Digital BW, The Print

To anyone with a D60 camera and the battery grip....

When held in the vertical position, there is a second shutter. Mine
doesn't work, and I was wondering if there is a setting somewhere that
you have to set for this.  
Thanks!

Jerry

>To anyone with a D60 camera and the battery grip....
>
>When held in the vertical position, there is a second shutter. Mine
>doesn't work, and I was wondering if there is a setting somewhere that
>you have to set for this. 
>Thanks!
>
>Jerry

Look for a little on/off switch on the grip.


-- 
Jean-Michel Paris

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

If you look around on the  grip itself there is a on/off switch that 
activates the shutter release button function of the grip

jesse

Ahh, Thanks!

Jean-Michel Paris wrote:

> 
> >To anyone with a D60 camera and the battery grip....
> >
> >When held in the vertical position, there is a second shutter. Mine
> >doesn't work, and I was wondering if there is a setting somewhere that
> >you have to set for this.
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Jerry
> 
> Look for a little on/off switch on the grip.
> 
> --
> Jean-Michel Paris
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Jerry,

So you have a D60. As many of us are probably looking for the digital camera
that could replace our film cameras for MOST of our shooting, could you give
us your opinion of the D60. What is the largest print you could make from
your D60 that would beat a print of that size made from tmax 100 35mm? And
Tmax 100 medium format?

Thanks,

Jim Klebau  

On 7/20/02 8:54 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> Ahh, Thanks!
> 
> Jean-Michel Paris wrote:
>> 
>>> To anyone with a D60 camera and the battery grip....
>>> 
>>> When held in the vertical position, there is a second shutter. Mine
>>> doesn't work, and I was wondering if there is a setting somewhere that
>>> you have to set for this.
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Jerry
>> 
>> Look for a little on/off switch on the grip.
>> 
>> --
>> Jean-Michel Paris

James, assuming you know how to process and sharpen it to its maximum
quality, I'd say about 14x20 inches, or so would equal any iso 100 film.
Of course there would be no grain.  Closeups would be sharper than film,
landscapes about equal. I've not done a lot of testing, but I took many
shots today, and this coming week, I'll know a lot more. This camera
could certainly replace MOST of your film camera shooting. (Unless you
are talking 4x5 or larger negs).

The D30 could make a 12x18 of a closeup of a cat that was sharper than
film, but had a problem with distant landscapes. Today, I shot a bunch
of closeups and landscapes, with my new D60 and tomorrow I'll start
printing to see how good the camera really is. 

Medium Format is another story. How sharp are the medium format lenses?
How good is your scanner? How picky are you? I'm obsessed with
sharpness, so I demand a SHARP print.  An average person would be in 7th
heaven with the quality of a canon D60. 

I don't think its up to medium format Hasselblad at 4000 DPI for 16x20
inch prints,
as it will probably take 12 megapixels to do that. But again, are you
looking at your large prints from inches away, or several feet?  If its
several feet, you could easily get a 3x5 foot print from the D60 that
would be tack sharp at that distance.

Jerry

Thanks for the excellent answer.

I shoot with a Leica M6 and a Hasselblad. I scan on a UMAX Powerlook 3000 -
max res is 3048 pixels. Not the best for 35, but quite nice for medium
format. 

I appreciate that you said that you are still evaluating. I have been
shooting professionally my life --  for about 50 years -- so my requirement
for "sharp" is probably rather demanding. From what you said, I would think
the D60 could replace my M6 - although I would have to wait and see how the
D6 with a very fast lens would compare to my Summilux 1.4 35mm focal length
lens. I wonder if Canon makes a 1.4 that would equate to a 35mm focal length
lens on a 35mm film camera.

It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.

Thanks for your help.

