Wait, actually I didn't mean or say that MF was equal to 6MP digital... My mentioning the whole MF thing was an offhand remark. MF certainly beats a 6MP digital. In fact, I've never personally used a digital camera that could equal MF, of course such things exist.
But I did mean 35mm film/slides, while they sure look nice on a light table, look pretty much the same as a 6MP DSLR when printed in my experience... I've done zillions of scans, maybe not as much as a pro, but I did more than I would have had I been a student there, probably ran several thousand 35mm shots through the scanners, and many hundreds of MF shots. All done with Drum scanners or Nikon negative/slide scanners. My impression at the end of everyday was that it would all be so much easier and have practically the same quality if they just used digital... Of course, then I wouldn't have had my little side business exploiting the 5-10 minute scan times that were the norm for big drum scans. You know, on Friday's students don't want to be cooped up inside scanning film, so it hit me, I'll scan it for them, they usually end up needing my help at some point anyhow. Quite a few photo students are absolutely computer illiterate you know. -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film Your saying that MF scans don't look any better than 35mm scans when printed? That's absolute nonsense. Either your printing methods are crap or your scans are crap. I've scanned and printed thousands of MF images and thousands of 35mm images. Their is no comparison. The rest of the world will affirm that. Paul On May 18, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Shawn K. wrote: > > I used to work in my schools digital Photo lab when I was in college > and I > ran a little side business scanning people negatives in. I scanned > plenty > of medium format, and medium format slide film as well. Most of the > kids > used really high quality films. Yeah they look nice on a light table, > but > they don't look any better printed out and that what matters most. > > -Shawn > > > -----Original Message----- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film > > > Smile, compares crops of 2nd generation digitalized slides to corps of > 1st > generation digital. Kodak said 14mp was comparable to 35mm color > negatives > back > when 2mp was the best anyone (them) had done so far. I have seen > nothing > that > contradicts that yet. That would mean you would need about twice that > 14mp > to > match the best slide film. And 10x to match Techpan. > > I wonder sometimes if any of these folks who say digital is so good > have > ever > even seen an original 8x10 tranny on the light table. > > -- > > Shawn K. wrote: > >> *Shakes head* This is the hootenany I was speaking of. You know a >> couple >> years ago people were claiming 30-40 Mega pixels to outdo 35mm film, >> that >> number keeps dropping, but people still claim you need such and such >> ludicrous amount of pixels to out do the resolution of film. well, I >> have >> been a witness to a test on the net, that compares, side to side, >> crops of >> Fuji provia 35mm film and a 6MP DSLR, and the two are almost exactly >> the >> same with the digital getting slightly better color response IMO. >> >> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm#links >> >> There is the link to it. >> >> Besides if you think 8mp is some kind of insurance for film, its not, >> digital is just going to keep getting bigger and better. >> >> >> -Shawn >> >> > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > >
