Eagle_Driver
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 6,496
- Likes
- 61
Earlier today, I got back some 8x10 and 8x12 enlargements from various digital images (taken with my Canon A540 and SD750 cameras) and 35mm film negatives (taken with a 1990s Canon SureShot 105zoom camera on ISO 100 FujiFilm print film). I've checked for sharpness first and foremost.
The result is somewhat of a surprise, but not unexpected: The digital images (literally) kicked the P&S-shot film in the you-know-what. However, this is not a fair fight, since the quality of the optics on 35mm P&S film cameras is mediocre at best - and then, the few large-volume photofinishers who still do film actually convert the film images to digital prior to printing. And judging by the way the photofinishers scanned the negatives, the natural grain pattern on the film itself is augmented with the digital noise from the scanner.
The moral of this experience is: If you want the best quality possible from print film (as opposed to slide film), use a high-quality, expensive SLR or rangefinder camera with manual controls, not a point-and-shoot snapshooter camera - and send the film to an expensive custom lab which still does chemically-based, all-analog prints (those labs are becoming increasingly rare). And if you must use a store's minilab or a large-volume photofinisher to make your prints, you're better off shooting digital.
Any comments?
Eagle_Driver
The result is somewhat of a surprise, but not unexpected: The digital images (literally) kicked the P&S-shot film in the you-know-what. However, this is not a fair fight, since the quality of the optics on 35mm P&S film cameras is mediocre at best - and then, the few large-volume photofinishers who still do film actually convert the film images to digital prior to printing. And judging by the way the photofinishers scanned the negatives, the natural grain pattern on the film itself is augmented with the digital noise from the scanner.
The moral of this experience is: If you want the best quality possible from print film (as opposed to slide film), use a high-quality, expensive SLR or rangefinder camera with manual controls, not a point-and-shoot snapshooter camera - and send the film to an expensive custom lab which still does chemically-based, all-analog prints (those labs are becoming increasingly rare). And if you must use a store's minilab or a large-volume photofinisher to make your prints, you're better off shooting digital.
Any comments?
Eagle_Driver