Not sure this video is relevant anymore now that I process my Fuji files with DXO labs software. Film is still sharp, but I'm seeing a vast improvement in my digital prints from Fuji now. 👍🙂
i think that the scanner makes actual 'tricolour' pixels, vs. the camera Mosaic pixels, and you are seeing the 3:1 (approximately) difference in the scanned print which doesn't suffer fro the. reduced greyscale resolution, even more apparent, when looking at a b&w scan...
Here are a few thoughts, Your scanned negatives(2400 DPI) are scanned at a much higher pixel count that a digital camera file. Film grain size is so much smaller than a pixel can ever be. When we can produce a sensor to imitate film grain then the two will be the same. The advantages of hi ISO performance, dynamic range and the ability edit images will always out do a high magnification look at photos.
Good points all around. The only fly in the ointment is that the Z7II prints are sharp, like the film prints.... I think it's the lenses. One thing using Nikon does is forces you into using their Z S lenses and there are no bad ones. When I shot the Sony's, I had a mish mash of tier 2 and 3 lenses and I think that hurt the A7Riv and same thing with the Pentax K1. With the Fujis, I only have a very few of the lenses on the 40mp list. To add to that, all the Pentax 67 lenses I have are world class, and my large format lenses are Rodenstock and Nikkors, all highly regarded with legendary reputations.
I'm fairly certain my GH6 would outresolve a A7r V and Fuji xt5 in high resolution mode at 100mp for landscapes. You might say you can't have any motion, but that's not the case with the GH6 as it have motion compensation (like a cellphone would). You'll only run into problems when you have fast-moving objects in the scene as you don't know exactly where they will land in the shot. Also, it takes longer to process in camera (about 10 seconds)... but for landscapes, who cares most of the time? Also, you always have a backup shot that the camera gives you at 25mp.
The more I look into this the more I think it's about the lenses. Interestingly, the prints that are sharpest came from the Nikon Z7II with the S lenses, and all the reviews on the S lenses say they are up to it. Another article I read says the Fuji 40mp sensor is about equal to the last generation 36mp non backside illuminated sensors i.e. the D810 and the K1. And that makes sense. I think the reason I'm seeing all the cameras I'm comparing being equal is they are being lens limited, except for the Nikons. Having said all that, the prints are still amazing if you don't look at them with a jeweler's loupe!
I have noticed smudging patterns (different between camera manufacturers) and in different intensity that are created by noise reduction process. Anything that was not part of the film process would be a possible cause for the smudging effect. That being said, just look at your pictures the normal way that people look at them. Pixel peeping is like trying to hurt yourself without a good reason.
I look at my photographs as if they are hanging in someone's house and they paid me $3000 for it. If my gear can't do that, then I need different gear. Some of my sold out images were taken with 10 and 12 mp cameras. No one has complained so far.... 🙂
There you have it! But now I understand why you would hope for better. Film looks better (I've been a video super 8 amateur film maker and been impressed with how big the image could be made before becoming ugly). But it always comes back to what story the image tells, not so much the pixels. I mean, some people love a grainy photograph. It's almost dream like as a souvenir burried somewhere. Very nice video you made there. I very much appreciate your approach to the work. Thanks teacher!
@@lintentiondelefaire4082 Thanks for watching! The edge that film has is in the highlights. If they are not blown out, they seem to have a luminescence that digital doesn't match. I think it's the difference between digital being scientifically accurate and film being the best that the engineers could do with the medium. It may also be that we are used to seeing film images and are pleased when we get something that reminds us of the great masters of last century. Digital is technically precise and an easier process, but film, when it all comes together makes images that stir the soul.
