Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera?

Reply
Thread Tools

Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera?

 
 
Tom Scales
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2004
I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600. Just
upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.

Tom
"Mark Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
> >>
> >>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.

> >
> >Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good.
> >
> >>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

> >
> >No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

>
> I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
> edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
> have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
> isn't in the photo.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:57:46
-0700, Mark Johnson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
>>>
>>>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.

>>
>>Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good.
>>
>>>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

>>
>>No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

>
>I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
>edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
>have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
>isn't in the photo.


Upsampling an image adds no real detail, and that much upsampling inevitably
looks soft or fuzzy, depending on how it's being mangled.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:20:27 -0400,
"Tom Scales" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Mark Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .


>> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
>> >>
>> >>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.
>> >
>> >Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good.
>> >
>> >>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
>> >
>> >No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

>>
>> I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
>> edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
>> have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
>> isn't in the photo.


>I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600. Just
>upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
>from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.


A good MF film print at that size will be visually superior.
The quality of a 6 MP print suffers above about 11x15.
See "Digital Camera Image Quality" at
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom Scales
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2004
I don't believe I compared my D100 to a MF camera, did I? I compared it to
a 35mm negative scanned at 4000dpi. They both have their advantages.

You can read all you want, and are entitled to your opinion from your
reading. Just curious. Have you personally printed a 24x36 inch print on a
printer capable of doing so from both a 35mm scan and a 6mp digital?

I have.

Tom
"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:briec.5115$(E-Mail Removed)...
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004

08:20:27 -0400,
> "Tom Scales" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .

>
> >> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
> >> >>
> >> >>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.
> >> >
> >> >Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good.
> >> >
> >> >>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
> >> >
> >> >No tool can add real detail that isn't there.
> >>
> >> I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
> >> edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
> >> have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
> >> isn't in the photo.

>
> >I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600.

Just
> >upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
> >from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.

>
> A good MF film print at that size will be visually superior.
> The quality of a 6 MP print suffers above about 11x15.
> See "Digital Camera Image Quality" at
> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
> <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:45:04 -0400,
"Tom Scales" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:briec.5115$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:20:27 -0400,
>> "Tom Scales" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> >I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600. Just
>> >upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
>> >from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.

>>
>> A good MF film print at that size will be visually superior.
>> The quality of a 6 MP print suffers above about 11x15.
>> See "Digital Camera Image Quality" at
>> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>.


>I don't believe I compared my D100 to a MF camera, did I? I compared it to
>a 35mm negative scanned at 4000dpi. ...


In fact you just made a sweeping statement, as quoted above.

>You can read all you want, and are entitled to your opinion from your
>reading. Just curious. Have you personally printed a 24x36 inch print on a
>printer capable of doing so from both a 35mm scan and a 6mp digital?
>
>I have.


So have I.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2004
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
>>>
>>>No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

>>
>>I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
>>edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
>>have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
>>isn't in the photo.

>
>Upsampling an image adds no real detail, and that much upsampling inevitably
>looks soft or fuzzy, depending on how it's being mangled.


Isn't that the very selling point of Nik Sharpener, though - sharpness
from where you stand?

I didn't say it added details. In fact, I said it didn't. I said
"you'd have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something
there that isn't in the photo."


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:26:33
-0700, Mark Johnson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
>>>>
>>>>No tool can add real detail that isn't there.
>>>
>>>I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
>>>edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
>>>have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
>>>isn't in the photo.

>>
>>Upsampling an image adds no real detail, and that much upsampling inevitably
>>looks soft or fuzzy, depending on how it's being mangled.

>
>Isn't that the very selling point of Nik Sharpener, though - sharpness
>from where you stand?


Like other such methods, Nik Sharpener just increases the apparent (not the
real) sharpness of the image in certain limited ways, and can't increase the
amount of detail. So if your image lacks detail in tree leaves, sharpening
(by Nik Sharpener or anything else) might help the edges of the tree trunk,
but will still leave the leaves (play on words intended soft/fuzzy. The
difference against an image that has such detail will be immediately apparent.
"There is no magic."

