"Actually, I was about to start another digression about the relative merits of Kelvinator vs. Frigidair products.

Michael"


I'm holding out for the new digital freezing process to be perfected. So far it does a better job down to -2% F

This thread reminds me of my Audiophile days. Any Audiophile worth his salt knows that no amount of specsmanship can define or quantify good sound. You have to listen to the gear yourself, pays your money and makes your choices.

This type of discussion falls into that category IMHO. No amount of calculation can substitute for comparing prints in person. Then and only then can you make your choice. Which might not be the same as the person next to you.

i also don't understand all the technical numbers, this is about what looks better, not what registers better in some lab somewhere...we are talking about photography! as much as you can meter colors, no one sees colors the way YOU do....
i am so sick of analog versus digital...when you get to a certain level of digital capture (MF backs) it is simply impossible to tell the difference when looking at a print..if the negative/chrome is scanned...
i guess the heckler wanted to say that a print from a 4x5 neg looks different then an inkjet print from a scanned 4x5 neg....trying to explain that with numbers is just stupid...and so is bringing this issue up here...the results from this extensive test are published on the web or on DVD, either way digital, so why bring a print from negative into it? to scan the print? i think anyone would agree that a scan from a negative will be better than a scan from a print!
so terry i have an idea: why don't you make prints (real, wet) for all of us so we can make a real comparison...and please attach a technical paper explaining how, when and under which light conditions it should be viewed...

" [quote=pss,Jun 22 2006, 02:34 AM]
i also don't understand all the technical numbers, this is about what looks better, not what registers better in some lab somewhere...we are talking about photography!

i am so sick of analog versus digital...when you get to a certain level of digital capture (MF backs) it is simply impossible to tell the difference when looking at a print..if the negative/chrome is scanned..."


I´m with the member "pss" and others regarding pixel debates.

Although it´s nearly off-topic here:

The decisive point for me is, if professional photographers manage to communicate their costs for digital post-production instead of analog photomaterial costs to their clients. For professional preprint companies, who traditionally know how to do their job, there is pracitally spoken no difference preparing scanned files for print-processes or digitally shot files - for a lot of reasons. But instead for photographers and their clients often there is a problem regarding this issue.

Digital technology should be sold with two owner´s manuals. One dealing with the machine and one with negotiating know-how to be able to refinance the stuff within the short time the technology is state of the art. :-)

Og

Hi all, this post (or Michael Reichmann's anti-film reaction) made me register actually...

Photography isn't only about selling and customers etc...
For many people (like me) taking photographs is ART. It is not about making comparisons and watching 100% crops of newspaper pictures all day long like there's nothin else.
I take digital too but for me, the artistic, timeless quality of B&W film is unbeatable.
You're very happy with your 39 mp digital back, well, good for you. But please, stop trying to convince us, people who see photography in other (say the old) way, that digital is better because FOR US, it is not !!



PS. I'm surprised none has comments about RGK's post. I supose because it's so obvious... no contest.


Best Regards
Samuel Axelsson

Well photography never really was about res tests and charts etc....I point my lens at something interesting, least I try too!

Still I guess someone has to do the testing...but not something I find intresting, unless there is some amazing technology out there. Megapixels just aint interesting!

I agree b&w film still has its place, alongside digital...

Say what?

I'm not interested on convincing anyone about anything. I am stating my opinions based on my experience. Nothing more, nothing less. If you disagree, fine, just say so. No need to be acusitory.

I still use film when appropriate. In my view it's becoming quite archaic, but it still occasionally has its place.

Michael

Sorry Michael, that's not the way I see film photography.

BR
Samuel Axelsson

Didn´t notice the www.gigapixl.org post

Here´s a similar project from Europe as visual memory of a region that will become cultural capital of Europe in 2010:

http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de

pictures directly here (german navigation only I´m sorry) - still analogue the most ones, but they´re still there:-)
http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de/themen/index


P.S.:
The Kodak sensor of Phase One is known for color-shift in wideangle performance,
the reason for the sometimes two exposures with opal-glass.
A problem Dalsa (built in sinar, eyelike, mamiya) tried to solve.
We´ll see how it goes on, or if Canon wins the race becuase of its effectivity towards market needs. :-(

Og

Michael,
please, stop trying to convince me, you did already and I love it
and I really like to thank you for all those great informations that you giving me posting them here in some other places, like your excellent DVD,and forget about who don't like your information.

You can't please everyone.....there are the ones that would complain if they were served Ice water in hell……sayin’ it wasn’t cold enough….or didn’t have a twist of lemon……. I find you one of the most honorable Person in photography ……any one doing photography in the way you do, will do just fine..Please keep the great work as always.

