Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Expectation vs. Reality

Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-14 by flambeauriver

I have had a Canon ipF5000 printer for several years.  I like its output just fine, including B/W.  Last week I saw a good price on Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk  at B&H in the ANSI C (17"x22") size.  It occurred to me I had never printed that large and it seemed a waste to have a printer capable of producing prints of that size and not using it.  So I bought the paper and printed out some of my favorite B/W and color photos.  

These were taken with an APS-C camera with a good zoom lens.  No tripod, but a shutter speed near 1/1000 and f/8.  ISO 800 or less. 

The color photos are beautiful, and so are the B/W.  But being the 'artist', I kept looking at them with a very critical eye and as always wondered  "Could these be better?" (I have often wondered at myself when I view photos taken years earlier and squirreled away because they weren't good enough then, yet viewing them with some temporal distance wondering what I found wrong with them since they now look wonderful?)

The B/W were processed with Nik Siver Efex Pro v2.  I didn't use much adjustment.  Then they were completed -- sharpening and noise reduction and printing-- in Lightroom 3.4.  Putting my eye about 3" away from the print they looked mushy, like an older point and shoot digital with way too much noise reduction.  But from viewing distance my partner thinks they are spectacular.

Should I expect better detail on close examination at this large size?  I realize there are plenty of variables here, but the basic one is ANSI C simply too large for an APS-C camera, even if tripod mounted, prime lens at best aperture, minimal processing, etc.

I have in the past examined a number of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston large prints from very close up and they were SHARP.  I realize they were taken with perhaps an 8"x10" and there is no way a small format will compete at that close examination.  I do have both 645 and 6x7 cameras from my film days and wonder--if I want to print at that size, should I return to film and try scanning?

Have I answered my own question?  I'd really appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Dan

Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-15 by pdesmidt tds.net

I use film cameras all the time, mainly 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5.  I also regularly
use a D200.    In my experience, the D200 does not have enough resolution to
give a first rate 16x20" print.  That said, there are higher resolution
cameras out there, such as a 5DMkII, which I expect could give pretty good
16x20s, with a good lens, at a sharp aperture, on a good tripod....  I'm a
professional assistant photographer, and most of the pros I know use the 5Ds
on location.  Their biggest gripe, quality wise, is not with the camera but
with Canon's wide angle lenses, which can get pretty soft in the corners.

Regarding scanning: there are a lot of variables.  If you use film like
Acros in high quality medium format and larger cameras, you can get
outstanding quality, but you need a good scanner, and these aren't cheap.
At a minimum you would need something something like the discontinued Nikon
Coolscan 9000 medium format scanner with MF film.  An Epson V700 with a
better scanner holder might get you to high quality 16x20s from 4x5, but
it'd be close.  A professional scanner, such as a pro flatbed or drum
scanner, would be needed to capture the quality needed for bigger
enlargements.

So you have a number of options:
1) try stitching multiple frames from a digital camera together.
2)  get a higher res digital camera.
3)  learn to like smaller prints.
4)  learn to like looking at large prints from a larger distance.
5)  Investigate film/scanning.

Since you have a 6x7 camera, you could always give it a try.  Rate Acros at
EI 50.  Develop it in something like Pyrocat HD, as it can give higher
resolution than than a non-staining developer.  Don't over-develop.  Send
the film to be scanned by someone who knows what they are doing on a good
scanner.  Adjust and print the file. Compare the print to one made with a
file from a digital camera.  You would then be in the best position to
decide if the hassle and cost of using film is worth it for you.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-15 by E.Neilsen

In my mind your work flow is messed up. First were they RAW ? you speak no
where if your develop process? Noise reduction should be the first thing you
do. Processing an image and then doing NR is pushing bad pixels all over and
then trying to make detail happen. IS the NR in LR the best? perhaps not. Is
the sharpening in LR the best or enough given the file? probably not. Not
all files will go through the workflow that many guru/evangelist for Adobe
are talking about and look spectacular. 
 
When was the last time you checked your printer for output? All the lines,
and nozzle checks print out sharp for that paper? 
 
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
Let's Talk Photography
 
  _____
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
flambeauriver
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality
 
  
I have had a Canon ipF5000 printer for several years. I like its output just
fine, including B/W. Last week I saw a good price on Ilford Galerie Gold
Fibre Silk at B&H in the ANSI C (17"x22") size. It occurred to me I had
never printed that large and it seemed a waste to have a printer capable of
producing prints of that size and not using it. So I bought the paper and
printed out some of my favorite B/W and color photos. 

