Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Film and Nikon D100 - my comparison shots

  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Film and Nikon D100 - my comparison shots
  • From: "Tomek Zakrzewski" <tomzakrz@ka.onet.pl>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:44:05 +0200
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

This isi a comparison I made for my own judgements. Below the accompanying
message I sent to dpreview.com  for discussion.



In order to have my own opinion on the film vs digital discussion I made my
own comparison.


I don't try to defend film or digital. My aim was to judge with my eyes what
both technologies are capable of.

I shot with D100 in NEF format, converted to tiff in NC 3.5 and made only
small adjustments in Photoshop with final delicate sharpening.

Similar path was chosen for scanned images, minor corrections and delicate
sharpening with care not to introduce artifacts.

My observation is that Nikon D100 is capable of about. 60% of film

Take a look at the comparison shots of the sign and of the box. When looking
at the D100 file at 100% and scanned images downsized to match the D100
output, one can say that the resolution is almost equal but look at the
4000dpi full scans of film images and upsampled D100 and see the drastic
lack of resolution. It's even more visible at 200% in PS.

My other (obvious) observation is the lack of grain in digital images. It
makes up for the non present resolution and in fact makes people believe the
image quality is better than 35mm film.

Is it really better? I'm not going to answer it. Most people at dpreview
have already chosen what is better for them.

For me both technologies are very useful. When shooting commercially and for
output rarely larger that A4, the D100 may soon become my most used tool
(I'll probably buy it next week).

For landscape, for my personal work and for exhibition prints slide film
will still be my most used medium. Negative film is my choice when I need
nice durable prints without much hassle (my family pictures) and when I need
exposure latitude.

Note: don't be put off by the graininess of images from negatives. My films
were scanned with Nikon Coolscan 4000ED which has enormous talent in
exaggerating film grain. If enlarged optically, negatives show much smaller

I'm interested in your comments.

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.