Jim

On 7/22/02 7:48 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> James, assuming you know how to process and sharpen it to its maximum
> quality, I'd say about 14x20 inches, or so would equal any iso 100 film.
> Of course there would be no grain.  Closeups would be sharper than film,
> landscapes about equal. I've not done a lot of testing, but I took many
> shots today, and this coming week, I'll know a lot more. This camera
> could certainly replace MOST of your film camera shooting. (Unless you
> are talking 4x5 or larger negs).
> 
> The D30 could make a 12x18 of a closeup of a cat that was sharper than
> film, but had a problem with distant landscapes. Today, I shot a bunch
> of closeups and landscapes, with my new D60 and tomorrow I'll start
> printing to see how good the camera really is.
> 
> Medium Format is another story. How sharp are the medium format lenses?
> How good is your scanner? How picky are you? I'm obsessed with
> sharpness, so I demand a SHARP print.  An average person would be in 7th
> heaven with the quality of a canon D60.
> 
> I don't think its up to medium format Hasselblad at 4000 DPI for 16x20
> inch prints,
> as it will probably take 12 megapixels to do that. But again, are you
> looking at your large prints from inches away, or several feet?  If its
> several feet, you could easily get a 3x5 foot print from the D60 that
> would be tack sharp at that distance.
> 
> Jerry
> 
>

> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.

I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
I thought they'd look at poster sizes.

That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
better texture.

I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.

Hi,.
I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy a
Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
What do you think about it ?.
Regards
Aitor

El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribió:

>> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
>> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
> 
> I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
> pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
> lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
> I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
> 
> That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
> better texture.
> 
> I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Hi ... i own the E-10 and have had my hands on E-20. it comes nowhere close to the D100 or D60. D100 is a great camera and excellent value for money. in image quality it comes quite close to the kodak dcs 645 pro back that i am very comfortable with.

but E-20 is not good value for money. the E-10 was (and is) ... so is D100 which i can reccomend gladly

cheers

veniamin kostitsin
http://www.digitalimage.at

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: aitor Peсa Inclбn 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question


  Hi,.
  I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
  it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
  not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy a
  Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
  What do you think about it ?.
  Regards
  Aitor

  El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribiу:

  >> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
  >> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
  > 
  > I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
  > pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
  > lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
  > I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
  > 
  > That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
  > better texture.
  > 
  > I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 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
  > 
  > 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/
  > 
  > 


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       

  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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Hi,
He argue that the D100 is based on the F80, one of the worst AF camera Nikon
have ever made....


80El 23/7/02 12:17, "Veniamin Kostitsin II" <principe@...>
escribió:

> Hi ... i own the E-10 and have had my hands on E-20. it comes nowhere close to
> the D100 or D60. D100 is a great camera and excellent value for money. in
> image quality it comes quite close to the kodak dcs 645 pro back that i am
> very comfortable with.
> 
> but E-20 is not good value for money. the E-10 was (and is) ... so is D100
> which i can reccomend gladly
> 
> cheers
> 
> veniamin kostitsin
> http://www.digitalimage.at
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: aitor Pe?a Incl?n
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question
> 
> 
> Hi,.
> I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
> it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
> not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy a
> Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
> What do you think about it ?.
> Regards
> Aitor
> 
> El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribi?:
> 
>>> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
>>> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
>> 
>> I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
>> pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
>> lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
>> I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
>> 
>> That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
>> better texture.
>> 
>> I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>             ADVERTISEMENT
>            
>      
> 
> 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
> 
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

yes, the body is loosely based on the F80. but make your own judgement - go out there and compare the handling, the speed, the image quality and not to mention the lens range of the E-20 and of the D100

if the E20 is better suited to you - so be it, even with the E10 i have printed excellent 20x30 portraits (with lots of work that is) which people do not recognize as digital. the E20 is a nice camera, but slow in terms of capture speed, writing times ... and the iso-range is not really impressive. if i had to choose between E20, D60 and the D100 without knowing the price - i would definitely would go for nikon. 

you also have another option : the Fuji S2 which is coming out soon and which in my opinion is wirth considering.

cheers

veniamin kostitsin
http://www.digitalimage.at/

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: aitor Peсa Inclбn 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question


  Hi,
  He argue that the D100 is based on the F80, one of the worst AF camera Nikon
  have ever made....


