DSLR v Consumer Image quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by oink, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. oink

    Scott W Guest

    Keep in mind that the magazine it most likely printed at somewhere
    around 180 dpi. some might go a bit above that and no magazine that I
    know of goes past 300 dpi.

    Which color laser printer are you using?

    What magazine were you looking at. I would dare say that even my 8 x 10
    from the F828 will be clearly that what is in your magazine and
    certainly a 8 x 10 from the 20 would be.

    The difference is that the magazine is printing gray level and you
    laser is not. My printer's resolution is 4800 x 1200 dpi BTW.


    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. oink

    rafeb Guest


    As well you should.

    Come back with a link to your
    own work before you criticize
    others'.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafeb, Feb 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    And I think he'll be stunned when he sees your answer.
    When a person can't name a media by touch when blindfolded, might not
    be able to tell what resolution something was printed at, discern the
    size of negative/sensor used by osmosis, or tell archival ink vs
    regular stuff just by the smell makes them *normal* that's all.

    Whether it bothers you or not isn't the issue, it's the fact you made
    the discrimination.

    An eye for art has little to do with being able to discern the paper
    it's on. Art students may need to know this so they can rip-off each
    other's work and such, but the general public, the viewers, the people
    we are trying to please can *and should* remain completely clueless
    because ... that's right... *it doesn't matter*.

    It's the image that counts and the emotion it brings, not the
    technology that was used to produce it. You think it's the technology
    that matters, 'the eye for art' which is why I called you a nerd.

    You are probably the type of person who would appreciate Rembrandt's
    paintings more if he had a little palette at the bottom of each one
    explaining the mixtures of bird turd and squid he had to use to make
    the colors. For the rest of us, we just like to stand back and admire
    *the image*.

    BTW, I do like nerds, there is nothing wrong with them, but it can
    help them sometimes when you point out extremely nerdy behaviors they
    have.
     
    Owamanga, Feb 24, 2005
  4. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    Naa, this is much more fun!

    You plug it, I'll critique it.
     
    Owamanga, Feb 24, 2005
  5. oink

    rafeb Guest


    Actually, I should thank you.
    You identified a few weak images
    (out of several hundred) that
    deserved to be yanked.

    All of which demonstrates that even
    a sophomoric coward can be useful.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafeb, Feb 24, 2005
  6. oink

    bob Guest

    Throw a page of text from TIME magazine on a table and compare it to any
    300 dpi laser. The magazine is clearly printed at a much higher
    resolution than 300 dpi.
    HP 4650n
    How much text do you print from your F828? The point isn't that you need
    2400 dpi to pick up the edges, and it's not that the overwhelming
    majority of a photograph can't be rendered at a bit over 100dpi and look
    just fine (in continuous tone).

    The point is that if you have a small detail with a hard edge, the eye
    can see the difference between 600dpi and 2400 dpi. If you take a decent
    16x20 print from a 4x5 negative and show it next to *any* digital print
    you will be able to see that the print from 4x5 has more detail, because
    the hardware that the digital print comes from just can't render detail
    as finely as a 4x5 negative.

    No it's not. I don't think I've ever seen a magazine that wasn't printed
    in 4 color process. The fact that you *think* you see gray is because
    the resolution is high enough that you don't see the halftone screen.
    The laser is even better at printing grey fields than the magazine.
    What's lacking is the ability to clearly render the light blue text in
    the field.
    Different way of counting. If you have a 6 color inkjet then 4800 is
    roughly like 800 dpi on a laser.

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 24, 2005
  7. oink

    rafeb Guest

    Owamanga wrote:


    Where exactly do you obtain the
    authority to speak for "the rest
    of us?"

    I think it's time for you to put
    up or shut up. Where are your
    wondrous images? What museum?
    What gallery? What publication?



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafeb, Feb 24, 2005
  8. oink

    Scott W Guest

    I am with Rafe on this one, their is little to be gained by criticizing
    someone else's work, particularly if we are talking about the
    technical merits of technique and not style. And I agree with him that
    if you are feel the need to criticize the least you could do is post
    your link.

    Owamanga, much of what you have said makes sense but when you take a
    cheap shot like you did it diminishes your position over all.