These were taken with an APS-C camera with a good zoom lens. No tripod, but
a shutter speed near 1/1000 and f/8. ISO 800 or less. 

The color photos are beautiful, and so are the B/W. But being the 'artist',
I kept looking at them with a very critical eye and as always wondered
"Could these be better?" (I have often wondered at myself when I view photos
taken years earlier and squirreled away because they weren't good enough
then, yet viewing them with some temporal distance wondering what I found
wrong with them since they now look wonderful?)

The B/W were processed with Nik Siver Efex Pro v2. I didn't use much
adjustment. Then they were completed -- sharpening and noise reduction and
printing-- in Lightroom 3.4. Putting my eye about 3" away from the print
they looked mushy, like an older point and shoot digital with way too much
noise reduction. But from viewing distance my partner thinks they are
spectacular.

Should I expect better detail on close examination at this large size? I
realize there are plenty of variables here, but the basic one is ANSI C
simply too large for an APS-C camera, even if tripod mounted, prime lens at
best aperture, minimal processing, etc.

I have in the past examined a number of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston large
prints from very close up and they were SHARP. I realize they were taken
with perhaps an 8"x10" and there is no way a small format will compete at
that close examination. I do have both 645 and 6x7 cameras from my film days
and wonder--if I want to print at that size, should I return to film and try
scanning?

Have I answered my own question? I'd really appreciate your thoughts and
comments.

Dan



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-15 by Stephen Petegorsky

Dan:
I think it's very difficult to answer your question, since there are so many variables.  On the one hand, many people are quick to blame their tools for a lack of image quality when they often lack the knowledge or experience to use them to their highest advantage.  On the other hand, there are certainly limitations to any piece of digital equipment, especially to small sensors.

For starters, I think you'd have to ask if it's fair to be looking at the prints from such a close distance.  You might well want to be looking at them from a normal viewing distance for prints that size; if they look good at that distance, why not be happy?  But if you really feel that you might be able to get better quality images, then you could do some experiments.  Do you have access to a camera with a larger sensor, so that you might be able to take the same picture with that and your camera and compare the results, assuming that the settings on each are identical?

I also think it's important to understand that the number of megapixels that a sensor has may not be as important as the size of those pixels.  I used to use a colleague's Sinar back that had only 11 megapixels, but they were so large that the files were amazing, especially in comparison to files from 10 or 12 megapixel sensors in many of today's consumer cameras.

You seem to have eliminated some issues that can lead to a lack of image quality, but I think it's always useful to have the best understanding possible of things like sharpening options and the softening effects of many noise reduction approaches.

Lastly, before you start scanning film, I can tell you that I routinely make 24 x 36" prints made from DSLR cameras (first a Kodak 14NX with a 14 megapixel sensor and now a Nikon D700 with 12 megapixels)) that look great (in all modestly) and sharp close up.  It is not uncommon, when I exhibit these prints, for people to ask if I scanned large-format film or was using a medium-formant digital camera.  I don't feel that I'm doing anything special, just working hard to get the most out of the equipment.

Good luck!
Stephen Petegorsky






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-15 by mikepres999

> 
> These were taken with an APS-C camera with a good zoom lens.  No tripod, but a shutter speed near 1/1000 and f/8.  ISO 800 or less. 
> 
Try shooting with the enlargement in mind. Crop in the camera so you don't have to discard pixels.  Low ISO (eg 100) means less noise so there is no need to perform noise reduction. But it may mean a slower shutter speed and a tripod. Make conscious decisions about DOF.  I stopped using 1A filters on lenses and that helped with quality.  Shooting with RAW makes a huge difference because a RAW file run through raw conversion is more tolerant (within limits) of pixel-pushing without showing artifacts in the enlarged print.  In general, printing large with a file captured with a APS-C sensor means you need to be more conscious of all the small details.   The mistakes and imperfections get enlarged too.  But personally, I enjoy large prints even if they are more challenging.

Re: Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-15 by ben

I am finally able to produce the prints I have wanted to, for all of my 40 year career.  I have shot film as big as 8x10, but never was able to make enlargements of those images that I liked.