  80El 23/7/02 12:17, "Veniamin Kostitsin II" <principe@...>
  escribiу:

  > Hi ... i own the E-10 and have had my hands on E-20. it comes nowhere close to
  > the D100 or D60. D100 is a great camera and excellent value for money. in
  > image quality it comes quite close to the kodak dcs 645 pro back that i am
  > very comfortable with.
  > 
  > but E-20 is not good value for money. the E-10 was (and is) ... so is D100
  > which i can reccomend gladly
  > 
  > cheers
  > 
  > veniamin kostitsin
  > http://www.digitalimage.at
  > 
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: aitor Pe?a Incl?n
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:11 PM
  > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question
  > 
  > 
  > Hi,.
  > I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
  > it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
  > not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy a
  > Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
  > What do you think about it ?.
  > Regards
  > Aitor
  > 
  > El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribi?:
  > 
  >>> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
  >>> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
  >> 
  >> I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
  >> pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
  >> lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
  >> I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
  >> 
  >> That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
  >> better texture.
  >> 
  >> I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 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
  >> 
  >> 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.&quot;
  >> - 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/
  >> 
  >> 
  > 
  > 
  >       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >             ADVERTISEMENT
  >            
  >      
  > 
  > 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
  > 
  > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 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
  > 
  > 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/
  > 
  > 


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       

  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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

> I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
> it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
> not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy
a
> Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
> What do you think about it ?.


I don't quite understand the logic of what you were told. The D100 offers
comparible quality to the D1x, but costs half the price. The E20 is a decent
camera and costs a bit less than the D100, but it doesn't offer the same
quality as the D100.

The D100 hasn't been released yet, where did you get yours?

Jerry




aitor Pe\ufffda Incl\ufffdn wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> He argue that the D100 is based on the F80, one of the worst AF camera Nikon
> have ever made....
> 
> 80El 23/7/02 12:17, "Veniamin Kostitsin II" <principe@...>
> escribi\ufffd:
> 
> > Hi ... i own the E-10 and have had my hands on E-20. it comes nowhere close to
> > the D100 or D60. D100 is a great camera and excellent value for money. in
> > image quality it comes quite close to the kodak dcs 645 pro back that i am
> > very comfortable with.
> >
> > but E-20 is not good value for money. the E-10 was (and is) ... so is D100
> > which i can reccomend gladly
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > veniamin kostitsin
> > http://www.digitalimage.at
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: aitor Pe?a Incl?n
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question
> >
> >
> > Hi,.
> > I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
> > it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
> > not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy a
> > Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
> > What do you think about it ?.
> > Regards
> > Aitor
> >
> > El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribi?:
> >
> >>> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
> >>> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
> >>
> >> I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
> >> pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
> >> lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
> >> I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
> >>
> >> That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
> >> better texture.
> >>
> >> I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >             ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Olympus only has 1/640th of a second for their top shutter speed. No
interchangeable lenses. Pincushion and Barrel distortion is evident with
the lens.

If these don't bother you, the E20 does take very sharp photos!

Jerry

aitor Pe\ufffda Incl\ufffdn wrote:

> 
> Hi,.
> I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
> it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
> not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy a
> Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
> What do you think about it ?.
> Regards
> Aitor
> 
> El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribi\ufffd:
> 
> >> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
> >> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
> >
> > I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
> > pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
> > lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
> > I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
> >
> > That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
> > better texture.
> >
> > I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

The Oly will also sync flash at 1/640th sec, very handy for outdoor fill
flash.

Speaking of flaxh sync, how do you connect studio flash to a D100? I haven't
seen mention anywhere of a PC socket...

