 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / December 2005scanning film
Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a digital camera? bill > Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a > digital camera? > bill What was that sound I just heard, oh yeah it is the sound a of can of warms being opened. The short answer is it depends on what film (size and type) and what digital camera. Scott worms >> Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than >> from a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Scott > Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than > from a digital camera? > bill You might want to take this question to comp.periphs.scanners this is the darkroom group. thank you ... this i shall do bill >> Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than >> from a digital camera? >> bill > > You might want to take this question to comp.periphs.scanners this is the > darkroom group. Yes, a 2400dpi scan of a 4x5" film is 125 megapixels. If you scan 8x10" film, you can over 1000 megapixels. Now do you mean scanning 35mm film? If so, most believe that high-end dSLRs now produce images better than the best scans from 35mm. > Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a > digital camera? > bill > Now do you mean scanning 35mm film? If so, most believe that high-end > dSLRs now produce images better than the best scans from 35mm. A digital camera will [should] always perform better than a scan of the equivalent film image. Both the camera and the scanner digitize the image, producing digitizing artifacts. The scanned film only adds film artifacts, further degrading the image. Obviously, if the equipment is miss-matched [EOS-1D Vs 300 dpi ScanJet; JamCam Vs Heidelberg/Hell] the comparison results can be anything you want.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >> Now do you mean scanning 35mm film? If so, most believe that high-end >> dSLRs now produce images better than the best scans from 35mm. > > A digital camera will [should] always perform better than a > scan of the equivalent film image. So all one needs is to find a digital camera capable of making an image as good as one from my RB. Hmmm, don't think one exists yet. At least not one afforable by the average "prosumer". SignatureRegards, John S. Douglas - Photographer & Webmaster http://www.legacy-photo.com - http://www.puresilver.org > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:16:55 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > > A digital camera will [should] always perform better than a > > scan of the equivalent film image. > So all one needs is to find a digital camera capable of making an image as > good as one from my RB. Hmmm, don't think one exists yet. At least not one > afforable by the average "prosumer". I don't think there is a 6x7cm image sensor, yet. Maybe never. You have to keep it apples to apples -- if I took away the RB and replaced with a BarbieCam then finding a digital camera that outperformed film wouldn't be very hard. If it's a theoretical posit then $$ don't enter into it. If $$ count then an Isolette/Nettar [MF format folders] with a Solagon/Tessar would beat all for pixels/dollar == and most likely they still would even if equipped with a pedestrian Apotar/Novar triplet. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:16:55 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > >>> A digital camera will [should] always perform better than a >>> scan of the equivalent film image. >> So all one needs is to find a digital camera capable of making an image as >> good as one from my RB. Hmmm, don't think one exists yet. At least not one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and replaced with a BarbieCam then finding a digital camera > that outperformed film wouldn't be very hard. I also meant to point out that most digi-cams have sensors that are equivalent in area to a film area unless we're stipulating the few 24X36mm sensors such as on Canons EOS 1DS and 5D. I suppose I should just hit a lottery somewhere and get a Hasselblad H1D (37x49mm). SignatureRegards, John S. Douglas - Photographer & Webmaster http://www.legacy-photo.com - http://www.puresilver.org On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:30:08 -0600, in rec.photo.darkroom you wrote: >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:16:55 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I also meant to point out that most digi-cams have sensors that are Ummmm, "are not" ! Jeez ! One of thoise days ! > equivalent in area to a film area unless we're stipulating the few 24X36mm > sensors such as on Canons EOS 1DS and 5D. > > I suppose I should just hit a lottery somewhere and get a Hasselblad H1D > (37x49mm). SignatureRegards, John S. Douglas - Photographer & Webmaster http://www.legacy-photo.com - http://www.puresilver.org I love that comment ... bill >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:16:55 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I suppose I should just hit a lottery somewhere and get a Hasselblad H1D > (37x49mm). Damn ... wish.... wish .... wish ..... bill >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:16:55 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I suppose I should just hit a lottery somewhere and get a Hasselblad H1D > (37x49mm). > Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a > digital camera? > bill Depends on what you mean by "equal or better". Many claim that the top end DSLR's resolve more detail that 35mm. But there are other issues to quality, these include color range captured and how faithfully. Another area is dynamic range. Most people think digital is about the same as color transparency film. Color negative film has a much greater range than either. Read the article in the Dec Pop Photo about improvement in film designed just to make scanning better. The author starts off the article by admitting that film still has the edge over digital in many cases. Part of the issue with resolution also has to do with the appearance of fine detail. Many find digital "smoother", whether this means higher resolving power is still being debated. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com Depends on the scanner. High end drum scanners produce better results usually- yes. 645 will beat 1Ds and 35 will beat 20D.., in my opinion. You will always have more grain with film, but colors and tones are always richer. J. > Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a > digital camera? > bill > You will always have more grain with film, but colors and tones are > always richer. Not that I don't appreciate the merits of film, but I don't find that to be true. Because I color print from negatives, I have no problem getting good colors tones and saturation from direct digital files. Once you understand how to adjust in PS its a very similar result. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 www.gregblankphoto(dot)com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.