Digital BW, The Print

Hi Garry,

Austin is obsessed with technical matters. I'm obsessed with what I see,
and is it good enough for me?

I KNOW that there are many digital cameras that would run rings around a
D60, BUT I never make billboard  size
prints. 12x18 is about as high as I go. And I usually merge several
pictures together, or combine 2 or more shots
for panoramas. The resolution at the 18 inch print is surely as good as
the Hassleblad or Rollei, particularly if you string 2 images together.
The digital files are grainless and have no artifacts. Watch Austin jump
in here to tell me there are hundreds of artifacts in a D60 image. Well
I see NONE, and that's what counts.  The D60 is about all I use now for
everything, and I'm quite happy with it, especially with the 50 and 100
Macro Canon Lenses. If Canon comes out with a D60 replacement that has
11 or 12 megapixels for under $3000, I'll get it. If they don't, I'll
just be happy with what I have. No problem. I have seen many a digital
image in the print exchanges and I can't imagine how anyone can say they
don't equal film.

Jerry




"Garry Sarre " wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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/