    Scott


    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 24, 2005
  9. oink

    Scott W Guest

    I am with Rafe on this one, their is little to be gained by criticizing
    someone else's work, particularly if we are talking about the
    technical merits of technique and not style. And I agree with him that
    if you are feel the need to criticize the least you could do is post
    your link.

    Owamanga, much of what you have said makes sense but when you take a
    cheap shot like you did it diminishes your position over all.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 24, 2005
  10. oink

    bob Guest

    By your definition, all great photographers would necessarily be nerds.
    I disagree. Some great photographers are cool.
    If you cannot tell the difference between a good print and a bad one,
    then you cannot become a good artist. Being a good artist requires one
    to be able to see the difference. Being an artist requires technique.
    You can't refine your technique until you learn to see.

    "the eye for art" includes such skills as being able to pick a good
    composition from a weak one, being able to discern hue and luminance.
    You can't be a very good photogrpaher with abilities such as these.

    The technology that makes an image is very important to one who would
    like to create images.
    You are probably the type of person who thinks that throwing random gobs
    of paint at a canvas is the work of an artist.
     
    bob, Feb 24, 2005
  11. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    You sit 3ft away from the screen?

    It's not a damn TV.
    ...or is it?
    Okay, but how many people bring loupes?

    <laughing>

    It's crazy. I'll have to go to more of these exhibitions and spend my
    day telling people not to be so damn anal about the grain or detail,
    step back and suck up some emotion instead.
    Subject matter being thin black vertical lines? ..or text? Okay.

    Anyway what's arms length? Let me see, if you sit 3ft away from your
    screen, is this because you have 7ft arms?

    If you can do this on normal photos, I think it's quite a feat.
    The thread, "DSLR v Consumar Image" is about APS or full-sized (35mm)
    sensor cameras compared with digicams. LF is not in scope for the
    purposes of this thread and is therefore irrelevant.

    I guess you are also a fan of optical enlargements, and will argue
    that they are better than today's laser-based digital enlargements.
    The resolution and screen size matter too. But generally you've
    doubled my 15" guess, so halved? (my trig is bad) the apparent size.
    You running at 200% is like me running at 100%... Roughly.
    Grain was an example, like pixilation. I'm trying to imagine, what
    kind of issues can you only see at 200% that will ruin the print?
    Yes, but by the same logic, I'd argue they *don't matter*. Unless I've
    got Mr Loupe coming round for lunch, who cares if the diamonds are
    flawed? Normal people can't see them, so they are for all practical
    uses, 'perfect'.
    Yes it does. Exactly that, it becomes apparent, and suddenly now
    starts to matter. In that respect, it didn't exist (and still doesn't)
    in the 8x10 but does exist in the 20x24. I'll still argue that it
    won't show in the 20x24, because you are supposed to stand further
    away to view it.

    But if the viewing distance doesn't change, the hunt for flaws of this
    nature should only be executed when printing at 20x24 when they might
    show, not the 8x10 when they don't show.
    Okay, but you see my point, this is one subject matter where you can
    pull out the loupe and still be considered sane. It's a special case.
    You must have the contrast cranked. Regardless of what the
    books/spiders/software/web say about how to calibrate your monitor,
    you've either got to calibrate the room lighting to match (read:
    increase significantly), or tone it down a little and learn the (now
    bigger) difference between it and the print. If you are doing graphics
    work for significant portions of the day, you should be able to set up
    the room where the monitor can be closer to you and not cause you
    harm.
    Better resolution means a 3000 pixel wide print is going to be much
    smaller on the printer than it is on the screen. I fail to see how you
    think that makes any pixel-level flaws show up more on the print - it
    doesn't, the print actually helps hide them.

    Printer has better dmax yes, and zooming doesn't change the dmax of
    your monitor does it? so this is irrelevant.
    Okay, but this all supports my original point.

    LOOK AT THE PRINT, NOT THE MONITOR.

    You've just given me two new arguments for this reasoning. Thanks.
     
    Owamanga, Feb 24, 2005
  12. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    Hey, it was a joke!

    Rafe, keep the caterpillar one, I like it.
     
    Owamanga, Feb 24, 2005
  13. oink

    bob Guest

    We sit on the other side of a 15' room to watch TV. Call it 11'. That's
    a 19" set.
    You don't have any photos with thin black vertical lines? I take photos
    of buildings, and they are replete with thin black vertical lines.

