Helpful Posts Helpful Posts:  0
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

  1. #1
    Hans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England, NSW Australia
    Posts
    313
    Real Name
    Pete

    1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Hi guys,

    I'm starting to make landscapes the focus of my attention (along with wildlife). My one true love is trekking remote landscapes so it makes sense that this is where I should focus my creative attention (though my portfolio may not naturally lead one to that conclusion ).

    I am also on the brink of making a lens purchase (Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 - DX lens) for my D90.

    However, I got to thinking about the possibility of dragging my old Nikon F80 out and loading it up with slide film again to pursue this landscape photography idea (with maybe a couple of wide primes). My line of thinking is that landscapes are most impactful if printed enlarged so maybe the extra size of the 35mm over the smaller sensor of the D90 might be helpful here when using slower film for the higher resolution/density (if those nouns are appropriate for this context). After all, a lot of pro landscape photographers are still using medium and large formats for the same reason, among others (I know the difference between the 35mm and DX sensor size is less dramatic, hence the question). Since I am not in a position to purchase a whole other system, the 35mm, which I already have, is my only other alternative to the D90 (cropped sensor).

    Obviously, my decision will impact my next lens choice so was wondering of anyone out there could offer some experienced advice on the quality of high density scans of a 35mm colour transparency shot with a film camera like an F80 versus a digital RAW file from cropped sensor such as the 1.5 crop of the D90 (slide scans will be from a pro-lab) assuming all other things are equal. Would there be a significant enough difference to warrant pursuing the idea of 35mm slide film over the digital for landscapes or am I over analyzing/thinking too much about this? Splitting hairs?

    Thanks for any advice.

    Regards

  2. #2

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    I have the Tokina, and it's a very good lens for landscape. Donald also has one, and I'm sure he would agree. It covers a very wide area (even more on a Nikon than a Canon). Personally, I wouldn't want to lose the flexibility that digital offers, by going back to film. At the end of the day you will get better shots with a decent digital camera and lens.

  3. #3
    Steaphany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The far off Country of Texas
    Posts
    827
    Real Name
    Steaphany

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Hans,

    No, you're not splitting hairs.

    I'm favoring FUJICHROME PROVIA 100F Professional, an ISO 100 Transparency E6 film with good reciprocity, and from FujiFilm's data sheet, I calculated an average resolution of 100 LP/mm. Calculating this out to a corresponding digital pixel equivalent turns out to be 7200 x 4800, a bit more than a D90's 4288 x 2848.

    I'm still getting my dark room in order and I still have to purchase a film scanner to go in this direction. One technology that looks very promising is LaserSoft Imaging's SilverFast scanning software. Depending on the capabilities of your film scanner, it can create a high dynamic range multipass scan and also identify film surface scratches with auto correction.

    My own experience with digital has been fine, but I miss what I was able to do years ago with film. Plus, I'm also looking to get back into medium and large format.

    As for having a scan to show you, I'm not there yet.
    Last edited by Steaphany; 24th June 2010 at 04:15 AM. Reason: typo

  4. #4
    Hans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England, NSW Australia
    Posts
    313
    Real Name
    Pete

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Thanks Rob and Steph for the responses.

    I'm assuming I will be able to manipulate the digitally scanned files with my current post processing program as if it is a RAW file, though it will probably be a TIFF (I am guessing). I might send a handful of slides to a pro-lab I found in Melbourne and they will send me high density files on a DVD for around $5.50 a piece. I've been meaning to get some done for an upcoming comp anyway. If I have to spend thousands on a film scanner etc. then I may as well just buy a D700 and be done with it. I'll play around with the files and take it from there.

    I just really don't want to spend dollars on good DX glass, only to move up to a full frame because the smaller sensor just doesn't cut the mustard. The benefit of using the 35mm SLR is that the glass I get for it will be compatible with a full frame DSLR should I end up going that way and I can save some cash along the way coz I won't have to upgrade the lenses at the same time.

    Thanks again for the interest
    Last edited by Hans; 24th June 2010 at 08:17 AM.

  5. #5
    Steaphany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The far off Country of Texas
    Posts
    827
    Real Name
    Steaphany

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Actually, the scanner / SilverFast combo that I'm considering is the Epson Perfection V500 Flatbed Photo Scanner that B&H Photo lists for $179.94US (The B&H Photo web site lists an overall rating of 4.5 out of 5 from 143 submitted user product ratings) and SilverFast Ai Studio or SilverFast SE Plus which are priced at $119US and $104US respectively.

