DSLR vs. Film for Largeformat printing

[kayoy]

Hi There. WHOA! Didn't there was a site/forum. dedicated to just Canon users. Whew.

I'm getting started with product photography. Very new to digital and very hungry for information.

My background is printing. It's funny that I never got into the photography side of my clients art/files.

My brother and I are teaming up to try and produce pictures for some clients. Mainly jewelry footwear and some clothing, even food so we need respectable details.These will be enlarged to 12 X 18, 24 X 36, 36 X 48 inches. Output on Largeformat HPDesignjet 5000 and Epson Stylus Pro 9000, CMYK, lclm printers. We need the images at 300 dpi.

Just as we were getting ready to set up with 35mm and medium format(we haven't bought much yet, we do have a Canon 35mm SLR, a macro and wide angle lens-all EFs, and of course we're on a tight budget), we ran in to someone who is all praises for Digital. Now we're torn, confused, apprehensive and a bit scared on which path to take.

Question: Can a 20D match or come close to image quality of Velvia 50, 100 (preferably drum scanned) when printed at these sizes.

Although out of our price range, can the EOS-1DS Mark II hit a homerun with these requirements. Of course, the 20D is all we can afford right now if we go digital.

Your expert opinion is greatly appreciated and respected.

Thanks,
Carol

[GPR1]

Based on sources I respect, the 20D cannot quite match Velvia drum-scanned, but it's close and likely acceptable even at the larger print sizes you list, though the files will have to be enlarged through good software. Drum scanning is a very expensive process and it wouldn't take long to justify the higher up-front cost of digital. It would depend on your volume of images.

Again based on sources I respect, the 1Ds MarkII beats 35mm format and rivals medium format. As you said, it's a big price tag, however. You'd have to justify that on volume.

Greg

[CyberDyneSystems]

Close,. but not quite,

Yes ;)

[kayoy]

Thanks guys. I was hoping the 20D could do the job. There may be hope.

The MArk II's are too expensive for me right now.

[Longwatcher]

Based on resolution of film versus digital, taking into account the cleaner and easier to enlarge digital format.

Short answer: 20D equals or exceeds 35mm color film, 1DsMkII rivals MF color film. Neither beats B+W but the 1DsMkII gets close.

long answer:
20D is pretty close to color 35mm film and will provide potentially superior results to film if you end up in the digital realm. On the flip side it is not even close to equal to B+W film, howver, it will produce similiar results in all but dynamic range to scanned B+W film. That lack of dynamic range may or may not affect your final output to print.

Even the 1DsMkII does not yet equal B+W film in terms of resolution and dynamic range, however (and especially with new PS CS2 tools) it is possible to produce a superior product from the 1DsMkII then you could get with 35mm B+W film. You need a 22MP DSLR with otherwise similiar capabilities to 1DsMkII to rival 35mm B+W film in terms of resolution.
However, the 1DsMkII does start equaling or exceeding MF film in the color realm.

The key advantage to digital is it scales easier to larger sizes then scanned film does due to square/rectangular pixels versus randomly ditributed grains. Thus you can probably enlarge a digital captured image to twice what you could with a film captured image of the same sensor size and pixel/grain density.

finally control of the image.
- For film you can't see the results until processed, digital you can make adjustments on the spot. More likely to get the shot with digital.
- Film must go through processing, scanning (both of which can mess up shot) before you have control of the useable image (unless using an enlarger and chemicals). Digital starts in the digital realm after capture. This gives you more control and less likelyhood of losing a great image. Also this speeds up the process a lot as you can get a print from digital in about 2 minutes from time of capture. Film takes about 20 minutes with quick processing equipment (not noted for being the best quality).

Thus Digital is overall superior to Film if the resolution of the digital sensor is even remotely close to the size of the film used.

