I reviewed the Web Article from the four Photographers regarding their experiments with different Digital Cameras / Lenses and 4x5 Inch Film Sheet. Their undertaking had a major fatal flaw. They didn't produce Optical Prints from the Film. Instead, they just scanned the Film Sheet into their Computer which means that the original Resolution (86 Trillion) and Colour of the Film is lost. Film has a Resolution of 6.9 Billion Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre, but this is only retained if the Picture Print is made using real Light -- not a Computer Scan. The Attached File explains the inferiorities of Digital Photography.

Well, now we know. Don't we?

I normally am polite and try and explain when someone is so off-the-wall as you are with this position. But, this is beyond the pale.

In a word – RUBBISH.

I won't delete this because even though it's total nonsense, I'm sure the discussion will be fun.

I'm amazed that you actually have the temerity to post this unscientific drivil on a board where there are people who know what they're actually talking about.

Michael

PS: Have you ever compared a traditional enlarger made print with a good scanned inkjet of the same image? Have you even seen a Lightjet or Durst Lamba print from a good scan?

Likely not, or you wouldn't spout such indefensable nonsense.

PPS. The Flat Earth Society web site is over that way.

Michael

Michael
I suspect this thread is a practical joke and you've bitten. At the least it's psudo-science and misses the point of all the discussions on this website. You put enough disclaimers at the front of the test for most people to realize the limitations of it. Still it's the best test out there for all to use and criticize. You predicted the critics but said your skin was thick enough to take it. Believe me, when I speak for the thousands of "voyeurs" who come to this sight daily, we thank you for what was as scientific a test as was possible given the limitation of four independant professionals having to fund it by themselves.
Ken

I wish it were a practical joke.

This has been a heated topic of discussion on another board for the past few days. Someone brought it to my attention yesterday (Sorry, I don't have the link handy at the moment).

It is so outrageosly dumb that it would appear to someone knowledable as a joke, but regretably I believe that this person actually believes what he writes.

Michael

It's impossible to deny a negative. Let's move on to some practical discussion on how to get the best possible pictures with the tools at hand.

If we don't make time for a bit of clowning around now and then, what is life? But this stuff is so obviously and outrageously foolish from the get-go it's best ignored.

Sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time and equating dye molecules to resolution really means that you've lost the picture! For starters, we all know the limits of resolution of what you record are down to the lens, and every time you make a film print (as you can see in any cinema) you throw resolution away.

What a wonderfully humourous way to start the morning! I Thank you!

Graeme

I have to agree with Michael. While it would be "nice" to have output, to what device? Optical printer? Get a room full of Lightjet and Lambda owners together and they will yell about which is better as quickly as a Mac versus PC or Canon versus Nikon group. Then the question could be "well what about Ink Jet" or "what about ink on paper". This could end up being another never ending cluster F%#K that diminishes from the initial work done. Buy the DVD, output the files as you like. End of story.

Nice stat -- but I note you carefully avoid discussion of how many individual dye molecules it takes to make the actual dye cloud that forms the grain dot in the image? It takes 1,000 of them to make that cloud!

