Professionally printed images - Digital vs 35mm

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by The Frog, Nov 5, 2003.

  1. The Frog

    The Frog Guest

    Hi,

    I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.

    I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
    about 25-30Mg) with the digital.

    I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this may
    not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.

    Any advice would be much appreciated.
    cheers
    Nigel

    ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2 groups
    may be able to shed some light.
     
    The Frog, Nov 5, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Frog

    Ed E. Guest

    You're invoking beliefs from both sides of the battle line.

    How about trying it for yourself? That'll give you the most accurate
    answer.
     
    Ed E., Nov 5, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Frog

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "The Frog"

    >I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    >transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
    >about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
    >
    >I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    >trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this may
    >not be the case. Any advice would be much appreciated.


    You'll get dozens of replies to this variation of film vs digital :) Here's
    mine ...

    For 35 mm we shoot Canon EOS-3 bodies with "L" lenses and fine grained film.
    My wife recently bought a 10D (similar pixel count to your D60 but a generation
    later) and I've shot several scenes with first the film and then the digital,
    using the same "L" zoom lenses (70-200 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 17-35 f/2.8). Then
    I would scan the film on a 4,000 dpi scanner and do all I could in Photoshop to
    get both files as good as possible (I have "Adobe Certified Expert" status in
    Photoshop), and then print on an Epson 2200 at 8 x 10" and 12 x 18".

    I thought digital would do as well or better on portraits but when we shot
    Astia 100F vs the 10D the colors were a bit better and the film images were
    sharper and gave better large prints. The 10D gives very nice prints and it's
    of course very handy to use, but we got even better prints from the film (with
    the extra step of scanning). YMMV depending on how you do the scanning and how
    much Photoshop you know, but for me and my workflow I'll take film for print
    quality, digital for convenience.

    We also shot landscapes on Velvia and the 10D and it's a joke to even compare
    the two here, the Velvia images are so much better it's not even close.

    I like shooting digital and I appreciate the many benefits of instant feedback,
    no film costs, etc etc, but for higher print quality I'll still take film.

    > I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    >better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.


    Maybe you're talking about Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape site, where
    he claims the D60 quality is pushing medium format. I enjoy reading his posts
    and he has a lot of good info on many aspects of photography, but I disagree
    with him on the quality merits of digital vs film. This started with the D30,
    a 3 Mpix body that he claimed gives better prints than Fuji Provia 100F, and
    continued with the D60 and 10D, which he says compares well to medium format
    film. I just don't see it ... in my print tests 35 mm is still slightly ahead
    of digital for portraits and well ahead for landscapes. I also shoot two
    flavors of medium format (6x4.5 cm and 6x7 cm) and the gap between prints from
    these and the 10D is even wider.

    Since you have a film camera and a D60 why not run your own tests, shoot the
    same things in a few situations (a good zoom makes it easy to frame them the
    same) and have prints made from each format and decide what looks best for you.
    That's what I did ... I wish digital WOULD win and I'm sure one day it will,
    but for me that day hasn't arrived yet.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 5, 2003
    #3
  4. The Frog

    The Frog Guest

    Thanks Bill,

    I think the website you mentioned is the one I had seen.

    Now I just need to get off my lazy bottom and take the comparison photos :)

    Nigel
    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "The Frog"

    >
    > >I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    > >transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff

    of
    > >about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
    > >
    > >I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from

    the
    > >trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

    may
    > >not be the case. Any advice would be much appreciated.

    >
    > You'll get dozens of replies to this variation of film vs digital :)

    Here's
    > mine ...
    >
    > For 35 mm we shoot Canon EOS-3 bodies with "L" lenses and fine grained

    film.
    > My wife recently bought a 10D (similar pixel count to your D60 but a

    generation
    > later) and I've shot several scenes with first the film and then the

    digital,
    > using the same "L" zoom lenses (70-200 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 17-35 f/2.8).

