On Topic: I'm always a bit amazed at how well 35mm film holds up in the days of 48+ Megapixel Digital times.

 

I seem to have been on a jag the last day or two. I've spent time "scanning" older negatives with my film photographing set-up (which consists of a light source, a 70mm Macro Sigma Art lens and a Panasonic S5 body) getting them exactly where I want the tonalities, etc. and then going into the Neural Filters in PhotoShop and applying the "Colorize" command which has the software create colors for the images. And, so far, I have to say that the program does a really good job at hitting color palettes that I would agree with. 

This image struck me in a different way. It started life as a 35mm black and white negative. The film stock was Agfapan APX 100. It was developed in Rodinal with a dilution of 1:50. I have printed the image previously and liked the paper version so I thought I'd try it as a newly revived and adapted digital file. 

But what struck me was the basic detail and image sharpness of the 100+ Megapixel file that resulted from using a multi-shot "scan" from the negative. What you are seeing here is a version of the file that's been reduced from 12,000+ pixels on the long edge to a more manageable (for Blogger) size of 3200 pixels on the long side. And from 16 bits to 8 bits of color information. And from an initial Raw file to a Jpeg file. But it still maintains the sense of detail and sharpness that I saw when reviewing the initial scan. 

One often wonders when looking at images from the latest, high dollar, digital camera sensors, just how well film might have competed with --- basically --- thirty year newer technology. In the past most of the film to digital comparisons I've made were between digital and medium format film scans. It's eye-opening for me to see just how well 35mm film stands up. A reminder that film was, in the mid-1990s, a very advanced and evolved medium. 

Of course it doesn't hurt that this negative was birthed from one of the top lenses of the day and additional created in a camera with an exceptionally flat film plane. And under highly controlled electronic flash lighting. It's hard to compare apples to apples when things like motion and speed of use are also involved. But for static portraits I think film was close to being comparable to new digital. And certainly better at holding highlight detail --- tenaciously. 

Sometimes, generally after making and image like this from older negatives, I wish I had the patience and budgets to switch back to a workflow completely centered around black and white film, medium format cameras and traditional studio lighting. But, I guess doing enough of anything all the time would be boring. 

I keep remembering that what makes a photo succeed or fail nearly always depends on what you and the subject were able to accomplish together. A shared rapport. An interaction. A performance.