Please review - 35mm slide 5400 dpi -> 25 inch print

[Alan Browne]

This page is meant to show scanning a 35mm slide for the production of a 25 x 17
inch print. It does not go into the "how" just shows that it can be done. One
scan of the slide was used. Each individual image here is USM'd at its
presented size (all are from the same original).

(DSE 5400, Minolta Scan software, PS E 2.0).

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm

Comments appreciated.

 

[Stephen H. Westin]

This page is meant to show scanning a 35mm slide for the production of
a 25 x 17 inch print. It does not go into the "how" just shows that
it can be done. One scan of the slide was used. Each individual
image here is USM'd at its presented size (all are from the same
original).

(DSE 5400, Minolta Scan software, PS E 2.0).

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm

Comments appreciated.

But Alan, we know that you can't resolve grain in a scan! Jon told us
so!

Nice work.

 

[Brian C. Baird]

But Alan, we know that you can't resolve grain in a scan! Jon told us
so!

Nice work.

Did you notice the 10% loss in MTF? I sure did!

 

[Alan Browne]

But Alan, we know that you can't resolve grain in a scan! Jon told us
so!

Nice work.

Check it again (reload) I just realized I screwed up the last image (wrong
scale). Fixed.

 

[Duncan J Murray]

Thanks for that Alan,

It's very interesting to note that you can get *that* quality given good
conditions and the right film.

Do you think an 8MP camera can do as well as this? I've noticed in
comparisons of film and digital, that the film images are quite noisy,
whereas the digital ones are much 'cleaner' - however, no-one seems to
notice the sharpening artefacts and noise-reduction artefacts of the digital
equivalents, which are surely just as much of an artefact as grain?

Duncan.

But Alan, we know that you can't resolve grain in a scan! Jon told us
so!

Nice work.

Check it again (reload) I just realized I screwed up the last image (wrong
scale). Fixed.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Alan Browne]

Thanks for that Alan,

It's very interesting to note that you can get *that* quality given good
conditions and the right film.

The same applies to digital. Shoot in crappy ligthing conditions, or with poor
metering technique, and a digital image will look crappy too.

Do you think an 8MP camera can do as well as this? I've noticed in
comparisons of film and digital, that the film images are quite noisy,
whereas the digital ones are much 'cleaner' - however, no-one seems to
notice the sharpening artefacts and noise-reduction artefacts of the digital
equivalents, which are surely just as much of an artefact as grain?

The primary advantage of digital is the clean rendering and this allows printing
beyond what is suggested by the numbers that everyone (esp. film proponents)
carelessly bang around. Digital does produce haloing (and not, I believe, from
excessive sharpenning, but from the mixing that occurs between RGB channels),
but this hardly noticeable in a print unless it is blown up and you're looking
at it closeley (as opposed to how one would enjoy an image).

However, when it comes to film, there is more recorded detail. When you print
from film, most of the "grain" and noise disappear unless printing quite large.

The 'noise' that we often mention regarding film scans is the noise we see in
the large blowup at the link I provided. That is how it looks on screen at
100%. On paper, that is shrunken 3 or 4 times in each dimension (last image)
and so is much less impactful.

In the interminable 8 Mpix v. film thread (rpe35mm) MTF comes up all over the
place but rarely is it discussed with respect to the subject. Not all subject
matter needs very high res, and low detail subjects will look great on a
relatively low res system (and by that I mean lens->sensor->processing->print).
A finely detailed subject will look progressively worse on the monitor or
print as it encroaches on the MTF limits.

People really have got to step away from this mpix v. film issue and go make
photographs and decide based on output what is acceptable and what is not.
There are artists and professioanls using both film and digital, ignoring all
the brouhaha over mpix v. film, and making images that are fantastic. And the
fantastic-ness has nothing to do with the medium, and all to do with artistic
sense, 'seeing' and photographic ability. In that order.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Duncan J Murray]

Thanks for your reply, Alan.

The same applies to digital. Shoot in crappy ligthing conditions, or with
poor metering technique, and a digital image will look crappy too.

Definetely. I've been amazed how using the same film (and camera) I've been
able to get some really terrible, noisy images, shooting on an overcast day.

The primary advantage of digital is the clean rendering and this allows
printing beyond what is suggested by the numbers that everyone (esp. film
proponents) carelessly bang around. Digital does produce haloing (and
not, I believe, from excessive sharpenning, but from the mixing that
occurs between RGB channels), but this hardly noticeable in a print unless
it is blown up and you're looking at it closeley (as opposed to how one
would enjoy an image).

