>>4341333
Nice blogpost faggot but without a photo no one cares about deranged schizoid rambling. Saged.

if it's not 20x24 film nobody gives a fuck

spoiler: the scanning camera is micro four thirds or snoy

>>4341349
It's not. I would never just ruin my film with snoy colors or the iphone mush of mtf

>>4341333
checked but this is literally a skill issue. any arguing is cope. just get better. you should be able to pick up any camera at any time and make images you like consistently.

>>4341371
t. didn't read the post. The images I took with the digital camera were good. They just look digital (like ass). I can create great images with any camera, I just would never choose to create them with digital anymore. It looks bad. End of story.

I wonder how many threads we can have simultaneously arguing film vs digital.

>>4341378
How many threads does the catalog support?

Nice blog, I prefer digital overall.

>>4341376
>images posted: 0

>>4341382
>>inb4 post a photo
>No.

>>4341333
Well duh
I've managed to make digital look halfway decent only after:
A)Balancing each channel, like it's some expired film. I even had to change the contrast for blue and green channels, again, like it's expired or improperly developed film
B) subtracting the blue channel from the red, then subtracting the resulting red channel from the blue and mixing in a bit of green channel in each to makebit look less garish. I discovered this while trying to make the red on my fuji look red instead of fucking magenta

After this you add any further color grading, adjust the levels and it like "eh". Passable, but still not film
THE WORST fucking part is that this is impossible to replicate in davinci resolve. I bought an xt 3 only for video, and it's completely impossible to make it look decent in the only usecase where it matters, because I have film for stills
I guess I'll just have to steal an Arri 435

>>4341333
Filmcucks have no self esteem, they shoot outdated format, can't view photos while they shoot, go wash film in some sketchy chemicals that shorten thier lifes to in the end miss thier exposure and ruin the photo. Then then return home where big cocked digichad bangs thier wife while taking multiple photos and clips to share them immidiately on the internet. Filmcucks can't compete.

>>4341396
Bro wake up, the copypasta just dropped

>>4341399
But he's right though

>>4341399
It's old tho

>>4341396
Trvth nvke

>somehow mushy yet oversharpened yet detail rendering was awful compared to notoriously soft film
>doesn't post photos
>doesn't list camera or lens used
uhuh I'm sure.
Nice blogpost faggot.

>>4341333
Nice trips post pics big bro

>>4341333
Filmcucks have small penises

Learn how to post process. You chemically adjust your film too, then put it through digital filter f you scanning camera. You never had true film look anyway and never will unless you print. Learn sliders and digital will look exactly the same for fraction of the price.

Next thing you'll say that you notice real difference between 60 and 120 Hz monitors when human eyes are only capable of seeing 35

>>4341453
>You never had true film look anyway and never will unless you print
Not true. The true colors of a particular film can only be seen if you scan it, but scan properly
The best(and only) way to do it is to use a scanner without a bayer filter. Bayer filter is THE reason why it's impossible to emulate the film with digital-there's just not enough information, and the canera's matgematical guesswork is not and can't be good enough.

>>4341453
>human eyes are only capable of seeing 35
Lmao

>>4341482
35 big black tranny cocks 24/7 with dilator in the ass

File: the supposed joy of reflex.jpg (95 KB, 1200x800)

95 KB JPG

ITT:
Insecure incel cuckolds larping at each other

Good thing I shoot neither film nor digital so I'm better than all of you subhumans

>>4341487
Anon, are you russian?

>>4341333
that's neat, why don't you post some of the good pics you took using film?

>>4341333
This has got to be bait...

>Trees and grass in particular, sand, anything with fine detail was somehow simultaneously mushy and over-sharpened.
You have a shit camera or lens, or were shooting with the camera set to less than its max resolution. I suppose another possibility was that you shot everything at f/22 (diffraction).

>Color was garish and Rockwellian.
Digital RAWs are intentionally flat to give the photographer maximum freedom in post. If you were getting Ken Rockwell colors then you weren't shooting RAW and you had the camera set to produce garish JPEG colors. (The only exception to this is Foveon which intentionally produces RAWs that look more like slide film).

>Even the editing is much faster, film looks more or less good right out of the box once scanned.
I started on film and had a film scanner before my first DSLR. This was never the case. Scanning took a lot of work. My particular scanner had good profiles for Fuji slide films so they were the closest to being good out of the scanner, but still required levels adjustments, some color balancing, and dust cleanup. Color casts could be an absolute nightmare with film, but are a minor slider adjustment with RAW.

>>4341371
>checked but this is literally a skill issue.
Agreed.

>>4341480
>Not true. The true colors of a particular film can only be seen if you scan it, but scan properly
What a load of shit...

The "true colors" of slide film are seen on a properly calibrated light table, and scanning/printing E6 is measured against this benchmark. There is no "true color" for negative film. It's inverted behind an orange mask and whether you scan or print traditionally color is open to interpretation and adjustment. This is why magazines like NatGeo demanded slide film in the 80s/90s. With slides their press team had a reference to calibrate against. With neg film they were in the dark and had to guess at what it should really look like. Scanner profiles were all over the place and different scanners/software packages had reputations for being better or worse with specific films because of this.

>The best(and only) way to do it is to use a scanner without a bayer filter. Bayer filter is THE reason why it's impossible to emulate the film with digital-there's just not enough information
I will never understand why Bayer mentally fucks with film fans so much. Your eye works exactly the same way. So if it's impossible for a Bayer sensor to see all the magic true colors of film, then it's also impossible for your eye. Pretty much out of the gate Bayer sensors had higher color accuracy than any film. And modern Bayer sensors have a far wider color gamut. This is provable in a lab. FF Bayer digital can handle delicate tonal/color transitions that require 6x9 or even 4x5 to match on film.

Part of the reason why people like certain films so much is because of how inaccurate it is, interpreting colors a certain way. I refer to this as the medium's palette. With something like Velvia you get an amazing (but subject/light condition limited) palette out of the box. With digital RAW you need to learn to interpret the scene, to edit the image to the palette you want.

>>4341533
>Part of the reason why people like certain films so much is because of how inaccurate it is
this, see gold 200.

Everything is fucking well, gold with it. Not really accurate but it has SOVL

>>4341333
film is irrelevant unless you are printing in the darkroom.

>>4341542
I wouldn't go that far. The one thing film fans are right about is that film can give you a very attractive palette out of the box. So if you really like how Velvia or Portra renders a scene, go ahead and shoot it. Just about any digital camera with a good macro lens can give you good scans to play with.

But you are missing out if you don't at least try the darkroom for B&W. Not because it's vastly superior to digital or any nonsense like that. It's just interesting and another creative outlet.

>>4341549
shooting film with the express purpose of scanning is a farce.

ITT: Basedjacks circlejerking themselves about shooting on a medium that distorts the colors, while you can do it on your PC for free

>>4341552
Wrong, you're just a larping sperg purity spiraling over a dumb hobby

Scanning and scene capture are fundamentally different. Film compresses all the scene data into some grains and about 8 stops of dynamic range so even micro four thirds can be used to scan 6x9 down to the dye clouds

Go get into computers and argue with people over whose implimentation of /usr/bin/dildo has fewer lines of code and is written in a better programming language

File: 001965.png (802 B, 88x65)

802 B PNG

sage

>>4341554
you are retarded.

Film is better simply because the CIA can't edit my negatives

>>4341333
unironically agree. i often shoot digital and film back to back with the same lenses on my canon and even if the IQ of the film is worse, the shots look much more pleasing. i dont even bother with digitals much anymore

>>4341560
>Noooo you can't scan your film because-
>YOU JUST CANT
purity spiraling gearfag needs to do gear things to feel better than other people because he cant do photo things lol

>>4341529
>>4341453
Don’t tell us show us

>>4341588
Fuji already did

>>4341591
Guess you can’t.

>>4341588
>>4341592
Show you what exactly?

>>4341371
>should
Nice cope.
Non-Foveon digital is to film as modelers are to tube amps. That is, an economical cope with some convenience features over the real deal.

>>4341554
This. Arguing otherwise is like saying tube amps are pointless if you'll record them digitally anyways and that you should be content with what you can get out of a shitty Line6.

>>4341371
>should
Nice cope.
Non-Foveon digital is to film as modelers are to tube amps. That is, an economical cope with some convenience features over the real deal.
>>4341554
This. Arguing otherwise is like saying tube amps are pointless if you'll record them digitally anyways and that you should be content with what you can get out of a shitty Line6.

>>4341595
You said digital can look exactly the same. Show us.

>>4341610
Who said that?

File: Homie.jpg (2.22 MB, 4193x2812)

2.22 MB JPG

>>4341333
>but the color and detail rendering were god awful. Trees and grass in particular, sand, anything with fine detail was somehow simultaneously mushy and over-sharpened. Color was garish and Rockwellian.
Skill issue. Digital has almost limitless color and tonal possibilities. Sharpening can be emphasized or turned off. Resolution can be up or downsampled, and you can add noise. Adding noise at different resolutions gives different effects. Colors are completely within your control. You just lack vision and expertise, and rely on the color scientists at Kodak or Fuji to do it for you.
>>4341387
This will produce terrible results. Desaturate the shadows.
>>4341539
>>4341549
Having "good colors out of the box" isn't the flex you think it is. Film usually looks good under daylight or flash, try shooting gold 200 under fluorescent or incandescent lights like attached pic. Completely forget it if you're at a performance space with those awful saturated leds. With film you're locked into look whether you want it or not. How many options do you have? 6 or 8? None perform well in all lighting conditions or subject matters.
>but, butt I can just edit my film scans or do darkroom edits!
I thought film was perfect out of the box

>>4341621
>use a daylight balance film that calls for tungsten balance
go take a photo of a building corner, retarded child

>>4341623
>there are only two color temperatures in all of reality
>someone is still making tungsten film
kek

File: kodak_8738304_vision3_500(...).jpg (114 KB, 750x750)

114 KB JPG

>>4341626
hell yeah you fucking turbo nigger

>>4341627
>motion picture film
Yes I know you can shoot it if you pay through the nose for it to be sliced and rolled for you and again for developing. Nobody is doing that, they're just shooting digital and using AWB.