I bought a Nikon D3x about 16 months ago.  The first prints that I made with Nikon Zoom and Prime lenses fell short of what I had wished.  The D3x's sensor was better then any of the lenses that Nikon made.  I contact Zeiss, asking for some loaner lenses to try on the Nikon.  What a difference.  The images I am making with the 35mm Distagon are better then I was ever able to get before using any media, with a 35mm like camera.  I just got done printing some 40x60 inch prints on my Epson 9600, and from four feet, they look darn good.  11x17 prints glow with contrast and sharpness; they are almost surreal.

The only thing I have found as good digitally is a Hasselblad using Zeiss lenses and a PhaseOne back.

But the best quality though, are the prints I am making from drum scanned 4x5 negatives.  Film still holds more info, and quality then direct digital capture.  But direct capture has that instant gratification.  Drum scanning film is quite a fuss, and expense.

Ben

Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-16 by Richard Smallfield

Hi Dan,
first of all, it's worth reading a couple of books - Real World Image Sharpening my help you, as may Amadou Diallo's Mastering Digital BW Printing.

Second, when I'm enlarging from my low res DSLR, I add some grain digitally to avoid the 'digital' look and make it look more like Tri-X - the grain gives the eye something sharp to settle on and removes that artificially smooth look one can get from enlarged digital files. 

If, like me, you are stuck with limited equipment, you have to find a way to harness its limitations, so you can get an aesthetic from it which works for you.

Stitching is another solution that was mentioned. I was shooting for 16" square prints from my D70 ... from stitched mosaics of a minimum of twelve frames to give a 5,000 x 5,000 px image (often extra bracketed frames were stacked for extended dynamic range). My gallery manager thought I'd used a Hasselblad.

Since then I went back to film and a Rolleicord - because I could get all the information in one exposure.

Good luck,
Richard 
Richard Smallfield Photography
http://richardsmallfield.com

Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-16 by Ernst Dinkla

While I have a 5D MK II full frame and use it from time to time for 
reproductions I have been quite amazed of some reproduction work of a 
color drawing done with a Pentax K5 + a Sigma 70 mm f2.8 Macro. Four 
stitched takes of a drawing approximately 5x10 feet. Not only does it 
reproduce the color pencil lines well but it also has good color 
fidelity, right from the box. Good enough for a Qimage made print 3 feet 
wide.  Used with diffused daylight and no calibration/profiling done yet 
and more there to fine tune. I advised the purchase of that camera and 
the lens based on testing done by several web sites. I know the quality 
is superior to a one frame shot with my camera + a Sigma 50mm f2.8 
macro, not a bad combination either. Of course I could do it with 
stitching too but considering the price and color quality that K5 
solution is not bad.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-16 by mrjimbo

Jeeze what I great thread.. read it down to Ernst.. so many great little pieces..
Well I'm totally immersed into digital but still shoot 6x7, 6x12, 4x5 and 8x10.. but no chemistry prints all digital.. That will change this year as I want to go wonderfully backwards to P&P prints.. 
Anyway, I think Eric's comments are critical.. You have to know where you want to go and the process needs to be lined up to get you there. Digital cameras will yield a great image say to 24 x 36 that will stand up to quite a bit of critique when processed properly. Their are so many pieces to talk about.. The image must be properly exposed.. Digital actually falls apart pretty quick if your exposure is off. As Eric said if you have any noise in an image that must be dealt with before you push pixels or your just stirring the pot and making it worse.. The very last thing is sharpening and it needs to be selectively.. I always make a sharpening mask and get rid of anything that is not exactly what I want sharpened. If your scanning film the same logic goes.. We have a couple of drum scanners and a great flat bed and basically have been digital from that aspect for a long time. For those using a flat bed ( yuk typically) jump off the curb and try wet mounting and a new input profile .. You will see the difference. 
The viewing distance thing was brought up.. well that's true but if you comparing apples to oranges to see what is the best I stick my nose right in the image I don't care how big it is. If I don't do that I don't have the incentive to raise the bar.. but I do also engage the feel of an image from a proper viewing distance so I can take in it's feel. 
In digital their is a lot to be said for the sensor size I feel.. I have a couple of D2x's and also D3s.. I won't toss my D2x's as their a great work horse for many jobs .. the pixel information in the larger pixel size is truly superior. Actually it often literally amazes me.. I will never shoot 35mm film again but that is as far as that comment goes. 
Stitching today is a true viable reality to raise the bar. It works.. We shoot most artwork with a betterlight but I don't have the big gun so I have to stitch when I get a large piece.. I honestly believe it makes sense to build a wall easel that index's vertically and horizontally to properly do multiple exposures of a piece.. Isn't that what they basically do with a cruise.?. That logic would really open up the use of a DSLR I feel and it's on my list of crazy stuff to do if I don't die first.
Someone made a comment on a lens switch for their Nikon.. I was exposed to this for the first time a few months back.. Man is it true.. Nikon and Canon etc make good lenses but they are production pieces.. but the upgrades aren't cheap.
My fingers are getting sore time to stop...:-)

