>>4319561schneider symmar-s 180mm f5.6 and nikkor 105mm f2.8 ais macro. Both lenses are from the 1980s. I don't have an apples to apples comparison between s1r HRM and b/w film. I do have some HRM shots that are b/w, and some b/w 4x5 shots that I could compare. I'd have to scan those 4x5 negs. From prior experience, the detail would be better on the b/w vs slide, but the grain will be more visible. I don't think a better scan of the film will reveal any more detail. 8x10 would probably be slightly better or on par with s1r HRM
>>4319562>The film has better color regardless if it's more 'accurate' or not.I'm in the business of reproducing art. My clients want color accuracy. The success of my business depends on how close the colors match between the print and original. Even if I didn't want color accuracy, digital is still edit since it gives you way more flexibility in post. Film's limited color accuracy completely breaks down in any lighting condition other than daylight or flash. Shoot some color film under fluorescent lighting and tell me how great the colors look.
> I know this is going to melt your gearfag brain, but more detail does not constitute a better looking image. Artistic softness is often better looking and more pleasing. Being able to see every fiber and paint stroke is distracting and makes the image worse. It takes on an uncanny and unnatural look and it looks bad.Digital images correctly sharpened for print often look over sharpened on the screen. Prints are softer than screens, this file prints extremely well. Digital images can be softened as well. Upscale, slight blur, add monochrome noise. I attached an example. I use this technique all the time when a client has lost the raw or high res jpg and we need to print from a low res artifact ridden jpg.