Let's do a little aritmetic... 6.9ee9 / 1ee3 = 6.9ee6 or 6900000. But you still have three individual dye colors, so we need to divide that 6900000 by 3^2 or 9, which = 76667 color dots per sq mm. Now we take the sqrt of 76667 to arrive at the linear resolution of film: 276 color dots per mm. 276 dots per mm means that your film can resolve about 276/2 or 138 lpmm maximum. (Which BTW helps explain why even the best color film tapped out at around 140 lpmm for resolution...)

~~~

My stat: Kodak themselves claim most consumer color films can only resolve between 40 and 65 lpmm. Even if you use the best figure, 65 lpmm = 130 dots per mm. 1mm/130 = .007mm or 7u. Hence, any digital sensor with a pixel pitch at 7u is essentially equal to the best color film in terms of resolution.

Someone remind me, what is the pixel pitch of the P45 again?

Cheers,

The P45 pixel pitch is 6.8 microns.

Michael

Technically that would work but only for the same size of sensor/film. In real terms however I'm sure few would argue that a 39 megapixel back can outresolve 645 film eventhough they are the same size. Why is that given the same lens? Is it a grain thing?

Our recent Measuring Megabytes comparison answers the question very nicely, I think. Even though we didn't do a 6.9 billion molecule optical / chemical print.

God – don't you wish we actually did have molecular level imaging? (Just kidding folks; at the expense of our scientifcally challenged thread originator, whom I've notice hasn't returned for his spanking.

Michael

Yes it did and pretty conclusively IMO

But even if you had done a 6.9 billion molecule optical/chemical print, you still would have received complaints --

Dear Micheal,

I'm assuming that you're the Photographer Michael Reichmann from the Article. It certainly was not my intention to insult you or the others with my comments, and I do apologize if you were insulted. Being a perfectionist, perhaps I'm a bit too over-scrupulous in how I like things to be done. Now you referenced an Optical Photographic Print (made with the Enlarger) being of lower quality than a Digital Printer Print. What SIZE were the Prints you referred to, and what was the Size and Speed of the Film used to make the Optical Print?

An interesting question under the circumstances.

I've done both B&W and colour printing in the chemical darkroom for about 30 years, finally closing my last darkroom in about 1998.

The answer to your question depends on the film format, though I've had literally billboard-sized blowups from medium format for advertising clients.

Assuming a high quality neg or transparency in all cases, and a fine-art application, I was never happy with larger than an 11X14" print from 35mm, or a 20X24" print from 6X6cm film. After that it seems that you're just enlarging grain, not displaying any additional real information.

Film speeds? Everything from ASA 2 (High Contast Copy film developed to continious tone back in the 1960's) to ISO 3200.

Why?

Michael

Ps: If you've never done any extensive darkroom work yourself, be aware of the potential pitfalls preventing achieving optimum image quality. These include...

- paralellism (or its lack) of the enlarger's head and base
- enlarging lens quality and allignment
- film flatness with glassless carriers.
- Newton rings with glass carriers
- paper flatness
- criticality of enlarger focus
- negative buckling from bulb heat
- use of the enlarging lens' optimium aperture (which may be at odds with having enough light to make a large print)
- eveness of illumination of the enlarging head
- resolution characteristics of the enlarging paper (and related limitations)
- loss of contrast when large prints are made, including reciprocity effects with related long exposures.

And, oh yes, did I mention film buckling? Speaking of which, medium format suffers from film flatness problems – big time, especially on the first shot after the roll has sat in the camera for more than 24 hours with a reverse curl.

And sheet film, well, did you remember to tap the holder to ensure that the film isn't buckeled in the holder? Nothing can screw up large format faster than buckled film, which happens more often than most LF photographers care to admit.

Digital prints on the other hand. Humm. Let's see. No film flatness problems, no buckling, no secondary optical path during the enlarging process, no focusing issues when enlarging, no Newton rings, no paralellism issues, no paper flatness issues.

Oh yes. Add to that an almost total lack of grain (noise) at all reasonable ISOs, no processing variability, no reciprocity failure, etc, etc.

I could go on. But, it's late, and I think (hope) I've made my point.

The good old days of film with it's superior quality? Uhh... No thanks. No way. No how.

PPs. Yes, I do still have a Canon 1V, as well as a film back for my Hasselblad. I do even occasionally shoot film, when its attributes are appropriate for a particular project. But, I would never go back to optical / printing in the chemical darkroom. Never.

Why? Image quality above all. Plus greater convenience, perfect repeatability, faster turn-around and lower cost. And finally, not having to work in the dark for hours (days) at a time breathing toxic chemical fumes. Give me a glass of Merlot in front of the computer screen any day.

M

