Digital BW, The Print

Hi Jerry,

> Hi Austin,
>
> > >   Quality for 13x19 inch prints equals
> > >   film with the D60.
> >
> > Equals WHAT film?  Not ALL film, that's for sure.
>
> Certainly NOT!
>
> Austin, you obviously see quality in scans I don't see. My D30 gives me
> extremely sharp,

Of course.  Line art images are extremely sharp too, but they have no detail
or tonality ;-)  To me, sharpness isn't an indication of "good" or
"quality".  If there were tones in the original image that aren't duplicated
in the recorded image, information has been lost...though the image may be
very sharp.

> detailed closeups. It equals provia 100, or supra 100,
> or Reala 100 etc. I've made the side by side tests.

What size prints?  For a 4x6, no doubt, and for even some 8x10, but for a 13
x 19, well, been there, done that...have some on my photo board.  Not even
close.

> Believe me when I tell you the
> 13x19 inch print is great.

It depends on what you mean by "great".  It WILL be sharp, but it WILL not
contain the same detail as a print made from film.  It physically can not,
and really doesn't.  I've been doing this (digital imaging) for a long time,
and I have a number of digital cameras.  I know the results.  The D-30 isn't
magic.

> I just don't care what the technical data
> says. I have the prints, and I know what I see.

Same here.

> I know that the D60 will
> be much better than the D30, and I'm completely satisfied with the D30,
> for closeups. I'm quite sure the D60 will give me the results I need in
> landscape photography.

If you believe it works for you, that's good!  I am not saying it doesn't
work for you, as only YOU know that.  But, I'm saying your conclusions as to
"quality" aren't the same as mine.

> Remember, I'm only talking about 13x19 prints.

Me too ;-)

> When you rez the D30 up to 240 DPI for the 13x19 inch prints, I really
> can't see any loss in quality. You say there is, in detail, that it just
> can't be as good.

Well I CAN see the loss in "quality", as well as many other people can.  If
sharpness is your primary indication of "quality", then you're going to have
a different conclusion than someone who has some other property as their
primary indication of quality.  "rezzing up" an image does NOT provide
detail that simply is not there in the first place in the recorded image.

> I am happy with the camera, and I guess this is all that matters to me.

Bingo!  And that's what matters to you.

> No, I never EVER said in all circumstances. I'm talking closeups, ( Cat
> portraits), and Extremely sharp lenses here.

There's actually something "funny" about that.  Sharp lenses mean nothing on
this camera.  The issue is there is a "low pass" filter (some call it
"anti-aliasing" filter) between the lense and the CCD.  Why this is
important to understand is this filter actually "dumbs down" the lense so
the MTF of the lense matches the CCD pitch.  The sharpness of the lense, on
that camera, really doesn't matter...you'd probably get equally as good a
result with a Sigma or Tamaron etc. lense, than a high end piece of glass,
as far as "sharpness" goes that is.

> There is a big difference
> between Top grade glass and average lenses, and it really shows
> up in digital.

Actually, that's is not true, as I stated above.  Most of the web sites that
talk about this stuff acknowledge this readily.  Even DPReview says that the
D-60 is probably the first digital camera (as far as the 35mm-esque
varieties) that the lense might actually matter ;-)

Regards,

Austin