Great video overall, I am using a XT5 and Mamiya C330 medium format and Linhof 4x5 and I get the same result, the prints from the C330 and 4x5 are much sharper even without using the loupe I can realize it I think to compare the digital print and medium film print, the Fujifilm GFX 100s is a much better choice because XT5 is just an APSC ( it doesn't have any chance of winning 6x6 medium format film at all ). I don't have a GFX 100s so I wonder about its print quality compared to the XT5 and medium format film print. Hope you can do it one day. Great video mate🎉
I am wondering if the difference between the darkroom print and other prints is the quality of the printer compared to the quality of the enlarger lens. In a real darkroom print nothing physically touches the silver gelatin paper except the light through the enlarger lens. So the silver halide in the paper reacts to the light. In ink jet print the paper is physically sprayed by the ink, so the quality of the printer definitely comes into play. If the print is the most important thing, then 4x5 film printed with an enlarger will always print with more detail than inkjet prints. So no matter how good it looks at 200 percent in lightroom room the old enlarger still makes a better print. So if the print is the most important thing, then film ( at least 6x6 and larger negatives), is sharper than digital. I never thought of it this way before but the print doesn't lie. Also this proves that scanning film negatives and printing them digitally is actually producing an inferior print??? I'm trapped in the rabbit hole.
Hi Keith, actually the 6x7 scanned and digitally printed image looked sharp. The 4x5 darkroom print was the sharpest. The Nikon Z7II color prints were sharp. The Pentax K1 (D810 sensor,) the Sony A7Riv 60 mp sensor, and Fuji 40mp sensor, all looked about the same. I think it's the lenses, and I think it's the darkroom process and materials for the darkroom print. I shot some test images yesterday and printed them with my Fuji 35mm F2 WR which is on the Fuji 40mp optimal lens list and the prints were sharp under the loupe. Not as sharp as the Nikons but not a smudgy mess either which is the result I would expect. I'm going to make a video about this soon.
I’m guessing this is a print driver issue. For a 16x20 at 300 dpi you need a 28 MP file. Your file is way bigger than that. Sounds like software not talking to the printer in the proper tone of voice. 🤔🤠
In fairness, the prints look great with even 3x glasses on and 1 foot away. It's viewing them with a loupe that causes the issues. I'm starting to wonder if it's 2nd tier lenses. I've printed a few Nikon shots from the Z S lenses and they seem better. I'm going to run some tests tomorrow with my Xt5 and 35mm f2 WR prime.
You shouldn’t use old Fuji lenses or the XT five used or new lenses like the 33 or the 18 mm or the new 56 mm or even the 23 mm F1.4. You are still not getting the best out of the camera with these old lenses. Even if it appears you are and if you want to go a cheaper route used the viltox’s 75mm f1.2 this is a super sharp resolving all 40 megapixel
Interesting, I worked with an A7RII and the 40mpx resolution was enough for 13x19 prints and I had the possibility of printing larger, so to speak, I bought an XT-5 and it was the same story in prints at that size, my perception is that Sony al View on the monitor there is a little more sharpness, in print they are the same, but when it comes to my work, Fuji is superior due to the type of files and color with which I can edit. But I found that a Fuji XT 2 gives me that print size without problems (13x19) and the color is a little different than the sensor of the XT 5. compare the files at 100% on monitor and the sony A7RII has a peak more than sharpness and that I can enlarge to 400% and there the pixels are noticeable, while the XT2 at 200% and the XT5 at 300% The question who needs to enlarge the image on the monitor so much? At least I don't and I think I stick with XT2 and XT5 for my work and editorial impressions that I work with
I'm pretty sure in terms of printing the resolution of the printer is the limiting factor. And all these high mp cameras are exceeding that up to 20x30 inch prints. The difference between the A7RIII and A7RV is the difference between a 30x40 and 40x60 inch print. So if your printing 40x60's the A7iv and v are probably better by a little bit, though is your routinely doing that your probably also shooting a 100mp medium format camera. For prints under 20x30, any aps-c or FF camera with more that 30mp's is going to be better than the printers made today in terms of resolution. If your just wanting to look at your photos on a 4K monitor at 400% and convince yourself that the $15,000 you spent was worth it, then you need to choose carefully. :) For me the print is everything and I and my customers are completely satisfied with my Fuji 40mp prints, especially with the raw files demosaiced in DXO Photolab 6. Thanks for the comment!