File: _8797 edit 2.jpg (3.32 MB, 4950x3366)

3.32 MB JPG

>>4341623
This digital you dense fuck. The advantage here is you can warm the image to taste. Shooting tungsten film under incandescent lighting will produce results too warm. Again, film locked into fixed look, with less room for adjustments compared to digital.
>go take a photo of a building corner, retarded child
taking a break from the abstract work in favor of candid portraits of my friends.

>>4341549
Just apply a Fujifilm film simulation instead of using Fujifilm film.

>>4341628
>what is cinestill and other remjetless repacks

>>4341629
And yet, modifying the white balance after the fact won't fuck film up the way it does with digital.

>>4341453
>>4341616
You ok?

>>4341636
yeah actually it will

white balance on digital is post processing. it's stored in metadata, not in actual raw data. digital cameras don't display raw histograms and to do so you need to tailor a wrong white balance to get them close.

but with film, white balance is a characteristic of the sensor and the only correct way to change it is to use filters to balance the colors available in the light source.

>>4341640
With digital, you push the balance too far and you start getting posterization

>>4341640
Oh and by the way, white balance is a characteristic of the digital sensor as well. What you do in post is just compensating. There's a reason why digital has different metamerism indexes for different illuminants.

>>4341628
Removing the remjet layer is pretty easy if you use the kodak recipe.

>>4341637
That wasn't me, and he's talking about post processing to get the look you want.

>>4341636
>And yet, modifying the white balance after the fact won't fuck film up the way it does with digital.
To hell it won't. RAW files are far more flexible than film scans.

>>4341641
>With digital, you push the balance too far and you start getting posterization
You get that sooner with a film scan.

>>4341641
>With digital, you push the balance too far and you start getting posterization
No, you don't. Stop shooting jpeg. The chances of encountering posterization with a full frame 14 bit sensor are extremely low and you'll get that way sooner with scanned film.

>>4341642
>Oh and by the way, white balance is a characteristic of the digital sensor as well.
No, it isn't.
>different metamerism indexes for different illuminants.
SMI isn't white balance. Oh, don't look up the SMIs of film.

>>4341645
>To hell it won't. RAW files are far more flexible than film scans.
You can scan to a RAW file you know, and you actually get more leeway because the info is already compressed. You can even do things with the actual film when you digitize it, like digitizing one color at a time with a monochrome camera. The possibilities are endless and you're missing out.

>>4341382
dude not everyone is going to reveal info

>>4341533
>There is no "true color" for negative film
Yes there is retard. Color neg consists of dyes just like slide. Masking dyes are dyes too, and it's possible to subtract the mask properly.>>4341533
>Your eye works exactly the same way
Nope. The eyes are hooked up to a neural network. If you read the "raw" signal from them, it would look like shit

>>4341658
It's something people say when they are wrong and have no argument.

>>4341645
>RAW files are far more flexible than film scans
sounds like someone didn't ever see an actually good scan.

>>4341664
Anon, it's a proven fact that 50mp bayer almost brushes up against the resolution of 6x7 color film (if only we could get more competent meme tests instead of pube scans and mirror slap maps)

You just have to loving edit every single raw file if the light changed or spend on a hasselblad if you want pleasing colors instead of just higher color fidelity lol

>>4341628
>re-spools are widely available
>labs that process true ECN2 charge like 2 bucks more than C41
damn son

>>4341673
>if only
Well we don't need test, all the necessary info is provided in the datasheets. Well, Fuji's datasheets, Kodak does not provide lp/mm. 1lp/mm=2 pixels. At 120lp/mm(resolution of cheapest consumer films) a 24*36 frame will be able to resolve 12.4Mp
>You just have to loving edit every single raw file if the light changed
You don't need to, auto balance works completely fine on color temperature because all that changes is exposure in the blue channel. As long as you are not shooting daylight balanced film in a room lit by dimmed incandescent lightbulbs, there's mire than enough room to make the white actually white

>>4341684
lp/mm != mp

And at what contrast? Film has jackshit for shadow DR. I've seen some impressive 6x7 scans (shot more competently) that put it well above digital, except in the shadows.

>>4341583
still a retard. yawn.

>>4341692
>>Noooo you can't scan your film because-
>retard! RETARD! RETARD!
In real life you're stomping your feet, clenching your teeth, and making angry autist noises aren't you

>>4341689
>Film has jackshit for shadow DR.
So do human eyes, sounds like the most natural approach

>>4341648
>No, you don't. Stop shooting jpeg. The chances of encountering posterization with a full frame 14 bit sensor are extremely low and you'll get that way sooner with scanned film.
Bullshit, I know because I like to work with extreme (filtered, pleb) lighting and it breaks up quickly.

File: contrast.jpg (23 KB, 475x308)

23 KB JPG

>>4341689
Yes it does equal. To resolve a line you need a black pixel and a white pixel, it's as close to Mp as it can possibly get.
>Film has jackshit for shadow DR
Yea, like 3 stops. And then 10+ of highlights DR.
>contrast
1000:1, which is actually really not that high

>>4341702
>Yes it does equal
[moires in your path]
lmao cfas

>>4341702
>>Film has jackshit for shadow DR
>Yea, like 3 stops. And then 10+ of highlights DR.
So, maybe stupid question here, you’d be better off overexposing and bringing back in post, than under? I’m thinking like shooting an old camera with a wonky meter, or even just running sunny/16, lean towards over

>>4341708
Yup. It's actually really hard to overexpose film into oblivion, mist of the time you'll still get some info even if you completely fucked up

File: Prokudin-Gorskii-15.jpg (2.59 MB, 3300x2920)

2.59 MB JPG

>>4341510
For me, it's three-colour principle on glass.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Photographer	Library of Congress
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3300
Image Height	2920
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1008 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1008 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2008:09:29 15:00:58
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3300
Image Height	2920

>>4341689
git gud, there's a reason EI is a thing

>>4341650
>You can scan to a RAW file you know
Doesn't make a real difference with scans.

>The possibilities are endless and you're missing out.
My first DSLR, a 6mp apsc Canon 10D with 12-bit ADCs, produced RAWs that were more flexible than film scans off a dedicated film scanner. A drum scanner might come close to those first DSLRs, not to today's insanely low noise/high DR sensors.

>>4341664
>>There is no "true color" for negative film
>Yes there is retard. Color neg consists of dyes just like slide.
Dyes that have to be interpreted because of their inversion and the orange mask. If you think otherwise you have never actually printed color neg in a darkroom, nor scanned it on two different scanners.

>>Your eye works exactly the same way
>Nope. The eyes are hooked up to a neural network.
Irrelevant. Cones are three color just like Bayer.

>>4341673
>Anon, it's a proven fact that 50mp bayer almost brushes up against the resolution of 6x7 color film (if only we could get more competent meme tests instead of pube scans and mirror slap maps)
No, 50mp FF exceeds 6x9 Velvia 50 on a drum. Not "brushes up." That comparison gets posted to /p/ on occasion.

>>4341684
>120lp/mm
At real world contrast levels Velvia 50 hits 80 lp/mm. In theory that's 22mp, but due to grain clumping it ends up losing to 16mp sensors.

>>4341702
>Yea, like 3 stops. And then 10+ of highlights DR.
"Film" does not exist. Specific emulsions exist. E6 ranges from 6-8 stops. Most neg films are around 10. Portra is ~12. Certain B&W emulsions can hit 18 with special development, but never get close with normal development. FF sensors are now at ~15ev at base ISO. So basically they beat everything except specially developed B&W.
>but muh highlight latitude!
If the spread around middle gray is uneven it's better to have more on the shadow side (more shutter speed if you need it). If you understand your medium you can expose a 15 stop scene to a 15 stop system whether or not the shadows/highlights match, and then put the tones where they need to be in print. Ansel Adams figured this out long before digital.

>1000:1, which is actually really not that high
At that contrast (10 stops) Velvia can only record black and white, no color. Yes it is high. 1000:1 does not occur in fine detail in the real world. It only occurs at highlight/shadow boundaries such as the sun shining through a picket fence.

>>4341735
Use DSLR scanning if you so prefer, point still stands. You can use different backlighting as well.

>>4341744
>using a dslr to scan film magically gives you raw flexibility
This is like claiming that scanning Velvia with a 15 stop digital camera will magically make Velvia a 15 stop film. No, it doesn't. You're bound by how noisy film is. To get the same color/tonal/wb flexibility with film as you get with modern digital FF you need 6x9 if not 4x5. When post processing film scans break down faster than RAWs unless you have an expert drum scan of a much larger format. This was true in the 2000's for fuck's sake.

>>4341746
That's not the case at all. You can do all kinds of manipulations at the scan phase just like you would do when printing, you can for example stack exposures. And the way it prevents the posterization problem is precisely because the scene's colors have been transformed to the film's.

>>4341749
>That's not the case at all.
You think that scanning film magically makes the grain/noise go away? Really?

>You can do all kinds of manipulations at the scan phase just like you would do when printing
Yes you can. But you can do more extreme color/tonal adjustments on a RAW file than on a film scan before it breaks down.

>And the way it prevents the posterization problem is precisely because the scene's colors have been transformed to the film's.
When you see grainy, rough tonal/color transitions and blocked up tones/colors on 35mm, it's the same thing just in analog. So for some images you've got posterization BEFORE the scan. The scan doesn't make it better.

Before digital the #1 reason to shoot MF was to get smoother tonal transitions than you can get with 35mm. Again, to match modern FF you really should be shooting 4x5. Film scans break down faster than RAWs.

>>4341750
What does grain have to do with posterization? Separate issues.

>>4341756
It's literally the same fundamental issue just in analog.

>>4341742

You cannot depend on scans to tell you the true performance capabilities of film!

>>4341759
>noooo there's totally detail below resolved grain
The copes are so tiring...

>>4341757
Kek, that's like saying distortion is the same fundamental issue in tubes and digital. With digital you have the bit depth issue. That's not a concern in the analog world. Say you have an 8-bit channel, for simplicity's sake. It goes from zero to 255. Say you have a largeish object which goes from 130 to 135 in values. Because it's large, you'll notice five distinct stripes, aka posterization. There's simply no "132.5" or anything like it. You could interpolate in post, but it'd be an interpolation and might not be true to the original data. It's the whole reason HDR with stacked exposures exists.

>>4341761

I will let you stew in your ignorance.

