Which is film?, which is Digital?..oh the fun is about to begin.

This thread is becoming way too productive.

Scotty wrote: This thread is becoming way too productive.

Good grief I was right theirs a first

I haven't enlarged anything to the size Karl has done, but even doing an 8x12" the quality of the enlargement seems better the sharper the photo/negative is. I've noticed a little pixelating in some of my own scanned film images mostly along hard edges, and obviously there is grain but no pixels in film.

I'm not sure that you can really compare the sharpness by any sort of pixel measurement unless it's scanned/converted to a digital format; it seems sort of like trying to compare a 1 lb. weight to a 1 cup dry measure, which is measuring a different property of an object (amount v. weight). Maybe it's more subjective with film, the quality of the original and the reproduction would probably determine the quality of an enlargement.

I've scanned in three of my photograms/lumen prints and enlarged them from their original 2 1/2 x 3 1/2" size to 8x10 and don't notice any pixelating so far, but those are a direct-to-paper process so there isn't grain (and mine don't have hard edges so that might be making a difference).

I did notice looking back at the two original photos that the black lettering on the plane looks sharper in the first. But the comparison between the two probably depends on the camera, the lens, the film used, etc. so there are variables with each.

icepics wrote: I haven't enlarged anything to the size Karl has done, but even doing an 8x12" the quality of the enlargement seems better the sharper the photo/negative is. I've noticed a little pixelating in some of my own scanned film images mostly along hard edges, and obviously there is grain but no pixels in film.

I'm not sure that you can really compare the sharpness by any sort of pixel measurement unless it's scanned/converted to a digital format; it seems sort of like trying to compare a 1 lb. weight to a 1 cup dry measure, which is measuring a different property of an object (amount v. weight). Maybe it's more subjective with film, the quality of the original and the reproduction would probably determine the quality of an enlargement.

I've scanned in three of my photograms/lumen prints and enlarged them from their original 2 1/2 x 3 1/2" size to 8x10 and don't notice any pixelating so far, but those are a direct-to-paper process so there isn't grain (and mine don't have hard edges so that might be making a difference).

I did notice looking back at the two original photos that the black lettering on the plane looks sharper in the first. But the comparison between the two probably depends on the camera, the lens, the film used, etc. so there are variables with each.

So basically since it's impossible to tell realistically, digital gets the edge because it's native and it's better for editing?

icepics wrote: I haven't enlarged anything to the size Karl has done, but even doing an 8x12" the quality of the enlargement seems better the sharper the photo/negative is. I've noticed a little pixelating in some of my own scanned film images mostly along hard edges, and obviously there is grain but no pixels in film.

I'm not sure that you can really compare the sharpness by any sort of pixel measurement unless it's scanned/converted to a digital format; it seems sort of like trying to compare a 1 lb. weight to a 1 cup dry measure, which is measuring a different property of an object (amount v. weight). Maybe it's more subjective with film, the quality of the original and the reproduction would probably determine the quality of an enlargement.

I've scanned in three of my photograms/lumen prints and enlarged them from their original 2 1/2 x 3 1/2" size to 8x10 and don't notice any pixelating so far, but those are a direct-to-paper process so there isn't grain (and mine don't have hard edges so that might be making a difference).

I did notice looking back at the two original photos that the black lettering on the plane looks sharper in the first. But the comparison between the two probably depends on the camera, the lens, the film used, etc. so there are variables with each.

You're right simply because film is analogue and digital isn't. So when scanning film to digital you'll get varied results depending on the quality of the shot.

The theoretical maximum of 170MP is rarely, if ever obtained because of the many aspects that would make a film shot not quite sharp etc. Of course the same applies to digital. The higher the MP you have the harder it is to get a good shot (because any tiny problem in the shooting shows up larger).

Therefore we generalize and make observations. The observations people have made comparing film/digital say that for most shots 10-12MP will match a good film shot pretty easily and 24-29MP for a on tripod/mirror lock up/perfectly exposed film shot, such as what Karl might take, hence him getting about that much from his scanned shots (generally speaking of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by '...native and ...better for editing...'. I think either way, whichever technology is used, an enlargement depends on the quality of the photo. And the quality of the photo depends on a number of variables.

Murals and billboards were around before digital technology so it would be possible to do huge enlargements from film. I don't think that there would be a maximum size for film any more than for digital, and where it could max out I don't know; a photo from a large format negative could go larger than 35mm and is why a lot of professional work has been done in that format.

Richard Avedon had an exhibit at the Metropolitan in NYC a few years ago that included wall/life-size portraits of his work which seem to transcend the decades - www.richardavedon.com - see Exhibitions (*note - portfolios include some life size nude portraits of females and males).

And I found some discussion of how a large size image could be done in a specialized darkroom (with really big developer trays!) - photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00Awvu .

Billboards have "pixels" the size of golf balls.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Billboards have "pixels" the size of golf balls.

And your point is?

icepics wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by '...native and ...better for editing...'. I think either way, whichever technology is used, an enlargement depends on the quality of the photo. And the quality of the photo depends on a number of variables.

Murals and billboards were around before digital technology so it would be possible to do huge enlargements from film. I don't think that there would be a maximum size for film any more than for digital, and where it could max out I don't know; a photo from a large format negative could go larger than 35mm and is why a lot of professional work has been done in that format.

Richard Avedon had an exhibit at the Metropolitan in NYC a few years ago that included wall/life-size portraits of his work which seem to transcend the decades - www.richardavedon.com - see Exhibitions (*note - portfolios include some life size nude portraits of females and males).

And I found some discussion of how a large size image could be done in a specialized darkroom (with really big developer trays!) - photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00Awvu .

It was more tongue in cheek sharon.

Top one is digital. It is sharper and the colors are crisper. Overall better quality. You lose some quality when you scan a film photograph. But I could be wrong!

Two ways to evaluate these photos.
1) Evaluate them together online. This means digitizing the film shot in some manner.
2) The second would be to evaluate them as prints.
The two evaluation methods may bring about completely different results.

ckawauchi35 wrote: Top one is digital. It is sharper and the colors are crisper. Overall better quality. You lose some quality when you scan a film photograph. But I could be wrong!

1st is film.
2nd is Digital.


Was stated on page 3.