    Then
    > I would scan the film on a 4,000 dpi scanner and do all I could in

    Photoshop to
    > get both files as good as possible (I have "Adobe Certified Expert" status

    in
    > Photoshop), and then print on an Epson 2200 at 8 x 10" and 12 x 18".
    >
    > I thought digital would do as well or better on portraits but when we shot
    > Astia 100F vs the 10D the colors were a bit better and the film images

    were
    > sharper and gave better large prints. The 10D gives very nice prints and

    it's
    > of course very handy to use, but we got even better prints from the film

    (with
    > the extra step of scanning). YMMV depending on how you do the scanning

    and how
    > much Photoshop you know, but for me and my workflow I'll take film for

    print
    > quality, digital for convenience.
    >
    > We also shot landscapes on Velvia and the 10D and it's a joke to even

    compare
    > the two here, the Velvia images are so much better it's not even close.
    >
    > I like shooting digital and I appreciate the many benefits of instant

    feedback,
    > no film costs, etc etc, but for higher print quality I'll still take film.
    >
    > > I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    > >better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.

    >
    > Maybe you're talking about Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape site,

    where
    > he claims the D60 quality is pushing medium format. I enjoy reading his

    posts
    > and he has a lot of good info on many aspects of photography, but I

    disagree
    > with him on the quality merits of digital vs film. This started with the

    D30,
    > a 3 Mpix body that he claimed gives better prints than Fuji Provia 100F,

    and
    > continued with the D60 and 10D, which he says compares well to medium

    format
    > film. I just don't see it ... in my print tests 35 mm is still slightly

    ahead
    > of digital for portraits and well ahead for landscapes. I also shoot two
    > flavors of medium format (6x4.5 cm and 6x7 cm) and the gap between prints

    from
    > these and the 10D is even wider.
    >
    > Since you have a film camera and a D60 why not run your own tests, shoot

    the
    > same things in a few situations (a good zoom makes it easy to frame them

    the
    > same) and have prints made from each format and decide what looks best for

    you.
    > That's what I did ... I wish digital WOULD win and I'm sure one day it

    will,
    > but for me that day hasn't arrived yet.
    >
    > Bill
     
    The Frog, Nov 5, 2003
    #4
  5. The Frog

    Bowsér Guest

    Zealots see what they want to see. I've done the comparison, and the best
    prints I've seen are Ilfochromes from chromes. After that, scanned chromes
    produce the best prints, after that, prints from negs, after that prints
    from digital cams. The digicam prints all look flat to me. Not bad, but not
    as good as film. Personally, I wanted to see prints from digicams that were
    better, since that workflow is way ahead of traditional, and just a lot
    easier and more flexible.

    "The Frog" <> wrote in message
    news:bob2hm$kia$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    > then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.
    >
    > I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    > transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff

    of
    > about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
    >
    > I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    > trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

    may
    > not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    > better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.
    >
    > Any advice would be much appreciated.
    > cheers
    > Nigel
    >
    > ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2

    groups
    > may be able to shed some light.
    >
    >
     
    Bowsér, Nov 5, 2003
    #5
  6. This was reinforced for me when I took a walk through PhotoPlus Expo
    here in New York last week. A lot of the (quite large) prints I saw -
    particularly at the Canon booth (where it's a fair bet that the vast
    majority of images on display were digital in origin) - seemed more like
    poster reproductions than photographs, exhibiting what I can only call
    an "insistent pallor". Their size, in fact, seemed almost an attempt to
    compensate for their general dullness (subject matter, in a number of
    cases, didn't help). These expositions are generally more about hardware
    than craft, and more about craft than "art", but the visual bar appears
    to have lowered a bit from previous Expos, IMO.