Could it just be the difference between color printing and black and white printing? Depending on the printer even with a toned B&W most of the information is being put to the paper with one or two heads with little or no registration problems. Add six or 7 color nozzles trying to hit the same point and I think you are hitting the limit of precision for getting all the colors to sing together.
What I believe you’re seeing here is the difference in enlargement ratio. The 4x5 and 6x7 prints have much lower enlargement ratio than the two digital images. Firstly the digital files are much larger prints… maybe 20X enlargement ratio. The 4x5 is probably only a 2x enlargement relative to the negative. And the 6x7 is probably a 4X enlargement. The most astounding sharpness I’ve seen from any print is an 8x10 contact print… But photos are not intended to be viewed this way, they intended to be viewed in books and as prints on the walls and they should look good. And all of these formats do look great printed viewed normally.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Yeah totally agree! I prefer film images too, and that is sort of the point of doing these comparisons, to decide what we like best. No amount of theory can replace seeing it in person.
@@epstar83 The big benefit for me is to have something to compare the digital images against. I know shooting and printing film images alongside the digital images has greatly improved my digital images. The film process pushes you just inherently in the process. Digital you have to push it, and for me the danger has always been to push it too far, so I've ended up not pushing it enough. Seeing what looks great in a film image allows me to know the limits of what I'm comfortable doing with a digital image.
Not sure this video is relevant anymore now that I process my Fuji files with DXO labs software. Film is still sharp, but I'm seeing a vast improvement in my digital prints from Fuji now. 👍🙂
i think that the scanner makes actual 'tricolour' pixels, vs. the camera Mosaic pixels, and you are seeing the 3:1 (approximately) difference in the scanned print which doesn't suffer fro the. reduced greyscale resolution, even more apparent, when looking at a b&w scan...
Here are a few thoughts, Your scanned negatives(2400 DPI) are scanned at a much higher pixel count that a digital camera file. Film grain size is so much smaller than a pixel can ever be. When we can produce a sensor to imitate film grain then the two will be the same. The advantages of hi ISO performance, dynamic range and the ability edit images will always out do a high magnification look at photos.
Good points all around. The only fly in the ointment is that the Z7II prints are sharp, like the film prints.... I think it's the lenses. One thing using Nikon does is forces you into using their Z S lenses and there are no bad ones. When I shot the Sony's, I had a mish mash of tier 2 and 3 lenses and I think that hurt the A7Riv and same thing with the Pentax K1. With the Fujis, I only have a very few of the lenses on the 40mp list. To add to that, all the Pentax 67 lenses I have are world class, and my large format lenses are Rodenstock and Nikkors, all highly regarded with legendary reputations.
Really appreciate this video!!
Thank you!
I'm fairly certain my GH6 would outresolve a A7r V and Fuji xt5 in high resolution mode at 100mp for landscapes. You might say you can't have any motion, but that's not the case with the GH6 as it have motion compensation (like a cellphone would). You'll only run into problems when you have fast-moving objects in the scene as you don't know exactly where they will land in the shot. Also, it takes longer to process in camera (about 10 seconds)... but for landscapes, who cares most of the time? Also, you always have a backup shot that the camera gives you at 25mp.
The more I look into this the more I think it's about the lenses. Interestingly, the prints that are sharpest came from the Nikon Z7II with the S lenses, and all the reviews on the S lenses say they are up to it. Another article I read says the Fuji 40mp sensor is about equal to the last generation 36mp non backside illuminated sensors i.e. the D810 and the K1. And that makes sense. I think the reason I'm seeing all the cameras I'm comparing being equal is they are being lens limited, except for the Nikons. Having said all that, the prints are still amazing if you don't look at them with a jeweler's loupe!
I have noticed smudging patterns (different between camera manufacturers) and in different intensity that are created by noise reduction process. Anything that was not part of the film process would be a possible cause for the smudging effect. That being said, just look at your pictures the normal way that people look at them. Pixel peeping is like trying to hurt yourself without a good reason.
