More Shameless Self-Promotion

Film v Digital.

In order to satisfy my oiwn curiosity, last October I took two divers and two camera/flash outfits into a pool and shot identical pictures. One set up was a Nikon N90 (28mm lens) with film and the other was Fuji S2 Pro (20mm lens) digital.

I wanted to see the difference once these pictures had passed through the repro process and been printed in a magazine.

It has been a long time coming but the magazine has gone to the printers and will be available in the UK in a couple of weeks. It will be on-line (www.divernet.com) in July - but then how will you be able to see the difference when viewed at 72dpi?.

Diver Magazine UK. June issue. I am as interested to see the results as anyone!

 

In order to satisfy my oiwn curiosity, last October I took two divers and two camera/flash outfits into a pool and shot identical pictures. One set up was a Nikon N90 (28mm lens) with film and the other was Fuji S2 Pro (20mm lens) digital.

I wanted to see the difference once these pictures had passed through the repro process and been printed in a magazine.

It has been a long time coming but the magazine has gone to the printers and will be available in the UK in a couple of weeks. It will be on-line (www.divernet.com) in July - but then how will you be able to see the difference when viewed at 72dpi?.

 

John,

 

As much as, as you state, there are no differences at 72 dpi, more correctly nowadays ppi, there are no differences at 300 ppi which is commonly the print resolution. Not unless the camera, and your Fuji is not one, is incapable of providing that resolution.

 

As well, the cameras and lenses were different, as were the ports. I know, the cameras *have* to be different but a more "horses for courses" method might have been, say, a Canon 350D in an Ikelite housing with appropriate port/lens as against that same lens/port/housing with the equivalent Canon analogue camera (sorry, no idea) but I'm sure there is one.

 

Then again, what film do you use to try to keep everything equal? Velvia 50? I'd venture that's about the best analogue film for u/w photography - ever.

 

Yes there are (a very few) publications today that (even) reproduce at 400 ppi but, truth to tell, unless you have a 50x loupe you're never going to know the difference simply because your eyes can't resolve the difference. I know of not one person who routinely critically examines a printed picture with a 50x loupe. I doubt that there are any.

 

Any other differences between the pics are going to be a matter of how the files have been handled, including the fact that the analogue file has had to be scanned (thereby degrading it, whether discernible or not) and, yes, that is another issue.

 

For example, the scanner employed will handle the file more, or less, differently than another, different, scanner, of equal capability.

 

And then there's the likes of PhotoShop.

 

I'll (sorry ) go out on a limb here, I think that the exercise is pretty well fruitless. I will, nevertheless, be interested in the outcome, more importantly interested in what people say. I might even buy that publication when it finally gets to Oz.

 

Cheers,

 

Christian

The point of the exercise is to see if there is any difference after the repro process is complete. The reason for lens differences was to keep the same amount of water between cameras and subject. Identical Subtronic flashguns were used. The port was the same one - Sea & Sea - which to date has proved the best for colour and sharpness of the collection I use (Aquatica, Nexus, Sea & Sea, Subal).

The scanning of the film was done on a highest-quality drum-scanner. The digital images were sent with the usual spec. which we have found gives best results (over the last two years) with studio product shots, replicating results from Fuji100 film. I have seen the colour proofs and can see a slight difference but it is best shown up at the greater enlargements (surprise, surprise!)

However, I want to see what rolls off the press. It may not be scientific but the proof of a pudding is in its eating. I only care what the reader of the magazine gets!

Very pleased to hear that a drum scanner was used for the film, although I still suspect the digi will give it a good run for its money

Look forward to seeing the mag down here too. Judging by normal delays, I would expect to see it some time in 2006.

Just to be clear John, which film did you use?

It was Fuji 100 in Provia packaging. Although many underwater photographers have a great love for Velvia, I have found that this film is more art-director-acceptable and once I went over to the S2 Pro for studio shots it seemed to be able to replicate the results from Fuji 100 quite well.