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-14-2004
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Like other such methods, Nik Sharpener just increases the apparent (not the
>real) sharpness of the image in certain limited ways, and can't increase the
>amount of detail. So if your image lacks detail in tree leaves, sharpening
>(by Nik Sharpener or anything else) might help the edges of the tree trunk,
>but will still leave the leaves (play on words intended soft/fuzzy. The
>difference against an image that has such detail will be immediately apparent.
>"There is no magic."


You'd have to add detail that's not there. I've said, now, in two
messages. It's not adding information, here. But isn't the selling
point of Nik that it can be used to increase sharpness at a particular
viewing distance? So you upsample an image, and apply Nik, for say
'book' distance, or whatever. I don't use that. I've tried the demo
and found the sharpening tends to certain artifacts, and doesn't allow
much control. I use other sharpening actions and filters. But I can
certainly see how a fuzzy line can be made sharper. If the line simply
isn't there, then it's another matter.


 
Reply With Quote
 
carl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2004
i have seen 16x20 made from a D100 and a epson 7600
they were quite good.
i have also made my own 16x20 cibachromes from a F100 and guess what they
blow the doors off digital.
I cannot for the life of me understand why someone wants to do cross-over
workflow. If you image with slide film, it is much better to print on 'film'
optimized materials such as cibachrome.
at 16x20 35mm is a compromise, and as far as i have seen the digitals are
not as good as 35 yet. Handier yes, better images, no way.
MF is needed for museum quality at 16x16, and the honest equivalent maximum
35 print size is 5x7. Digital below 16mp is also 5x7 at museum quality. The
fact that people are willing to accept lower image quality does not in and
of itself make poor technique good enough for me.
People have been accepting 35mm as the 'holy grail' to which digital claims
to be equivalent for a long time. I have never been able to get anything but
compromised images from 35mm, which is why i shoot MF and LF for serious
work and a nikon 5700 for fun. I can't see investing serious money in
digital gear yet.


 
Reply With Quote
 
gsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2004
I use a D100/Epson 7600 to produce prints up to 12x18 inches
and stitched panoramics up to 30x12 inches. I also use the 7600 to
produce prints up to 24x18 inches from scanned 6x9 MF i.e. crossover
workflow. I used to do a lot of Cibachrome work but, thankfully, no more.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to
produce horrible overpriced, oversaturated Cibachrome cartoons when
digital technology is avaialable. Digital colours are far more realistic
than those possible with Cibachrome, and the digital process is more
controlled, direct and easier to use. It is therefore possible to get great
results with much less image manipulation. The only reason for using
film is the greater resolution of MF.

Graham

"carl" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:vbKgc.11274$(E-Mail Removed) om...
> i have seen 16x20 made from a D100 and a epson 7600
> they were quite good.
> i have also made my own 16x20 cibachromes from a F100 and guess what they
> blow the doors off digital.
> I cannot for the life of me understand why someone wants to do cross-over
> workflow. If you image with slide film, it is much better to print on

'film'
> optimized materials such as cibachrome.
> at 16x20 35mm is a compromise, and as far as i have seen the digitals are
> not as good as 35 yet. Handier yes, better images, no way.
> MF is needed for museum quality at 16x16, and the honest equivalent

maximum
> 35 print size is 5x7. Digital below 16mp is also 5x7 at museum quality.

The
> fact that people are willing to accept lower image quality does not in and
> of itself make poor technique good enough for me.
> People have been accepting 35mm as the 'holy grail' to which digital

claims
> to be equivalent for a long time. I have never been able to get anything

but
> compromised images from 35mm, which is why i shoot MF and LF for serious
> work and a nikon 5700 for fun. I can't see investing serious money in
> digital gear yet.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Build a Better Blair (like Build a Better Bush, only better) Kenny Computer Support 0 05-06-2005 04:50 AM
turning traditional cameras into digital cameras Dan Jacobson Digital Photography 9 10-31-2004 04:37 PM
Digital Versus Traditional Cameras Glenn Jacobs Digital Photography 5 10-08-2004 02:52 PM
Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera? Kamol Panitpongsakorn Digital Photography 0 04-09-2004 01:25 AM
Night shots are better with digital camera- No film vs camera debate zxcvar Digital Photography 4 09-01-2003 06:38 PM



Advertisments