120 film versus digital APS-C - I can't tell the difference

[roxics]

I'll be honest, I really can't tell the difference between modern APS-C digital images and 120 or large format film images I view online? Is this because of the fact that they're all digital when I'm viewing them? I assume so.

I remember back in mid 90's when I first started shooting film photography, I used to see a huge difference between 35mm and medium format and large format when viewing fine art prints or even when looking at photos in magazines. Today when I view sample images on the internet I see stuff shot on digital APS-C cameras that when compared to large format or medium format film scans, appears about the same to me. There may be a slight difference in depth of field but even then, that's not always true as different lenses and apertures are used that can blur those lines.

There are still a lot of photographers that swear by medium format and I can't figure out what they're seeing that I'm not. I still have perfect vision. But I just don't see what they're seeing.

 

[Grug]

Granted this was about 7 years ago now, but I ran some pretty comprehensive tests comparing 120, 135 and 10mpxl digital APS-C when I first looked into switch my stills cameras over to digital. My findings were that conventional Kodak 200/400ASA 135 negative stock scanned on high-end flatbed scanners (my workflow for post-processing of colour photos at the time) held no additional resolution over the 10 megapixel Canon APS-C cameras I compared it to (beyond 10 megapixels you were simply magnifying the grain structure of the 135).

A drum scanner may have yielded better results, but I didn't have the budget to process my colour shots that way so it was rather a moot point.

Comparing dynamic range, I found that film still had a slight edge in highlights, but faired far worse in the shadows.

120 though, which I used to shoot on a Pentax 6x7, was miles ahead of the smaller formats though, in terms of tonality, resolution and the simple aesthetic of the larger format, I found (and still find) the photographs I made on 120 superior to what I could achieve on smaller formats.

I don't beleive that APS-C sensors have caught up to 120 yet. Though I would love to run some tests comparing 120 to the 36mpxl Nikon D800/Sony A7R sensor, I suspect the new full-frame, high-res digital systems (with 14-bit tonality) could certainly give 120 a run for it's money.

I recently shot a narrative short in 4K 16-bit linear raw on the Sony F5, and I have to say - with the high dynamic range of the sensor and the extreme tonality that 16-bit colour depth that it gives you, I think they're possibly the richest, most flexible images (film or digital) I've ever been able to play with in post (in still or motion photography).

 

[Michael Carter]

I'll be honest, I really can't tell the difference between modern APS-C digital images and 120 or large format film images I view online? Is this because of the fact that they're all digital when I'm viewing them? I assume so.

When you view them on-line? Are you viewing full-resolution images on line?

You really can't compare 120 film shots to digital without taking the scanning into account. They could be a desktop film scanner, they could be from a commercial drum.

There's just so much more to consider in film vs. digital than "what they look like in a browser". If your stuff will only be seen on the web, I doubt many people would bother with buying film, processing, scanning, etc. (Not knocking it, I just came out of my darkroom, printing negs from my 6x7 mamiya. Been buying up vintage cameras and darkroom gear like crazy, it's pennies on the dollar now).

 

[Policar]

When it was 135 vs 120 vs sheet film, two big factors made larger film look a lot better:

•Grain/tonality. Lenses have long been out-resolving the film at sharp apertures, but it wasn't resolution that was hurting film's look so much as how grainy even the finest film looks. Scale up the film size... reduce the grain. Pretty simple. Not a factor with digital, which is close enough to grainless at base ISO.

•Optical enlargers make for soft prints... This isn't such an issue now, but a digital print from even a Nikon-scanned 135 shot will blow away a cibachrome or optical print under most circumstances. Not a factor with digital, though scanning is.

Also, you're looking on a screen with less resolution than any camera you're talking about. So a good shot on any of these cameras should look good online! Most screens are like 1920X1200 or less.... 2 megapixels. Most prints are 300dpi, so a large print might be a hundred megapixels.

