preconceptions of a viewfinder beeing better. Indeed, when I bought my first Ricoh GRD, I placed my VC28 viewfinder on it, but ended up not using it even once.
Here are two digital pictures followed by a film one. I like them all.
Bangkok | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 1600 | f/2.5 | 1/320 sec
Pak Nam Pran | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 200 | f/8.0 | 1/320 sec
Manila | Ricoh GRD3 | 28mm EFOV | ISO 400 | f/1.9 | 1/55 sec
Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 21mm wide-converter | ISO 1600 | f/1.9 | 1/25 sec
Bangkok | Leica M6 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | Tri-X | ISO 200 | f/5.6
—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project (B&W)
Shophouse Demoliton (color)
Some people seem to be reaching conclusions on "film-is-better-then-digital" from your two sets of pictures, which look like knee-jerk reactions to me. Those two sets of pictures are so differently lit, and so different in tonality, that they are not at all comparable. You could have processed the digital ones in Silver Efex Pro and easily achieved the tonality of the film set, which, to be frank, is not exceptional.
You mentioned that you don't like composing on the LCD. My feeling is the oppsosite: I much prefer to compose using Live View on the LCD. I used to like the Leica-M viewfinder because one sees what is outside the frame, but the way I use the LCD on the Ricoh GXR/A12 and the GRD3 that I now use, I like better: I use the LCD only to establish, roughly, the edges of the frame and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. This, for me, leads to a looser, or more fluid, shooting style that I value, particularly for street photography.
My advice is to try using Live View for a while without any preconceptions of a viewfinder beeing better. Indeed, when I bought my first Ricoh GRD, I placed my VC28 viewfinder on it, but ended up not using it even once.
Here are two digital pictures followed by a film one. I like them all.
Bangkok | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 1600 | f/2.5 | 1/320 sec
Pak Nam Pran | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 200 | f/8.0 | 1/320 sec
Manila | Ricoh GRD3 | 28mm EFOV | ISO 400 | f/1.9 | 1/55 sec
Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 21mm wide-converter | ISO 1600 | f/1.9 | 1/25 sec
Bangkok | Leica M6 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | Tri-X | ISO 200 | f/5.6
—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project (B&W)
Shophouse Demoliton (color)
Last edited:
gdi
Mentor
I think he knee jerk reaction is to assume that anyone tried to prove film is better than digital. I read the whole thread and see nothing of the sort. But, there is a surprising sensitivity here to people expressing their opinions or offering examples.
I posted the sample set ( same lighting, BTW - it is the exposures that are different) simply in an effort to provide some perspective on a micro 4/3s camera and the ability to get similar results to a Nikon scan.
Not to fall prey to your "digital with Silver Efex is better than film" argument - but I would have to say that. IME, when it comes to DR, most digitals (even high end ones, not just P&S) can't approach a well exposed B&W film shot with a single exposure - even when it has been passed through an A/D converter during scanning. No amount of software processing can recover detail that was never captured and this affects overall tonality
The lost detail in the shadows and blown-out highlights of your second shot is a good example of this. The lower contrast digital shots do look good, though I imagine some of the FPN could be distracting in enlargements.
But, back on topic, I think it is apparent Bill has reached his conclusion (which I can agree with) - a 4/3 cam will do what he needs. It makes sense to me - drop the hassle of film if it is not needed for your purposes. He just needs to find one that works for him. I think he would well advised to try out both EVF and LCD models, a lot of people do not like the LCD ergonomics - it is a personal thing with no right approach.
__--
-
The loss of detail in the shadows and blown highlights in the second shot are intential in the processing to reflect the brightmess and heat. Actually, something similar is happening in the Tri-X shot. I tried to show a range of digital shots.
I never made such an argument: I merely said that that the tonality of that particular film set , which seems to have disappeared, could have been easily achieved by Silver Efex. Why is your nose so much out of joint, it's only a discussion?
What is FPN?
—Mitch/Bangkok
Shophouse Demolition
Last edited:
Jim Simmons
Member
I have the Olympus E-PL1, which I use with a 25mm CV Snapshot and a 40mm Leica Summicron. They are both good lenses, although the 25mm is quite soft wide open at f/4 and stopped down to f/22. It is soft in the corners at all apertures. For this reason, it does not meet my standards for sharpness on micro 4/3, although it is a very sharp lens when shooting film. The Summicron is slightly soft and desatured wide open at F/2 but sharp all the across the image at all other stops. These results come from properly shot tests on a tripod. For handheld shooting at slowish shutter speeds, these sharpness results don't matter. I'd like to replace the 25mm f/4 lens with the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic though.
I shoot both 35mm film and digital micro 4/3 for travel shots, but medium and large format professionally. I think that for someone who does not print and shares their work primarily online, digital is the natural way to go.
I shoot both 35mm film and digital micro 4/3 for travel shots, but medium and large format professionally. I think that for someone who does not print and shares their work primarily online, digital is the natural way to go.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I think your idea of going digital for travel and web posting is a good way to cut down on time spent processing from film to digital. Check out images taken with a 4/3 camera on the web to see if it will meet your needs IQ wise or go to a store and try one out with your own card, then check at home. I am like you in that I am you height and have big mitts and I also like a VF for framing. I tried an EP-2 with the EVF yesterday and came to two conclusions. I think it is too small to be comfortable in my hands, that is why you should actually try one out for yourself. Lastly, the EVF is good enough for me to use and far better than what was out 4 years ago when I got a Panasonic for my wife. The tilting feature of the Oly's EVF would be very useful. I have no doubt that the 4/3 files would be good enough for web use and 8x10 prints as my old Oly C5050 was at half the MP count.
Bob
Bob
wgerrard
Mentor
Just to be clear, I wasn't intending to chastise anyone, knee-jerkingly or otherwise, but only to try to contain the discussion within its intended boundaries, which is rather narrow: Am I likely to notice a difference between my scanned film travel images and travel images from a m4/3 or similar camera? The context of that question was camera use while traveling, because I'm tired of lugging a camera bag around on those occasions, even if it is a bag with an RF inside. The inherent qualities of film and digital aren't at issue. So, apologies if anyone took offense.
It seems the differences aren't nearly enough to warrant hassling with the bag. I'm not after perfect shots. I'm after not needing to put up with a camera bag while I'm trying to enjoy myself. That's an easy tradeoff for me, especially since I make no forays into printing.
EVF vs LCD: I have a bad habit of trying to frame too precisely, so that's one, undeserved, strike against the LCD. I also find keeping the camera steady is more difficult with the LCD.
What I've ordered: A Sigma DP2s. It's a bit controversial, but I had a chance to handle a DP2 some time ago and came away reasonably pleased. I've read a bunch of reviews and discussions, including a very useful thread xpanded started here. For my typical use, the camera's downsides ought not to be much of an issue. E.g., most things I shoot are inanimate, so they can wait out a slow AF. The reported easy-to-use manual focus is on the plus side for me. Got the Sigma VF, but promise to make a sincere effort with the LCD. Also, ahem, bought 2 extra batteries. (Anyone know if the Sigma DSLR's also gobble batteries? I'm wondering if the Foveon sensor both lines use is the culprit.)
It seems the differences aren't nearly enough to warrant hassling with the bag. I'm not after perfect shots. I'm after not needing to put up with a camera bag while I'm trying to enjoy myself. That's an easy tradeoff for me, especially since I make no forays into printing.
EVF vs LCD: I have a bad habit of trying to frame too precisely, so that's one, undeserved, strike against the LCD. I also find keeping the camera steady is more difficult with the LCD.
What I've ordered: A Sigma DP2s. It's a bit controversial, but I had a chance to handle a DP2 some time ago and came away reasonably pleased. I've read a bunch of reviews and discussions, including a very useful thread xpanded started here. For my typical use, the camera's downsides ought not to be much of an issue. E.g., most things I shoot are inanimate, so they can wait out a slow AF. The reported easy-to-use manual focus is on the plus side for me. Got the Sigma VF, but promise to make a sincere effort with the LCD. Also, ahem, bought 2 extra batteries. (Anyone know if the Sigma DSLR's also gobble batteries? I'm wondering if the Foveon sensor both lines use is the culprit.)
--
-
Oh, oh...
Seriously - if not already bought - you need to buy four more things:
1) the hood - it makes handling it so nice
2) the Franiec grip - it makes handling it possible
3) a good strap (like a Gotcha) and
4) a few hundred more batteries :bang:
I am looking very much forward to hearing how you find the battery life of the s-model. From what I gather it is better (and probably by far) than the non-s version.
I hope you will like it - and since you come from an RF I think you will - and that you will not pour kerosene over it any day soon.
Cheers,
Xpanded
wgerrard
Mentor
Oh, oh...
Seriously - if not already bought - you need to buy four more things:
1) the hood - it makes handling it so nice
2) the Franiec grip - it makes handling it possible
3) a good strap (like a Gotcha) and
4) a few hundred more batteries :bang:
I've bookmarked the Franiec site, but I want to play with the camera for a bit. Ditto with the hood. Can't live without a strap; I'll try a local store first since they have a decent selection of that sort of thing.
Three batteries ought to do the trick, I hope. I'm a rather deliberate shooter, film or digital. Even if I'm out all day trying to take pictures, it's rare for me to run through more than two rolls of 36.
Ordered it from BH. Should arrive Monday.