I'm afraid that you don't possess knowledge of Molecular Chemistry or the Physics of Light. The numbers you suggested are impossible. The Article Attached to my original posting explains in detail the matter of Resolution, and so I'm not going to reiterate those facts in this Reply. You can download the Article to read.
It is not possible for there to be 1000 Molecules per Dye Cloud on lower Speed Films. Kodak for their part hasn't even bothered to calculate the Resolutions of their Films. In addition to that, Kodak and Fuji don't provide any information which they consider "proprietary". As well, the question of Dye Clouds is a complete variable depending upon the Film's ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture, the amount of light on the Subject and the number of Light Waves affecting given Molecules of Dye. It is probably impossible to have 1000 Molecules forming a Dye Cloud even with a Film of 1000 ISO Speed.

Thanks for the info. Those top sizes for 35mm Prints sound correct from a Physics / Light perspective. From your original comment it sounded like you were talking about a 4x5 Sheet. I just wanted to verify what Film Size you were referring to. I don't question for a second that it's more convenient to use Digital processing. Commercial clients are also completely satisfied with Digital prints. From a Personal Photography perspective -- i. e. people taking their important family memories -- Film Photography is the only smart route to take if you wish to ensure that you preserve your important Pictures for the future. Computer Picture Files don't come with long-term guarantees. Best regards.

Terry

Film does?

Exactly.

First of all, I'm glad that the preposterous premise of billions of molecules is now behind us, or are you still riding that particular hobby horse?.

Colour transparency film as well as colour negatives have a very short life span. Most will fade to the point of unusability in a couple of decades at best. The only one with staying power is Kodachrome, which is regretably fast on its way to oblivion. (How many Kodachrome labs are left in the world? A half dozen?)

B&W film is better, maybe 100+ years, but only assuming that it's been archivally processed. Otherwise, again, just decades.

The real Achilles heel of film is that it is a single physical object, subject to loss and damage. A digital file though can exists in multiple copies. Lose or destroy one, and the others are unaffected.

Yes, data storage media are subject to deterioration and obsolecense, but by making new copies from time to time they can be made to literally last forever.

As for prints, well again you're wrong. Colour prints using chemistry are fugative. A typical C print will start to seriously fade after just a few decades. Cibachrome prints after about 50-70 years. Even Dye Transfers not much more.

On the other hand Epson inkjet prints using K3 pigment inks are rated by Henry Wilhelm (the industry standard) as 100 years+ on display, and much longer in dark storage. In fact an inkjet print made on cotton rag paper with K3 inks is the longest lived colour photographic reproducttion media ever! (Carbro prints are another story, but one that's only relevent to the 4 people left in the world who know how to make them).

B&W, is also another story. An archivally processed, selenium or gold toned B&W print made on silver gelatin paper (not RC) will last for hundreds of years. But (and it's a big but), with the exception of a limited number of very skilled darkroom workers who still make such prints, you're likely to never see them outside of galleries and museums, and certainly not with your family photographs.

So. We've debunked your mythology about the superiority of optical enlargements. Now we see clearly that chemical prints in fact don't last as long as inkjets, to "ensure that you preserve your important Pictures for the future".

Any more misinformation you'd like to share with us?

Michael

Terry, this got me piqued enough to ignore my own previous advice that this foolishness is best ignored. My photographic life is "personal photography" - and I have left film behind for good, except for about a thousand or so legacy images from my film days that I'm scanning so I can make prints from my Epson that are noticeably superior in every reespect to just about anything from a wet-lab. As for print permanence, you obviously haven't done your homework on this subject. Go to www.wilhelm-research.com and start reading, because you have a lot to learn.

Re print performance: Just for the record, I recently salvaged a frame from a Cibachrome that I had made perhaps 15 years ago. The print had been mounted with archival materials and displayed in typical room light with no direct sun for approximately 10 years, then pulled down and stowed for eventual recycling of the frame. It looked fine after those 15 years -- until I removed it from the frame and matte. I could very clearly see where the portion under the matte retained deeper, more accurate color.

So in at least one example, the 50-year life of Cibachrome is a myth...

No one seemed much impressed with my FBI.gov link:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/apr...swgitfield1.htm

So how about Zeiss.com?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...1256F2C002B7DBB

They are resolving 170 lp/mm with Velva, and up to 400 with specialized B&W film.

Logicaly it takes at least two rows of pixels to resolve a line pair. (most people say three) One for the black line and one for the white space.

