Kodak Portra 400: Latitude, Grain, And “Scanability” Combined | Shutterbug
This link is for an excellent article I thought I would share. I like it of course because it is about film and there are very few of those around these days but it also confirms my admittedly limited experiences with Kodak's latest entry to the film market.
The author also claims that the quality of a 35mm negative is roughly equivalent to that of a 10 megapixel digital camera. I'm not sure how he arrived at that conclusion but it agrees with my subjective observations comparing images from my film cameras with those from an assortment of digital cameras.
This of course completely side steps the issue of "wet processing" versus digital & film scanning that I have been struggling with (although he does mention it in passing in the article) but highlights that fact that with the current consumer level of digital photographic technology there would seem to be little reason to favor film over digital other than perhaps personal preference.
Once you move into the realm of medium format photography, generally populated only by professional and serious amateurs, this is not the case. Here not only is film generally still providing better quality images than digital but doing so at an overall lower cost. Of course, since technology continues to improve and usually at exponential rates there's not much doubt that digital will soon overtake film there too and most pros are already using digital because of the many advantages it offers, not the least of which is instant images.
Still, some of us just like film better. It's nice to know that someone is still improving film technology for those of us that use it and Kodak definitely has a winner here.
Where did the 10mp come from? His article doesn't indicate that if I recall... Doesn't this depend on the scanner? For example, per here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/PLTK7600/7600.HTM at an effective 3250dpi the Plustek 7600i captures a 14 megapixel image...
ReplyDeleteSorry, I forgot to hit "Reply" when I posted my comment which I think addresses at least some of your comment. Please see my comment below.
DeleteThanks,
John
Thanks for the great comment. You are correct of course. Since he excluded the possibility of a "wet processing" comparison elsewhere in his article he should have clarified the statement by providing sufficient data to understand his contention . It didn't bother me because I have read many articles (with more detail than this one) explaining why the consensus is that once digital sensors reached about 10MP (6MP for a full sized sensor) they were capable of producing an image comparable to a 35mm negative.
ReplyDeleteI don't pretend to understand all the technical issues involved in digital images created by scanning vs a digital camera sensor. Frankly I am not sure I fully understand the significance of pixels vs dpi, but I can tell you from personal experience that the resolution from images created with my 10MP DSLR (APS-C) do seem to be comparable to images created by high resolution (18MP) scan at my favorite film processor. I personally believe that the film scans contain more detail and more importantly have that "film look" I prefer but as far as resolution goes I have to admit the digital photos are just as good.
Having conceded the point, I still contend that if it were possible to actually produce a "real" 8" x 10" print from a film negative, what he calls "wet processing;" and compare THAT to a similar 8" x 10" print produced from a digital file there would in fact be no comparison. I believe it would take a 40-50MP camera sensor to even approach the level of detail in a true analog print produced from a 35mm negative.
This is why photographers that love black & white, where "wet work" is yet common, generally still prefer film.