Digital BW, The Print

Austin, as I have said so many times, My digital images are VERY sharp,
and full of shadow and highlight detail. The D60 is better than the D30
at both. The images are as sharp as I'll ever need or want them up to 20
inches. (with the D60). They will easily equal film. You say they won't.
I have them side by side and say they will. they do. I don't know how
else to tell you. I'm of course talking about maximum sharpened digital
images. I sharpen as much as I can get without showing any artifacts. I
have many different methods of sharpening, and some work better with
some images than others. I'm 100 percent satisfied with my D 60 images
to 20 inches. They absolutely equal provia scanned film at 4000 DPI.  IF
you haven't actually tried this with the D60 and an Epson 1280, please
don't tell me film is better. It isn't. We just have to agree to disagree.



Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> > James, assuming you know how to process and sharpen it to its maximum
> > quality, I'd say about 14x20 inches, or so would equal any iso 100 film.
> 
> As you can well imagine, I dispute that...
> 
> > This camera
> > could certainly replace MOST of your film camera shooting. (Unless you
> > are talking 4x5 or larger negs).
> 
> And I'd say most any MF camera will provide higher quality images, not
> simply 4x5.
> 
> >
> > The D30 could make a 12x18 of a closeup of a cat that was sharper than
> > film...
> 
> Does that include scanned film, that is also sharpened???
> 
> > Medium Format is another story. How sharp are the medium format lenses?
> > How good is your scanner? How picky are you? I'm obsessed with
> > sharpness, so I demand a SHARP print.
> 
> You can sharpen scanned images too...and if comparing sharpness, you really
> need to compare UNSHARPENED raw images (if the camera can be made to do so)
> with film directly to determine which is sharper natively.  Of course, it's
> not really "fair" to compare a sharpened digital camera image with an
> unsharpened film image, but I have no problem comparing my unsharpened
> Leafscan scanned Hasselblad images with any digital camera images...they are
> more than comparable in the sharpness arena, and far better in the detail
> and tonality arena.
> 
> > I don't think its up to medium format Hasselblad at 4000 DPI for 16x20
> > inch prints,
> 
> Nor is it up to a 2540 Hasselblad image at 16 x 20 ;-)
> 
> > as it will probably take 12 megapixels to do that.
> 
> I'd say a lot more than that...
> 
> > ...you could easily get a 3x5 foot print from the D60 that
> > would be tack sharp at that distance.
> 
> As I've said a hundred times, sharpness is NOT a property of the number of
> pixels/sensors at all.  You can get a tack sharp image from a two pixel
> sensor...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/