Lastly,
20D should under almost all circumstances scale to a 16x24 inch print with no noticeable pixelization, beyond that the content of the shot and your skill at scaling will determine the maximum size, but I have scaled from 8x12 inch size 10D image to 72 inch on long side with only one object in scene showing pixelization to my eyes up close. Heal fixed that. The 20D already starts a bit bigger then that. With a scaling of 600% possible, very large format prints can be made, film usually doesn't scale well beyond 400% under the best of circumstances without showing noticeable graininess close up (resulting in asking people to stand back).

So in conclusion, unless you need high quality B+W images in a large format print, go digital.

Just my opinion and expertise.

[kayoy]

GREAT and very Insightful post Longwatcher. Suddenly the pulse is faster.

Since we expect quite a bit of volume, we were really hoping for a good and expert endorsement for digital. Plus it seems it is the way to go. This is what Victor Hugo was talking about. Nothing can stop it if it's time has come.

Truly, our BIGGEST CONCERN with digital, particularly the 20D, was just enlarging at 40 plus inches.Pixelization and sharpness number 1, color comes in at 1B. I know that at 12 X 18, Digital Rules.

Then of course we are crossing our fingers that the 20D can do this (and if I'm understanding correctly, it can-print at large sizes) so we don't have to 500% over budget with the EOS-1DS Mark II , which we can't afford right now.

Thanks again,
Carol

[tim]

I think you should try it yourself and see. Rent a camera, try it out, and see if the prints are good enough for you. Alternately, get someone to take a picture similar to what you're doing and send it to you, blow it up and print it yourself. Only you can judge if you'll be happy with the prints at those large sizes.

[kayoy]

Great Idea Tim.

I think that is the wise next step

Thanks

[ScottE]

Since we expect quite a bit of volume, we were really hoping for a good and expert endorsement for digital. Plus it seems it is the way to go. This is what Victor Hugo was talking about. Nothing can stop it if it's time has come.

Truly, our BIGGEST CONCERN with digital, particularly the 20D, was just enlarging at 40 plus inches.Pixelization and sharpness number 1, color comes in at 1B. I know that at 12 X 18, Digital Rules.


For volume, digital is the clear winner because it is a lot quicker to convert a RAW file than to develop film, scan and then remove dust spots from the scan.

Pixelization does not exist on a digital photo because you use a RIP program with a high end printer or an interpolation program with other printers that interpolates your photo to the pixels per inch required to get prime performance from your printer. You will not see jagged edges because curves are interpolated, but interplation cannot create detail that was not present in the original image.

Colour is one place where I find digital surpasses film. Velvia may look good for some pictures, but for most it had gaudy unnatural tints that I personally do not like. Provia has pretty natural colour, similar to what I can get with little effor from my 20D.

As far as resolution goes, theoretically fine grain ISO 50 or 100 film can out resolve a 20D. Practically, unless you are willing to pay a fortune for high end drum scans you will not see much difference. I have had many 16x24 inch prints made from Velvia and Provia slides using both optical Ilfochrome and digital processes and more recently the same size prints from my 6 MP D60 and 8 MP 20D. In my opinion there is not much difference in the resolution obtained in ordinary commercial prints from a professional lab. (These were not high end drum scans.) Also, for both slides and the 20D I find that 16x24 inch prints are pushing the boundary of really sharp resolution. If you want high resolution 40 inch prints, you are not going to get it from either source. What you really need is a 4x5 view camera, a few top end lenses and a top end flat bed scanner.

If you have to use a high ISO such as 400 or 800 because of light conditions and subject movement, the 20D is a clear winner over slide film such as Provia or Sensia. Grain becomes too much of an issue in fast slide films.

Scott

[wilflee]

The question is not whether the 20D will match Velvia in terms of quality. The question is what your client is willing to pay for.

What you charge for using the 20D vs what you charge for using 4X5 or 8X10 sheets of RVP should be different, obviously. So, explain this to the client and see if they're willing to pay the difference in price.

IMHO, it's difficult to shoot product shots of small items like jewelry & footware without the flexibility provided by some type of tilt & shift camera/lens combo. An experienced art director may want images that are hard to achieve with fixed axis camera/lens system such as 99% of the SLRs out there. But, if the art director don't know what he/she is talking about, then you are in luck :D.