>>4341762
>Kek, that's like saying distortion is the same fundamental issue in tubes and digital.
It is.

>With digital you have the bit depth issue. That's not a concern in the analog world.
What is a concern is having enough grains to produce the desired color or tone via density dithering. When you don't have enough you get rough tonal/color transitions and areas of blocked up tones/colors. Which is why larger formats are smoother. The same thing that happens in digital when you don't have enough bits to directly encode a tone or color. It's fundamentally the same problem. Even deeper, the key limiting factor in both is noise (SNR).

>130 to 135
Don't shoot JPEG. 14-bit FF sensors can resolve more distinct colors than 35mm color film. More than 6x9, though MF is usually close enough. You need 4x5 to actually challenge modern FF digital.

>>4341764
Show us the amazing sub grain details, please.

File: blog-diagram-clipping-wav(...).jpg (386 KB, 3920x2160)

386 KB JPG

>>4341765
>It is.
lol
>What is a concern is having enough grains to produce the desired color or tone via density dithering. When you don't have enough you get rough tonal/color transitions and areas of blocked up tones/colors. Which is why larger formats are smoother. The same thing that happens in digital when you don't have enough bits to directly encode a tone or color. It's fundamentally the same problem. Even deeper, the key limiting factor in both is noise (SNR).
You have enough grains for any object occupying a significant amount of space. You may not have enough bits.
>Don't shoot JPEG. 14-bit FF sensors can resolve more distinct colors than 35mm color film. More than 6x9, though MF is usually close enough. You need 4x5 to actually challenge modern FF digital.
This is just advertising talk

>>4341767

You will need a laboratory grade microscope to see what film is truly capable of.

>>4341768
>>What is a concern is having enough grains to produce the desired color or tone via density dithering. When you don't have enough you get rough tonal/color transitions and areas of blocked up tones/colors. Which is why larger formats are smoother. The same thing that happens in digital when you don't have enough bits to directly encode a tone or color. It's fundamentally the same problem. Even deeper, the key limiting factor in both is noise (SNR).
>You have enough grains for any object occupying a significant amount of space.
On 4x5. Not on 35mm. Fuck you can prove this with a head and shoulder portrait. You will typically be able to see grain in subtle skin tone transitions on 35mm. On FF digital you just see smooth, perfect color and details as small as pores. And in those portraits the head occupies a rather large percentage of the frame. Same thing with flower petals in close up shots.

Dude, this debate is from the early 2000's. I literally had this argument with someone back then, until I posted a 35mm flower shot next to a 10D flower shot decisively proving the point. I'm going to look for that file.

>>Don't shoot JPEG. 14-bit FF sensors can resolve more distinct colors than 35mm color film. More than 6x9, though MF is usually close enough. You need 4x5 to actually challenge modern FF digital.
>This is just advertising talk
It's measurable reality.

>>4341770
I have one. I also have a book from Kodak with pictures taken through them. There's nothing below grain.

>>4341771
>able to see grain
That's noise, not posterization.
>On FF digital you just see smooth, perfect color and details as small as pores. And in those portraits the head occupies a rather large percentage of the frame. Same thing with flower petals in close up shots.
Until you want to edit the photograph to your liking and find there's values you can't alter without getting an ugly stripe down the person's face.

>>4341772

My point was that no scanner can precisely capture what one can yield with a microscope.

>>4341774
>>able to see grain
>That's noise, not posterization.
One is the result of the other.

>>On FF digital you just see smooth, perfect color and details as small as pores. And in those portraits the head occupies a rather large percentage of the frame. Same thing with flower petals in close up shots.
>Until you want to edit the photograph to your liking and find there's values you can't alter without getting an ugly stripe down the person's face.
Literally never happens in RAW. It never even happened with 12-bit ADCs (i.e. 10D, 1Ds, 5D). You have to go wild with the sliders to find that point. And if you push a film scan that hard, it looks worse. Again, this is a debate that was over in the 2000s.

>>4341777
The differences between a microscope view and a good scanner are irrelevant to real world prints. No one is pissing themselves because one print has slightly more perfectly shaped grain. People shot larger formats to not see the fucking grain at all.

>>4341778
>And if you push a film scan that hard, it looks worse.
It doesn't, lol. Precisely because of the dithering you described earlier.

>>4341779
>ken-rockwell.jpg

>>4341782
>t. never even tried
Dude, I did these experiments in the early 2000s. Catch up.

>>4341780

I wasn't referring to prints! Examining anything but the actual film is a waste of time!

>>4341785
>nooooo if you're not viewing film through an electron microscope you're missing out!
And if you're not directly reading pixel voltage levels with a multi-meter you're missing out. This is how stupid you sound.

>>4341788

Now you are putting words in my mouth in order to save face!

File: Screen Shot 2024-07-25 at(...).jpg (1.28 MB, 3142x2014)

1.28 MB JPG

>>4341782
I can't find the flower sample, so I threw a 645 scan next to a 5Ds shot. Neither pic is mine, these are samples from the photo lab and from Canon. Take a long, hard look at this. Look at how blotchy the film hair is vs the 5Ds. Funny how that looks like posterization, isn't it? Look at the skin. The 5Ds is resolving peach fuzz, 645 can't because of grain. Those tiny hairs ARE color transitions. 645 can't resolve a color change that small. Look at how smooth and subtle all the color/tonal transitions are on the 5Ds side.

You think the film side can take harder manipulations because "muh dithering"? LOL it's already struggling by comparison. And this is 645, not 35mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	3142
Image Height	2014

>>4341791
Oh, and notice that the bottom lip is blocking up on film, but smooth color on digital. You think that blocking up is going to get better when you push the sliders? Really?

>>4341791

This is a scanner limitation that is not inherent to film.

>>4341795
>noooo if you use an electron microscope...
So much COPE. You can find drum scan samples on Flickr. Again, you need 4x5 to stand next to the 5Ds on subtle tonal/color transitions.

If you think 35mm can hold a candle to FF color you either...
>have not shot 35mm
>have not shot anything better than 35mm
>have not shot anything at all

>>4341791
There's no ugly posterization on the film one despite the point of blocked up shadows being reached so my point has been proven correct. There's also hints of posterization on the lower lip of the right side's model.

>>4341799
>nooooo i don't see posterization
Hair. Lower lip.

>but muh blown highlights!
Both have small areas of this. Doesn't change the fact that digital blew 645 out of the water in every respect. And you think 35mm can compete?

>>4341791
Also dare I say it, model on the left looks more "real", right one doesn't even look like she's made of flesh. Almost like an artificial render, even in the mucosae. This is mostly the lighting's fault but digital is also to blame for it.

>>4341802
>Hair. Lower lip.
Blurring isn't posterization.
>but muh blown highlights!
Didn't say anything about blown highlights. Look at the part of the lower lip under the shadow of the upper one, it looks uncanny as hell.

File: Again and again.jpg (66 KB, 1022x731)

66 KB JPG

>film vs digital
>fastest thread on the board

There is a reason why I still shoot slide film.

>>4341791
You wanna know something? Nobody fucking wants to see peach fuzz or pixel peep their skin.

The film looks better in every print or screen viewing size people will ever use it in. It's only not good for a ridiculous wall sized fine art print that almost nobody wants.

The end result is the 5ds needs retouching because even if you scale it down you can still see hints of the peach fuzz and then still nobody cares because digital shot looks plastic. The film has just enough skin detail

File: IMG_2203.jpg (117 KB, 1000x1000)

117 KB JPG

>>4341828
Spot on, Digital is “too good” To the point that they even had to go and make defocus smoothing type lenses for high-end portraiture, because the normal lenses are too sharp and clinical and that’s actually less than ideal for human portraiture lol. Pic Very related. Ricoh also did it to the latest griii, it’s very much a thing

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4341824
settle down ken

>>4341836
You understand the difference between defocus smoothing and soft focus, right?

>>4341803
>grain looks real
Cope

>>4341804
Yes, the film shot is a little uncanny. Digital shot is like real life. At least for those of us who have been near a woman.

>>4341828
>doesn’t like the texture of a woman’s skin
I’ll post a man next time just for you. Or maybe a dog? Husky perhaps?

File: Fuzzy01.jpg (244 KB, 1005x808)

244 KB JPG

>>4341828
>Nobody fucking wants to see peach fuzz
I do.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Camera Model	KODAK EASYSHARE CX4230 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2018:08:16 06:02:44
Exposure Time	237/125000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	5.54 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1005
Image Height	808
Exposure Index	100

>>4341848
Based

>>4341838
No, he doesn’t. He also doesn’t realize that soft focus filters and lenses were always a thing on film.

>>4341846
>He has never experienced "too horny to notice"
Gay or fetish?

File: SACRE BLEU.png (19 KB, 647x264)

19 KB PNG

>>4341845
>>4341846
>>4341848
>Europe woke up

>>4341333

Wanna relive analog nostalgia without the cost and chemicals smelling all around?

Just get A7R (first gen) with loud shutter and put some FD old ass glass on it - it will feel same.

>>4341735
Yes it is relevant, the brain fills the Bayer's gaps based on its training, cameras do not, they use math
>Dyes that have to be interpreted
No they dont kek
Each dye has a specific absorbtion spectrum, so it is possible to say precisely what color is recorded on film.
Meanwhile, it is impossible to see the film's color on an RA4 print.
>>4341742
>At real world contrast levels Velvia 50 hits 80 lp/mm
Says who
>grain clumping
Says who
>E6 ranges from 6-8 stops.
Scanned on what

Et cetera, et cetera
"Citation needed"

>>4341765
>14-bit FF sensors can resolve more distinct colors than 35mm color film
And yet, they still look dead. Digital always looks digital, even after being printed on film and scanned, there's just not enough information recorded for it to look good.
If you can't spot digital, you either don't see colors that well, or fool yourself

>>4341791
Both look like shit, but on film you also got a shit scan, so it's shit2 kekw

>>4341886
>hurr math bad
You’re an idiot. Color science is a SCIENCE. It’s trivally easy to PROVE that modern 14-bit sensors have higher color accuracy across a wider gamut than any film, even at the film’s target white balance. And also that Bayer works fundamentally the same as the eye. This is no more open for debate than gravity.
>inb4 filmtard is a flat earther

>Each dye has a specific absorbtion spectrum, so it is possible to say precisely what color is recorded on film.
And yet color was always all over the place for neg film. Go to two different labs get two different color prints. Use two different scanners get two different scans. I wasn’t kidding about why NatGeo wanted E6. The problem with your little theory? Dyes change over time depending on conditions. Which is why pros used to buy refrigerated and dated film. I bet you’ve never even seen this in your life. Never once walked into a local photo supply store and asked for the film in the fridge.