BlasR

That is the base of science...

Science or gearmania?

I am a photographer...I capture images...testing isnt part of the recipe..it is a side interest to those who want to look at it..

This isnt science..

Photography is a blend of art, science and magic. You don't need to measure (maybe can't) art and magic.

I have not read the entire thread, but if one were comapring digital and film, why would you compare digital to a digitized film image? Why not make a film image of the digital and compare with a wet print?

Because:

1) Most photographers who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print "dry vs. wet" find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film.

2) Transferring a digital file to film and then making a wet print from the resulting film would not be an accurate presentation of the original digital file. Something would be lost in the transfer to film. (And don't forget reason #1.)

If reason #2 is correct (and I have no doubt that it is), then why should the same not be true of the converse. Scanning of any sort is the weak link in making digital prints from film originals.

Use a digital master printer for the digital, and a darkroom master printer for the film, then compare. Doing it any other way is absuing one method or the other by subjecting it to a process it wasn't designed for.

You're ignoring #1.

Those who work at making the best possible prints from film generally find that they get superior prints from scanning and printing digitally rather than optically.

If you were to make your judgement based on a film/optical print vs. a digital/inkjet print you would be placing the film capture at a disadvantage.

There's so much knowledge contained in this thread, I am in awe

So, you claim photographers "who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print 'dry vs. wet' find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film."

Seems you have assumed that a digital print is superior to a film print in order to prove it. It is always easier to prove something is true is you first assume it is true.

Actually I'm making that statement based on what Michael and Jonathon (among others) have posted on this site along with what Roger Clark has posted.

I've seen no one present any data to the contrary.

MIKE: ARE YOU THE MIKE KELLY OF ADS DAYS, THEN YOUR OWN SPEAKER COMPANY?IF SO, GLAD WE ARE BOTH INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO THE "FILM VS. DIGITAL" FRAY. JACK RENNER

At the risk of incurring the rath of many, it seems logical to me, that if one is comparing film to digital prints, that the film print would be made from the original, not a scan. A wet print compared with a digital print.

Comapring a digital camera file to a scanned film film doesn't seem relavent to me. I cannot see a digital film. I can see a digital print and a film print.

As a complete asside. I have seen that I get better prnts from wet chromes if I first make a color interneg and then print the negative. Any explanation?

Turning to the real world of what people do - and there is no wrath necessary - those who use film but wish to make inkjet prints from film originals will scan the film using a film scanner and then print the digital file which is created by the scanner and scanner software - whether it is negative film, black and white, colour, or positive transparency film. Programs such as Silverfast can handle all of this, and good film scanners can achieve 5400 INPUT PPI or more. A good print resolution is say 360 PPI, so this would allow the large dimension of the print from a 5400 PPI scan to be 15 inches. Good scanning technique of course is required to optimize the quality of the digital file, which means understanding the software and the various adjustments and options it provides for optimizing scan quality. Thereafter it is just a matter of the usual techniques used to derive a good inkjet print from a digital image file. Starting the process by scanning a wet darkroom print is hopelessly inadequate because the resolution of these prints seldom exceeds 200~250 PPI, so you can never get beyond that; as well when you start with film you have all the sharpness and dynamic range of the film, which is far better than anything on paper from a wet darkroom that could be fed into a flatbed scanner.

If you want to make serious comparisons between wet darkroom technology and digital technology, you need to use the techniques that are best adapted to each medium from start to finish, and normalize as many of the variables as possible (very difficult) and see which provides superior quality. While that argument is essentially over with, no harm curious minds trying - but do it in a way that allows each medium to be at its best.

I see. And agree. I think. The test does not really compare a wet print to a digital print.

I guess I have trouble with the need to claim 200-250 ppi for a wet print (or a digital). I can't see that under normal conditions, so why try? I have never been a fan of the 100% comparison on the screen or the nose on the print scrutiny.

I'll clarify a few points for you.

(1) The procedure I suggested does compare a wet print to a digital print. I was only discussing how one normally gets to the end result from the film onward for the digital print.

(2) Human eyesight can resolve something in the neighbourhood of 240/300 PPI from what I've read. You can often begin to see distinct differences in print quality once you print below the bottom of that range. There are other degradations (focus and dynamic range) that would deter you from starting a digital workflow from a paper print. Always start with the film itself. This is universally known and accepted.

(3) No-one is talking about comparing anything on a screen. You compare PRINTS, and you do not use a loupe because people don't look at prints through a loupe (under normal circumstances).

I hope that helps.