Having shot every format but 8x10 and MFDB, but having researched them extensively I can say with confidence:

APS-C has similar resolution to 135 (FF) digital, but is a lot cleaner at any ISO and grainless effectively at base ISO so it enlarges better and appears sharper than 135.

FF digital has a similar look, likewise, to 6x6 with less resolution but also less grain. A digital print off a D800 will probably look as sharp if not better than a good hasselblad scan with less resolution at extinction, but also less grain.

4x5 is close to MFDB but has its own advantages. 8x10 rules the roost.

The best print I've ever seen was shot on 8x10 portra and printed optically. BLEW away anything else. But it was 80X100 inches, I think (and flawless at any distance, grain free and crisp with no degradation anywhere and amazing detail).

Online, scaled down, it might look no different from an APS-C camera with a great lens.

The question then is...

How large do you print?

 

[combatentropy]

Excellent explanation, insightful information, and clear conclusion. Thank you, Policar!

 

[Michael Carter]

I shoot, process and print film for personal/creative projects. There's a beauty to it that I can't find in digital.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I'll be honest, I really can't tell the difference between modern APS-C digital images and 120 or large format film images I view online? Is this because of the fact that they're all digital when I'm viewing them? I assume so.

You assume partly correctly. It's not so much that you are looking at digital translations of the original film, but at very low resolution images of the original film. You want to see what LF can do? I've got some prints on my walls that are around 12x enlargement from 5x4 originals (you do the math). Color and B&W. My wife has a nice shiny new Nikon D5300 APS-C camera. LF just stomps it into the ground. Tonality, detail, dynamic range, ...stomps it into the ground. But LF isn't the answer for the vast majority of photography. I'll take that little D5300 with it's zoom lens every time for food photography (my wife's specialty). Events? Every time. Sports? Every time. Street? Every time. Even the vast majority of portraits. But LF excels at landscape, still life, studio art projects, etc.

If you're looking at this stuff on a computer monitor that might be good for what? 100dpi? That's not nearly good enough to let you do any kind of meaningful comparison, except for work that's supposed to be viewed on the web. And if that's all you want, then APS-C is your friend. Smaller, faster, cheaper, more than good enough.

I'm just sayin' use the right tool for the job.

 

[TheDingo]

The figure I remember being kicked around for the digital equivalent of the color and detail stored in a 35mm frame of Kodachrome 25 slide was 25 Mpx.

So it would not surprise me if a Nikon D810 has surpassed the old KM25 standard by now.

For a frame of 6x7cm Fujichrome 50, I would expect it to be equivalent of a 100 Mpx image in terms of color and detail, but if you aren`t making 60 inch prints I doubt you would be able to see the difference between a 6x7cm frame and an APS-C digital image.

 

[Policar]

The figure I remember being kicked around for the digital equivalent of the color and detail stored in a 35mm frame of Kodachrome 25 slide was 25 Mpx.

So it would not surprise me if a Nikon D810 has surpassed the old KM25 standard by now.

For a frame of 6x7cm Fujichrome 50, I would expect it to be equivalent of a 100 Mpx image in terms of color and detail, but if you aren`t making 60 inch prints I doubt you would be able to see the difference between a 6x7cm frame and an APS-C digital image.

It's WAY more complicated than that. Velvia (and not much else) reaches MTF 30 I think around the equivalent of 30 megapixels but it drops off before then (and goes past 100% before then) and so the resolution might be more than most digital formats, but the sharpness (area under the MTF curve) is less since most digital systems hit nearly 100 MTF to 70% of their resolution (and curiously, well beyond the nyquist limit). The real issue is grain, because you can sharpen in post without it, and film just has tons of grain.

I've scanned my share of 6x7 velvia at 110 MP and seen prints of those scans and chibachromes from those slides against 5D Mark II prints of similar subject matter. FF digital is pretty darned close to 6x7. To me, that's what matters. I do like the color from velvia, sure.

It's no secret digital has the potential to be WAY better than film. Look at the tiny sensor in a point and shoot or iPhone... and imagine a 6mm by 5mm film scan. Wouldn't compare!