-BK

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question


> Olympus only has 1/640th of a second for their top shutter speed. No
> interchangeable lenses. Pincushion and Barrel distortion is evident with
> the lens.
>
> If these don't bother you, the E20 does take very sharp photos!
>
> Jerry
>
> aitor Pe\ufffda Incl\ufffdn wrote:
> >
> > Hi,.
> > I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum
about
> > it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended
me
> > not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to
buy a
> > Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
> > What do you think about it ?.
> > Regards
> > Aitor
> >
> > El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribi\ufffd:
> >
> > >> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can
get a
> > >> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
> > >
> > > I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They
look
> > > pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two.
The
> > > lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better
than
> > > I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
> > >
> > > That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and
shows
> > > better texture.
> > >
> > > I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>

Jim,

I think that canon makes a 24mm f 1.4 lens that would be about 37 mm on
a 35mm camera. All canon's L lenses are Super sharp. The Canon  50mm 1.4
was rated sharper than the Summilux, at 1/10th the price, so you don't
have to get Leica lenses for sharpness. A long time ago, Leica and Zeiss
lenses were sharper than any others. This is no longer the case today. 
It may surprise you to know that Tokina makes the Rolleinar lenses for
the SLR Rolleiflexes. Tamron makes the Bronica Lenses. Both are very
sharp lenses indeed.

This afternoon I'm going to print some of the tests I made yesterday
with the D60, and will let you know the results.

> I shoot with a Leica M6 and a Hasselblad. I scan on a UMAX Powerlook 3000 -
> max res is 3048 pixels. Not the best for 35, but quite nice for medium
> format.

I don't know if the D60 will equal that if you are scanning at 3000 DPI
with Hasselblad lenses. That combination should be great. It all depends
on how picky you are. I have a friend, who does fine art photographs,
uses Minoltas and their lenses, never ever worrys about sharpness, and
makes 4x6 foot prints. They are beautiful, when you stand back a few
feet. As long as you don't get out a loupe and view the prints from 2
inches, I think you'll be very happy indeed with the D60. Especially if
you have any of the super sharp canon macro lenses!

Jerry

Also, If you have not been using digital, there is a tremendous "Fun"
factor. You will begin having a LOT of fun again.

Jerry Olson  wrote:
> The D100 hasn't been released yet, where did you get yours?

Calumet has them in. A friend of mine was on the waiting list and got a call today 
that it's ready to be picked-up.

John V

All depends on the subject matter, Moreno. I have the Canon EOS 1N, and
the D30 can equal the sharpness of Provia film scanned at 4000 DPI, for
CLOSEUPS. I have side by side prints that show that.  (at 12x18 inches).
The D60 will, of course be much sharper yet.

Some subjects will be better resolved by film, others by digital, others
make no difference at all.

Jerry



Moreno Polloni wrote:

> 
> > It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
> > VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
> 
> I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
> pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
> lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
> I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
> 
> That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
> better texture.
> 
> I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

> All depends on the subject matter, Moreno. I have the Canon EOS 1N, and
> the D30 can equal the sharpness of Provia film scanned at 4000 DPI, for
> CLOSEUPS. I have side by side prints that show that.  (at 12x18 inches).
> The D60 will, of course be much sharper yet.
>
> Some subjects will be better resolved by film, others by digital, others
> make no difference at all.

We've gone through this before, Jerry. Let's just say you and I have
different opinions.

El 23/7/02 16:38, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribió:
> 
> I don't quite understand the logic of what you were told. The D100 offers
> comparible quality to the D1x, but costs half the price.
 
May be offers the same image quality but is like compare a F80 with a F5.
Not the same camera...
I assume that the D100 is a wise option because the digital word goes very
quick. I think now is better to spend in good lenses than in good cameras.

>The E20 is a decent
> camera and costs a bit less than the D100, but it doesn't offer the same
> quality as the D100.
> 
Yes, it cost a bit less but with a "good" lens. The cost of the D100 is for
the body only. And as far as the quality all depend of the lenses you use,
and the best Nikon zoom lenses are not cheap...and the affordable Nikon zoom
lenses... I doubt they are better that the lens mounted in the E20. I know
the lens is not removable, but this protect the CCD of dust.
Otherwise, it was only a thought, I don't have a clear idea about the best
worthwhile option.
Best
Aitor

At 09:19 AM 7/23/2002, Jerry wrote:
>The D100 hasn't been released yet, where did you get yours?