    So, for a total of $298.94, this combo will support 6400 x 9600 dpi scanning up to medium format film, HDR scanning to produce 64 bit Tiff format files, IR scratch detection/removal, and multipass noise reduction. Both versions have a long list of features, but these are the key features that I consider most important for image quality.

    I agree with you on selecting lenses capable of supporting the full 35mm format. When used with my SD14, the larger image circle means the lens is not being pushed to it's limits and I can use the same lenses for digital or 35mm film.
    Last edited by Steaphany; 24th June 2010 at 11:31 AM. Reason: Hit save prematurely

  6. #6
    Hans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England, NSW Australia
    Posts
    313
    Real Name
    Pete

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Thanks again Steaphany,

    I was just on the web looking at similar for very reasonable prices, top that with film like Provia 100F and Velvia 50, which I can get for still under $13AUD a roll, and it looks quite attractive. It's not as if I'll be shooting everything on film, just landscapes. All I need now is an FE2 with a 20mm prime and I'm sorted

    Take care and kind regards

  7. #7
    benm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    315
    Real Name
    Ben

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Hans, Steaphany has shown that film appears to have better resolution/pixel equivalent than a cropped sensor. But for landscapes, at least for some types, you have the option of taking a series of photos and then digitially combining them. This will effectively increase the number of pixels by the number of photos in the panorama. With just a 3-photo panorama you will be beyond the capability of film.

  8. #8
    Moderator Donald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Glenfarg, Scotland
    Posts
    19,707
    Real Name
    Just add 'MacKenzie'

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Quote Originally Posted by carregwen View Post
    Donald also has one, and I'm sure he would agree. .
    He does. See my post (#16) in this thread

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    429
    Real Name
    Peter

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    There's another name to consider here; Vuescan. It works on every scanner I've ever trid it on, produces 16-bpc output, as both Tiff and RAW. There's no provision for D&S removal, which suits me fine as it's easy to remove these in Photoshop anyway and I would rather have the raw image to start on. It's avout $80 USD. Here's the url; http://www.hamrick.com/

    Oh, and a neg brush/rocket blower will be c. $25 USD.

    HTH

    Peter

  10. #10
    Steaphany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The far off Country of Texas
    Posts
    827
    Real Name
    Steaphany

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Quote Originally Posted by benm View Post
    With just a 3-photo panorama you will be beyond the capability of film.
    Hi Ben,

    Very true, and I have several pano assemblers that I use. Of course once scanned, even the film images can be stitched.

    My reasons for film is to have it as an alternative to digital when digital can't cut it. My dSLR is a Sigma SD14 and I love it's performance, with one exception - low light and night photography. If you recall, a point I made regarding FUJICHROME PROVIA 100F Professional is it's reciprocity. It can handle exposures out to about 2 minutes without compensation.

    I know there are other dSLRs which can handle low light and night scenes, but I've never been very inclined to Bayer masked imagers, remember I started out with film, so I'm old fashioned. Plus, getting another brand dSLR would also necessitate a new set of lenses.

    For me to add a 35mm film option, I picked up a Sigma SA9 on ebay for $50 (which included a pair of lenses) and my lens collection is completely compatible with both camera bodies.

  11. #11
    PopsPhotos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington (state) USA
    Posts
    984
    Real Name
    Pops

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    I shoot both digital and film. I've decided that most landscapes, as a general rule, don't need the fine detail so much as do other kinds of pictures. I do use film when I feel it is important to have the fine detail available for post processing, or I anticipate a large crop.

    This plan has worked for me quite well. Of course, I grew up on film, back when shooting color was affordable only a few times a year. Thus my views on what is considered acceptable might not please pixel peepers. You can always pick out the photographers at a gallery showing. Most people will step back to the proper distance to view the entire picture. The photographers will step up and press their noses agaonst the picture to see if any pixels are present.

    Pops

  12. #12
    Hans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England, NSW Australia
    Posts
    313
    Real Name
    Pete

    Re: 1.5 crop or 35mm transparencies for landscapes

    Ben, Don, Peter and Pops,

    Thanks again for your input. All taken on board for processing.

    Don, I do like the 11-16mm and it will be the one I go with if I go that way.

    Regards to all,

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •