Signal to noise has everything to do with dynamic range, it is the
noise that limits how far we can get data from, when the noise is equal
to the signal that is about the limit.

Well it is a question of better, many film people have stated that one
of the reasons they shoot film instead of digital is that film has a
large dynamic range.  In my scanning of film I can't get the range
out of it, even when I do different scans at different exposures,
although this can help is small amount.

With my digital camera photos I have a lot of extra range to play with,
range that I can use to do dodging and burning (in Photoshop).

<snip>

Aaahh, I think 128:1 is actually seven stops (2^7).  128:1 is pushing it
for slide film.

Colin

Why would it matter, since you already have an answer for what works for you.
You just stated that you cannot get a negative with that range, so even if
someone else was able to do that, you have found an easy method that works for
you. That direct digital works as a better solution for you than negative film,
or scanning film, should be enough of an answer. It is not like you would switch
back to film, or actually try anything different.

Here is an image that went through a great deal of adjustments, mostly because
the film contained more information than the scanner was able to capture at the
time.

<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/corporate/Amtrack_LAoldyard.jpg>

The biggest problem with viewing this on a computer monitor is that this is an 8
bit JPEG. The original file was created from two scans at different scanner
exposures, then combined. The first scan had no shadow details, but good
highlights. The second scan had blown out highlight (sky almost white) and good
shadow details. Both were combined to give good highlights and good shadow
details. This looks better in PhotoShop as a PSD file, and the funny thing is
the using the eyedropper tool it is possible to find more range of tints, tones,
and shades than what the monitor will display.

I should point out that image does not address your question at all. This was
transparency film, not negative film. Also, the contrast range and dynamic range
I wanted in the scan was merely to match the transparency. Basically, this just
shows that all scanners have some limit, usually more evident in a lack of
shadow details.

It might depend upon who is doing the prints. I have very few prints made
chemically, usually only for my exhibit images, and all those are at least 10"
by 15" in size. Most labs will do a much better job at larger print sizes. Many
labs do no adjustments at all at the small print sizes. Some colours do look
better on a monitor, but not all colours that can be printed will show up on a
monitor.

The main issue for me has to do with colour accuracy, range, and tonality. I
have never complained about the dynamic range of film or digital, and in fact
often choose films that are more limited in range. I like a more limited range,
or higher contrast, but that is a personal preference. Those making claims on
numbers are often just optical bench racing.

As you have found out, it is indeed often easier to get pleasing results from
direct digital. Film types vary, and there are many choices. Scanning is a
skill, and scanners vary greatly in performance. The dynamic range of scanners
is usually overstated from manufacturers. High end scanning companies seem to
suggest that a range of 0 to 0.2 highlight to 3.6 to 3.8 shadow is about the
limit of transparency films, and try to make their scanners to best show that
range. Don't compare those values to consumer scanners, since there are no
established numbers from one company to the next, and most state a theoretical
maximum only. Regardless, getting prints made is still going to give less than
the original in most situations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

I post images that I want to post for a specific reason.

I keep hearing film

I expect that a good digital camera yields detail from +2 down to -3 or
-4 or -5.  So that's up to 7 stops.  If you work at it in the RAW images
and if the scene had the range of lighting you might get as much as 8
stops.  Maybe.  But the noise at the low end of exposure will be high as
you're encoding into a small number of bits.

A good negative color film is good for 7 stops, no problem.  And it will
scan as such.  I just thought of a photo I scanned for my photoclub to
demonstrate negative film latitide.  I'll put it up shortly.

If you exposed the slide properly (which is a good starting point), then
there is little adjustment neccessary.  Probably less than a stop either
way ... there's simply no info outside the exp. range of the film, so
heavy adjustment always brings huge compromise.

And a well exposed slide is a lot more delicious than any digital image.