    - Barrett

    In article <hD9qb.148$>,
    "Bowsér" <> wrote:

    > Zealots see what they want to see. I've done the comparison, and the best
    > prints I've seen are Ilfochromes from chromes. After that, scanned chromes
    > produce the best prints, after that, prints from negs, after that prints
    > from digital cams. The digicam prints all look flat to me. Not bad, but not
    > as good as film. Personally, I wanted to see prints from digicams that were
    > better, since that workflow is way ahead of traditional, and just a lot
    > easier and more flexible.
    >
    > "The Frog" <> wrote in message
    > news:bob2hm$kia$...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    > > then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.
    > >
    > > I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    > > transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff

    > of
    > > about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
    > >
    > > I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    > > trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

    > may
    > > not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    > > better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.
    > >
    > > Any advice would be much appreciated.
    > > cheers
    > > Nigel
    > >
    > > ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2

    > groups
    > > may be able to shed some light.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >


    --
    BWB
    _______________________
    Impatience is virtual
     
    Barrett Benton, Nov 5, 2003
    #6
  7. The Frog

    David Guest

    Hello Bill,
    I was probably the one that mentioned how I was getting great results with
    my D60. I told the group that I was getting great 20x30 prints from
    www.imagestation.com and it started a firestorm. I know what I am looking at
    and the prints they make look great. Better than my Canon ElanII but not as
    good as my 500c/m or Fuji GA645. BUT very sellable prints!!!
    here is a sample. http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_0904.JPG
    I even offered to send Bob Hatch a sample of the 20x30 for his inspection.
    http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_1004.JPG
    David
    www.HollidayPhoto.com
    the image is everything


    Hi,

    I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.

    I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
    about 25-30Mg) with the digital.

    I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this may
    not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.

    Any advice would be much appreciated.
    cheers
    Nigel

    ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2 groups
    may be able to shed some light
     
    David, Nov 5, 2003
    #7
  8. The Frog

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "David" <> wrote in message
    news:Y5aqb.81348$mZ5.556407@attbi_s54...
    > Hello Bill,
    > I was probably the one that mentioned how I was getting great results with
    > my D60. I told the group that I was getting great 20x30 prints from
    > www.imagestation.com and it started a firestorm. I know what I am looking

    at
    > and the prints they make look great. Better than my Canon ElanII but not

    as
    > good as my 500c/m or Fuji GA645. BUT very sellable prints!!!
    > here is a sample. http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_0904.JPG
    > I even offered to send Bob Hatch a sample of the 20x30 for his inspection.
    > http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_1004.JPG
    > David
    > www.HollidayPhoto.com
    > the image is everything
    >
    >

    I know you did. But what you offered to send me was a print from a digital
    camera (D60) to prove that you were getting great prints from your D60. I
    don't need the proof from an outside source because I've printed up to 24 x
    30 from my D60. I don't use an outside source for any print larger than
    8x10. All larger prints are done on my Epson 7600.
    --
    "Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
    so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
    http://www.bobhatch.com
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 5, 2003
    #8
  9. The Frog

    FOR7b Guest

    >Hello Bill,
    >I was probably the one that mentioned how I was getting great results with
    >my D60. I told the group that I was getting great 20x30 prints from
    >www.imagestation.com and it started a firestorm. I know what I am looking at
    >and the prints they make look great. Better than my Canon ElanII but not as
    >good as my 500c/m or Fuji GA645. BUT very sellable prints!!!
    >here is a sample. http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_0904.JPG
    >I even offered to send Bob Hatch a sample of the 20x30 for his inspection.
    >http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_1004.JPG
    >David
    >www.HollidayPhoto.com
    >the image is everything


    Hello David,

    I've been looking for a service to do a 20x30 in the near future. I checked out
    the site but details are few unless you sign up first. You would think it would
    be the other way around. I'm curious as to a few things like what kind of
    photo paper is Sony using? Also what was the final file size that you used? Did
    you upsample the D60 file? Finally, what was your sharpening levels for such a
    size print. Any other details like the type of printer they use and color space
    would be nice if you know that too. Thanks.