    FWIW though, it's the curved and angled lines where the difference
    really stands out.

    Mostly it's actually a little further than arms length -- It's noticing
    stuff on the conference table as I walk up to it.
    Most? No. Define normal. Is Ansel Adams work "normal?" If you honestly
    can't see the difference between an 8x10 contact print and *any* digital
    print you should probably give up photography.
    We were discussing the future of printer technology. In this respect,
    the quality of LF prints, to use as a basis of comparision, is
    completely relevent. It shows how lacking current printing technology
    is, and how much better it might become.
    Most labs that do color work seem to have fogged lenses in their
    enlargers, so it's kinda hard to compare. Optical enlargemnets of LF
    negatives beat current laser based wet prints hands down.

    So in practice we're actually not that far apart.

    I didn't say they would ruin the print. I said if I was aware of any
    flaws (even if they didn't show up in small prints) I would work on not
    having them present in the future.

    Just a moment ago you said they didn't exist, and now you say they
    "become aparent." How can it possibly it "become aparent" if it doesn't
    exist?
    I thought we were discussing viewing digital files on a computer.
    "Supposed to?" Who invented that rule. We already established that only
    *some* people behave that way.

    That's an assbackwards way of learning technique.
    It's the eyes that are the issue. Eyeglasses more likely. It's just not
    comfortable to focus so closely.

    Because at 100% my monitor doesn't resolve all the detail. It's that
    simple.

    It changes my ability to discern areas that are close, tonally. If you
    have two splotches that are close in tone, if you make them larger it's
    easier to see the difference.
    Glad to help! Given the relative cost differences though, I'll continue
    to evaluate my images on the monitor prior to making prints.

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 24, 2005
  14. oink

    Scott W Guest

    The text may be higher resolution but the screened photos will be
    below 300 dpi, I would guess TIME to be at or below 200 dpi.
    Not a bad printer at all, the reviews say that it beats some Inkjets
    for photo quality.
    A print from a 1Ds Mark II would look very clean, I think it would be
    hard to tell the difference. But then that was not the discussion at
    hand, we were talking about whether you need to make a print in order
    to judge the quality of a photo. My position is that in fact you do
    need to make a print since two photos that will look very different on
    the screen can look the same when printed out at a give size. The size
    that I was discussing was 8 x 10 prints. I posted a link to two photos,
    one from a 20D, very clean sharp photo and the other a photo from the
    Sony F828, not so sharp and rather noisy, but when both these are
    printed at 10 x 8 they look the same as far as sharpness. I think the
    Sony colors are a bit closer but that is just a matter of adjustments
    in the raw converter. I have put these photos out for anybody to print
    with their printer so they can see for themselves. You could print
    these on your laser and see if you can tell the difference.

    By gray level I mean that at each dot the intensity can be adjusted by
    the size of the dot, something neither your or my printer does.
    I am not sure what you are trying to say here, even thou your laser is
    good, as color lasers go, it can't match the photo quaility of a good
    Inkjet printer.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 25, 2005
  15. oink

    Stacey Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    But this is only true if it's "canon noise". Any other system's noise make
    the image unusable and low quality...
     
    Stacey, Feb 25, 2005
  16. oink

    Stacey Guest

    And how much of this "stuff" would you see on this either? These pixels
    are so small, you're not going to see this "100%" stuff you see on a
    1280X1024 monitor.
     
    Stacey, Feb 25, 2005
  17. oink

    Stacey Guest

    Owamanga wrote:


    Bingo! You understand what's important, the technoheads just can't get past
    doing the techno thing, even with their photography!
     
    Stacey, Feb 25, 2005
  18. oink

    Stacey Guest

    Neither do I.

    And for that matter, other atributes of a camera system are more important
    that what the image looks like at 200% mag on screen but that's how people
    seem to judge "image quality" rather than looking at a print hanging on a
    wall judging the WHOLE image?
     
    Stacey, Feb 25, 2005
  19. oink

    Stacey Guest


    Hmm where have I heard this =RANT= before?
     
    Stacey, Feb 25, 2005
  20. oink

    Stacey Guest

    bob wrote:


    If they can do it and produce something that is pleasing for me to look at,
    yes they are.
     
    Stacey, Feb 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.