That means that it takes an inch tall piece of film would need at least a scan of 340 times 24 to resolve all the detail, or about at least 8000 dpi. That just happens to be the number other testers have found empirically. So why would anyone "test" film by scanning it at 3200 dpi?

i am impressed that you've beeen able to test film/lens combinations and demonstrate a 170 lp/mm with Velvia. Which lens did you use (4x5 specific, since that's the film we're talking about)?

These sources, Zeiss at least, seem to be about "extinction resolution" with extreme high contrast subject matter like resolution test charts. This might be relvant to th FBI when reproducing high contrast black and white text documents, but it is is all in the realm of MTF levels below 10%, which is of no relevance to normal photographic needs. Instead for most photography it is more interesting to look at how fine the details can be and still be resolved with about 50% MTF or better.

When you change to more relevant standards like 50% MTF, film resolution numbers fall much lower, as film has a long slow decline of MTF as lp/mm increases, whereas digital sensors can hold 50% MTF or better almost up to the limit where resolution fails entirely. (The spec sheet for one of the the new 30MP plus higher Dalsa sensors reports an excellent MTF of 70% all the way to the Nyquist limit on one line pair for each two pixels, but than is for a monochrome sensor without Bayer color filter array.)

An example: that Zeiss link reports Velvia resolution of 170lp/mm, and Fuji reports 160lp/mm with an exteme high contrast 1000:1 test pattern. But Fuji also publishes MTF curves for Velvia which show that MTF is already below 50% by 50lp/mm, and those curves for Velvia do not even go beyond about 60lp/mm.

The drop from 160 or 170 lp/mm to below 50 lp/mm reduces the "pixel count equivalent" by a factor of about (170/50)^2 =11.6. That is, knock one zero of some of those those wildly optimistic pixel count equivalents.


P. S. The FBI source merely asserts a range of 40-160 lp/mm wit no details on measuremtn procedre of definitions. It then states that
"Color films used at crime scenes have resolutions at the lower end of this range"
and that
"A single frame of 35 mm ISO 200 color film is 36 mm wide by 24 mm high. With a resolution of 50 line pairs per millimeter, such a frame can resolve ... 8,640,000 pixels."

This fits fairly well with other sources sugesting that Velvia in 35mm format matches about the 8MP of an Olympus E-500 or Canon 350D and probably falls a bit short of the Sony R1 as a choice for high resolution in crime sceme photography.

I'm intrigued by this one, and as a long standing Zeiss/Hasselblad user I'd love for it to be true! Especially as Zeiss also claim their medium format lenses are every bit as good as their 35mm lenses. Unfortunately I have to put sentiment on one side and be a bit more realistic.

First, Zeiss of late seem to be stretching the credibility envelope. I'll give you just one example. A year or so ago one of Zeiss's suplliers of optical glass announced they'd no longer produce a particular glass containing arsenic and lead. This formulation was only available from them and was critical for the 903 38mm Biogon, which is one of the unique, bedrock products in the Zeiss/Hasselblad range. So they produced a new design, the 905, and trumpeted it as a wonderful advance that, by the way, will also save the planet as well as taking your photography to the next level. Problem is, when you look at the MTF charts for the 903 and 905 side by side you soon reach the conclusion that all that lead and arsenic was in there for a good reason! The moral of the story is to treat Zeiss's pronouncements with a king-sized grain of salt.

Next, these 400 lppm claims met a scathing response from Erwin Puts, the Leica guru. He basically agreed with BJL's conclusions that in real world photography such extreme claims are disingenuous, and for practical purposes photography pretty much hits a wall at about 80-100 lppm. Furthermore, he said even this is only achievable with the most stringent technique and with a few exceptional lenses, for the most part 60-80 lppm is a demanding enough limit.

This sounds like realistic advice born from genuine experience.

I look for medium format lenses that give 40 lppm at 40% MTF out to about 31mm from the centre (appropriate for the 37mm x 49mm digital sensor I use), by choosing selectively I've assembled a reasonable selection of Hasselblad lenses that deliver against this objective. And I've always found this more than adequate for my own photography, allowing crisp enlargements of x10 or occasionally even larger. What is the current insanity that drives photographers to expect anything more?

A cynic would say, because...

A: They don't understand the science.

or

B: They don't have much real-world experience with these tools.

Michael

I note the self-published "theory" and the heavy use of capitialisation in the poster's writing. Add in the determined iconoclasm, the superior position of knowledge, the apparent learnedness and the resoluteness....

These are often classic symptoms of the species well known as "The Crank".

I may be completely wrong in which case I apologise but I wouldn't be surprised if he also has unusual opinions on zero-point energy and why Einstein was wrong....