>hurr neg film color is true color you just can’t ever see it
The irony that you think this is a defense of film LMFAO.

>says who says who says who
Literally Fuji in their Velvia data sheets which you have NEVER read and couldn’t interpret if you did. I’m arguing the merits of film with someone who has never read a data sheet, never used a darkroom, never traditionally printed B&W much less color, and never been within 50 miles of a drum scanner. Be quiet and maybe you will learn something.

Digital passed up film on the technical merits a long time ago. Shoot film for fun, for it’s pre-canned look, as a creative outlet, to learn old crafts. Just don’t delude yourself into believing it’s superior.

>>4341887
>And yet, they still look dead.
Literally a skill issue. You have no idea what to do with a RAW file, how to craft it into the look you want, so you cry instead. Fuji makes cameras for you.

>there's just not enough information recorded for it to look good.
Retard, there’s MORE information. Both detail and color. Already proven, to anyone not wallowing in self delusion, in the comparison above.

>If you can't spot digital
I can spot digital. It’s the one with perfectly smooth tonal and color transitions and so much detail on high rez FF that I would have to drag out a 4x5 view camera to challenge it.

>>4341791
Film looks better sorry nerd.

>>4341845
Cope, the few shadows on the digital side look massively unnatural.

>>4341903

just bump up the iso and will get nasty grainz

>>4341902
>so you cry instead. Fuji makes cameras for you.
And yet, theirso-called "film sims" completely fail at producing the colors even their own films produce. They only fool people who haven't seen the real thing before.

>>4341902
Fuji jpg looks like shit.
Post your, properly crafted photo.
>Retard, there’s MORE information. Both detail and color.
Do you know how Bayer filter works? Why your digital "photos" don't look like autochromes?
>It’s the one with perfectly smooth tonal and color transitions
Lmaoo, this is gotta be a trollpost, but I'll bite. If it's so good and smooth, why digital still looks like digital even after being printed to Kodak Vision 3, and why does film, if scanned with a digital camera, start to look like digital too? Maybe there's a loss of information of some sort, huh?

>>4341904
>resorting to making shit up and same fagging
I accept your concession.

>>4341634
What are those?

>>4341908
Anon, take a look at the lower lip, the way the transition takes place in the shadow area. Its getting quite posterized.

File: Ramjet_operation.svg.png (81 KB, 1200x699)

81 KB PNG

>>4341909
ramjet

>>4341907
>Post your, properly crafted photo.
Already did.

>but…but…BAYER!!!
Once again, it is trivial to prove that Bayer sensors are more accurate over a wider gamut. Why in the fuck would you think dye cloud density is more capable than direct tonal measurement?

>but muh three layers!!
You’re still dithering for an approximation of the original color. Ask yourself how many tones or colors do you think film can approximate at the size of a single pixel? Probably less than you have fingers on one hand because there aren’t enough grains to dither. Meanwhile digital can discern 16,000 tones at a pixel, and billons of colors with a quad. Bayer captures MORE tonal and color info. Vastly more per sq mm which is why you need LF to compete.

>>It’s the one with perfectly smooth tonal and color transitions
>Lmaoo, this is gotta be a trollpost,
Yes you are a troll as the comparison was already made above and it wasn’t even close.

>if it’s so good, why muh naked assertion?
Post your comparisons where you printed digital to Vision 3.
>crickets

>>4341910
Yes, the film shot is blocked up or posterized on the lower lip. Thank you for conceding.

>>4341901
Yes, it's science. But camera's bayer is interpreted by math, and eyes-by a neural network. Neural network can fill in the gaps in data, math can't
>And yet color was always all over the place for neg film
Because faggots like you can't scan for shit. It's really easy if you understand the fundamentals of how color film and masking works, but alas
>Dyes change over time depending on conditions
And? Lol
Why are you trying to looks so important?
>Never once walked into a local photo supply store and asked for the film in the fridge.
Yea, because my friend's lab stores all film in the fridge by default
>hurr neg film color is true color you just can’t ever see it
Nice strawman, nigger. Except it's possible to see it, just not for a retard.
>Literally Fuji in their Velvia data sheets
Aight, show me the paragraph in fuji's datasheets where fuji states
>At real world contrast levels Velvia 50 hits 80 lp/mm
and while we're at it, show me the definition of "real world contrast" in that same datasheet
Im not even going to ask you to show the rest of your statements in the datasheets, because both you and I know that there's nothing like that in there
>never used a darkroom, never traditionally printed B&W much less color, and never been within 50 miles of a drum scanner. Be quiet and maybe you will learn something
Anon, are you a boomer? There are only two types of people who can be so self-absorbed and confident in their superiority, boomers and reddit/discord mods.

>>4341914
>it is trivial to prove that Bayer
Do it, faggot.
>direct tonal measurement
Of one channel per pixel. The values of the other two are *approximated*, not measured.
>because there aren’t enough grains to dither
Yes there are lol
Why do you think there are typically 3 layers per color(not total) in film?
>Post your comparisons
Don't need to, just go watch Dune. It still looks like it was shot on Arri Alexa, not on film. Do you really not see it?

File: 61XNC2yo0xL._AC_SL1000_.jpg (61 KB, 858x880)

61 KB JPG

>>4341918
>Do it, faggot
Already done

File: Screen Shot 2024-07-26 at(...).png (31 KB, 816x258)

31 KB PNG

>>4341917
>Yes, it's science. But camera's bayer is interpreted by math, and eyes-by a neural network. Neural network can fill in the gaps in data, math can't
First: you are a retard. Math absolutely can fill in gaps. Math fills in the gaps all the time across countless domains. In fact, math can be used to model neural networks to fill in the gaps that way, which is what we call AI.

Second: the gaps are SMALLER with Bayer. Whether Bayer or film you only get so close to the exact wavelengths that constituted a color. But with Bayer you provably get closer than with density dithering of 3-4 industrial dyes.

>Because faggots like you can't scan for shit.
LOL it was all over the place long before scanners.

>And? Lol
And that means you can never precisely nail down what the exact color should be on neg film. It's an unknown variable reducing the color precision of the medium.

>Yea, because my friend's lab stores all film in the fridge by default
You want me to believe this now? You can't even find a data sheet, but your friend has a lab and you TOTALLY shoot refrigerated film.

>Nice strawman
It was literally what you said.

>Aight, show me the paragraph in fuji's datasheets where fuji states
>>At real world contrast levels Velvia 50 hits 80 lp/mm
Pic related, page 7 of the data sheet.

>and while we're at it, show me the definition of "real world contrast" in that same datasheet
Same pic.

>Im not even going to ask you to show the rest of your statements in the datasheets, because both you and I know that there's nothing like that in there
The characteristic curve giving you the dynamic range of Velvia 50 is on page 8. Want a screenshot?

>Anon, are you a boomer?
I notice you didn't tell me I'm wrong.

>>4341918
>>it is trivial to prove that Bayer
>Do it, faggot.
Already did: >>4341791

>Of one channel per pixel. The values of the other two are *approximated*, not measured.
They are directly measured by neighboring pixels. Again, how many colors do you think color film can dither in the space of four pixels? Because digital can provably discern billions of colors in that space.

>>because there aren’t enough grains to dither
>Yes there are lol
In the space of a single pixel? Really? So you have never looked at film under a microscope? Got it.

>MUH MOVIE!!!
You're tipped off by the palette, literally the inaccuracies in how film interprets a scene. That's hardly a compelling argument that film is more accurate.

File: Screen Shot 2024-07-26 at(...).png (130 KB, 856x868)

130 KB PNG

>>4341917
>>4341920
Here's that screenshot from page 8. The slopes don't really get going and converge until about -1.75 and are merged by +0.5. 6.7 stops of DR if we're being generous.
>inb4 you can't read a characteristic curve

>>4341914
>Ask yourself how many tones or colors do you think film can approximate at the size of a single pixel? Probably less than you have fingers on one hand because there aren’t enough grains to dither.
Bait, do you not know what density is in film?

>>4341924
>Bait, do you not know what density is in film?
Apparently you do not if you think film can represent anything more than a very small number of tones/colors in a space equivalent to a single pixel or a pixel quad.

Try this experiment: shoot a gray ramp and three color ramps (the primaries) on 110 film and on m43. See which one is more accurate.

>>4341925
>muh accuracy
Perceptually film is, because you don't get hard stepping.

>>4341920
>provably get closer
Says who
>than with density dithering of 3-4 industrial dyes.
What the fuck is an "industrial dye"
>you can never precisely nail down what the exact color should be on neg film
But you always can precisely nail down what exact color IS on the negative film.
If your colir neg was properly stored and developed, and it's not some consumer shit like Gold that looks terrible because the spectral sensitising dyes were chosen to make that film as saturated as possible as cheap as possible, the colors on negative will be as precise, or, in case of Vision 3, more precise than those of e6
>You can't even find a data sheet
Says who
>1.6:1 is "real world contrast"
Do you only shoot grey concrete on a really foggy day? Because even that will have more contrast than 1.6:1, how the fuck is that "real world"?
>The characteristic curve giving you the dynamic range
Well please do show me your calculations
>I notice you didn't tell me I'm wrong
Yeah, I skip answering a lot in your posts
Wanna guess why?

>>4341926
>Perceptually film is, because you don't get hard stepping.
There is literally more "hard stepping" in the 645 shot than the 5Ds shot, and the 645 had a larger surface area to work with. 35mm really shows off "hard stepping". Try again.

>>4341928
>There is literally more "hard stepping"
Where?

>>4341928
Sorry buddy, not seeing it.

>>4341927
>Says who
>>4341919
>>4341791
On the last one, are you going to tell me that human skin is made up of grain and not pores with peach fuzz?

>What the fuck is an "industrial dye"
Oh holy shit...stop posting.

