For most photographers, there is little dilemma whether to use film or digital cameras - for reasons of both quality and utility, most have switched to digital. Film photography has persevered only in special areas, such as large format photography (even though digital cameras are on the rise here as well – according to a www.luminous-landscapes.com test, the quality of the latest 40MB digital backs nears the quality of a view camera 4” x 5”).
That said, no article can replace personal testing, which I recommend to everybody. I had previously used a medium format Mamyia camera and various digital cameras, now I use a Canon 5D. With a friend, we arranged a shootout between the following cameras:
• Film 35 mm: Nikkormat FT3 , Nikkor lens 50mm F/1.4, film Fujichrome Velvia 50 50 ASA, Heidelberg Tango drum scanner
• Film 6x6 cm: Hasselblad 503CW, Carl Zeiss Planar CF F/2.8 80mm, film Fujichrome Velvia 50 50 ASA, Heidelberg Tango drum scanner
• Canon EOS 5D, full size sensor 24x36mm, 12.8 MPixel, Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 II lens, 100 ISO
All cameras were mounted on a tripod, film cameras were focused manually, digital cameras used auto focus switched to the central point, auto white balance, RAW format (converted to ProfotoRGB using Adobe Raw Converter 3.30 with default settings).
Picture on the Fujichrome Velvia 50 50 ASA film both from Nikkormat and Hasselbald were scanned on the Heidelberg Tango drum scanner in the professional laboratory “CM Color Lab” in Hollywood . Both files are approx. 250 MB v TIFF format, ProfotoRGB color space is used. Both file were resized in the Photoshop CS2 by “bicubic sharper” algorithm to the 20x30” at 240 DPI and finally the photos were sharpen using Smart Sharpen 0.3 300.
We resized the digital images through five steps in Adobe Photoshop CS2 (using the “bicubic sharper” algorithm), eventually getting a 20” x 30” picture with 240 DPI. After that, the photos were sharpen using Smart Sharpen 0.3 300.
We compared quality on a 20” x 30” print from a Canon S9000 printer (we could only print the central 13” x 19” part, as that is the maximum paper size for the S9000).
This is the entire field from the Nikkormat FT3 (35mm film):
This is the entire field from the Hasselblad 503CW (60mm x 60mm film):
This is the entire field from the Canon EOS 5D (12.8 MPixel):
Central crop from the Nikormat (35mm Velvia 50 ASA film):
Central crop from the Hasselblad 503CW (6 x 6 cm film):
Central crop from the Canon 5D (12.8 MPixel):
The best quality both in print and on the screen viewed at 100% are clearly from the Canon 5D, followed by the Hasselblad, and lastly - after a significant gap – by the 35 mm film camera.
The difference on paper between the Hasselblad and the digital cameras is noticeable only upon a closer look, but nevertheless is hard to miss (especially between the Hasselblad and the 5D). On the 35mm print, noise destroys the fine details and micro contrast.
I expected that the prints from the digital cameras would be better than those from the 35mm film; the superior quality of the Canon 5D prints as compared to the Hasselblad, however, was a surprise to me. The significant difference between the Hasselblad and the 35mm film surprised me as well.
© Ales & Robert Litomisky 2006, La Crescenta, CA