Results to Roll #6

Results to #6

Processing: Discount Pharmacy

Time: next day

Price: $2.75

Well, I realize the film is old so it might not have been the best thing to use if I really wanted quality night sky photos on negatives. And I know I carried those latent images around for a while.  Also, my new D700 is really nice, designed to “deliver breathtakingly rich image quality” with its 12.1 megapixel image sensor. But I don’t think I was prepared for just how much better the digital images are than the film.

I sort of copped out, and I took the roll to the discount pharmacy I had been to before. It was so inexpensive because there weren’t that many exposures on the roll. Also, for whatever reason, they didn’t print all of the negatives. They skipped over some of the more interesting cloud photos. I’m learning that’s a common problem when trusting your images to someone else.

Okay, well enough yammering. Let’s look at the images. Here is the first film image. Let me point out that there was some loss of quality here due to the relatively average scanner I’ve been using. I have been scanning the actual prints from the lab. But in this case, the prints were not that good in the first place.

sf1As you can see, the print was sort of “soft” and, to add insult to injury, this particular print actually has a nasty fanoog in the upper center. I have no idea what that is. If it were lint it should be white, not black. The quality of the printing is much less impressive than the last project I took to this lab.

sd1And here is the digital image. Amazing huh?  The streak near the tree line in both photos is regrettably an airplane, not a meteor.

sf2Here is a film shot of the horizonless sky. The stars are practically lost within the grain.

sd2And here is the digital image. Amazing huh?

Overall: I am stunned at the difference. Admittedly, a lot of credit must go to the new digital technology. My last camera, a D2Hs would not have produced this level of quality. Oh, and for the record, both the digital and film cameras were set to or loaded with ISO 400 and shot at 2.8, 30 second or more shutter, with nikon glass on both, often switching one lens between the two bodies for similar shots.

One Response to “Results to Roll #6”

  • russell Says:

    I’m not surprised the D700 outperforms a film camera with Tri-X. I think Tri-X’s grain has, for a long time, been romanticized. If had to shoot with it in the 70’s then you know it’s got big, huge balls of grain. Which is wonderful if that’s what you want.

    What would be scary would be to compare Last year’s D700 with this years D3s at ISO 6400. I am afraid of what might happen.

Leave a Reply