>But you always can precisely nail down what exact color IS on the negative film.
No, you cannot, for several reasons. Not the least of which is that the dyes have shifted by an unknown amount between manufacture, shooting, developing, and printing/scanning. This really isn't that hard but you're stuck in "hurr muh team is better" mode so you COPE everything.

>or, in case of Vision 3, more precise than those of e6
I would actually agree with you that Vision 3 is more accurate than any of the E6 films. However, magazines in the 80s/90s didn't have the ability to have their photographers shoot color test charts under controlled lighting at the beginning of each roll. So there was no way to know the drift for a given roll. There would be drift in a roll of E6 too, but that misses the point that once the E6 was developed everyone had a common reference to work with. If the photographer or editor thought there was a problem they could all study the slide on a light table. So at least everyone agreed over what was there, which didn't happen with color neg without expensive/precise controls because you can't just drop a neg on a light table and figure out the colors.

>>1.6:1 is "real world contrast"
Yes.

>Do you only shoot grey concrete on a really foggy day?
Fine details almost never occur at high contrast in the real world. High contrast transitions are coarse/low resolution transitions. Sun behind a picket fence vs. pores in a model's skin. 1000:1, where Velvia can't even see color, tells you shit about real world resolution.

>>The characteristic curve giving you the dynamic range
>Well please do show me your calculations
Nailed it: you don't know how to read a characteristic curve. How many times are you going to get btfo'd in a single thread?

>>4341929
>>4341930
>covers eyes
>"monkey see no evil"
Naturally. Just look at the hair or the lower lip. Not that you will.

>>4341932
Already addressed that. The hair is just blurred. The lower lip looks okay, unlike the posterized digital one in the shadow region that looks uncanny as fuck. Digital looks rather inert despite the picture being of a living organism.

>>4341931
>Oh holy shit...stop posting.
No, give me the definition. How do you think color film works?
>Not the least of which is that the dyes have shifted by an unknown amount between manufacture, shooting, developing, and printing/scanning
And all of that doesn't matter because you're scanning what is present on film at the moment of scan. Idk why it's so hard for you to get
>How many times are you going to get btfo'd in a single thread?
0 so far. Because you don't actually say anything except "hurr durr ima so gooda"
>>4341932
Well again, you've got a shit scan. Labs looove to cut off a decent chunk of dynamic range in one of the channels, and then compensate for that by adding even more contrast in other channels. I'll ve able to post visual proof of this in like a day or two

>>4341933
>despite the picture being of a living organism
This is some next level incel shit, somehow you surpassed the already infamous by now "female".

>>4341933
>already COPE'd that
We know.

>>4341934
>>Oh holy shit...stop posting.
>No, give me the definition.
Look it up.
>How do you think color film works?
Density dithering of 3-4 overlapping color dyes.

>And all of that doesn't matter because you're scanning what is present on film at the moment of scan.
And no two brands of scanners agree on what the color is. Hell, sometimes two scanners of the same brand don't agree. This isn't a debate, I'm telling you how things were and why.

>>How many times are you going to get btfo'd in a single thread?
>0 so far.
Tell us how you calculate the dynamic range of a film from the manufacturer's published characteristic curve. We're waiting. Also be an adult and concede that yes, the 80 lp/mm figure WAS in Fuji's data sheet. Might as well also concede my DR numbers as well, save yourself some time.

>>>4341932 (You)
>lab published example of the quality of their higher priced scan
>HURR IT'S A SHIT SCAN
Always the defense of the film fan when btfo'd. If you just used an electron microscope you would see how much detail and color is on that piece of film, then digital would lose!!!

I can't believe I'm having this debate in 2024. I thought it was over in 2004.

>>4341937
>>>>4341932 (You)
Nice samefagging

>>4341937
>overlapping color dyes
And how do they they appear in film?
>don't agree
Because math. Because you use automatics. What you're supposed to do is manually set black, grey and white points for each of the layers. This also perfectly subtracts the mask

>>4341937
>Tell us
Nah mate, you tell us. It's your job to prove your statements, not mine
>lab published example of the quality of their higher priced scan
Yeah you're a boomer alright. "Expensive=good" stopped working a looong time ago
Even a flatbed epson will produce better colors than the most expensive lab scans 99% of the time

>>4341938
>i'm guilty of X i better accuse him of X
It's obvious both posts are from me, I never denied that.

>>4341939
>>overlapping color dyes
>And how do they they appear in film?
Kodak or Fuji put them there. (Be more specific if you want a specific answer.)

>Because math.
And what is the math for unknown dye drift? What's the math for unknown source light white balance? What's the math for unknown drifts in processing chemicals? How come no two scanner brands or software suites could ever agree on orange mask subtraction? How come no two traditional labs could ever produce the exact same color? A lab that knew what they were doing would be damn close on reprints, but two labs agreeing? LOL

>This also perfectly subtracts the mask
If it's perfect then how come Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Acer, Imacon, Howtek, etc. all disagreed on that part?

>>4341941
>>Tell us
>Nah mate, you tell us.
Hint: it's plotted in log base 10.

>It's your job to prove your statements, not mine
I already have. Repeatedly. Over and over again. Feel free to post a 35mm color portrait scan that you believe out performs the Canon 5Ds sample on color, tonality, and/or detail. Go on. We're waiting. Feel free to prove Fuji is wrong that Velvia 50 is 80 lp/mm. Go on. I can't wait.

>>lab published example of the quality of their higher priced scan
>Yeah you're a boomer alright. "Expensive=good" stopped working a looong time ago
Everything is a fucking cope with you. The scan is fine. The scan is not the reason film lost. You just can't admit that film lost.

>Even a flatbed epson will produce better colors than the most expensive lab scans 99% of the time
ROTFLMFAO holy shit stop posting.

>>4341942
>Be more specific if you want a specific answer
Oh I am very specific if you know how film works. Are the dyes put there at the time of manufacturing?

>>4341942
>And what is the math for unknown dye drift? What's the math for unknown source light white balance? What's the math for unknown drifts in processing chemicals?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that this does not matter?
>Hint: it's plotted in log base 10.
Cmon man, you gotta form full sentences at your age
>ROTFLMFAO holy shit stop posting
Do you know how old scanners autoadjust colors?
If you have a flatbed and are willing to actually do an experiment, get a lab scan, then scan the same frame on a flatbed, but as I say, not in auto mode

>>4341943
>>Be more specific if you want a specific answer
>Oh I am very specific if you know how film works. Are the dyes put there at the time of manufacturing?
No, you're trying a smokescreen to detract from the fact that film got its ass beat above. And from the fact that you have blown it on multiple points of fact (lp/mm and DR). For C41 (not Kodachrome) the dyes are produced during development via color couplers that are in the film.

But the nuances of the chemical reactions are not what's important. What's important is that some people are silly enough to think density dithering is just as good as 14-bit direct tonal measurement. What's really hilarious about film fans is that at the lowest level digital is analog (voltage accumulation before the ADC) and analog film is digital (grains either convert to metallic silver or they do not). Let that spin around in your head for a while.

>>4341946
That's a nice wall of text, however
How big do you think a grain of silver halide in a good color film is?

>>4341944
>Why is it so hard for you to understand that this does not matter?
Are you honestly claiming that things which affect film's final color do not matter for color accuracy? Really? COPE

>>Hint: it's plotted in log base 10.
>Cmon man, you gotta form full sentences at your age
So you can't figure it out, and you can't even be bothered to Google search it?

>If you have a flatbed and are willing to actually do an experiment, get a lab scan, then scan the same frame on a flatbed, but as I say, not in auto mode
Been there, done that, tossed the flatbed for a dedicated film scanner. If your point is that the photographer is going to get better color by hand adjusting each frame than a lab on auto adjust, that's sometimes true but not always. But it's also irrelevant because the 645 scan did not lose due to auto adjust. It was either hand tweaked or scanned with a good profile that worked for known lighting conditions (strobes). The color is what one would expect from the film under those lights. No, it lost because even at 645 size film does not have the ability to distinguish as many tones, colors, or as fine of detail as 14-bit FF digital.

>>4341947
>How big do you think a grain of silver halide in a good color film is?
The range depends on the film. Smaller than a pixel is probably your. But then a grain is on/off, develops to metallic silver or not. You need many to dither a tone (B&W) or color even with 3-4 layers of dye as the final result. A single pixel can capture 16k tones. A quad, billions of colors. An area of film the size of a pixel cannot dither 16k tones. Not even close. FFS you can see the grain, the dithering process, in the 645 sample.

File: IMG_20240726_145951_484.jpg (47 KB, 1280x324)

47 KB JPG

>>4341948
>color accuracy
Oh so you misread. What I said is it is always possible to get exactly the color that is recorded on the negative film. The reason why there are "interpretations" is that scanners either use presets that need updating as film generations change ( gb 200-7, 200-8), which is now impossible due to how old all that shit is, or basically do autolevels, which is not and cannot be perfect, thatbis whybyou have to adjust the levels manually
>and you can't even be bothered to Google search it
Nah, I want you to present your methodology
>that's sometimes true but not always
Always. Period. I tried comparing on several dozen photos, I always do a way, way better job, IF there's enough information in the file.
>But it's also irrelevant
Yes it is relevant. There's info cut off in the highlights of the red channel (hence the issues with lips), white and black points are all over the place, and tge contrast is not the same between the channels.

File: IMG_20240726_150512_180.jpg (24 KB, 368x288)

24 KB JPG

>>4341950
>Smaller than a pixel is probably your.
That is quite an understatement. For example. Nikon Z pixel size is 35 square micrometers. And this is film grain, of a fairly fast bw film. So there are 10-15 grains per pixel. One could call them bits, heh
In color film there will be ~3 times more grains per pixel in each channel

>>4341950
>FFS you can see the grain, the dithering process, in the 645 sample
That is digital noise, mate. For someone who supposedly printed in a darkroom you don't seem to know how clouds of dyes look

>>4341952
>thatbis whybyou
That is why you

>>4341954
Filmchads btfo digislugs once again

>>43419>54
512x480
that's the effective resolution you get from film. lmao

>>4341982
45 grains per pixel, 70% of them being noise

>>4341954
And these aren't pixels. They don't function like pixels. You need light to build resolution, while digital pixels count photons and have basically infinite shadow DR. So much that gearfags make up random noise cutoffs to pretend their cameras don't have like 20 stops of dynamic range. This is so the manufacturers who pay them off can claim improvements as they improve on forced raw noise reduction. Since the dynamic range is cut off at a noise level by the reviewer cabal, noise reduction = increasing dynamic range. A perfect plot.
Too bad everyone fell for it.