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: flambeauriver 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:42 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality


    
  I have had a Canon ipF5000 printer for several years. I like its output just fine, including B/W. Last week I saw a good price on Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk at B&H in the ANSI C (17"x22") size. It occurred to me I had never printed that large and it seemed a waste to have a printer capable of producing prints of that size and not using it. So I bought the paper and printed out some of my favorite B/W and color photos. 

  These were taken with an APS-C camera with a good zoom lens. No tripod, but a shutter speed near 1/1000 and f/8. ISO 800 or less. 

  The color photos are beautiful, and so are the B/W. But being the 'artist', I kept looking at them with a very critical eye and as always wondered "Could these be better?" (I have often wondered at myself when I view photos taken years earlier and squirreled away because they weren't good enough then, yet viewing them with some temporal distance wondering what I found wrong with them since they now look wonderful?)

  The B/W were processed with Nik Siver Efex Pro v2. I didn't use much adjustment. Then they were completed -- sharpening and noise reduction and printing-- in Lightroom 3.4. Putting my eye about 3" away from the print they looked mushy, like an older point and shoot digital with way too much noise reduction. But from viewing distance my partner thinks they are spectacular.

  Should I expect better detail on close examination at this large size? I realize there are plenty of variables here, but the basic one is ANSI C simply too large for an APS-C camera, even if tripod mounted, prime lens at best aperture, minimal processing, etc.

  I have in the past examined a number of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston large prints from very close up and they were SHARP. I realize they were taken with perhaps an 8"x10" and there is no way a small format will compete at that close examination. I do have both 645 and 6x7 cameras from my film days and wonder--if I want to print at that size, should I return to film and try scanning?

  Have I answered my own question? I'd really appreciate your thoughts and comments.

  Dan



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-16 by E.Neilsen

Thanks for understanding my piss poor typing from yesterday jimbo.  
 
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
Let's Talk Photography
 
  _____
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:02 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality
 
  
Jeeze what I great thread.. read it down to Ernst.. so many great little
pieces..
Well I'm totally immersed into digital but still shoot 6x7, 6x12, 4x5 and
8x10.. but no chemistry prints all digital.. That will change this year as I
want to go wonderfully backwards to P&P prints.. 
Anyway, I think Eric's comments are critical.. You have to know where you
want to go and the process needs to be lined up to get you there. Digital
cameras will yield a great image say to 24 x 36 that will stand up to quite
a bit of critique when processed properly. Their are so many pieces to talk
about.. The image must be properly exposed.. Digital actually falls apart
pretty quick if your exposure is off. As Eric said if you have any noise in
an image that must be dealt with before you push pixels or your just
stirring the pot and making it worse.. The very last thing is sharpening and
it needs to be selectively.. I always make a sharpening mask and get rid of
anything that is not exactly what I want sharpened. If your scanning film
the same logic goes.. We have a couple of drum scanners and a great flat bed
and basically have been digital from that aspect for a long time. For those
using a flat bed ( yuk typically) jump off the curb and try wet mounting and
a new input profile .. You will see the difference. 
The viewing distance thing was brought up.. well that's true but if you
comparing apples to oranges to see what is the best I stick my nose right in
the image I don't care how big it is. If I don't do that I don't have the
incentive to raise the bar.. but I do also engage the feel of an image from
a proper viewing distance so I can take in it's feel. 
In digital their is a lot to be said for the sensor size I feel.. I have a
couple of D2x's and also D3s.. I won't toss my D2x's as their a great work
horse for many jobs .. the pixel information in the larger pixel size is
truly superior. Actually it often literally amazes me.. I will never shoot
35mm film again but that is as far as that comment goes. 
Stitching today is a true viable reality to raise the bar. It works.. We
shoot most artwork with a betterlight but I don't have the big gun so I have
to stitch when I get a large piece.. I honestly believe it makes sense to
build a wall easel that index's vertically and horizontally to properly do
multiple exposures of a piece.. Isn't that what they basically do with a
cruise.?. That logic would really open up the use of a DSLR I feel and it's
on my list of crazy stuff to do if I don't die first.
Someone made a comment on a lens switch for their Nikon.. I was exposed to
this for the first time a few months back.. Man is it true.. Nikon and Canon
etc make good lenses but they are production pieces.. but the upgrades
aren't cheap.
My fingers are getting sore time to stop...:-)

jimbo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: flambeauriver 
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:42 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