Adorama is advertising them. They say they are on "allocation." They will 
take your order and not bill your card until the camera ships.

Stan

Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

My local camera store (Schiller's in St. Louis, MO) got 10 or 12 D100s 
about two weeks ago.  All had been pre-ordered by customers, and all 
were picked up within 24 hours.  They don't know when they'll get the 
next batch - I believe they have a dozen or more still on order.  No 
accessories have arrived yet - I'm particularly waiting for the grip and 
some extra batteries, and they have no idea when they will be available.

FWIW, a D100 shot I took last week of Biltmore House (Asheville, NC) 
made as pretty a B&W 8x10 print (in terms of resolution, contrast, 
brilliance, etc.) as I've ever made from film in my darkroom.  I do not 
believe that I would have been able to do nearly as well with film, 
given the contrast range of the scene.  The image was captured as a 
large JPEG (~2.5 Mb file) and the print was made using PS7 with only a 
bit of adjustment to Levels, then desaturating and printing the 
resulting file on Ilford Smooth Gloss paper in a Canon S9000 printer 
using the regular Canon inks.  The detail is exquisite, and the tone is 
frankly better (to my eyes and for my purposes) than anything I've done 
with Piezo or with Lyson Small Gamut inks on my Epson 860, and with no 
muss or fuss - just send it to print.  The Canon is also 4-5 times 
faster than the old Epson, and has separate cartridges for each of the 6 
inks - I've replaced the Photo-Cyan and Photo-Magenta cartridges already 
(been doing a lot of "testing") but the other 4 are still fine.

Overall, I am thrilled with the D100 and the Canon printer.  It is now 
quite possible that I will not make chemical prints again.

Cheers,
Kip

Jerry Olson wrote:

> The D100 hasn't been released yet, where did you get yours?

It has been on sale in Vienna for about 10 days now ... if not available in the shop the delivery is usually 2 working days

cheers

veniamin kostitsin
http://www.digitalimage.at/

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jerry Olson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 5:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question


  The D100 hasn't been released yet, where did you get yours?

  Jerry




  aitor Peсa Inclбn wrote:
  > 
  > Hi,
  > He argue that the D100 is based on the F80, one of the worst AF camera Nikon
  > have ever made....
  > 
  > 80El 23/7/02 12:17, "Veniamin Kostitsin II" <principe@digitalimage.at>
  > escribiу:
  > 
  > > Hi ... i own the E-10 and have had my hands on E-20. it comes nowhere close to
  > > the D100 or D60. D100 is a great camera and excellent value for money. in
  > > image quality it comes quite close to the kodak dcs 645 pro back that i am
  > > very comfortable with.
  > >
  > > but E-20 is not good value for money. the E-10 was (and is) ... so is D100
  > > which i can reccomend gladly
  > >
  > > cheers
  > >
  > > veniamin kostitsin
  > > http://www.digitalimage.at
  > >
  > > ----- Original Message -----
  > > From: aitor Pe?a Incl?n
  > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:11 PM
  > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question
  > >
  > >
  > > Hi,.
  > > I also have think in purchase a D100. But I asked in a spanish forum about
  > > it, and someone who seems to know well all the Nikon stuff. Recomended me
  > > not to do it. He told me that if I can afford the D1x is more wise to buy a
  > > Olympus E-20 that will give me the same quality for half price.
  > > What do you think about it ?.
  > > Regards
  > > Aitor
  > >
  > > El 23/7/02 05:17, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> escribi?:
  > >
  > >>> It will be good news to find out if your testing shows that you can get a
  > >>> VERY sharp 16X20 print from the D60.
  > >>
  > >> I've seen samples of the D100 and the D60, blown up to 20x30. They look
  > >> pretty good for digital, and the quality is similar between the two. The
  > >> lack of grain makes everything look smooth, and the images look better than
  > >> I thought they'd look at poster sizes.
  > >>
  > >> That being said, I still think 35mm film resolves more detail and shows
  > >> better texture.
  > >>
  > >> I'd be curious to see how the D100/D60 fare with B&W.
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> 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
  > >>
  > >> 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/
  > >>
  > >>
  > >
  > >
  > >       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  > >             ADVERTISEMENT
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > 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
  > >
  > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > 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
  > >
  > > 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/
  > >
  > >
  > 
  > 
  > 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
  > 
  > 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/