Digital remains sharp very, very deep into underexposure. Many stops before digital totally fades into noise, film is a mushy void. Instead film needs to be shot as 1-3 stops slower than it's labeled depending on the scene and you really need a GND for skies. There is no such thing as an ISO 400 film. It's all ISO 200, at the fastest.

>>4342005
obviously

50mp DSLRs are just a hair under the real world resolving power of 6x7 film, although they still surpass it with fine colored patterns. that doesn't bode well for the resolution of measly 35mm (the micro four thirds of film)

>>4341901
more, and more accurate, colors, are not pleasing colors
>bayer works like the eye
Bayer after lovingly applied and possibly AI supported edits to fix all its fuckups is sort of like the eye, but my eye is basically running in 24/7 pixel shift mode instead of using dumb math and sub-frog-tier neural networks to guess at shit. Eyeballs MOVE. The gaps in the CFA are being constantly filled in by-micro twitches. It's like a combination of video and pixel shift...
Also, eyes are RGBW, not RGGB. RGBW is superior, really.

>Retards thinking that ANY camera can properly represent the world like human eyes
it was downhill from there

>>4342003
70% of them being pure SOUL, actually.

>>4341694
yawn, still a retard.

>>4342003
Says who
>>4342005
>They don't function like pixels
Yes they do lol, each of them is a photon detector
>have basically infinite shadow DR.
Ever heard of noise? At some point signal to noise ratio becomes so bad there's no info left
>Instead film needs to be shot as 1-3 stops slower than it's labeled
No lol. You just need to know how to meter
>There is no such thing as an ISO 400 film. It's all ISO 200, at the fastest
And now you're going to invent your own iso standard?
>>4342008
Thanks, anon. Too bad he still won't understand you

>>4341901

Actually, Ektachrome shot with a KR1.5 filter sets the standard for color accuracy.

>>4341942
>Feel free to prove Fuji is wrong that Velvia 50 is 80 lp/mm. Go on. I can't wait.

Look up Henning Serger for the truth.

>>4342019
>Yes they do lol, each of them is a photon detector
Individual halide grains are BITS. They flip or they do not. Pixels are photon counters. Totally different devices.
>ever heard of noise
SNR wankers tell me I can't see details below their noise floor cutoff, and yet, I can, especially after running noise reduction. Digital dynamic range figures are FAKED to enable manufacturers to game gearfag camera reviews as a form of subversive advertising.
>you need to buy this new camera goyim it has more dynamic range (we improved the forced NR)
See: Cannot POS R. They added low ISO noise reduction to every camera and full ISO range noise reduction to the r3 to game their DXO scores. But noise floor cutoffs applied to unedited raws are not dynamic range figures. They are noise floor cutoffs, for MTF shart fetishizing faggots who refuse to call shadow detail shadow detail if the MTF shart isn't dead flat at 100%. But PHOTOGRAPHERS can still use that detial.
>No lol. You just need to know how to meter
Knowing how to meter is specifically how you arrive at this conclusion. Film needs to be very well exposed to fill out shadow detail. The highlights can still only take so much, even on film, hence GND filters. If you don't basically treat your ISO 400 film like ISO 200 the majority of scenes will have mushy shadow detail. On digital, there's only a little noise.

>>4342025
Well if they are bits then you end up with like 60 bits per pixel on film
>Digital dynamic range figures are FAKED
Man, idk shit about all that marketing, I felt lost trying to chose digital camera, got an xt3 and now im fucking stuck with magenta red
>On digital, there's only a little noise.
And blown out highlights. Btw, 3 stops of shadows is more than enough for anything compositionally important. When you need more it will look ugly anyway bc of lighting

>>4342028
>60 bits per pixel
The number of bits per pixel depends on how many film grains fall under each pixel of your scanner :^)
>magenta red
Skill issue.
>Blown out highlights
Skill issue.
>3 stops of shadows is enough
Skill issue. When opinions get this dumb, I smell an instagram bot that only shoots blurry sidewalks, building corners, and underexposed trees.

File: CIA_el_perro.png (43 KB, 427x400)

43 KB PNG

>YOU MUST SHOOT DIGITAL SO I CAN FAKE YOUR RAWS!!!

File: NY-BN574B_CIA_F_20120314174207.jpg (21 KB, 571x226)

21 KB JPG

>>4342031
>Yes goyim, believe film is more real. Negatives are impossible to fake because they're so high resolution! Don't listen to those dumb gearfags who say 6x6 color negatives are equal to an a7riv, they're dumb. Film is 9001 megapickels.
>*starts up one of a kind 100mp projector*
>*loads ai_gen_moonlanding.tiff*
>special agent reagan, wheel over the hasselblad!
>ready for imaging, sir!

File: 45f53f36274c37063980c86e5(...).jpg (30 KB, 657x527)

30 KB JPG

>>4342032
The only way glowies can modify my negatives its if they take it from my cold dead hands

digicucks btfo

>>4342034
Irrelevant. Glowies can knock you out with mind control rays.

The only truth is - photographs aren't real.

Digital is a conspiracy that will add you to its mindless collective.

>>4342036
I steal from people with my film pictures

I love getting ready for a shoot and briefly scrolling through threads like this lol.

>>4342038
Will you be shooting a film school or a digital school?

>>4342035
No they can't. My house is basically a multi-layered Faradey cage, they can't do shit

>>4342038
Which gay nightclub are you shooting so OP can be warned ahead of time

>>4342039
>>4342041
It’s a beautiful Friday and you’re gonna spend it in this thread, not taking photos, lol.

>>4342030
Well so it's now we have VBR photos kek. Still, there's much, much more than 15 bits per pixel
>Skill issue
Nah, just xtrans. It records "not green"=magenta so reds become magentaish and blues-violetish
>Skill issue
Kind of. Clipping would be a non-issue if amplification circuits were built a bit different, but it's cheaper to not bother
>blurry sidewalks, building corners, and underexposed trees.
On the contrary, I know how to work with light, more or less. When there's more than 3 stops difference ON your main subject-you've done something wrong

>>4342042
The more lols, lmaos, and hahas are in the post the more certain the knowledge that the poster's teeth are clenched and their keyboard clacks quite loud.

>>4342044
You're talking straight nonsense now
>on the main subject
Total goalpost move and it's to a portraiture specific "generic good photo" guideline

>>4342042
I will be taking some pickies today as well. Maybe in my studio, but also maybe outside. :D I have some fun ideas.

>dad once again asked to me to go back to digital
>as he was making a photobook for pictures from 2016

he has probably 20 000 photos in his backlog now

>>4341636
Slides scanned with a digital camera in RAW respond on WB in the raw editor pretty well. Negatives are total mess unless you're shooting under flash or daylight.
>>4341642
>white balance is a characteristic of the digital sensor as well.
No its not. WB in raw is a function of whatever kelvin and green/magenta multipliers are, which are applied to demosaiced color channels. The raw file is just the various color channels of 12, 14, 16 bit data.

>>4341742
>Certain B&W emulsions can hit 18
Total bs. I was able to get 15 stops of DR on FP4+@50 with perceptol+3. The negatives were too flat to print in the darkroom, totally worthless.
>FF sensors are now at ~15ev at base ISO.
They can't be. All FF sensors I'm aware of use 14 adc, and can either output 12 or 14bit raws. Could only get 14 stops of DR in theory. In practice, its between 12 and 13. Pixel shift allows for noise free files at 14. MF cameras like fuji, hasselblad, and phase one can hit that with pixel shift, but their DR at base tops out around 14, using 16 bit raw.

>>4342045
Eh, it kinda is a goalpost move
You're kinda right about film's iso. Not really, but kinda and I don't have as much time now to argue

File: s1r pixel shift vs 4x5 ag(...).jpg (448 KB, 2121x1185)

448 KB JPG

>>4341828
Total cope. I thought film totally BTFO digital? You can always reduce resolution, soften, add noise, etc. Its basically impossible to improve the film shot. Scanning it at a higher res is just gonna make the grain sharper.
>>4341934
>but, but its just a bad scan!!1!
Here is a comparison between s1r pixel shift vs 4x5 e100 slide processed by Denver Digital. Digital mogs, simple as.
>you missed focus with 4x5
No I didn't, the fine details, cross hatching on the comics are resolved, just not as well as digital.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Weston Harby
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4342057
you glow on the dark

>>4342057
Nah mate we've all seen your pubes on your ill-processed e100

File: Dynamic-Range-Comparison-(...).jpg (308 KB, 1280x720)

308 KB JPG

>>4342050
>its between 12 and 13
This is the kind of nophoto that believes in noise cutoffs

Whenever gearfags rate dynamic range, they use a noise cutoff. There is ALWAYS more dynamic range than they say there is. They say "raw is raw, NR doesn't count". This gives manufacturers room to sneak NR in with every release and claim they improved dynamic range when really, it hasn't fucking changed since 2016. And it's definitely more than 14 stops.

A human observer, a non-gearfag, would look at this and say "the fuji x-t3 has about 15 stops of dynamic range". And this is iso 640, 12 bit readout...
You are being scammed THIS hard. Every DR figure you know is based on noise, and the confidence level of an algorithm. Humans can "see through noise" just fine when computer models call it low confidence data, but that's of concern to art, not metrology or reproduction.
>but it doesnt count, the NOISE! THE NOISE!
One pass of noise reduction later and it has more dynamic range. Wow. RAW is not, and has never been truly RAW so you've been scammed from the start. Your DR charts are arbitrary depending on how much NR the manufacturer wants to bake in and how good they've gotten at fooling gearfags into thinking it's not there.

>>4342057
But the film looks better, and can achieve that look in a single shot. The digital just looks worse.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Image Created	2018:08:28 01:32:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720

>>4342057
You admitted this was a test between your "4x5 system" and digital. Your set up was far from optimal for art reproduction on film, and included variables that only work against the film.

Your digital set up being better than your 4x5 setup for your work is the only thing I got after asking you a few questions about how you conducted this test.