I have had a Canon ipF5000 printer for several years. I like its output just
fine, including B/W. Last week I saw a good price on Ilford Galerie Gold
Fibre Silk at B&H in the ANSI C (17"x22") size. It occurred to me I had
never printed that large and it seemed a waste to have a printer capable of
producing prints of that size and not using it. So I bought the paper and
printed out some of my favorite B/W and color photos. 

These were taken with an APS-C camera with a good zoom lens. No tripod, but
a shutter speed near 1/1000 and f/8. ISO 800 or less. 

The color photos are beautiful, and so are the B/W. But being the 'artist',
I kept looking at them with a very critical eye and as always wondered
"Could these be better?" (I have often wondered at myself when I view photos
taken years earlier and squirreled away because they weren't good enough
then, yet viewing them with some temporal distance wondering what I found
wrong with them since they now look wonderful?)

The B/W were processed with Nik Siver Efex Pro v2. I didn't use much
adjustment. Then they were completed -- sharpening and noise reduction and
printing-- in Lightroom 3.4. Putting my eye about 3" away from the print
they looked mushy, like an older point and shoot digital with way too much
noise reduction. But from viewing distance my partner thinks they are
spectacular.

Should I expect better detail on close examination at this large size? I
realize there are plenty of variables here, but the basic one is ANSI C
simply too large for an APS-C camera, even if tripod mounted, prime lens at
best aperture, minimal processing, etc.

I have in the past examined a number of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston large
prints from very close up and they were SHARP. I realize they were taken
with perhaps an 8"x10" and there is no way a small format will compete at
that close examination. I do have both 645 and 6x7 cameras from my film days
and wonder--if I want to print at that size, should I return to film and try
scanning?

Have I answered my own question? I'd really appreciate your thoughts and
comments.

Dan

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-16 by mrjimbo

I had no trouble at all getting where you were going..

j
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: E.Neilsen 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:43 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality


    
  Thanks for understanding my piss poor typing from yesterday jimbo. 

  Eric Neilsen
  Eric Neilsen Photography
  4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
  Dallas, TX 75226

  www.ericneilsenphotography.com
  skype me with ejprinter
  www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
  Let's Talk Photography

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
  Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:02 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality


  Jeeze what I great thread.. read it down to Ernst.. so many great little
  pieces..
  Well I'm totally immersed into digital but still shoot 6x7, 6x12, 4x5 and
  8x10.. but no chemistry prints all digital.. That will change this year as I
  want to go wonderfully backwards to P&P prints.. 
  Anyway, I think Eric's comments are critical.. You have to know where you
  want to go and the process needs to be lined up to get you there. Digital
  cameras will yield a great image say to 24 x 36 that will stand up to quite
  a bit of critique when processed properly. Their are so many pieces to talk
  about.. The image must be properly exposed.. Digital actually falls apart
  pretty quick if your exposure is off. As Eric said if you have any noise in
  an image that must be dealt with before you push pixels or your just
  stirring the pot and making it worse.. The very last thing is sharpening and
  it needs to be selectively.. I always make a sharpening mask and get rid of
  anything that is not exactly what I want sharpened. If your scanning film
  the same logic goes.. We have a couple of drum scanners and a great flat bed
  and basically have been digital from that aspect for a long time. For those
  using a flat bed ( yuk typically) jump off the curb and try wet mounting and
  a new input profile .. You will see the difference. 
  The viewing distance thing was brought up.. well that's true but if you
  comparing apples to oranges to see what is the best I stick my nose right in
  the image I don't care how big it is. If I don't do that I don't have the
  incentive to raise the bar.. but I do also engage the feel of an image from
  a proper viewing distance so I can take in it's feel. 
  In digital their is a lot to be said for the sensor size I feel.. I have a
  couple of D2x's and also D3s.. I won't toss my D2x's as their a great work
  horse for many jobs .. the pixel information in the larger pixel size is
  truly superior. Actually it often literally amazes me.. I will never shoot
  35mm film again but that is as far as that comment goes. 
  Stitching today is a true viable reality to raise the bar. It works.. We
  shoot most artwork with a betterlight but I don't have the big gun so I have
  to stitch when I get a large piece.. I honestly believe it makes sense to
  build a wall easel that index's vertically and horizontally to properly do
  multiple exposures of a piece.. Isn't that what they basically do with a
  cruise.?. That logic would really open up the use of a DSLR I feel and it's
  on my list of crazy stuff to do if I don't die first.
  Someone made a comment on a lens switch for their Nikon.. I was exposed to
  this for the first time a few months back.. Man is it true.. Nikon and Canon
  etc make good lenses but they are production pieces.. but the upgrades
  aren't cheap.
  My fingers are getting sore time to stop...:-)

  jimbo
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: flambeauriver 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:42 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Expectation vs. Reality

  I have had a Canon ipF5000 printer for several years. I like its output just
  fine, including B/W. Last week I saw a good price on Ilford Galerie Gold
  Fibre Silk at B&H in the ANSI C (17"x22") size. It occurred to me I had
  never printed that large and it seemed a waste to have a printer capable of
  producing prints of that size and not using it. So I bought the paper and
  printed out some of my favorite B/W and color photos. 

  These were taken with an APS-C camera with a good zoom lens. No tripod, but
  a shutter speed near 1/1000 and f/8. ISO 800 or less. 

  The color photos are beautiful, and so are the B/W. But being the 'artist',
  I kept looking at them with a very critical eye and as always wondered
  "Could these be better?" (I have often wondered at myself when I view photos
  taken years earlier and squirreled away because they weren't good enough
  then, yet viewing them with some temporal distance wondering what I found
  wrong with them since they now look wonderful?)

  The B/W were processed with Nik Siver Efex Pro v2. I didn't use much
  adjustment. Then they were completed -- sharpening and noise reduction and
  printing-- in Lightroom 3.4. Putting my eye about 3" away from the print
  they looked mushy, like an older point and shoot digital with way too much
  noise reduction. But from viewing distance my partner thinks they are
  spectacular.

  Should I expect better detail on close examination at this large size? I
  realize there are plenty of variables here, but the basic one is ANSI C
  simply too large for an APS-C camera, even if tripod mounted, prime lens at
  best aperture, minimal processing, etc.

  I have in the past examined a number of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston large
  prints from very close up and they were SHARP. I realize they were taken
  with perhaps an 8"x10" and there is no way a small format will compete at
  that close examination. I do have both 645 and 6x7 cameras from my film days
  and wonder--if I want to print at that size, should I return to film and try
  scanning?

  Have I answered my own question? I'd really appreciate your thoughts and
  comments.

  Dan

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-17 by Daniel Hein

This has been a very helpful thread to me.  Thank you to all who contributed.  Here is my takeaway.  The larger the print, the more technical details become important.  As I stated, I was printing out some of my favorite photos on ANSI C (17" x 22").  Of course my favorite of the bunch was shot about 5 years ago with an older camera.  I notice the ISO was set at 800.  That didn't help matters.  The shutter speed and f stop were OK, but the photo was taken with a zoom lens.  With the luxury to shoot again I'd choose a prime.  The native resolution of the photo printed at that size (20.86" x 12.89") was only 161ppi.  A higher resolution camera, or stitching the photo together with multiple shots, would have been better.  As to the processing, I use Lightroom 3.4.  Listening to Jeff Schewe, who had a hand in the development of that program, I was told LR 3.4 is a 'non-linear' editor, so the noise processing step is not like it would be in Photoshop, a linear editor.  According to Schewe, it is important to do noise reduction early on in PS, but it doesn't make much difference in LR (yell at him, please don't yell at me).

I now know it is possible to print at ANSI C and even larger with an APS-C sensor or with properly scanned film, but the overall resolution is important and so is technique; I know now to 'have my act together' before printing at that size.  But it can be done.

Personally, I have decided to print the photo in question at no larger than 14"x17" and preferably smaller.  In the future, knowing what I want quality wise,  I will be paying much more attention to native printed resolution and include that in my size choice.

If somebody thinks I still have this wrong, or feels I am overlooking something, please say so.

Dan

Re: Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-17 by horstenj

It's by no means the silver bullet but, in addition to all the other factors mentioned, I find the lens sharpness correction of Dxo very valuable. Gives a very noticable increase of sharpness without artifacts.

Joost

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-18 by E.Neilsen

For anyone processing RAW files ( everyone, or nearly everyone)  I think it
really makes sense to try the various processor with your specific files
too. Nikon, Canon, Adobe each have their plus, minuses, and work better on
certain file types. When get too carried away with broad workflow solutions
sometimes and forget to examine the process for where it is doing what. Some
of us spent many years getting it just right with that other medium of film
and now we have a whole new way of making images on paper. It's going to
take some time. 
 
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
Let's Talk Photography
 
  _____
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Hein
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:21 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Expectation vs. Reality
 
  
This has been a very helpful thread to me. Thank you to all who contributed.
Here is my takeaway. The larger the print, the more technical details become
important. As I stated, I was printing out some of my favorite photos on
ANSI C (17" x 22"). Of course my favorite of the bunch was shot about 5
years ago with an older camera. I notice the ISO was set at 800. That didn't
help matters. The shutter speed and f stop were OK, but the photo was taken
with a zoom lens. With the luxury to shoot again I'd choose a prime. The
native resolution of the photo printed at that size (20.86" x 12.89") was
only 161ppi. A higher resolution camera, or stitching the photo together
with multiple shots, would have been better. As to the processing, I use
Lightroom 3.4. Listening to Jeff Schewe, who had a hand in the development
of that program, I was told LR 3.4 is a 'non-linear' editor, so the noise
processing step is not like it would be in Photoshop, a linear editor.
According to Schewe, it is important to do noise reduction early on in PS,
but it doesn't make much difference in LR (yell at him, please don't yell at
me).

I now know it is possible to print at ANSI C and even larger with an APS-C
sensor or with properly scanned film, but the overall resolution is
important and so is technique; I know now to 'have my act together' before
printing at that size. But it can be done.

Personally, I have decided to print the photo in question at no larger than
14"x17" and preferably smaller. In the future, knowing what I want quality
wise, I will be paying much more attention to native printed resolution and
include that in my size choice.

If somebody thinks I still have this wrong, or feels I am overlooking
something, please say so.

Dan



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Expectation vs. Reality

2011-06-18 by EJ Neilsen

We get ..  "When get too:

 

 

 

Eric Neilsen

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

 

 <http://ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1> Let's Talk Photography

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

SKYPE ejprinter
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E.Neilsen
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:20 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Expectation vs. Reality

 

  

For anyone processing RAW files ( everyone, or nearly everyone) I think it
really makes sense to try the various processor with your specific files
too. Nikon, Canon, Adobe each have their plus, minuses, and work better on
certain file types. When get too carried away with broad workflow solutions
sometimes and forget to examine the process for where it is doing what. Some
of us spent many years getting it just right with that other medium of film
and now we have a whole new way of making images on paper. It's going to
take some time. 

Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226

www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
Let's Talk Photography

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
Daniel
Hein
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:21 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Expectation vs. Reality


This has been a very helpful thread to me. Thank you to all who contributed.
Here is my takeaway. The larger the print, the more technical details become
important. As I stated, I was printing out some of my favorite photos on
ANSI C (17" x 22"). Of course my favorite of the bunch was shot about 5
years ago with an older camera. I notice the ISO was set at 800. That didn't
help matters. The shutter speed and f stop were OK, but the photo was taken
with a zoom lens. With the luxury to shoot again I'd choose a prime. The
native resolution of the photo printed at that size (20.86" x 12.89") was
only 161ppi. A higher resolution camera, or stitching the photo together
with multiple shots, would have been better. As to the processing, I use
Lightroom 3.4. Listening to Jeff Schewe, who had a hand in the development
of that program, I was told LR 3.4 is a 'non-linear' editor, so the noise
processing step is not like it would be in Photoshop, a linear editor.
According to Schewe, it is important to do noise reduction early on in PS,
but it doesn't make much difference in LR (yell at him, please don't yell at
me).

I now know it is possible to print at ANSI C and even larger with an APS-C
sensor or with properly scanned film, but the overall resolution is
important and so is technique; I know now to 'have my act together' before
printing at that size. But it can be done.

Personally, I have decided to print the photo in question at no larger than
14"x17" and preferably smaller. In the future, knowing what I want quality
wise, I will be paying much more attention to native printed resolution and
include that in my size choice.

If somebody thinks I still have this wrong, or feels I am overlooking
something, please say so.

Dan

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.