The best example I have of this kind of thing is a massive publication by Michael Pinder called "Time on our Hands - Global Philosophy for the New Age". This is a splendid self published tome, many copies of which have been sent unsolicited to UK Civil Servants, which espouses the case for the adoption of a decimalised time system.

Not necesarily a crazy idea - afterall in Europe at least we are embracing the decimalisation of most measuring systems - but what really sets it apart is how it claims decimal time will prove to be the cure for just about all economic, political, medical and scientific problems.

The publication is highly literate, thoroughly researched and quite entertaining. Quite barking, of course.

There seem to be quite a lot of these sorts of people about - well meaning, determined, obessive. The more intelligent and/or better educated they are the more trouble they cause because it takes a bit more effort to counter their arguments.

The recent introduction of FOI legislation in the UK has given these people a field day as they can demand their legal rights to endless replies to requests for information.

My office recently spent over £50,000 of tax payers' money responding to one crank's demands for information and a public enquiry into a supposed political cover up...

Don't confuse film resolution with resolution in a photograph. Be aware, that there is an diffraction limit to resolution, as well. E.g. at f/5.6, this limit is at 246 lp/mm. If you want to resolve 400 lp/mm, you'd need using a f-stop around 1:3. But there, you'll get some trouble with the optical performance of the lens (there's some glass inside, you remeber?). BTW: Film resolution is not determind by photographing some test patterns with a camera and a lens, it's more a process of a contact copy.

No, you need four rows of pixel to resolve one pair of lines. Ever heard of Nyquist theorem?

No comment on this.

But Michael, you should consider going back to film. As we now know:

In truth, the only type of person who actually needs a Digital Camera is someone who needs to be able to instantly E-Mail a picture (such as a newspaper journalist) or someone taking temporary pictures they don't wish to keep or print out.
(see Terry's linked article)



You just knew it, hm?

Dennis, I agree with most of your post, but as the resident professional mathematician here (who actually knows the proof the Nyquist's theorem, not just its statement) I have to disagree on this one.

Nyquists's theorem says that it takes at least two samples (two pixels) to resolve one cycle, meaning one period of variation. A "dark/light" line pair is a cycle, which is why line pairs rather than lines are traditionally used in describing resolution. Some MTF graphs are labelled in "cycles per mm" instead of lp/mm.

So, Nyquist demands at least two pixels per line pair, or one pixels per line.

For example, the 7.2 micron pixel spacing of Dalsa's new medium format FF CCD sensors, two pixels span 14.4 microns, and lie pairs 14.4 microns wide give a Nyquist frequency of gives 1000/14.4lp/mm, about 70lp/mm. Indeed Dalsa's data sheet for the 33MP monochrome FTF5066M uses this in the resolution specification:
"Resolution (MTF) @ 70lp/mm: minimum 65%".

Yes, only a single pair of pixels needed to resolve one line pair. You generally need steeper anti-alias filtering for bayer pattern sensors though, and with a good demosaicing algorithm reckon on about >70% of the actual pixel resolution as RGB equivalent.

The argument in itself is pointless anyway. Why do people need to measure things all the time? It never ceases to amaze me...

Did you hear bresson moaning about film quality?

I cannot agree with all the original poster says, but I will say I think the scanning of film for the test makes it somewhat flawed. Scanning adds noise to the image. I dont know anyone who scans film and then prints it at huge sizes.

I use, and will continue to use film and digital. Nobody denies how handy digital is, but neither can you say that film has no use either. I have yet to see digital match the lattitude and character of b&w film, one reason its still popular.

Those who moan about "grain or Noise" would do well to see that certain styles of photography are enhanced with grain...A large number of b&w photographers use high grain films, they like it. So do I sometimes, and sometimes I like low grain. Its a personal choice.

The real issue is that people in general would do far better to worry about their skills behind the camera, than if the "quality" is good enough, and conduct a series of mildly interesting, but ultimately unimportant tests...so as to "hang out to dry" the loser as such. Technology always moves on, and will continue to do so..but that doesnt stop you taking great shots either.

I know of a keen pinhole camera photographer, and he is one of the most gifted people I know of...he knows his shots are not as sharp, or wont print as big..but it doesnt matter. The real meat is the image itself, it matters not how you got there, film or digital..

Regards

Four pixels per LP may be a but much, but 2 pixels per cycle will work only if the sampling is done in phase: i.e. the lines on the chart must line up with the rows of pixels. On his web site Roger Clark recommends 3 pixels per cycle. This is consistent with your statement of at least 2 pixels per cycle.


http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html

The Clark link doesn't look correct to me at all.