>>4342045
I’m in a Uber tho.

>>4342046
Have fun anon!

>>4342060
good nr would give the x-t3 over 16 stops of dr

so full frame at iso 640 would have 17
add stops to lower the iso to base and we're getting close to 20 stop dr on ff, 19 stops on aps-c, and 18 on mft
>b-b-but the signal to noise ratio standard the "experts" set...

gearfags, you have been absolutely and thoroughly scammed. nice negative film sure had about 12-14 stops of dynamic range before fading to black especially if you knew what you were doing. the way these reviewers measure dynamic range is specially engineered to get you to buy cameras. it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with photography. less than 10 stops on slide film was enough for nat geo shooting in the sahara and the alps and now mft can feasibly squeeze out 18 stops after one pass of a quality noise reduction program if you would only IGNORE THE NOISE CHARTS

i shoot ff btw

>>4342057
Thanks for showing how much better film looks

>>4342063
Well that's one hell of a schizo rant

>>4342065
How's it schizo

You can clearly see they excluded visible detail because "muh snr before noise reduction"
You can also look up that so far canon and sony have been caught slipping non-optional noise reduction into their raws to get their DXO scores higher - this has absolutely no impact on users other than not letting them really turn NR off, because it would be applied to create a jpeg anyways. It's just that the camera review system is created to be gamed, starting from the two fallacious premises:
Raw files represent base hardware performance and are not processed in any way
Dynamic range is subject to a signal to noise ratio cutoff, not a visibility cutoff

Film is actually unable to record shadow detail that's too low because there is no light activating the grains, even if you overexpose it to death it will always find shadows that are too deep, but digital actually has about 20 stops of DR. Way more than you ever needed.

>>4342060
>And it's definitely more than 14 stops.
How fucking retarded are you? You can't have more DR than bits you're recording. There is no where to record the data.
>But the film looks better, and can achieve that look in a single shot. The digital just looks worse.
Wrong. Artist client and I both agreed that digital shot was cleaner and more color accurate. You'd be a fool to argue with the artist who made the piece about color accuracy. The pixel shift shot took way less time to set up, shoot, and process vs 4x5.
>>4342061
> Your set up was far from optimal for art reproduction on film, and included variables that only work against the film.
The digital setup was also less optimal than it could have been. I was using a vintage 50mm nikkor lens, instead of top of the line modern lens with better coatings, less distortion, less LoCA, and flatter focal plane.
This test is a good comparison for real world imaging between the 2 systems. Using a film, camera, and lens that most LF photogs would be using. Using a technical macro lens optimized for the subject distance on 4x5 isn't going to make the film shot better than digital all the sudden.
Let's not forget that the digital setup can be had for less than 1.7k if you deal hunt.
>>4342067
>but digital actually has about 20 stops of DR. Way more than you ever needed.
Explain how a digital raw file can have 20 stops of DR when the files are only 14 or 16 bits.

>>4342069
>How fucking retarded are you? You can't have more DR than bits you're recording. There is no where to record the data.
And yet it's clearly there. 12 bit video, with clearly more than 12 stops of tonal differentiation.

Tech nerds have placed you on a consoomption carousel. You are sheeple.

>the accuracy
it's not about the accuracy. Film looks better for that subject. In that case, the "artist" who paid to use the living scanner has worse taste than whoever made the film lol.

>>4342069
It isn't between film and digital it is between your two systems, and one of them is easy to get optimal results with, while the other takes some know how. Are you even testing for/measuring lens/film plane parallelity before taking your picture? I know you aren't using a proper repro camera.


Do the test, but use the LF camera/lens to take the digital and film picture. It's the only honest way to properly test the two.

File: e100 35mm vs d610.jpg (421 KB, 1945x1278)

421 KB JPG

35mm e100 absolutely btfo by a $300 digital camera.
>>4342070
>12 bit video, with clearly more than 12 stops of tonal differentiation.
No there aren't, the top 2 are blown out to the same value.
>it's not about the accuracy. Film looks better for that subject.
Yes, it is. Artists hire me to reproduce work, they come to me bc I'm the only person in town that can make color accurate prints of their work. If it wasn't about the accuracy, id be homeless. The film shot is way too blue, and was deemed unacceptable by the client, hence the reshoot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Weston Harby
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4342072
Yup, that's the pubes.jpg
But you removed them, how nice of you

>>4342072
>The top 2 are blown out
One looks brighter than the other, my dear hylic, who can't seem to keep a camera steady or hit focus.

And the darker ones have nothing wrong with them at all but a little noise that would vanish in post.

>>4342071
>Are you even testing for/measuring lens/film plane parallelity before taking your picture? I know you aren't using a proper repro camera.
yes, I align the camera with a mirror to ensure the focal plane is parallel with the art. I was using a toyoview 45g with a schiender 180mm f5.6 lens. What would be "proper repro camera"
>Do the test, but use the LF camera/lens to take the digital and film picture. It's the only honest way to properly test the two.
That will not change the results, if anything, the 4x5 lens is better than my cheapo 50mm. The fine details are resolved in both shots. Only difference being the colors and softness due to the film grain.

>the virgin "but the histogram says...snr 30db..."
>the chad "that one looks brighter" "yeah i can totally see that square retard"

>>4342071
Can no longer do the test since I sold my 4x5 kit a long time ago. Why don't you spend the money to do the comparison?
>>4342077
Photoshop says they're basically the same value

File: same.jpg (330 KB, 1301x1032)

330 KB JPG

>>4342077

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Weston Harby
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4342072
>I am a xerox machine you should listen to me about making art.

>>4342080
You let a machine see for you? What does a machine know of context, know of feeling, know of soul?

My eyes clearly discern that the leftmost box feels as if it is brighter than the one that follows it. Therefore it counts. QED.

>>4342078
I'm talking about the parallelity between the front and rear standard of your camera.

LF lenses are not usually as sharp as 35mm. It's a common problem people run into when attempting to use their dslr on a view camera.

A proper art reproduction camera has fixed front and rear standards to maintain the highest level of parallelity possible.

It would be an interesting test, but I don't really care that much to spend the time doing it and I don't have a camera with pixel shift either.

One last point. You can get a pretty good 4x5 setup for like 500 dollars or less. 1.7k-2k bucks could get you a top of the line rodenstock lens and a great 4x5 camera kit with enough to buy your first 50 pack of fomapan.

>>4342082
I'm also a gallery represented artist, highly successful and respected in my community. I run a successful printing business, that not only pays all my bills and then some but also provides an invaluable service to my fellow artists. You're a sweaty, fat, retard on the internet with no accolades or accomplishments, just wrong half baked opinions that you shit post online to fill the void of your meaningless life. Deep down, you're jealous of my success and every time I post you seethe.
>verification no requireed

>>4342083
>Doesn't understand simultaneous contrast

>>4342072
One on on the left is a more pleasant image. Sorry nerd.

>>4342085
>I'm also a gallery represented artist
That's like, a really low bar
I could get my work exhibited in at least 3 galleries today, and Im not even that good

Damn film truly is shit. Now I can finally enjoy my digitals in peace

Thanks Art repro fag

>>4342072
>35mm e100 absolutely btfo by a $300 digital camera.

Stop looking at flawed scans!

>>4341952
>Oh so you misread. What I said is it is always possible to get exactly the color that is recorded on the negative film.
Do you think word games will help you? It is NOT possible to know how accurate the recorded color is due to the factors I listed. And it is NOT possible to insure consistent color reproduction across the chain absent expensive/time consuming color tests recorded on every roll. You can only get so close. And this WAS THE REALITY of film photography before digital. Everyone knew it, everyone dealt with it. Once again, most magazines wanted E6 because of it because then everyone could agree on the reference.

>The reason why there are "interpretations"
Are none of the things you listed. You've never even touched the film scanners in question, how can you opine on their inner workings?

>>and you can't even be bothered to Google search it
>Nah, I want you to present your methodology
There's not a "methodology" moron, it's a simple mathematical conversion. You're sitting there trying to be clever hoping to create some kind of trap but what you're really doing is making yourself look even dumber. A person arguing about the merits of film who has never read a film data sheet and can't interpret the graphs if he tried.

>>that's sometimes true but not always
>Always. Period.
Except of course when the scanner in question does have an excellent profile for the film in question and nails it on auto.

>I tried comparing on several dozen photos, I always do a way, way better job
You? I don't even believe you own a camera right now.

>>But it's also irrelevant
>Yes it is relevant.
No it's not relevant. Nothing you listed changes the fact that we can SEE THE FUCKING GRAIN which means the film has no hope of recording tonal and color transitions smaller and more subtle than said grain.

>>4341954
>>Smaller than a pixel is probably your.
>That is quite an understatement. For example. Nikon Z pixel size is 35 square micrometers. And this is film grain, of a fairly fast bw film. So there are 10-15 grains per pixel. One could call them bits, heh
No, one could not call them that. You don't even understand the processes at play. Film works by dithering, similar to printers. 15 grains or dots could at best represent a handful of tones. I mean literally a handful, maybe a half dozen at most. 15 bits can encode 32k tones.

You're trying to imagine an argument which makes film superior when we can see the grain...the dithering process...in a 645 film scan. The stupidity is just mind boggling to me.

>>4341955
>That is digital noise, mate.
Always a COPE with you fools. It's grain. The scanner didn't underexpose its scan, there is no digital noise to speak of.

File: MF-Fuji-RVP-Howtek-vs-5Ds.jpg (800 KB, 2370x1185)

800 KB JPG

>>4342007
>50mp DSLRs are just a hair under the real world resolving power of 6x7 film
Not under.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4342008
>more, and more accurate, colors, are not pleasing colors
Depends on the goal. But I stated a long time ago that what film fans actually like is the palette of specific films, which ironically is the film's inaccuracy.

>idiotic ranting about bayer and the eye
You have literally no idea how the eye works. Be quiet.

>>4342019
>>They don't function like pixels
>Yes they do lol, each of them is a photon detector
Pixels are not photon detectors, they are photon counters. Which gets to the heart of why your "grain = bit" analogy is dead wrong. You don't need 14 grains to match a pixel. You need 16,000 grains because that's the counting limit of a 14-bit ADC.