I have just had an interesting message from Bret Gilliam which includes an article he has written for Undercurrents Mag about film v digital. Basically, he and I seem to to be in agreement. So that is two articles you will have to wait for!

I actually have no axe to grind. I used to be a real photographer with proper advertising agency budgets. When art directors wanted everything shot on 10x8 trannie I was happy to oblige. My choice whether to shoot film or digital is more to do with the weight of checked-in baggage than anything else, since I cannot realistically take both now that I am just a happy-snapper. Similarly I do not want to get into arguments along the line of which is better? Mac or PC? I just want to get the job done.

Edit: Well, I got all that wrong! Since making this post I have seen an early version of the mag. The film shots used were from Fuji Sensia 100 and this was scanned on a Nikon 4000ED scanner! (The plans of mice and men go after those of the production man!) Magazines are printed eight pages at one time. The differences between film and digital are not as much as the differences between individual page sets!

Chuckle.

So the Production people made the plans of others gang aft agley?

In a Print Production environment (I'm in one of those BTW if you hadn't already guessed) where you decide on an experiment, as in this case, the process has to be RIGIDLY controlled because any variable, as in ANY variable, will seriously skew the results. This does not appear to have been the case in your instance.

We do this kind of thing routinely in an effort to improve things and, today, everyone knows that if they step out of line when such an experiment is being conducted, someone like me is going to (metaphorically) jump right on top of their heads.

Cheers,

Christian

Whilst this may not be strictly a 'comparison' comment, I shot some pix in the Menai Strai a couple of weeks ago. The planktonic bloom had started and vis was ~2m. I was using a Canon EOS1DS camera and macro lens. For the first time the files actually show the flat phytoplanktonic plates in the zone of focus - something that I have not previously seen on film. My opinion on this camera is that it outresolves 35mm Velvia - simply because I am seeing detail in the images that I do not recall seeing of film. Of course it could be that the plankton is getting bigger..........

As far as I see it, the 'optimised' digital files should reproduce in exactly the same way as scans - in fact I would go further and say that in my experience, they do. There are problems but most I have to put down to sloppy working methods (usually cost cutting due to not spending time adjust things properly). I've had digital and film files reproduced both superbly and appallingly. Even the same scans and digital files. The worst case is where a designer used an image twice, once as part of a montage and once as a stand alone, in the same publication. The montage had been adjusted as images from a variety of sources had been used. The stand alone had been simply dropped into Quark and looked very flat. This I put down to poor practice especially as the montage reproduction was fine.

Hi Paul,

I am sure that you are aware that there are no lack of examples in internet-land that show cameras like the 1DS 2 and D2X having comparable resolution to 6x6cm velvia - and easily out resolving 35mm Velvia.

e.g. this discussion currently on DPReview

Plus I think comparing digi and film on a monitor is a fair comparision. Just about all commercial images pass through a computer these days (in my experience very little is printed direct from transparency). Plus as you point out printing remains a black art - an on screen comparison cuts out this bias out.

I think confusion comes because a 35mm 4000dpi scan is about 20megapixels. So at first glance this out resolves 12 and 16MP digi-cams. But not all pixels are created equally and both the Canon and Nikon files look much better at 100% than a scan.

Furthermore when you interpolate a 12+ MP digital file to match the scans at 20 megapixels they show much more detail and have a much smoother and cleaner look than the film images. You see this every time.

The only UW medium format scans I have are the ones that you did for me a few years ago. You scanned these at 2700dpi - so they are 36MP files. They are definitely better than 35mm scans. Its hard to compare D2X files as it is close. I'd say the D2X is cleaner and shows more detail - but this might be down to the UW optical setup of my Hasselblad (and photographer lack of skill) than camera differences.

Alex

p.s. I think the other reason why you now see the plankton is that the files from your Canon are so good at 100% that you cannot resist zooming straight in to 100% on your monitor! Slides never looked great at 100% so we didn't immediately zoom them in once they were scanned.