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       

  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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

> The image was captured as a
> large JPEG (~2.5 Mb file) and the print was made using PS7 with only a
> bit of adjustment to Levels, then desaturating and printing the
> resulting file on Ilford Smooth Gloss paper in a Canon S9000 printer
> using the regular Canon inks.  The detail is exquisite, and the tone is
> frankly better (to my eyes and for my purposes) than anything I've done
> with Piezo or with Lyson Small Gamut inks on my Epson 860, and with no
> muss or fuss - just send it to print.  The Canon is also 4-5 times
> faster than the old Epson, and has separate cartridges for each of the 6
> inks - I've replaced the Photo-Cyan and Photo-Magenta cartridges already
> (been doing a lot of "testing") but the other 4 are still fine.

Interesting you should mention that. A friend of mine (with a lot more
digital printing experience than I have) has spent a fair bit of time
comparing the 1280 and Canon 9000. His results are similar to yours. He
prefers the Canon. I've seen his prints and they look great, every bit as
good as anything I've seen coming out of the Epson. I guess we'll just have
to wait and see how the 2200 fares compared to the Canon.

I have been using the D100 now for about a week. Preliminary verdict: 
very good images! Makes excellent 12x18 prints on a 1280 with MIS FS-
N inks. Quality of images is at least as good as my standard workflow 
which consists of: Fujichrome Provia 100F + Nikon LS 2000 scanner 
(scanned at full 2700 dpi, 12 bits).

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Stan McQueen <stan@s...> 
wrote:
> At 09:19 AM 7/23/2002, Jerry wrote:
> >The D100 hasn't been released yet, where did you get yours?
> 
> Adorama is advertising them. They say they are on "allocation." 
They will 

> take your order and not bill your card until the camera ships.
> 
> Stan
> 
> Photography by Stan McQueen
> http://www.smcqueen.com

We do. And side by side comparisons confirm I am right about this.

Jerry

Moreno Polloni wrote:

> 
> > All depends on the subject matter, Moreno. I have the Canon EOS 1N, and
> > the D30 can equal the sharpness of Provia film scanned at 4000 DPI, for
> > CLOSEUPS. I have side by side prints that show that.  (at 12x18 inches).
> > The D60 will, of course be much sharper yet.
> >
> > Some subjects will be better resolved by film, others by digital, others
> > make no difference at all.
> 
> We've gone through this before, Jerry. Let's just say you and I have
> different opinions.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Jerry,

> James, assuming you know how to process and sharpen it to its maximum
> quality, I'd say about 14x20 inches, or so would equal any iso 100 film.

As you can well imagine, I dispute that...

> This camera
> could certainly replace MOST of your film camera shooting. (Unless you
> are talking 4x5 or larger negs).

And I'd say most any MF camera will provide higher quality images, not
simply 4x5.

>
> The D30 could make a 12x18 of a closeup of a cat that was sharper than
> film...

Does that include scanned film, that is also sharpened???

> Medium Format is another story. How sharp are the medium format lenses?
> How good is your scanner? How picky are you? I'm obsessed with
> sharpness, so I demand a SHARP print.

