digital vs. film 8x10 prints

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005.

  1. Mr.Happy

    Mr.Happy Guest

    My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    a macro!).
    THEY SUCK!
    I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    new.
    The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    Mr.Turner's network.
    I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    technology...
    ....which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.

    [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mr.Happy

    Mr.Will Guest

    It is still possible to take bad photos, even with digital!
    I have plenty of good 10x8 prints from digital, never a complaint yet.
    Of course not sure exactly HOW to "prove you wrong" by showing web based
    images.
    Or is this what they call "trolling"?

    Mr.Will

    "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    > technology...
    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    > porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    >
    Mr.Will, Oct 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mr.Happy

    Skip M Guest

    "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    > technology...
    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    > porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    >


    Having fun back there in the 20th century? How's life under that bridge,
    anyway?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Oct 2, 2005
    #3
  4. Mr.Happy

    bmoag Guest

    I took pictures at a wedding for a relative who had also hired a "semipro."
    The semipro used digital, I used film and digital. My finished prints were
    better, but not because of the film but because I could do a much better job
    of finishing the images in Photoshop and printing them on a high quality
    printer. Poor digital image processing and printing is probably all that is
    wrong with these wedding pictures and can likely be corrected.
    bmoag, Oct 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Mr.Happy

    AnthonyL Guest

    On 1 Oct 2005 19:26:28 -0700, "Mr.Happy" <>
    wrote:

    >My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    >The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    >a macro!).
    >THEY SUCK!
    >I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    >new.
    >The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    >Mr.Turner's network.
    >I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.


    Unless you can state the settings, or at least the size of the digital
    images that the prints were taken from, your post is pretty
    meaningless.


    --
    AnthonyL
    AnthonyL, Oct 2, 2005
    #5
  6. "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.



    I saw those pictures. The photog did it that way because the bride was so
    ugly...and your brother looks like the south end of a north bound mule...
    John H. Holliday, Oct 2, 2005
    #6
  7. bmoag wrote:

    > I took pictures at a wedding for a relative who had also hired a "semipro."
    > The semipro used digital, I used film and digital. My finished prints were
    > better, but not because of the film but because I could do a much better job
    > of finishing the images in Photoshop and printing them on a high quality
    > printer. Poor digital image processing and printing is probably all that is
    > wrong with these wedding pictures and can likely be corrected.


    I'd love to know the camera settings for JPEG size.

    Gary Eickmeier
    >
    >
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 2, 2005
    #7
  8. Oh yes, I will go back to my film days, and spent 11 euros on the processing
    of a 36 exp.film just to get 4-5 good photos (even good photographers can't
    always shoot excellent pictures, checking each one individually on the lcd
    screen of my Kodak CX 7300 can be memory card-space saving)and always
    arguing with the relatives who will get the negatives (instead of just
    burning a 40-cents CD).

    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
    FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    ? "Mr.Happy" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    > technology...
    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    > porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    >
    Dimitrios Tzortzakakis, Oct 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Mr.Happy

    HK Guest

    "John H. Holliday" <nospam@okcorral> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > > a macro!).
    > > THEY SUCK!
    > > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > > new.
    > > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > > Mr.Turner's network.

    >
    >
    > I saw those pictures. The photog did it that way because the bride was so
    > ugly...and your brother looks like the south end of a north bound mule...
    >
    >



    I'm sure that answers his questions. And saying that his brother looks
    symmetrical is a complement by beauty standards.

    To add some sorely needed seriousness to this thread, I'm curious if the
    brother saw previous pics taken with the same camera. Surely he was happy
    with the photographer's work from previous occasions and perhaps the
    photographer used this DSLR for the first time?? I'd make a
    "pretend-to-be-a-prospect" call to this photographer and find out the
    make/model/MP of the DSLR and how used to this camera he/she is. Then let
    us know what you find out. Some of us here will reply with something
    helpful.

    Also, if the pics are printed at 300 dpi (many $100,000 photo printers in
    labs print at 200 dpi, I believe), you would need 7.2 MP to be comparable to
    film (300 x 300 x 8 x 10 / 1,000,000). It shouldn't appear pixelated at
    that level because any recent DSLR would be 6 MP or more. What is your
    primary complaint? Pixelation or something else?
    HK, Oct 2, 2005
    #9
  10. Mr.Happy

    kctan Guest

    It is a matter of understanding digital workflow. your problem is due to
    human error.

    "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    > technology...
    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    > porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    >
    kctan, Oct 2, 2005
    #10
  11. Mr.Happy wrote:
    > My bro just got his 8x10 photos from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were
    > colored by Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.


    The sensitivity setting does not change the pixel size. That is
    determined by the number of pixels (MPs)

    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand
    > new technology...


    I would not call it brand new technology, it has been around long enough
    that it is now a good tool. Maybe not the right tool for every job, but a
    good one for what it does do well.

    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home
    > made porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above
    > 4x6.


    I would not say digital is a way of saving money. I supposes some
    people might.

    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital, blown up to 8x10]


    The fact is it sounds like the photographer is to blame. In fact no
    mater how your cut it, it is the photographer because the photographer chose
    the equipment.

    My guess is he may not have digital equipment suitable for the job, or
    he lacks the skill to use it properly. Good professional grade digital
    equipment can produce fine quality 8x10s. Note: Critical viewers may well
    be able to tell digital from silver 8x10's but today I believe you will be
    hard pressed to prove that one is better than the other, both are very good
    when properly done.

    To take this one step further, whoever chose the photographer is really
    the one you need to blame. Did they view the work of this guy before the
    chose him? How much experience did he have, did they check references?

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 2, 2005
    #11
  12. Mr.Happy

    Mr.Happy Guest

    "> The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored
    by
    > Mr.Turner's network.


    I saw those pictures. The photog did it that way because the bride was
    so
    ugly...and your brother looks like the south end of a north bound
    mule...

    Reply "

    are you referring to the Ms.Piggy's wedding post?


    that wasnt the wedding.
    Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Mr.Happy

    Jem Raid Guest

    "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    > technology...
    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    > porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    >


    This does seem very odd indeed, I use a Casio QV4000 4.1 Mp and I do
    portrait sessions and often print up to 9" x 7" and no sign of any pixels. I
    would agree that the prints are a little softer than those from film but you
    do have to look closely.

    Jem

    ----------------
    My Photopolymer Etchings;
    http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/j/jimread
    Jem Raid, Oct 2, 2005
    #13
  14. On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:08:08 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >bmoag wrote:
    >
    >> I took pictures at a wedding for a relative who had also hired a "semipro."
    >> The semipro used digital, I used film and digital. My finished prints were
    >> better, but not because of the film but because I could do a much better job
    >> of finishing the images in Photoshop and printing them on a high quality
    >> printer. Poor digital image processing and printing is probably all that is
    >> wrong with these wedding pictures and can likely be corrected.

    >
    >I'd love to know the camera settings for JPEG size.


    Who shoots serious work in jpegs? Raw and then 16bit tiffs for
    printing.


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
    John A. Stovall, Oct 2, 2005
    #14
  15. John A. Stovall wrote:
    > On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:08:08 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>bmoag wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I took pictures at a wedding for a relative who had also hired a "semipro."
    >>>The semipro used digital, I used film and digital. My finished prints were
    >>>better, but not because of the film but because I could do a much better job
    >>>of finishing the images in Photoshop and printing them on a high quality
    >>>printer. Poor digital image processing and printing is probably all that is
    >>>wrong with these wedding pictures and can likely be corrected.

    >>
    >>I'd love to know the camera settings for JPEG size.

    >
    >
    > Who shoots serious work in jpegs? Raw and then 16bit tiffs for
    > printing.


    There was a complaint about the quality of the prints. I am guessing
    that he shot low quality JPEGs.

    GAry Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 2, 2005
    #15
  16. It is possible that the files themselves were good but the printing method
    was all wrong.

    In any event, it is really impossible to comment without at least seeing
    some file samples.


    --
    Steven Blackwood


    "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    > technology...
    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    > porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    >
    Steven Blackwood, Oct 2, 2005
    #16
  17. Mr.Happy

    Mr.Will Guest

    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:08:08 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >bmoag wrote:
    > >
    > >> I took pictures at a wedding for a relative who had also hired a

    "semipro."
    > >> The semipro used digital, I used film and digital. My finished prints

    were
    > >> better, but not because of the film but because I could do a much

    better job
    > >> of finishing the images in Photoshop and printing them on a high

    quality
    > >> printer. Poor digital image processing and printing is probably all

    that is
    > >> wrong with these wedding pictures and can likely be corrected.

    > >
    > >I'd love to know the camera settings for JPEG size.

    >
    > Who shoots serious work in jpegs? Raw and then 16bit tiffs for
    > printing.
    >
    >
    > **********************************************************
    >
    > "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    > color of blood in black and white"
    >
    >
    > David Douglas Duncan
    > Speaking on why in Vietnam
    > he worked only in black and white
    > http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/



    I have shot alot of "serious" work in jpeg - but then much of this isn't for
    the arty print sector - but for sports magazines etc.
    Take a look at hoganphotos.com - all the work there, high jpeg settings.

    Mr.Will
    Mr.Will, Oct 3, 2005
    #17
  18. Mr.Happy

    Bryan Olson Guest

    HK wrote:
    > "John H. Holliday" wrote:
    >
    >>"Mr.Happy" wrote:
    >>
    >>>My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    >>>The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    >>>a macro!).
    >>>THEY SUCK!
    >>>I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    >>>new.
    >>>The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    >>>Mr.Turner's network.

    >>
    >>
    >>I saw those pictures. The photog did it that way because the bride was so
    >>ugly...and your brother looks like the south end of a north bound mule...
    >>

    >
    > I'm sure that answers his questions.


    Mr. Happy didn't ask any questions. HK wrote a pretty clever one-up
    on the rant.


    > To add some sorely needed seriousness to this thread, I'm curious if the
    > brother saw previous pics taken with the same camera. Surely he was

    happy
    > with the photographer's work from previous occasions and perhaps the
    > photographer used this DSLR for the first time?? I'd make a
    > "pretend-to-be-a-prospect" call to this photographer and find out the
    > make/model/MP of the DSLR and how used to this camera he/she is.

    Then let
    > us know what you find out. Some of us here will reply with something
    > helpful.


    Pretend to be a prospect? Why be hishonest when the guy shot his
    brother's wedding?


    > Also, if the pics are printed at 300 dpi


    I think you mean "ppi".

    > (many $100,000 photo printers in
    > labs print at 200 dpi, I believe),


    Most are Fuji, Kodak or Noritsu, at 300-400 ppi. Durst Lambda printers
    can do either 400 or 200 ppi, but 200 is meant for large prints.


    > you would need 7.2 MP to be comparable to
    > film (300 x 300 x 8 x 10 / 1,000,000). It shouldn't appear pixelated at
    > that level because any recent DSLR would be 6 MP or more.


    More pixels offer more detail, and not much else. Pixelization in a
    print is a scaling-algorithm problem.


    --
    --Bryan
    Bryan Olson, Oct 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Mr.Happy

    Mark B. Guest

    "Mr.Happy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
    > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
    > a macro!).
    > THEY SUCK!
    > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
    > new.
    > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
    > Mr.Turner's network.
    > I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
    > A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
    > technology...
    > ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
    > development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
    > porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
    >
    > [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
    > taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
    >


    Sounds like it has much more to do with how he post-processed them.

    Mark
    Mark B., Oct 4, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. CNT

    Re: Going from 3 to 4 MP good for 8x10 prints?

    CNT, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    520
    Michael Meissner
    Sep 24, 2003
  2. Rick Warburton

    what scanner for 8x10 MF prints cuz cant afford...

    Rick Warburton, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    415
    Barry Smith
    Oct 30, 2003
  3. Victor81
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,175
    Dave Martindale
    Dec 12, 2003
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    526
    netnews
    Dec 29, 2003
  5. flashlarue
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    714
Loading...

Share This Page