That's interesting - you don't think it's a sharpening artefact? Have a
look at these photos...

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html

specifically the photo of the side of the building - to me they look like
over-zealous unsharpmasking (apart from the smoothness of it, of course) -
do you have any more information about how this is created by mixing between
the RGB channels?

However, when it comes to film, there is more recorded detail. When you
print from film, most of the "grain" and noise disappear unless printing
quite large.

I was quite surprised when I printed from fuji reala to 30x20 how detailed
the print was, however, up close, grain, of course, could be seen. The
detail was still there, however.

The 'noise' that we often mention regarding film scans is the noise we see
in the large blowup at the link I provided. That is how it looks on
screen at 100%. On paper, that is shrunken 3 or 4 times in each dimension
(last image) and so is much less impactful.

In the interminable 8 Mpix v. film thread (rpe35mm) MTF comes up all over
the place but rarely is it discussed with respect to the subject. Not all
subject matter needs very high res, and low detail subjects will look
great on a relatively low res system (and by that I mean
lens->sensor->processing->print). A finely detailed subject will look
progressively worse on the monitor or print as it encroaches on the MTF
limits.

People really have got to step away from this mpix v. film issue and go
make photographs and decide based on output what is acceptable and what is
not. There are artists and professioanls using both film and digital,
ignoring all the brouhaha over mpix v. film, and making images that are
fantastic. And the fantastic-ness has nothing to do with the medium, and
all to do with artistic sense, 'seeing' and photographic ability. In that
order.

Hmmmm - not sure if I completely agree. Firstly, we can do both, debating,
and taking photos - I don't think one impinges on the other that much, and
secondly, there's a lot that people don't know about the two formats - and I
can't afford a digital and film camera to compare it.

It is an important question for those people who are thinking of moving to
digital and paying maybe more for the privilege (i.e. an EOS 1v vs EOS 1d)
whether they could spend less, and achieve better results in the meantime
(i.e. before digital SLRs really come down in price to compare with film)
with film? And would you buy an expensive Leica M7, a symbol of resilience,
old school values, prestige and high residual value, if you have a nasty
suspiscion that the camera you were intending to last a lifetime, does, but
only because you don't have any film to use it with?!

I suppose at least you can still use your lens on the forthcoming digital M
series, though.

Duncan.
P.S. Not that I could afford a Leica, anyway.

 

[Alan Browne]

Thanks for your reply, Alan.




Definetely. I've been amazed how using the same film (and camera) I've been
able to get some really terrible, noisy images, shooting on an overcast day.

Overcast days are a good time to do closeups, outdoor portraits and copywork
(paintings, etc.). Big softbox, neutral color.

That's interesting - you don't think it's a sharpening artefact? Have a
look at these photos...

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html

Ugh. You're killing me. Put up larger images for comparison!

specifically the photo of the side of the building - to me they look like
over-zealous unsharpmasking (apart from the smoothness of it, of course) -
do you have any more information about how this is created by mixing between
the RGB channels?

No. It's just my pet theory and possibly to likely wrong. Once upon a time a
careful examination of images put up by a very capabale photographer and image
editor (who knows how to keep USM under control) showed haloing. It wasn't from
operator sharpening, it might have been from in-cameras sharpening or other
processing.

I was quite surprised when I printed from fuji reala to 30x20 how detailed
the print was, however, up close, grain, of course, could be seen. The
detail was still there, however.

People see noise/grain and not it. People are genrally unable to rationally see
that there is useful detail in there. A less detailed, but low noise (digital
based) image get raves 'cause there is little noise to complain about and since
missing detail is ... missing, then it can't be complained about either.

Alan's Law: "People complain about noise, they can't complain about missing
detail that they can't see."

Hmmmm - not sure if I completely agree. Firstly, we can do both, debating,
and taking photos - I don't think one impinges on the other that much, and
secondly, there's a lot that people don't know about the two formats - and I
can't afford a digital and film camera to compare it.

While I love the technical details about cameras, they are for photography.
There is nothing in the "8 mpix v. film" thread that will improve anybody's
photography in any way. I would much rather hear experienced people speak on
technique and demonstrate it in photographs, whether digital or film.

I leave you with this image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2616953&size=lg and others that that
photog has posted... this has nothing to with film or pixels... everything to do
with knowing what you want to make in a photo...