I look at my photographs as if they are hanging in someone's house and they paid me $3000 for it. If my gear can't do that, then I need different gear. Some of my sold out images were taken with 10 and 12 mp cameras. No one has complained so far.... 🙂
There you have it! But now I understand why you would hope for better. Film looks better (I've been a video super 8 amateur film maker and been impressed with how big the image could be made before becoming ugly). But it always comes back to what story the image tells, not so much the pixels. I mean, some people love a grainy photograph. It's almost dream like as a souvenir burried somewhere. Very nice video you made there. I very much appreciate your approach to the work. Thanks teacher!
@@lintentiondelefaire4082 Thanks for watching! The edge that film has is in the highlights. If they are not blown out, they seem to have a luminescence that digital doesn't match. I think it's the difference between digital being scientifically accurate and film being the best that the engineers could do with the medium. It may also be that we are used to seeing film images and are pleased when we get something that reminds us of the great masters of last century. Digital is technically precise and an easier process, but film, when it all comes together makes images that stir the soul.
Great video overall, I am using a XT5 and Mamiya C330 medium format and Linhof 4x5 and I get the same result, the prints from the C330 and 4x5 are much sharper even without using the loupe I can realize it
I think to compare the digital print and medium film print, the Fujifilm GFX 100s is a much better choice because XT5 is just an APSC ( it doesn't have any chance of winning 6x6 medium format film at all ). I don't have a GFX 100s so I wonder about its print quality compared to the XT5 and medium format film print.
Hope you can do it one day. Great video mate🎉
All digital cameras look like cgi to me. But it's hard to give up the convenience.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography that's true
What lens was on XT5 when you were shooting the photo in the video?
The Xt5 shot was with the XF 70-300mm.
I am wondering if the difference between the darkroom print and other prints is the quality of the printer compared to the quality of the enlarger lens. In a real darkroom print nothing physically touches the silver gelatin paper except the light through the enlarger lens. So the silver halide in the paper reacts to the light. In ink jet print the paper is physically sprayed by the ink, so the quality of the printer definitely comes into play. If the print is the most important thing, then 4x5 film printed with an enlarger will always print with more detail than inkjet prints. So no matter how good it looks at 200 percent in lightroom room the old enlarger still makes a better print. So if the print is the most important thing, then film ( at least 6x6 and larger negatives), is sharper than digital. I never thought of it this way before but the print doesn't lie. Also this proves that scanning film negatives and printing them digitally is actually producing an inferior print??? I'm trapped in the rabbit hole.
Hi Keith, actually the 6x7 scanned and digitally printed image looked sharp. The 4x5 darkroom print was the sharpest. The Nikon Z7II color prints were sharp. The Pentax K1 (D810 sensor,) the Sony A7Riv 60 mp sensor, and Fuji 40mp sensor, all looked about the same. I think it's the lenses, and I think it's the darkroom process and materials for the darkroom print. I shot some test images yesterday and printed them with my Fuji 35mm F2 WR which is on the Fuji 40mp optimal lens list and the prints were sharp under the loupe. Not as sharp as the Nikons but not a smudgy mess either which is the result I would expect. I'm going to make a video about this soon.
I’m guessing this is a print driver issue. For a 16x20 at 300 dpi you need a 28 MP file. Your file is way bigger than that. Sounds like software not talking to the printer in the proper tone of voice. 🤔🤠
In fairness, the prints look great with even 3x glasses on and 1 foot away. It's viewing them with a loupe that causes the issues. I'm starting to wonder if it's 2nd tier lenses. I've printed a few Nikon shots from the Z S lenses and they seem better. I'm going to run some tests tomorrow with my Xt5 and 35mm f2 WR prime.
