View Single Post
Old 26th April 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is offline
Full member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 10,318
Thanks: 424
Thanked 598 Times in 507 Posts
Likes: 3,557
Liked 2,567 Times in 1,683 Posts
Re: An army of clones

Thank you Paul. I think you can see where I am coming from.

I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Steve so I will try to qualify what I said.

When I described 35 mm film cameras as 'clunky' I was thinking more of the mechanical action than the process the process of using them. I do love the simplicity of film cameras, the big, bright viewfinders and the lack of clutter. I find that I become totally absorbed in my subject when peering through the waist level finder on my Mamiya MF cameras, but I do also like to remain objective.

A 6x7 transparency can provide detail, resolution and tonal gradation far beyond that attainable with most digital cameras, but 35 mm cannot.

Around 2008 when Nikon were still producing film scanners they maintained that a 35 mm colour negative exposure could yield a maximum of 5 MP of usable information, whilst a colour transparency could yield approximately double that. This is probably why Nikon scanners provide a maximum of 4,000 dpi resolution whilst others claimed much higher figures. (I'm not quite sure how B&W fits into this.)

On that basis my OM-D E-M1 would appear to have a clear advantage over 35 mm colour film in terms of sheer resolution, even though I still prefer the look of film.

To answer Steve's question, I haven't used the new Portra film yet, (I still have plenty of the old Portra 160 which I don't particularly like), but I have used a lot of the new Ektar 100 which is fast becoming my favourite colour film, even ahead of Velvia 50. I don't know whether these new films offer higher resolution than those available in 2008, but I do know that if I scanned 35 mm Ektar 100 at 4,000 DPI, or even 5,400 DPI in our Minolta scanner, the image quality would almost certainly fall short of that attainable with my OM-D E-M1, and would certainly fall short of that provided by the Nikon D750 which my son uses.

Of course digital offers many other 'advantages' such as low cost per image, adjustable ISO and instant gratification, but given the opportunity I still prefer to use film where appropriate and when the opportunity arises.

Naughty Nigel

Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote