Digital BW, The Print

Paul, 

How does lens quality enter into the picture? I sometimes shoot (recent) Leica-M lenses. 
They are quite soft towards the corners when compared to MF (Rollei) or LF lenses at the 
same (and even at different) magnification ratios. (All shot at optimum apertures: f/5.6, f/
11, f/22 respectively. The MF comparison holds only for my normal and longish lenses; my 
50mm Rollei is quite bad off center.) The Leica primes also show some barrel distortion, 
much less than other 35mm lenses (which is why I chose them), but still more than I have 
use for in architectural work. So I find that if I want straight lines straight and sharpness in 
the corners, I have to use MF or LF, regardless of whether there is a chip or film in the 
camera. 

Frank





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
> You wrote, in part:
> 
> >...
> > what's possible with his 20D. I could still beat it with the Iskra 6x6 ...
> 
> Yes, especially if fine detail and resolution are most significant.  
> 
> But, the question for me may be: How much of the typical 16 x 20 inch fine
> art image is affected by the resolution beyond what this 8 mp camera can
> capture?  
> 
> I made a set of comparison prints using the Rebel and various medium format
> camera and films.  My sampling of an admittedly limited group of typical,
> educated (but not photo-obsessed) types suggests they don't see much of the
> fine detail advantage that the film technically holds.  
> 
> The limiting factor or artifact that everyone seemed to see the most in my
> sample prints was the grain of the 100 ISO film.  
> 
> "Sharpness" -- from even a close, "book-reading" distance -- is about a draw
> between my unprocessed, Nikon 8000 scanned, medium format film prints and 8
> mp versions.  I can see the difference, but it's probably not going to be
> visible in 16 x 20" real world prints.
> 
> What I have found with my old Tmax 100 medium format negatives is the extent
> to which the grain limited me.  If one looks at the photograph as an
> information medium and what we do as information processing, I want the
> maximum useable information to be accessible to the viewer as easily as
> possible.  For this, I want the best signal-to-noise ratio over the
> "relevant" frequencies.  The relevance of the frequencies is probably a bell
> curve that changes with viewing distance and image size -- and it's probably
> heavily skewed to the lower frequencies in prints that are judged in part on
> their "artistic" merit.  The peak of that bell curve and, perhaps,  95% of
> the area under that curve seem to be well within what the 8 mp Rebel can do
> very easily, even at a 16 x 20 size.
> 
> I'm currently of the opinion that this relatively cheap little Canon Digital
> Rebel XT (aka 350D), even with its 18 - 55 mm II zoom, has just knocked off
> most of my medium format film-camera combos for most situations.  
> 
> The low noise of the Canon sensor is a huge part of the formula.  (I'm not
> sure how good the other sensors are.  I suspect this may be where Canon
> kills Kodak.  I think Kodak poured money into CCD technology, which was once
> thought to be the low-noise leader, but which suffered other disadvantages.
> Among other things, CCD technology has, apparently, not as directly
> benefited from the CMOS microprocessor and memory R&D and advances.)  
> 
> Combining the Canon's inherently low noise I've seen so far with the ease
> with which I can multi-sample on a tripod, and the limiting factor of the
> grain in 100 ISO film virtually kills the currently existing film market for
> me.  My freezer full of TP may be the end of film for me.  
> 
> Of course, the real world use of this camera may change my opinions.
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> > Paul Roark wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >I think MF Tech Pan is still my ultimate in quality, but there is no
> > reason
> > >to bother with MF Tmax 100, which is now the finest grain camera film
> > Kodak
> > >makes since it discontinued Tech Pan.  So, I'm saving the stockpile of TP
> > >for when I really want to go to 22 x 28 or above, and the Rebel is going
> > to
> > >replace my "quick and easy" Fuji GA 645 Zi that used to have higher-speed
> > >film in it for the occasional hand held shot.
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > Printed some color prints of a Canon 20D on the Epson 10000 (MIS 7600
> > inks) with Qimage extrapolation and sharpening. I wasn't surprised by
> > the quality but my customer was very surprised, his 2100 and Photoshop
> > (on a Mac) couldn't use all the information available, now he knows
> > what's possible with his 20D. I could still beat it with the Iskra 6x6
> > and wet mount scans on the Nikon 8000 but it takes a lot more work.
> > 
> > Ernst
> >