Digital BW, The Print

Hi Chris,

>  Hum...how so?  I scan my film, and can do anything to it that you
> an to any
> > digital image...but don't need to, as they come out exactly as I
> want them
> > by simply developing, scanning and printing with quadtone
> inks...except the
> > occasional dust spot which PS so kindly takes care of...I don't
> even need to
> > sharpen.
>
> I use a Kodak Proback on a 645 Mamiya- it produces--without
> upsampling--a 47meg tiff, 13.5x13.5 inches @300dpi, that can be
> enlarged in Pshop easily to 40x40" with remarkable sharpness.

I agree, one of my backs is a 7k x 7k scanning back, and can make some
spectacular enlargements from that.  I have never said the results aren't
spectacular...but don't confuse sharpness with image fidelity (which is
commonly done with people when referring to how "good" digital purportedly
is).  A two pixel camera will give you the sharpest image you can get, yet
has no detail...so sharpness is really not a good indicator of image
fidelity.

> So when you scan, you get the grain, which is not there in the real
> world.

And when you use digital, you get pixelation, which is not there in the real
world.  Both digital and film have "resolution".  The resolution of film per
unit area is greater than that of digital (for the same ISO), at this point
in time (and will probably continue to be so for a while, since when you
reduce the sensor element size, you increase the noise substantially).

> My 40" and larger prints have no grain, and with RAW
> processing in Photoshop CS, no artifacting or color fringing, and
> are arguably sharper than what you would get with a good 8x10 camera
> film scan.

If you are getting only 300PPI over a 13.5" span, that means your back is 4k
by 4k, and 4k over 40" gives you only 100 PPI to the printer.  That's a bit
on the low side.  My experience shows that properly done MF film will
contain more usable image information than 16M Bayer pattern sensors.

> > I would take issue with that, there certainly are deficiencies in
> using a
> > Bayer pattern sensor (and digital in general) over film that are
> quite
> > noticeable.
>
> Austin, what are the deficiencies?

In a nutshell, dynamic range and the Bayer pattern (color fidelity).  The
Bayer pattern sensors only contain %50 sensor elements that are green, %25
blue and %25 red.  That means the color information (some %66 of the final
data!) is interpolated by a Bayer pattern reconciliation algorithm.  Some
algorithms are better than others, and some images degrade less than others,
but the degradation is there.  This, of course, is a reduction in actual
image fidelity over having %100 of all colors...and as a note, the Foveon
does not solve this problem very well, but that is a different story.

Also, unless your back is monochrome (or three shot, or uses a splitter),
you are converting a Bayer pattern image to grayscale (and we are talking
B&W here ;-), which lowers the fidelity even more.

> > I simply scan and print.  That seems like a lot less work to me ;-)
>
>
> Hey, it doesn't take me to do my "process work" as it does to scan
> and spot a neg.

I *rarely* have to spot...that is a matter of environment and practice (as
in, keeping a clean lab), and clicking the mouse button is hardly much work.
If you are fiddling with anything aside from setpoints and tonal curves,
then your process involves more "work" than mine does (most of the time that
is).

> the "tools" that give you
> > the best results for your requirements is what's right for you.
> >
> Absolutley. We all have a unique workflow because we all are
> different critters.Enjoy!

And a some of it is "emotional" as well.  Some people WANT digital (can be
said equally for film as well) to be better than it actually is so as to
justify their use of such.  It has amazed me that for so many years, people
spent so much time getting the highest quality from film/lenses/development
etc. and yet they are so willing to compromise when it comes to digital.  I
am in no way saying that related to what you have said, or any impression I
have of what you said...simply that people, in general, see what they want
to see...and that is true in the digital vs film "debate" as well.

This wasn't supposed to be a digital vs film discussion...

Regards,

Austin