You can sharpen scanned images too...and if comparing sharpness, you really
need to compare UNSHARPENED raw images (if the camera can be made to do so)
with film directly to determine which is sharper natively.  Of course, it's
not really "fair" to compare a sharpened digital camera image with an
unsharpened film image, but I have no problem comparing my unsharpened
Leafscan scanned Hasselblad images with any digital camera images...they are
more than comparable in the sharpness arena, and far better in the detail
and tonality arena.

> I don't think its up to medium format Hasselblad at 4000 DPI for 16x20
> inch prints,

Nor is it up to a 2540 Hasselblad image at 16 x 20 ;-)

> as it will probably take 12 megapixels to do that.

I'd say a lot more than that...

> ...you could easily get a 3x5 foot print from the D60 that
> would be tack sharp at that distance.

As I've said a hundred times, sharpness is NOT a property of the number of
pixels/sensors at all.  You can get a tack sharp image from a two pixel
sensor...

Regards,

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> All depends on the subject matter, Moreno. I have the Canon EOS 1N, and
> the D30 can equal the sharpness of Provia film scanned at 4000 DPI, for
> CLOSEUPS.

As I've said a hundred times, if not a thousand...why on earth are you
comparing sharpened images with unsharpened images and saying the sharpened
ones are shaper?  No kidding.

> I have side by side prints that show that.  (at 12x18 inches).
> The D60 will, of course be much sharper yet.

Well, no, not if you sharpen BOTH images the same...

> Some subjects will be better resolved by film, others by digital, others
> make no difference at all.

No.  Currently FILM resolves more, period, not debatable.  "Resolving" has
NOTHING to do with sharpness.

Regards,

Austin

Jerry,

> The Canon  50mm 1.4
> was rated sharper than the Summilux, at 1/10th the price, so you don't
> have to get Leica lenses for sharpness.

Sharpness is only one of many characteristics of a lense.  The Summilux
(both the 75 and the 50) are kings of 35mm bokeh (rendering of the out of
focus area) in most people's opinion, who care about bokeh that is...  Some
people don't, or don't even know it can be controlled.  They are both older
designs, the newer 24, 35 and 90 lense are on par or better in sharpness
with other manufacturers offerings.

> A long time ago, Leica and Zeiss
> lenses were sharper than any others. This is no longer the case today.

It still is the case today, but not for ALL lenses.  Again, sharpness is not
the only characteristic, and sharpness where?  Edges, flat from center to
edge?  It's simply not that simple to simply say "sharper" and have it be
meaningful in comparison.

> It may surprise you to know that Tokina makes the Rolleinar lenses for
> the SLR Rolleiflexes.

I will ask on the Rollei list and see if this is true, but to my knowledge,
it is not.

> Also, If you have not been using digital, there is a tremendous "Fun"
> factor. You will begin having a LOT of fun again.

Er, huh?

Regards,

Austin

Jerry,

I believe you are comparing sharpened images with unsharpened images, and,
rightly so, claiming they sharpened images are sharper.  I simply don't
believe that is a legit comparison.

Personally, I do not sharpen any of my images, and I absolutely guarantee
you my images are as sharp as you can get.

Another misnomer is what sharpness is.  If you have less tonality in the
image, you will get sharper images, simple as that.  Line art images are
sharp as a tack...only pure black, and pure white...no tones in between.

Austin

> We do. And side by side comparisons confirm I am right about this.
>
> Jerry
>
> Moreno Polloni wrote:
> >
> > > All depends on the subject matter, Moreno. I have the Canon
> EOS 1N, and
> > > the D30 can equal the sharpness of Provia film scanned at
> 4000 DPI, for
> > > CLOSEUPS. I have side by side prints that show that.  (at
> 12x18 inches).
> > > The D60 will, of course be much sharper yet.
> > >
> > > Some subjects will be better resolved by film, others by
> digital, others
> > > make no difference at all.
> >
> > We've gone through this before, Jerry. Let's just say you and I have
> > different opinions.