So, I suggest you have a chat with the client to understand what they want before determining what tool/technology to use. A DSLR is a quick and dirty solution. And accepted by 70% of the art directors out there. But, just in case they don't, you may find renting an Arca Swiss or Sinar for 2 days much cheaper than getting a new lens for the 20D.

[kayoy]

Great Post ScottE and Wilflee.

That's the other link I was looking for. 20D vs. Film as it relates to Printing and Graphic Equipment. Seems you two guys have experience in the Graphics Arts Industry.

I've gotten incredible and comprehensive information about 20 vs. Film from everyone who has replied a post. Many Thanks to all.

Carol

[kayoy]

As far as resolution goes, theoretically fine grain ISO 50 or 100 film can out resolve a 20D. Practically, unless you are willing to pay a fortune for high end drum scans you will not see much difference........... Also, for both slides and the 20D I find that 16x24 inch prints are pushing the boundary of really sharp resolution. If you want high resolution 40 inch prints, you are not going to get it from either source.

Scott. What about the 1D MArkII

[Sathi]

Don't forget, with a digital you have the capability to easily stitch images together for very high resolutions.

[d'homme]

I was kinda of wondering the same thing. I regularly made 16x20 enlargements with Velvia and Kodak 25 (when it was around), will 20D be able to do the same?

[Longwatcher]

Don't forget, with a digital you have the capability to easily stitch images together for very high resolutions.

Only if they are not moving :)

I have taken a few stich sets of people and if they don't move a lot, I can get a full resolution life-size shot of them in about 8-10 shots. If they wouldn't breathe it would be easy to put them together, but they do so I usually end up doing some manual adjustment and heal/clone tool work to fix the movement. Landscapes are way easier to stich together. And with new PS CS2 tools you could even get the dynamic range (DR) exceeding film, so for still life/landscapes you could with care get very high-resolution, high DR shots.

I had forgotten about the ability to stich digital images together - good catch.

[wilflee]

I was kinda of wondering the same thing. I regularly made 16x20 enlargements with Velvia and Kodak 25 (when it was around), will 20D be able to do the same?

Different people have different preferences.

For some, 35mm is only good for up to 8X10. 16X20 (4 times the size of 8X10) requires 6X6.

For others, 35mm is good for up to 30X40.

It's a matter of personal/professional taste. Will 20D do the same? Depends on the person paying for the print.

Just like a forklift operator, the job of the photographer is to produce what the art director wants with the tools he/she has at their disposal - you are just a tool operator, and cameras are tools. It doesn't matter if you use a diamond encrusted camera or a beat up metal box with a hole. If the art director is willing to pay for a print made with metal box, why use diamond camera?

[ScottE]

Scott. What about the 1D MArkII

I don't have a 1D MkII so I can't really comment. From everything I've read and seen there is not much image quality difference between it and the 20D. The main difference is in the quality of construction and the camera features.

From my standpoint I can't justify the cost difference. Digital photography technology is developing rapidly to the extent that every 3 to 5 years it is worthwhile to upgrade to a more recent model. With my 35 mm cameras I could reasonably expect to use a camera for 10 or more years before an upgrade produced enough new features to be worthwhile and I had one SLR that I used for more than 20 years. When digital reaches that stage of develoment I maybe ready to pay more for a camera. Also I take my camera hiking and backpacking and th 20D is much lighter than the 1D.

Scott

[BDM]

I know this is often a standard response but why not rent a 20D and make some print tests? That is probably the only way you are going to be able to judge whether the resulting quality is acceptable or not.

If you want the highest quality, you probably should look into a studio view camera with a large format three pass digital back. That would clearly exceed film output but at a cost of $100,000 plus! So it probably comes down to a quastion of how much quality is "good enough" for the purpose at hand. Only you (and your clients) can judge that.

Bruce