All of my Portra 160NC work is portraits.  Given the behaviour of some
people in the past here regarding personal photos, I very regretfully
don't post portraits anymore.  I regret this becasue I do some pretty
decent portrait work and some photos are definitely worth posting.  But
I don't.

Get yourself a roll of Portra 160NC.  EI it at 100, expose it for an
incident light/flash meter.  Develop normally.  Great skin tone and
detail while bringing out detail in dark clothes and hair.

Cheers,
Alan

I've shot two rolls of slide film for myself and five rolls of negatives
for "customers" (portraits / grads mainly).  Portra 160NC remains my
favourite people negative for artificial light portraits.  Prints are
fantastic.  I do want to continue shooting E-6, but that might become a
MF only endeavour.  I usually leave the house with a few rolls of slide
film in the bag along with the film body.

I've shot about 2700 frames digital so far, so the pace is about double
my previous film pace.  OTOH, I did a lot of experimentation (eg:
anti-shake tests; perspective presentation for a photoclub (film + digi)
and so.  Also shot a fashion show with it for revenue / contrast to the
portrait work.  So this biases the result as that wasn't all my usual
"personal" shooting.

In doing some experiments with the digital I was much more likely than
with film to try more variations with lighting and exposure control as
well as unusual perspectives.  Balancing artificial colored lighting v.
aperture is difficult with film; it is much easier with digital.

Some of the digital work has been portraits as well and the results are
supperb.  But I still prefer the Portra 160NC when printed.  Don't ask
why, I can't reply in those terms.  Further, since these customers are
paying the freight, I can just hand over the negatives and not worry
about managing the original images.  They will be safe in their hands
for 20 - 40 years.  CD-ROM / DVD?  Forget it.  There is no guarantee
they will maintain the data.

I may rent an MF camera for my upcoming summer road trip.  So I'll have
two - four film cameras and one digital.  I have some 30 rolls of 35mm
film in the fridge and about 10 rolls of 120 in the freezer.  I'll
likely buy more E-6 120 film for the trip and budget it out at 2 rolls /
day (Velvia 100F and E100G).  This decision is rooted in the results
from shooting a 500CM + 150 f/4 lens last fall.  I recently reviewed
that work and was amazed at the quality.  Big slides just look great.

My current shooting pace seems about "regular" compared to the couple
months after gettting the 7D.  Current "real life" workload and some
family matters have slowed my shooting pace.  I suspect in the fall,
I'll be shooting a lot of both film (MF) and digital

I am still in the market for MF, with a 500CM + 150 f/4  being my
favourite choice and the Mamiya RB67 + 180 f/4.5 as 2nd choice (it's
huge and the idea of lugging it around in the woods is not appealing at
all.  OTOH, for portraits it would be fine.  I 'viewed' through it with
an extension ring and it is near macro scale.)

As expected and as others have stated, the direct feedback and the fast
results just mean you can do more variation on a theme.  It's not so
much cost as time that is in play, and obviously you can shoot a hell of
a lot more in a lot less time with digital and produce more quality.  I
now want to set aside some slide film v. digital tests to map out the
exposure differences between them.  My cameras (dig + film) agree very
closely on exposure settings for a scene, so now the diff will be in the
sensors (film v. dig.).  I am hoping that there is a direct correlation
(exp. bias is okay) such that my 7D can be my "polaroid test" for MF.
This is not required for natural light, but for studio work, as I add
more and more flash and color gels it is getting imperative.

Remaining issue is scanning MF.  Fuji Frontier scans are, at best, okay;
lab drum scans are hugely expensive so an MF $canner may be in sight for
sometime in the next year or so.  However, the$e thing$ are not without
co$t.

Cheers,
Alan.

The better film scanners & software allow multiple scans of the same
frame at different exposures, in order to improve shadow detail and
reduce noise.

So what does that tell you? That film is crap or that you need a better
scanner and/or scanning skills?

I shot it in RAW mode and imported it two different ways
and combined the exposures.
The digital advantage rears it's ugly head again.