It is an important question for those people who are thinking of moving to
digital and paying maybe more for the privilege (i.e. an EOS 1v vs EOS 1d)
whether they could spend less, and achieve better results in the meantime
(i.e. before digital SLRs really come down in price to compare with film)
with film? And would you buy an expensive Leica M7, a symbol of resilience,
old school values, prestige and high residual value, if you have a nasty
suspiscion that the camera you were intending to last a lifetime, does, but
only because you don't have any film to use it with?!

If somebody has two or three good lenses for a Canon, Nikon, Pentax or (gasp!)
Minolta, then they should be well served to purchase a digital body and
experiment with it before deciding on the obscene prices of the full frame, high
res systems. Even a 6 Mpix camera will make very acceptable, hell! beautiful,
8x12 inch prints. That's photography. The debate on film v. digital is
masturbation and little more.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Duncan J Murray]

Overcast days are a good time to do closeups, outdoor portraits and
copywork (paintings, etc.). Big softbox, neutral color.

Yes - have noticed portraits are good. I suppose you mean copywork because
of the low contrast ratio?

Ugh. You're killing me. Put up larger images for comparison!

I think you misunderstood me - the photo was only meant to represent what I
meant, not to demonstrate the difference between digital and film,
especially since it's not my website, someone else took the photos, and I
don't have any larger images, or the equipment for a comparison!

No. It's just my pet theory and possibly to likely wrong. Once upon a
time a careful examination of images put up by a very capabale
photographer and image editor (who knows how to keep USM under control)
showed haloing. It wasn't from operator sharpening, it might have been
from in-cameras sharpening or other processing.

I think even RAW is sharpened to varying degrees in-camera.

People see noise/grain and not it. People are genrally unable to
rationally see that there is useful detail in there. A less detailed, but
low noise (digital based) image get raves 'cause there is little noise to
complain about and since missing detail is ... missing, then it can't be
complained about either.

Alan's Law: "People complain about noise, they can't complain about
missing detail that they can't see."

I think a semicolon after the 'noise' would perfect your law! Everyone
loves semicolons. Sure there's detail missing, but also, there are
definetely artefacts. There are the halos, as well as the "I've just mown
the grass, but haven't raked it all up yet" effect, of selective blurring
and sharpening.

While I love the technical details about cameras, they are for
photography. There is nothing in the "8 mpix v. film" thread that will
improve anybody's photography in any way. I would much rather hear
experienced people speak on technique and demonstrate it in photographs,
whether digital or film.

I leave you with this image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2616953&size=lg and others
that that photog has posted... this has nothing to with film or pixels...
everything to do with knowing what you want to make in a photo...

That's a great image... But you still need a camera to take it. And that
means you need to buy one. Which also means that you have to choose!

If somebody has two or three good lenses for a Canon, Nikon, Pentax or
(gasp!) Minolta, then they should be well served to purchase a digital
body and experiment with it before deciding on the obscene prices of the
full frame, high res systems. Even a 6 Mpix camera will make very
acceptable, hell! beautiful, 8x12 inch prints. That's photography. The
debate on film v. digital is masturbation and little more.

....and much less:
I think you mean it's a mass-debate.

Cheers,
Alan
Duncan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Alan Browne]

Yes - have noticed portraits are good. I suppose you mean copywork because
of the low contrast ratio?

Yes, flat light does that. It is also perfectly even at the artwork.

I think even RAW is sharpened to varying degrees in-camera.

I believe that's a result of converting individual R, G, B sensors to RGB
pixels. However, I'd rather do USM myself.

I think a semicolon after the 'noise' would perfect your law! Everyone
Fixed.

loves semicolons. Sure there's detail missing, but also, there are
definetely artefacts. There are the halos, as well as the "I've just mown
the grass, but haven't raked it all up yet" effect, of selective blurring
and sharpening.

That is less a techical shortcoming than an effort shortcoming. Having an image
that is consistent in appearance after editing is very important. (Having a set
of images that is consistent image to image is even more important. Easy to
achieve in the studio, less so from an outdoor shoot).

That's a great image... But you still need a camera to take it. And that
means you need to buy one. Which also means that you have to choose!

That image could have been shot with any number of bodies (Canon, Nikon,
Minolta, Pentax, Olympus) with a similar tele-zoom on film or digitial. The
photographer made it happen, not the equipment.

...and much less:
I think you mean it's a mass-debate.

Same thing, IMO.

Cheers,
Alan.