>>4342023
>noooo this dude did his own tests he TOTALLY knows the truth
LMFAO

>>4342050
>>FF sensors are now at ~15ev at base ISO.
>They can't be. All FF sensors I'm aware of use 14 adc, and can either output 12 or 14bit raws. Could only get 14 stops of DR in theory.
Your theory is wrong on two counts. One is your assumption that conversion is perfectly linear. Two, and more important, is that DR is bound by noise, i.e. it's determined by SNR. SNR for the entire image varies based on view size. Since no one prints at pixel peeping dimensions, you're increasing SNR when you print to a size that's smaller than pixel peeping.

>shitty obvious bait troll post OP
>258 replies of namefag shitflinging
Jesus Christ what a shit board

>>4342171
Mirror shake vs EFCS, also two different versions of the map, so printing discrepancies. Or did bayer just accidentally huge lines?

>>4342233
Mirror lockup was part of the submission instructions. And yes, different people had different copies of the map so there are small discrepancies in printing.

>>4342133
>nooooo it’s the scan!
Post a better one.
>crickets

>>4342005
lmao digital supremists are beyond retarded, not even worth replying to most of this drivel

>>4342009
Film gets quite close thanks to its irregular pattern that is much like cones and rods in its organic distribution

>>4342256
So you concede?

>>4342258
>film better because inane theory with no evidence
Funny how the only comparisons are from those saying digital is better. I wonder why that is?

>>4342069
Your use case isn't photography, isn't art, it's mere recording. What were you using to digitize the film, by the way? What film stock? What illuminant?
Things like coating matter little when you have a flat target with controlled lighting, the main reason for coatings is flare control. A flatter focal plane would be desirable for your use but how far were you from the subject anyways? Unless you were doing a scan-like operation with a camera moving on a plane close to the artwork and then stitching, the plane curvature shouldn't be a major concern. LoCA might matter a lot or very little depending on the subject matter. If it has a lot of high-contrast lines much like a lab chart then yes, otherwise it'd be a minor concern. Nothing that modern postprocessing can't fix easily anyways.
A film for your use would be something callibrated for maximum accuracy under a certain illuminant, not something meant to capture life. Looking for relevance in your post returns a 404 error.

>>4342260
I don't. Most of the post I replied to is simply self-defeating. A guy who doesn't understand DR and why noise plays a part in it arguing about DR. He makes such absurd assertions only an ignoramus could fall for them. I believe the post is just irony-poisoned so I won't bother addressing its contents one by one. The fucking 20 stops claim alone should tip anyone off that it's a work of satire.

>>4342261
Probably because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (which they have failed to provide so far). A while ago artreprofag made some comparison involving some toothpaste and even though he insisted it showed the superiority of digital he got so btfo by everyone basically saying the emperor is naked that he never posted it again.
That's what digital advocates are, people admiring the emperor's "new clothes" because they were told digital was superior and are scared of questioning that dogma so they deny what their own eyes show.

>>4342196
The problem is that OP is like me, he likes baiting with uncomfortable facts.

>>4342282
Sometimes I wonder if people can recognize my threads by my bait style.

>>4342277
>I don't.
Then you concede.

>Most of the post I replied to is simply self-defeating.
No, it's not. I don't agree with his 20 stop assessment, but several of his other statements are demonstrably true.

>A guy who doesn't understand DR and why noise plays a part in it
He seems to understand just fine. He's too harsh on testers choosing an arbitrary noise floor...what else are they supposed to do?...and goes off on a conspiracy theory rant about it. But he clearly understands that measured DR depends on what level of noise you find to be acceptable. He is correct that on a traditional transmission step wedge test, modern digital sensors would do even better than 15 stops.

>He makes such absurd assertions only an ignoramus could fall for them.
Horse laugh = concession.

>>4342280
>Probably because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (which they have failed to provide so far).
Looks like the digital fans have provided evidence just fine. It's the film side with nothing to provide. Nothing at all in fact.

>That's what digital advocates are, people admiring the emperor's "new clothes" because they were told digital was superior
Told? In the comparisons in this thread FF is btfo'ing 645 and 6x9, and pixel shifted FF is beating 4x5. Not words. Pictures. Why don't the film fans have ANY comparison pictures proving their claims? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet film fans have failed to provide any evidence at all.

>and are scared of questioning that dogma so they deny what their own eyes show.
That's rich considering the COPEs in this thread.
>noooooo who wants to see skin texture or peach fuzz? soft and blurry is better!

>>4342274
His comparison is between his two cameras at best, which he admits after some prodding about his methods.

He used the same nikon macro to scan the film that he used to take the comparison photo.

File: 04--Top-35mm-sized-up.jpg (524 KB, 1384x1384)

524 KB JPG

Looks like I saved more comparisons from that old map test that one guy hosted than I remembered. I didn't shoot any of these (never owned a D2X). If I remember correctly the 4000 dpi scans are from a Nikon CoolScan and the 5400 would have to be the Minolta high end 35mm scanner (only one with that exact rez).

In fairness, it looks like something was off with the slide in the 5400 dpi scanner. But the CoolScan scans are typical for that scanner. I just would expect the Minolta to do a little better given the exact same slide, but it seems a little worse, and there was obviously something on the slide (the stray green lines).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: Velvia-50-Imacon-8000-ppi(...).jpg (347 KB, 1978x1033)

347 KB JPG

And here's 35mm Velvia 50 on an Imacon at 8000 dpi (which I believe would be the X5 model). I did shoot the 7D side and scaled it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4342296
Looks like some kind of operator fuckup somewhere, maybe film curvature? I know Technical Pan can CERTAINLY produce sharper images than those.
>>4342290
I don't concede because much of his post is incorrect not only at the particulars but also at the conceptual level. Sure, grains turn to metallic silver or they don't, but that's one of the reasons you get varying grain sizes in a given emulsion. For continuous tone applications. It's not microfilm where grain size is almost perfectly uniform to optimize contrast and absolute resolution, at the price of really harsh transitions.

I'll add that the only 35mm film I've ever seen that can compete with high resolution FF digital is Adox CMS 20. Of course it's B&W and loses hard on both ISO and DR. But the fine detail and sharpness of that film very much reminds me of what comes off my 5Ds. Unfortunately no one ever submitted the map test using that film.

The film fans in this thread are likely to COPE and make excuses again.
>no it's the scanner
>no it was mirror slap
>no soft and blurry is actually better!
>but if you just used an electron microscope then grains would be bits and it would be equivalent to a gigapixel with 9,001 bits!
But I did a lot of scanning, even for a few years after my first DSLR. And these scans are all about what you would expect from the film/equipment combos. The Howtek scan >>4342171 is excellent in fact, much better than 6x9 on a CoolScan 9000.

Also note how color is all over the place in the RVP scans depending on the scanner chosen. As I've said repeatedly, that was reality. Digital brought massive improvements to color control and reproducibility.

>>4342296
>>4342297
It's starting to look more and more like he fucked up on the film shots. Focus calibration perhaps.

>>4342299
>I'll add that the only 35mm film I've ever seen that can compete with high resolution FF digital is Adox CMS 20.
It can't compete because digital is no competition for it. Show me your 500MP digital 35mm if you actually believe that bullshit.

>>4342299
You have less resolution in Technical Pan than Velvia, enough proof that there's a fuckup somewhere.

>>4342164
>Do you think word games will help you
Fuck's sake, at this point just fuck off. Idk how you lived to 60 while being this retarded

>>4342298
LMFAO the COPE appeared before I even posted the follow up, holy shit.

Remember that different people submitted samples. The people submitting film samples were very invested in the online collection and in proving how good film was.
>bu...bu...everyone fucked up!
No they did not. Film scans are that soft when pixel peeped next to digital. I saw this the day I got my 10D and put it up against my film scanner. DSLRs were sharper out of the gate.

>>4342298
>I don't concede because much of his post is incorrect
Yet you cannot debate even a single point from his post. That's a concession.

>Sure, grains turn to metallic silver or they don't, but that's one of the reasons you get varying grain sizes in a given emulsion.
It is true that grain size, shape, and orientation all varies in an emulsion, which contributes to the range of tones that can be represented. But any given grain still has a SINGLE threshold, meaning it is nothing like a pixel or a bit. And jerking yourself off to electron microscope photos of grain while theorizing about how it represents millions of bits is still a ridiculous COPE when we can SEE GRAIN CLUMPING, THE DITHERING PROCESS in sample photos.

You are looking at a print out from a monochrome laser printer with an obvious half tone pattern and insisting that it can reproduce more shades of gray than a B&W monitor. It's utterly stupid and is an example of what you accused us of doing: refusing to believe your own eyes as the emperor shows off his new clothes.

>>4342307
Look anon, TPan is one of the sharpest films in existence and certainly sharper than Velvia. Your Velvia sample is softer than your TPan sample and that's evidence of operator error. Simple as.

>>4342166
>...the dithering process...in a 645 film scan. The stupidity is just mind boggling to me.
Because it's just noise, ffs. Your stupidity is indeed mind boggling
>>4342169
Do you think that if you learned 1 zoom zoom word you should insert it everywhere?
The scanners in question were made in early 00s at best, sensors were still in their infancy. I printed enough really heavily cropped photos and looked at color film under microscope for long enough to know how dye clouds look like, and what's just noise. And you apparently printed like 3 times back in the 90s and still think you're some guru

File: Screenshot_20240727_01211(...).jpg (292 KB, 1080x577)

292 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXFC
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	577

>>4342300
>it's starting to look more and more like COPE
There isn't a "he". Samples came from multiple sources. Believing that multiple expert film photographers all screwed up, and that no one submitted better to prove this at the time, is truly Emperor's New Clothes.

You have zero experience scanning film and it shows. These scans are what you would expect.

>>4342301
>It can't compete because digital is no competition for it. Show me your 500MP digital 35mm if you actually believe that bullshit.
Says the guy believing the bullshit that CMS 20 is 500mp equivalent.

>>4342302
>You have less resolution in Technical Pan than Velvia
No, the Tech Pan sample edges out Velvia. At real world contrast levels they were about the same (80 vs 85 lp/mm). Keep looking for a successful COPE.

>>4342303
>noooo just fuck off
>just...you must be a boomer ok...reeeeeeee
I accept your concession. And I'm neither 60 nor a boomer.