     
    FOR7b, Nov 5, 2003
    #9
  10. The Frog

    David Guest

    Hi Bob,
    I did not mean to hit a nerve. I am still waiting on the cat (Caladon?)
    picture I think it was. I would rather send out my images, it is much more
    cost efficient for me. I find my Epson 1280 too slow and expensive to use
    for large photos. IMO
    Talk to you later


    David
    > www.HollidayPhoto.com
    > the image is everything
    >
    >

    I know you did. But what you offered to send me was a print from a digital
    camera (D60) to prove that you were getting great prints from your D60. I
    don't need the proof from an outside source because I've printed up to 24 x
    30 from my D60. I don't use an outside source for any print larger than
    8x10. All larger prints are done on my Epson 7600.
    --
    "Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
    so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
    http://www.bobhatch.com
     
    David, Nov 5, 2003
    #10
  11. The Frog

    Deathwalker Guest

    My digicam colours are better saturated and generally sharper than my 35mm
    slr and dedicated film scanner. I would like to go fully 35mm digital.
    can't spare £3,500 for the 1ds.
     
    Deathwalker, Nov 5, 2003
    #11
  12. The Frog

    Deathwalker Guest

    still like buggering about with film and developing tanks etc just not as
    efficient for work.

    "Bowsér" <> wrote in message
    news:hD9qb.148$...
    > Zealots see what they want to see. I've done the comparison, and the best
    > prints I've seen are Ilfochromes from chromes. After that, scanned chromes
    > produce the best prints, after that, prints from negs, after that prints
    > from digital cams. The digicam prints all look flat to me. Not bad, but

    not
    > as good as film. Personally, I wanted to see prints from digicams that

    were
    > better, since that workflow is way ahead of traditional, and just a lot
    > easier and more flexible.
    >
    > "The Frog" <> wrote in message
    > news:bob2hm$kia$...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    > > then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.
    > >
    > > I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    > > transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a

    tiff
    > of
    > > about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
    > >
    > > I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from

    the
    > > trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

    > may
    > > not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    > > better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.
    > >
    > > Any advice would be much appreciated.
    > > cheers
    > > Nigel
    > >
    > > ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2

    > groups
    > > may be able to shed some light.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Deathwalker, Nov 5, 2003
    #12
  13. The Frog

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "David" <> wrote in message
    news:Iraqb.111981$HS4.968922@attbi_s01...
    > Hi Bob,
    > I did not mean to hit a nerve. I am still waiting on the cat (Caladon?)
    > picture I think it was. I would rather send out my images, it is much more
    > cost efficient for me. I find my Epson 1280 too slow and expensive to use
    > for large photos. IMO
    > Talk to you later
    >
    >

    You didn't hit a nerve. Was I wrong, you were talking about sending me an
    image from a D60, correct?
    --
    "Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
    so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
    http://www.bobhatch.com
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 5, 2003
    #13
  14. The Frog

    Gordon Moat Guest

    The Frog wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    > then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.


    Your choice of printing methods could be more important for your results than
    your choice of film, or camera technology. With inkjet systems, there is always
    a higher dot gain than other printing methods. Dot gain refers to the spreading
    of ink droplets on the paper. To get a better understanding of this, recognize
    that inkjet prints require coated papers to get better results. The coated
    papers minimize the spreading of the ink.

    A side benefit of dot gain is sometimes a better appearance of a continuous
    tone in the colours. However, the downside is reduction in apparent resolution,
    though some use of sharpening can increase edge contrast, and regain some
    impression of the original scene. Since some labs also use inkjet systems for
    their larger prints, this is also a consideration for those not doing there own
    printing.

    >
    >
    > I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    > transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
    > about 25-30Mg) with the digital.


    Again, considering the high dot gain of inkjet systems, often a direct digital
    capture can be a better match for the final image. Since you are using high
    file sizes, carrying some extra storage, a laptop, or many memory cards will
    allow you to make lots of images. WIth film, the amount of images depends upon
    how many rolls of film, though it can be compared to the weight of laptop,
    storage, or other electronic items needed for direct digital imaging.