He's using a square wave input, the lines are effectively a square wave, hence have practically infinite frequency response way up and above nyquist. For you to see no reconstruction errors on the output, there must be no frequencies > nyquist on the input. The input has not been adequately filtered, hence you see errors on the output.

Isn't sampling theory wonderful?

Agreed: I was only sayng that two pixels per cycle is the theoretical minimum needed according to Nyquists' theorem. And in fact, that theorem says that the sampling rate must be slightly more than two per cycle to avoid aliasing, so a little safety margin is needed even before effects like low-pass (AA) filters and deBayerising inerpolation algorithms come into play.

From various sources, the practical figure seems to be something between 2.5 and 3 pixels per line pair. Norm Koren takes a shot at this question too, and I usually find him more reliable than Roger Clark.

In signal processing, the Nyquist rate is the minimum sampling rate required to avoid aliasing when sampling a continuous signal.
(Nyquist rate at Wikipedia)

If you record one cycle or pair of lines with two pixel, you'll end up with aliasing. Or am I wrong here? Sure, if the recording pixel are perfectly aligned with the signal cycles, there is no aliasing, but that would be pure coincidence in a real world situation. Recording a spatial frequency with two pixel, you'll have an aliased signal or no signal. To record one cycle reliably, you need 4 pixel. So, if you complete the above with avoid aliasing reliably, you need 4 pixel, if you read it as avoid aliasing accidentially, it may be 2 pixel.

Denis, a two pixels to record a line pair. The problem is that a pair of lines looks like a square wave. A square wave needs an infinite frequency to describe it, and hence has many frequencies > the nyquist limit. That's why you see aliassing because the input has not been adequately filtered. If you'd put in a pure sine wave of the same wavelength of your square wave, those two pixels would reconstruct it perfectly, no matter what the phase.

Graeme

Whilst I confess to not understanding the higher mathematics of this issue, it would seem logical, in a situation where the number of lines on the target corresponds to the number of pixels on the sensor, along the same dimension, that there will be just 2 positions where the lines and pixels are either in complete registration or complete disregistration. One position will have a pixel completely illuminated by a white line with the adjacent pixel not illuminated by a black line (the best case). At the other extreme we will have a situation where all pixels are half illuminated by a white line and half not illuminated by a black line. That is, all pixels will receive the same amount of light and will produce a continuous tone of grey.

However, the vast majority of positions will be somewhere in between those 2 extremes, so results should be variable. Factor in the unavoidable distortion of all lenses and the lack of perfect uniformity of evenly spaced lines in real world scenes, then 2 pixels per line pair seems about right...... for a Foveon type sensor.

The Bayer type sensor seems to be disadvantaged by other factors such as interpolation and demosaicing, so in practice it seems like closer to 3 pixels per line pair are required for Bayer type sensors.

Ah, but a line has sharp edges, sharp edges have high frequencies, and hence the nyquist limit much greater than you'd expect.... The figures of >2 pixels make sense for lines with finite precision on their edges, but you can't think of them as a signal to a sensor where you can easily calculate a nyquist value. In a real sensor, with real lines, you should never see any aliassing because the sensor is fitted with an anti-alias filter.

Another limiting factor in the process of transferring high resolution detail from film to print is due to the fact that the detail always has to pass through another lens with its own MTF response (except in the case of a contact print).

However good the enlarger lens or the scanner lens, it will unavoidably degrade the detail on the negative, just as the camera lens has already degraded detail captured on film in the original shot. In both cases (scanning and 'wet darkroom') we are effectively taking a photograph of a photograph.

I have Triacetate Negatives and Slides that are 45 -47 Years old, and they are in fantastic condition! I have Nitrate Negatives that are 60 Years old, and Hollywood has its Nitrate Films from 80 Years ago. Modern ESTAR Base Film possesses very high durability, and Kodak has stated that Films can last for centuries in storage if kept properly Frozen. No hi-tech record can enjoy the longevity of a low-technology medium such as Film which never changes. Having a computer programming background, I know the capricious nature of Software Applications and Files. Most working people don't have the time to keep updating Computer Picture Files. As for misinformation, I never stated anything about Optical Photographs not fading away. That's why you preserve your Negatives.

