Glacier National Park 2004

Some guy named Ansel Adams has been copying my work. He must have a time machine or something.
Here is a picture taken at GNP in 2004, John and Anna, you were there! We were only there for a day or so, but several weeks would have been nice too.



As I had mentioned in the last post, film holds more tonal range than digital. I just re-scanned this negative and found that I could over or under expose the scan by over a stop and get more detail than a single 16bit pass could hold. That is to say, the snow has more detail than is shown here, and the trees in the foreground also have more detail. I just chose a middle-of-the-road exposure setting so that the over all picture was OK. That is where film tells digital to take its ball and go home.

Silver Vs. Silicon

Here are two shots, comparing a 10.2 MP camera (Nikon D80) and a 10.2 MP film scanner (Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III).
This test is purely subjective- being performed in curiosity and free time mode rather than lab coat and pen protector mode. The list of differences and variations are in fact longer than the similarities between the two tests. :+)

Here is example A and B:



And now a crop of A and B:



Whats not scientific about this?!
Along the way I realized the number of factors which invalidated this test were so numorous that there was no point in comparing the two anymore.
If you look closely, one sample is definitely grainier, and one has a wider tonal range. These too are misleading, and both can be attributed to the user and not the medium.

Film has a couple things going for it. Silver atoms are small- smaller than the photosites of a CMOS or CCD sensor. This means more detail can be captured on film and reproduced on paper in the darkroom. Film can also hold more tonal range than digital, 7+ stops compared to 5ish.
Digital has some advantages though. Its wicked fast for review and publication! If you need to do post processing there is no loss of data from scanning as with negatives.
Even with these reasons there still isn't a grand canyon sized difference in quality. Unless you have access to very expensive equipment, you won't be realizing the full benefit of film if you scan it for printing as a scanner is just a digital camera. You're just taking a digital picture of a really good picture.

The above images are pretty similar aren't they?
It might just boil down to convenience. Do you have time or facility to develop your film? Do you want to spend time in digital post-processing? Do you need extreme detail on poster-sized prints?


...
And no, I didn't forget to mention which was film and which was digital.

Last of the roll

Here are the last frames from the BW400CN/Caffenol-C experiment:
Bea and Gary

And now, the rest of the... roll

And here are some more of the pictures developed from the roll of Kodak BW400CN.