    As for the image differences, RGB sensors have trouble with Yellow and Cyan,
    while most good transparency films have no trouble in this regard. Getting
    those into the final print, especially Yellow, can be tough with either, but
    film gives you more room to make that range work. Colour differences are often
    bigger than resolution differences, though most people only discuss resolution.
    Considering that few printing systems short of commercial presses even approach
    using the available resolutions of film or digital, it surprises me that more
    people are not concerned about colour differences.

    Another aspect of film choices is that the colour response characteristics will
    be different. Velvia will not capture a scene like Astia, nor E100VS, nor
    E100GX. While you can always alter colours in digital post processing, or even
    in printing, the original response curves can still be apparent in most printed
    outputs. With direct digital, the same post processing is possible, though you
    are tied to the colour response of the one sensor in the camera. This is
    different than the Cyan, Yellow, or other colour range issues, and somewhat
    responsible for a "digital look" in some images. Large expenses of colour, or
    even sky or water areas, can have a different printed appearance, though this
    can be more pleasing to some viewers.

    >
    >
    > I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    > trannies rather than the digital.


    It really depends on the printing system in use. This is the limitation
    dictating which method will work best. You might even find that certain subject
    matter works better with one approach than the other, even with the same
    printing methods. Direct digital and film are really complimentary
    technologies, with advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. I have
    never seen this as an "either - or" choice, and I think that only using one
    approach misses some of the benefits of using the other.

    > Recently though I have read that this may
    > not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    > better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.


    Sounds like Ludicrous Landscape. Opinions abound on apparent quality. Rather
    than use the opinion of another, decide for yourself which results you like
    more. Consider that painting are low resolution, yet people still like them.
    The imagery is much more important than the technology.

    >
    >
    > Any advice would be much appreciated.
    > cheers
    > Nigel
    >
    > ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2 groups
    > may be able to shed some light.


    Unless a particular camera or technology hinders your ability to express your
    creative imagery, then any method of capturing images should be an appropriate
    choice. Try not to get too rapped up in technology, especially since it changes
    so fast. Despite any views of others, I still see cameras as tools. You don't
    need eyes to see, you need vision.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Nov 5, 2003
    #14
  15. The Frog

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Deathwalker" spam

    >My digicam colours are better saturated and generally sharper than my 35mm
    >slr and dedicated film scanner.


    What film are you shooting that's less saturated than digital?
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 5, 2003
    #15
  16. The Frog

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Slower transparency films can have awesome resolution, better than any
    digicam for less then several thousand bucks. You need a very good film
    scanner to take advantage of that much resolution on the film, however.

    BTW, I am one of those who are happy living in both worlds. I have and
    use both digital cameras and film cameras. I have a print scanner, but
    not a film scanner, though I'd like one some day. My best digicam is
    only 3Mp, so if I want a really high res image I do use the film
    camera and scan a print.

    The Frog wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    > then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.
    >
    > I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    > transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff of
    > about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
    >
    > I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    > trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this may
    > not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    > better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.
    >
    > Any advice would be much appreciated.
    > cheers
    > Nigel
    >
    > ps Sorry for cross posting but hopefully someone in either of these 2 groups
    > may be able to shed some light.


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Nov 5, 2003
    #16
  17. The Frog

    Flycaster Guest

    "The Frog" <> wrote in message
    news:bob2hm$kia$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am going on holiday and I want to try and take some photos which I can
    > then print at approx 20"x16" maximum.
    >
    > I have two SLR bodies, a Canon EOS30 and a Canon D60. I use fine grain
    > transparencies with the 35mm camera and RAW format (which produces a tiff

    of
    > about 25-30Mg) with the digital.
    >
    > I was always under the impression that I would get a better print from the
    > trannies rather than the digital. Recently though I have read that this

    may
    > not be the case. I read somewhere that a person using a D60 was getting
    > better prints than his 35mm but not as good as his medium format camera.


    This is just my opinion, based on plenty of my own observations, using a D60
    and an EOS 1 with great glass:

    At that size (20"x16"), film wins hands down in terms of resolution, tonal
    smoothness, and color. At 8x12, the current generation of 6mp cameras are,
    *more or less*, film equivalent, especially as ISO's higher than 100.
    Beyond that, film generated prints will always win upon close comparative
    insepction.