The figure of 6.9 Billion Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre was scrupulously calculated, and can be affirmed by any Physicist or Chemist who understands this science. That figure is two-dimensional, and doesn't include the actual thickness to the Dye Layers which would amount to about 100 Billion Molecules for each of the Three Dyes. The matter of Dye Clouds, which varies based upon the amount of Light exposing the Film, is what determines the ultimate Resolution of the specific Picture. However, the Resolution Quality provided by Molecules and Light far exceeds the ability of any electronic sensors. When compared to an original Film Photo, I could see the smudging of finite details on a small 4x6 Digital Print made from a scanned Picture File with a Resolution of about 300 MegaPixels -- much larger than 39 MegaPixel Cameras! Needless to say, such smudging would be more visible on larger size Digital Prints. When enlarging Film Photographs, extending the exposure time for the Paper does not equate to having bright enough lights for a large blow up. Extending this time will lead to a grainy Photo. I have seen very large high quality Photographs -- so it can be done.

Michael, I think understand Your point of view about film. Heck, I might be thinking the same way myself too in my fifties when I've been inhaling those fumes for 30 years )

But,

As I totally agree with you in many points I also disagree in some others. I shoot and postprocess my photos for clients in my own small company, using canons DSLRs and L glass. Why? Because neither I nor my clients like noise, chromatic aberrations or blur in the final pictures. I totally understand that, it's the way commercial photography is and wants to head to: clean pictures which resemble more like looking through an open window (there is nothing in between the photographer and the scene giving its characteristics to the final photo). If I were a landscape photographer too, I wouldn't mind to get as crisp and clear enlargements as possible.

But, there is another side of photography for which you can blame me for romanticizing. I personally don't think it should be underrated or overlooked. I'm talking about artistic photography where it's even *favorable* for the camera to show some of its characteristics in the photo. I'm talking about Lomo and Holga shots, Funkycam shots (ok ok it's digital but the results are a bit Holga'ish ), pinhole can cameras, pushing film for grain, crossing film, doing ferrotypes, daguerrotypes et cetera.I think some photos need the uncertainty and randomness of analogue processing, and in some cases it's not bad at all for the camera to bring something "more" to the picture.

Sure, *no one* can claim that digital isn't progress from the film times, of course it is! But the important point is that while it removes some of the restrictions of film, it at the same time is a restricted format itself too. Digital offers calculated precision and very few surprise factors, nearly everything can be controlled, but at the same time it loses the possibilities of analogue processing. I would never do my job prints with film, it costs too much, it's too unefficent, i hate cleaning the dust with dust blower and then in photoshop, it's too slow and I have to be a lot more precise with everything to produce good results. In my last shootings I was able to conquer the market from 3 competitors with just 10D, 2Gb cf, 16-35 2.8 and my portable elinchrom flash set. I shot 400 people, processed the files quickly on my laptop and produced photos of which people said they were very pleased with. There are other numerous examples of when I've benefited from using digital.

When I started learning B&W film photography by heart 3 years ago, I had grown anxious expecting immediate and controllable results. Now after those 3 years, I've grown into a more relaxed, precise and patient person. With just a roll of ilford delta400 in Canon FTb + 50mm 1,4 in my pocket, I really had to consider more carefully what i was shooting every day. I developed the films myself and did the enlargements on Brovira RC. Getting consistent and good results was sometimes a pain in the ass, but after inhaling those fumes for some time I started appreciating the efforts photographers have gone through in the past for achieving good results.
I started reading about the first actual photographs, daguerrotypes and the latter ferrotypes, the hardness of getting a good photo and the fragility of the resulted images. All of the analogue photographing processes seemed to have very much of a japanese zen in them: Concentrate and focus and you'll be rewarded with good results, if you fail, start all over again. Especially working in the darkroom proved to be very therapeutic for me.

I did some pinhole photographs, crossings and experimented with chemistry. The results felt more "real" than doing the same in photoshop, mainly because the photos were "too clear" to start with, any film like modifying felt like photomanipulation whereas light leaks, reciprocity errors, strange chemical reactions etc were just a natural part of the physical film and paper process.

I totally understand michaels point of view, when one is trying to achieve a good representational quality for prints, all sort of physical errors (residue, particles, optical anomalies etc) are simply things to dodge while heading for the perfect enlargement. This is what I try to do myself too when having a commercial photo shoot (people, products, architecture).

But I ask you people to remember - film and digital aren't things with a boolean OR, they dont exclude each other. Now that digital has taken over part of the original field where film was used, film has even more promise in the artistic photography area. It can achieve results which are nearly impossible to do with digital (without excessive effort). Most people have said that the "mutated" or "imperfect" pictures i've taken on film have been much better than the ones taken in digital.

