This is Only A Test

Inspired by a thread on DPreview.com, I've decided to conduct a test.  Even though I am already sure of the results, I am going to conduct the test anyways.

The test is: Film Vs. Digital - a real world, everyman approach.  No resolution charts, MTF curves, special film processing, nothing fancy or scientific.  keeping it simple...

also, since i'm typing one handed, no more caps...

what would i hope to demonstrate?

which is "better" - of course...and what really quantifies "better" anyhow?

resolution/clarity

grain vs. noise

ease of processing/post processing

colors

conversion to b/w

xtreme processing, like hdr or other heavy image tweaking

overall aesthetic appeal - I hear people say "there's just some quality about a film image, that i can't put a finger on, that makes it more appealing/better/different than digital" (i've said this myself).  to adress this point i will compare lab prints as well as home/inkjet prints...

as to whether digital is more/less expensive, here's a quote from the thread on dpreview:
"A used 5D is $1000. A decent film is $5, decent film developing also is $5. Getting a decent print is even more expensive and harder to find by the day. Scanning is a way around that but a decent filmscanner doesn't come cheap either.  At $10 for film and development, 100 films equals a used 5D. 100 films is not alot, even before digital photo-enthousiasts shot more than that in a year."

i've shot, developed and printed (both via darkroom and inkjet) with color and bw film - its where i started almost 10 years ago - but i've never really compared them side-by-side - i've only juxtaposed the processes from a distance.  at the moment, i find myself with resources to perform the comparison, and i look forward to the results.

the players: 


pretty much everyman film...  400 speed, c-41.  yes, there are better films - an were i shooting for $$$ i would use it - but thse represent what an average joe might have loaded in their picture takers...



thats my pentax k-1000 and my canon eos 650 film cameras.



and the recently repaired digital rebel with the 20d.

originally, i planned on using all 4, but since most photos will be shot during a 14 mile hike - i'll only be taking the rebel and the eos 650.  if i come across enough interesting subjects, i'll try to use both the color and b/w films - otherwise it'll only be the color film.

film will initially be processed at a local lab using the one-hour service with basic scan to cd using whatever their standard resolution scans are.  once i've culled a couple "winners" out, i will those frames scanned at the highest res available locally.  i'll also scan the same frames myself using a flatbed epson scanner @3200dpi.

images will compared on screen as well side-by-prints.

there will also be a few different methods of printing for the film:

1. from high-res lab scans; no post processing except for dust emoval
   
2. from high-res lab scans; post processed via lightroom & photooshop
3. lab prints directly from the negative; 4x6 and 8x10/8x12
4. inkjet prints from the best scans; post processed specifically for inkjet prints

prints from digital:

1. 4x6/8x10 lab prints prints directly from the card; no post processing
2. 8x10 lab prints - post processed via lightroom/photoshop
3. 8x10 inkjet prints - post processed via lightroom/photoshop

if i should happen to produce any somewhat exceptional images, i'll also print 11v14 or 12x18 enlargements, to see how noise and grain structure compare.

i understand, this comparison has been done - probably numerous times - by people far more experienced/knowledgeable than i, but i stll see debates about the subject.  i see samples online - scans and screenshot comparisons...  and i'm not trying to prove anything really.  i just want to see for myself, to have the examples in hand.

predictions/expectations:

1. digital files will look "cleaner"* on screen
   
2. up to 8x10, i don't expect to see any appreciable difference between files of equal processing
3. i expect digital files will require less hassle to achieve a decent print

*1.  by cleaner i mean less grain or noise is visible.  also, i understand that grain and noise are very different.  noise is a by-product with digital images, while in a film image - grain is a component that makes up an image.  personally, i like grain, until it becomes distracting to the aesthetic.  so, comparisons between grain and noise can be a little apples/oranges, but too much of either can be annoying.

tomorrow i head out the door with the two cameras....