You shouldn’t use old Fuji lenses or the XT five used or new lenses like the 33 or the 18 mm or the new 56 mm or even the 23 mm F1.4. You are still not getting the best out of the camera with these old lenses. Even if it appears you are and if you want to go a cheaper route used the viltox’s 75mm f1.2 this is a super sharp resolving all 40 megapixel
Hehe I love that conclusion number 2
Interesting, I worked with an A7RII and the 40mpx resolution was enough for 13x19 prints and I had the possibility of printing larger, so to speak, I bought an XT-5 and it was the same story in prints at that size, my perception is that Sony al View on the monitor there is a little more sharpness, in print they are the same, but when it comes to my work, Fuji is superior due to the type of files and color with which I can edit.
But I found that a Fuji XT 2 gives me that print size without problems (13x19) and the color is a little different than the sensor of the XT 5. compare the files at 100% on monitor and the sony A7RII has a peak more than sharpness and that I can enlarge to 400% and there the pixels are noticeable, while the XT2 at 200% and the XT5 at 300%
The question who needs to enlarge the image on the monitor so much? At least I don't and I think I stick with XT2 and XT5 for my work and editorial impressions that I work with
I'm pretty sure in terms of printing the resolution of the printer is the limiting factor. And all these high mp cameras are exceeding that up to 20x30 inch prints. The difference between the A7RIII and A7RV is the difference between a 30x40 and 40x60 inch print. So if your printing 40x60's the A7iv and v are probably better by a little bit, though is your routinely doing that your probably also shooting a 100mp medium format camera. For prints under 20x30, any aps-c or FF camera with more that 30mp's is going to be better than the printers made today in terms of resolution. If your just wanting to look at your photos on a 4K monitor at 400% and convince yourself that the $15,000 you spent was worth it, then you need to choose carefully. :) For me the print is everything and I and my customers are completely satisfied with my Fuji 40mp prints, especially with the raw files demosaiced in DXO Photolab 6. Thanks for the comment!
Could it just be the difference between color printing and black and white printing? Depending on the printer even with a toned B&W most of the information is being put to the paper with one or two heads with little or no registration problems. Add six or 7 color nozzles trying to hit the same point and I think you are hitting the limit of precision for getting all the colors to sing together.
Except that the color prints from the Nikon Z7II are sharp under the peak loupe, I think it’s the lenses.
Curious if medium format digital would get same smudginess under magnification
It may be my Capture One settings, or the print engine itself. I just printed from Affinity and the results are much better.
😂😂😂, Edward in Wonderland. Thanks for this comparison. And if you try ccd sensors? Cheers, Robert
I don't think it's the cameras, I think it may be the software....
What I believe you’re seeing here is the difference in enlargement ratio. The 4x5 and 6x7 prints have much lower enlargement ratio than the two digital images. Firstly the digital files are much larger prints… maybe 20X enlargement ratio. The 4x5 is probably only a 2x enlargement relative to the negative. And the 6x7 is probably a 4X enlargement. The most astounding sharpness I’ve seen from any print is an 8x10 contact print…
But photos are not intended to be viewed this way, they intended to be viewed in books and as prints on the walls and they should look good. And all of these formats do look great printed viewed normally.
It doesn't really matter why the film looks better, it just does. Especially printed and framed on the wall.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Yeah totally agree! I prefer film images too, and that is sort of the point of doing these comparisons, to decide what we like best. No amount of theory can replace seeing it in person.
@@epstar83 The big benefit for me is to have something to compare the digital images against. I know shooting and printing film images alongside the digital images has greatly improved my digital images. The film process pushes you just inherently in the process. Digital you have to push it, and for me the danger has always been to push it too far, so I've ended up not pushing it enough. Seeing what looks great in a film image allows me to know the limits of what I'm comfortable doing with a digital image.
Perhaps this is the difference between film v print that you couldn’t quite put your finger on a week ago?
That's what I'm thinking.
great video!
Thanks!
Medium format film is still king IMHO. Nothing like working in a darkroom.
Except for large format film, but I get your point, and I agree with you. :)
were the DPI setting the same on all those?
Yes. I usually print at 300 DPI. I think it's something to do with Capture One. Either the print engine or my settings. Still investigating....
The truth is out there...