At the same time I call for responsibility in your behalf, michael. Your word has a strong effect on many photographers opinions. I appreciate the great articles here in LL, but I hope you don't simply "bash" film because it's inferior compared to digital. It doesn't need the bashing because digital has already won the competition. Instead, I would hope to hear some more encouraging words from photographers saying: "Hey, film and darkroom work - if nothing more - is at least a great way to learn the basics and respect the roots of photography". I've seen many children jump from joy when they see their first photographs appear on the paper in darkroom. I haven't seen same kind of joy when they sit in front of a computer watching the photos. Perhaps this is the coolness of digital versus warmth of analogue film then .

I continue to enjoy my photographic work both in the darkroom and in photoshop, experimenting new ways of casting light on surfaces to produce pictures Peace!

So I need to buy a freezer, to keep those film?


BlasR

Talking about resolution, feast your eyes and mind by watching this site. Maybe peace will then return to the board! http://www.gigapxl.org/
Regards to all

I hope you have an explosives licence for all that Nitrate film you've got. Just light the blue touch-paper....

Piksi,

I completely appreciate your point of view. And, though I know people read it that way, I never bash film. I still shoot it from time to time in situations where it has advantages, (few, but they're there).

But, as you point out, there is no denying that film has had its day, for all except speciality situations and unrepentant hobbiests, (among whom I sometimes count myself).

I just take umbridge when someone comes on this forum and spouts complete nonsense, such as individual dye (or silver) molecules contributing to resolution. It simply feeds the uninformed more of what they're looking for, and obscures any useful dialog which could otherwise be taking place.

Michael

I'm very glad to hear that, because I'm afraid I was one of those who have in the past misinterpreted your words about film. Sorry



I totally agree with that, purists of any kind are often the most dangerous people, especially those that use disinformation and deny that things always have at least "two sides".

Question for ya: What do you shoot?

Right, that is exactly at the threshold where aliasing is still possible, while with anything more than two samples per cycle (and interpolation using data over a sufficiently large number of cycles and band-width limited data), aliasing can in theory be avoided.

This is the case where there is exactly one pixel for each dark and each light line. If you are very unlucky, the samples could each fall at the midpoints between dark and light, and so see an average of equal amounts of dark and light, so that the samples all come out at a uniform middle gray: all spatial detail lost. In signal processing jargon, the high spatial frequency of the input has been aliased to zero spatial frequency in th output. (With any other positoining of the samples, you get a dark light variation of the correct spatial frequency, but typically with lower contast that the original subject matter.)


By the way, there is no point worrying about the infinite bandwidth of square wave data, at least when low pass filters ("anti-aliasing filters") are used.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

Although I find this discussion interesting it is exhausting to listen to endless arguments from people entrenched in defending their positions or decisions regarding equipment or processes. Every piece of equipment or process has both positive and negative aspects. Proving that a particular thing (say digital cameras) is superior in some parameters does not mean it is the best or most proper thing to use in all circumstances.
This subject is so large it is hard to find a place to begin. Photography is about images. Some people want to make it about equipment or technical matters but in the end it comes down to images and the use of the images. Ease of use, availability, cost and many other factors play into what is used to make images. In my work I obtain half my income using a digital camera (Nikon D70) to obtain images for a clients web site. Way cheaper and quicker than trying to do the same with film. The other half of my income is from selling landscape prints. I used to produce these prints in a darkroom, now I use an Epson 7600. Almost all my prints are from scanned medium format slide film with a few taken with the D70.
I am very happy with the prints I obtain from the Epson 7600 and find them to be as good as or superior in many ways (though not all) to darkroom prints. It is my belief that in both the darkroom and digital process (and assuming a good image to begin with) the skill of the printmaker is a more important factor than the differences in professional level equipment used to produce the image. What I like most about digital prints is not having to do test strips but instead having exact reproductions each time.
Michael seems to want to claim that it is proven that digital is now superior to medium format film but I would certainly question that. Both can produce very nice prints and for my purposes that is what it is about.