    Having said that, however, there is a significant trade-off in terms of time
    and convenience in favor of the digital cameras. Also, you need to ask
    yourself just how critical you are in terms of quality, or whether the folks
    for whom you are going to make the enlargements will be able to even "see"
    the difference. IOW, what looks marginal to me may look fantastic to you
    and your friends, especially if they have nothing to compare it to.

    Last, anyone that suggests that the current generation of prosumer digital
    cameras (D60, D100, 10D, or SD9), can output MF quality images is smoking
    rope. I wish it were true, and it may someday be, but it's not even close
    yet.

    My suggestion: make a couple of comparative prints and see for yourself.
    If you are satisfied with the D60 images, by all means use it rather then
    the EOS30. The "film" is cheap. :)




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Nov 5, 2003
    #17
  18. The Frog

    Flycaster Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    [snip]

    >We also shot landscapes on Velvia and the 10D and it's a joke to even

    compare
    > the two here, the Velvia images are so much better it's not even close.


    Bill, do you find this to be true irrespective of print size? And if so,
    what's the qualitative difference that cannot be duplicated in Photoshop?




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Nov 5, 2003
    #18
  19. The Frog

    David Guest

    Hello
    I used the image just as it appears on the www.difilm.info dir.
    No correction was done. I am sure Sony interpolated the image, and I do not
    know what type of printer they use. The return shipping address is a San
    Francisco, CA one. Sony is using Kodak Photo paper, it says Kodak
    Professional and is not that thin stuff that we usually associate with a
    poster print. It is thick paper. A 20x30 cost $19.99 16x20 is $16.99. A
    great value. Only thing I don't like is the site seems very slow. I can't
    get it to print lots of pictures all at once. For example, I just recently
    tried to print a wedding I did, I wanted to print 254 images, my browser
    choked everytime until I cut my order size down into 40 picture chunks and
    just keep adding to my shopping cart.
    I am not a spokes person for Sony, just looking for quality and value to
    offer my clients and myself.
    Did I mention .29 cent 4x6 and free shipping with an order of $50.00 or
    more?
    David
    www.HollidayPhoto.com
    the image is everything

    >I was probably the one that mentioned how I was getting great results with
    >my D60. I told the group that I was getting great 20x30 prints from
    >www.imagestation.com and it started a firestorm. I know what I am looking

    at
    >and the prints they make look great. Better than my Canon ElanII but not as
    >good as my 500c/m or Fuji GA645. BUT very sellable prints!!!
    >here is a sample. http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_0904.JPG
    >I even offered to send Bob Hatch a sample of the 20x30 for his inspection.
    > http://www.digifilm.info/images/IMG_1004.JPG


    >David
    >www.HollidayPhoto.com
    >the image is everything


    Hello David,

    I've been looking for a service to do a 20x30 in the near future. I checked
    out
    the site but details are few unless you sign up first. You would think it
    would
    be the other way around. I'm curious as to a few things like what kind of
    photo paper is Sony using? Also what was the final file size that you used?
    Did
    you upsample the D60 file? Finally, what was your sharpening levels for such
    a
    size print. Any other details like the type of printer they use and color
    space
    would be nice if you know that too. Thanks.
     
    David, Nov 5, 2003
    #19
  20. The Frog

    David Guest

    Yes a print. Weren't you going to send me a file?


    You didn't hit a nerve. Was I wrong, you were talking about sending me an
    image from a D60, correct?
    --
    "Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
    so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
    http://www.bobhatch.com
     
    David, Nov 5, 2003
    #20
    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. Phillip Rhodes
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    342
    Eatmorepies
    May 5, 2004
  2. Alan Browne

    35mm slides from digital images

    Alan Browne, Nov 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    717
    McLeod
    Dec 29, 2004
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    710
  4. Progressiveabsolution
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    460
    Bob Williams
    Jun 4, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    314
    Progressiveabsolution
    Jun 3, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page