Digital BW, The Print

Jerry & Austin

I know you two old codgers like to butt heads so I am sure this wont 
make any difference to you but... there is really no dis-agreement 
here, you're just on different wavelengths. It is very obvious that 
Austin is right about the 'detail', it's pure logic. What we are 
talking about Jerry, is that the 'conjured detail' is good enough 
for your work.. as it is mine.

Jerry, I gather you use the D60 for portrait... I switched over from 
Hasselblad with softar filter for portrait to a D60 and I do get 
more 'apparent' detail, that is - I can see my silhouette 
beautifully in my subjects eyes where with the Blad it was pretty 
noisy with all the grain and fibres floating around in the chemistry.

I step interpolate up from the raw files to around 200mb when 
necessary. I think that Austin would agree that approximately 97% of 
that image would be purely 'computer conjuring'. It seems to do a 
nice job at this in photoshop as I have printed to 24x36 from the 
D60 and see no limit in size for portrait. Before I am dismissed 
here, I am talking of aesthetics, not original detail. I know it is 
calculated. It is calculated amazingly well. At times I see a 
diagonal hair that is very fine that I KNOW is below the threshold 
of the original pixels in camera. It is illusion. For my work, the 
illusion works beautifully.

I printed traditionally for 27 years including cibachromes in 1977. 
My cibachrome processor I made out of a sewing machine motor and 
cast iron. I have not found a printer (as in person)that prints to 
my satisfaction. Not to boast but to show that I take my printing 
very 
seriously far and above what the public demands.

The combination of the CMOS D60 (beautiful smooth skin tones) and 
the 9600 printing sepia (predominantly) onto photorag with matte 
black has brought back the enthusiasm that I was beginning to lose.

I would never go back to traditional for my style of work. If I 
required original,true and exacting detail, I would go to a scanning 
camera or film.

Garry Sarre


www.sarre.com.au
> 
> > Austin, I don't care about arithmetic, numbers or bayer 
patterns. I only
> > can tell you what my eye sees. That's
> > good enough for me.
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> > Before I got my D60 camera, many people said it
> > couldn't possibly equal film at 12x18 inch film print. I think 
you were
> > among them. Well it can.
> 
> Well, no.  It couldn't then and it can't now.  It equals it in 
size, but not
> fidelity.  It simply can't, and doesn't.  Your sole criteria for 
image
> "goodness" is sharpness, which is really a singular and mostly 
irrelevant
> criteria for image fidelity (again, in this case).  I know you 
don't
> understand that, and that is why we always butt heads on this.  To 
YOU it
> looks better, by your criteria of observation, and I understand 
that, but
> that that doesn't make it universally better, nor is your criteria 
the same
> as everyone else's.
> 
> > And I will not get into a debate with you as
> > you will only say that's impossible. Sorry, but it is possible 
and my
> > prints prove it to anyone who has seen them.
> 
> Who knows what you are comparing, Jerry, or what your criteria 
is...but for
> sure, it's probably this mythical "sharpness".
> 
> > And there was no pixelation in the comparison prints I saw.
> 
> I'm sure there wasn't.  It was highly manipulated.
> 
> > Remember it
> > was a comparison between a 9 megapixel chip (foveon)
> 
> No.  The Foveon (at least the one we are discussing) is a THREE M 
pixel, not
> 9.  You are confused about what a pixel is and isn't.
> 
> > and a 6 megapixel
> > chip (Canon). I assume these pictures were upsized with General 
Fractals
> > or some other program like it.
> 
> And with great care, at least for the Foveon image.
> 
> > I always upsize mine to 240 DPI at ouput
> > resolution for photographs. I know you say they couldn't 
possibly be as
> > good, I must lose all kinds of detail when I do this, but I 
don't.
> 
> You don't lose detail, you just don't get any more by upsizing.  
If you take
> two images.  One from a 3M pixel camera, upsize it to say 9 M 
pixels.  Then
> compare it to a 9M pixel image, the 9M pixel image will have a lot 
more
> detail.
> 
> > Nobody could tell that if they were upsized or not. I'm only 
speaking of
> > 12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper here. Not billboards.
> 
> Er, I probably could.  I do it all the time.  The issue is, if you 
don't
> know what detail isn't there, you don't know that it's missing.  
Sharpness
> does not require detail, they are two entirely different things.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin