why do digital supporters compare it to digitized film?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Henley, May 29, 2004.

  1. Do you have a same-sex, or opposite-sex accountant?
     
    William Graham, May 29, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. So what you are saying is that the pixel size of digital sensing planes has
    now surpassed the molecular size of film emulsions.......Perhaps you are
    right, but I hadn't heard that. I have been running under the impression
    that there was still a 10x difference......I just know for sure that my
    computer screen is much too crude to reproduce my slides with the excellent
    resolution that I get with a loup or a film projector. And, in my case, the
    only practical way I have of viewing anything digital is on this 17" Sony
    Trinitron screen that I am looking at right now....I can see the "grain" on
    this screen without even using a magnifying glass!
     
    William Graham, May 29, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. (Mike Henley) wrote in @posting.google.com:
    Point 1.

    For most purposes the habit of taking 35 mm film photos
    and then printing them using an optical enlarger is more
    or less dead - at least if high quality is the goal.

    Point 2.

    It has been shown that a drum scanner can get more information
    out of a negative than is possible with an optical enlarger.

    Point 3.

    You can do lots of stuff with your picturs if they are digitized;
    stuff that improves the quality and expressitivity of the pictures.

    Point 4.

    The possibility to make a good comparison of the quality of printed
    pictures and presenting it in an unbiased way is almost nil.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, May 29, 2004
    #23
  4. Mike Henley

    Sander Vesik Guest

    no. you could scan the prints.
     
    Sander Vesik, May 29, 2004
    #24
  5. No, what he's referring to is that everyone who has looked closely at 1Ds
    images finds them to be a lot closer to 645 images than to 35mm images. The
    best films that people actually use have an MTF50 of 40 lp/mm or lower. And
    that's just the film. Toss in a lens and a printing system (scanned or
    projection) and the system MTF is lower. Meanwhile the 1Ds coughs up 40
    lp/mm reliably and noise free.
    Film types like to talk about limiting resolution. That may be interesting
    under a microscope, but the contrast is so low and the noise so high that
    that detail can't be used for prints.

    The best 35mm films edge out 6MP digital. Slightly. But the digital has more
    accurate color (smaller hue shifts).
    You could get an Epson R800, Canon i9xxx, or whatever and make prints. Being
    able to make your own prints is very nice. It's what I found interesting
    about photography 1960 to 1980 (I even chose my grad school major based on
    which department had the best darkrooms) and it's what I find interesting
    about it now.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 29, 2004
    #25
  6. My examples on the page below were cibachromes. Now I do
    fuji crystal archive as cibachrome is not longer offered
    on the lightjet where I have prints done.
    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 30, 2004
    #26
  7. It doesn't need to surpass the "molecular size", only the effective
    resolution of the film. Film isn't some homogenous mass with infinite
    detail down to a molecule. Its resolution is limited by its
    formulation, light diffusion and the chemical development process.
    Thus, a 11.1 megapixel 1Ds can indeed produce images with the detail of
    film.
     
    Brian C. Baird, May 30, 2004
    #27
  8. Oh.....I am still learning about this.....I found a reference at:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
     
    William Graham, May 30, 2004
    #28
  9. Mike Henley

    MXP Guest

    Interresting that Ilfochrome can be done on a lightjet. The chemistry is
    probably more
    complicated than using Fuji crystal archive. The Ilfochrome paper has been
    quite expensive.
    So maybe that is the resaon.
    A lightjet is probably to expensive a printer for private use......

    Max
     
    MXP, May 30, 2004
    #29
  10. The cost of production was not the paper but the cost to
    calibrate the system. At Reed Photo in Denver, where I
    got my Ilfochromes done, Mr Reed said it took a third of
    a role of paper to calibrate. That kept the costs
    high. They dropped ilfochrome about 2 years ago.

    The Fuji Crystal Archive is pretty close to the
    ilfochrome in terms of color on the lightjet, and costs have
    come way down. A 16x20 Fuji is now $31.50 if you give them
    a CD that has the image ready to send to the printer.

    If you meant by private use to have the printer yourself,
    probably. I think the cost is a couple hundred thousand.
    I guess it would depend on your income ;-). But for us
    income challenged, we'll just have to go to the photo store.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 30, 2004
    #30
  11. Mike Henley

    andrew29 Guest

    Because the people who use the 1Ds are mainly commercial
    photographers. Producing images for repro is what they do.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, May 30, 2004
    #31
  12. Mike Henley

    MXP Guest

    Is Fuji Crystal Archive a RA-4 process paper?
    The printer probably also required a lot of space....so I stick to
    my Epson 2100 for the moment......

    Max
     
    MXP, May 30, 2004
    #32
  13. Mike Henley

    Don Stauffer Guest

    It seems to me that if one discusses resolution of a given digicam based
    on ISO procedure for measuring resolution, that is the closest way to
    compare digicam resolution with film camera resolution. To me it is
    very close to normal methods of measuring film camera resolution.
     
    Don Stauffer, May 30, 2004
    #33
  14. MXP wrote:


    Yeah, like the size of a king aize bed.
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 31, 2004
    #34
  15. Mike Henley

    Lionel Guest

    Same-sex, so I have no intention of using the same methods of persuasion
    that I use with my girlfriend. ;)
     
    Lionel, May 31, 2004
    #35
  16. Shhhhh...

    Don't try to introduce reason into religious wars.
    ; )

    Chris
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jun 1, 2004
    #36
  17. Mike Henley

    Lionel Guest

    What's the difference between webbifying a scan of a print, vs a scan of
    the film?
     
    Lionel, Jun 1, 2004
    #37
  18. Mike Henley

    Paul H. Guest

    Now THAT's funny! Then we could ask "Do the scans really reflect the
    differences in prints from the two media? At a certain DPI scan, will one
    falsely look better than the other?", resulting in the true-view and
    scan-view people getting into arguments about which methodology REALLY lets
    one judge the merits of digital prints versus those made from negatives.

    Whoopee! You open a can of worms only to discover another can of worms
    inside. Congratulations.
     
    Paul H., Jun 3, 2004
    #38
  19. Mike Henley

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Very simply because most people can't tell the difference.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 6, 2004
    #39
  20. Mike Henley

    Samuel Paik Guest

    Another point--quite possibly the vast majority of consumer prints
    ARE scanned. Many "1 hour" mini-labs (e.g. Fuji Frontier) scan
    the negatives and print from the scans.
     
    Samuel Paik, Jun 7, 2004
    #40
    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.