Austin, as I have said so many times, My digital images are VERY sharp,
and full of shadow and highlight detail. The D60 is better than the D30
at both. The images are as sharp as I'll ever need or want them up to 20
inches. (with the D60). They will easily equal film. You say they won't.
I have them side by side and say they will. they do. I don't know how
else to tell you. I'm of course talking about maximum sharpened digital
images. I sharpen as much as I can get without showing any artifacts. I
have many different methods of sharpening, and some work better with
some images than others. I'm 100 percent satisfied with my D 60 images
to 20 inches. They absolutely equal provia scanned film at 4000 DPI.  IF
you haven't actually tried this with the D60 and an Epson 1280, please
don't tell me film is better. It isn't. We just have to agree to disagree.



Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> 
> > James, assuming you know how to process and sharpen it to its maximum
> > quality, I'd say about 14x20 inches, or so would equal any iso 100 film.
> 
> As you can well imagine, I dispute that...
> 
> > This camera
> > could certainly replace MOST of your film camera shooting. (Unless you
> > are talking 4x5 or larger negs).
> 
> And I'd say most any MF camera will provide higher quality images, not
> simply 4x5.
> 
> >
> > The D30 could make a 12x18 of a closeup of a cat that was sharper than
> > film...
> 
> Does that include scanned film, that is also sharpened???
> 
> > Medium Format is another story. How sharp are the medium format lenses?
> > How good is your scanner? How picky are you? I'm obsessed with
> > sharpness, so I demand a SHARP print.
> 
> You can sharpen scanned images too...and if comparing sharpness, you really
> need to compare UNSHARPENED raw images (if the camera can be made to do so)
> with film directly to determine which is sharper natively.  Of course, it's
> not really "fair" to compare a sharpened digital camera image with an
> unsharpened film image, but I have no problem comparing my unsharpened
> Leafscan scanned Hasselblad images with any digital camera images...they are
> more than comparable in the sharpness arena, and far better in the detail
> and tonality arena.
> 
> > I don't think its up to medium format Hasselblad at 4000 DPI for 16x20
> > inch prints,
> 
> Nor is it up to a 2540 Hasselblad image at 16 x 20 ;-)
> 
> > as it will probably take 12 megapixels to do that.
> 
> I'd say a lot more than that...
> 
> > ...you could easily get a 3x5 foot print from the D60 that
> > would be tack sharp at that distance.
> 
> As I've said a hundred times, sharpness is NOT a property of the number of
> pixels/sensors at all.  You can get a tack sharp image from a two pixel
> sensor...
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Simple Austin.  You can't sharpen a provia slide before you print it in
the darkroom on let say, a cibachrome type paper. You get it as sharp as
your enlarging lens allows. 

You CAN sharpen digital images, and quite a bit when it comes to the D60
and D30.

All I care about is the final print. and THAT is sharper with my digital
images than with darkroom images.  

I suppose you could use the unsharp mask when printing 35mm color
prints, but I REALLY couldn't be bothered with the hassle that that
would be, nor would I ever devote that much time to a single image.

Jerry


> As I've said a hundred times, if not a thousand...why on earth are you
> comparing sharpened images with unsharpened images and saying the sharpened
> ones are shaper?  No kidding.

See above

> Well, no, not if you sharpen BOTH images the same...

See above

> No.  Currently FILM resolves more, period, not debatable.  "Resolving" has
> NOTHING to do with sharpness.

I care only about the final prints, and I can get better digital images
than photogrphic prints in the darkroom. Period.

Jerry
>

I read an article on the mentioning that Tokina makes the Rolleinar
lenses. I believe it was about a year ago in Shutterbug.

Jerry

> > Also, If you have not been using digital, there is a tremendous "Fun"
> > factor. You will begin having a LOT of fun again.

> > Hun?
 
What? you don't like to have FUN while making images?

Austin, if you don't sharpen your images at all, they CANNOT be as sharp
as they can get. ALL images with scanned with scanners need at leas a
little sharpening. I've read this so often, it's taken for granted. No
matter how sharp your images are, run your image through the KPT
equalizer and see if they aren't just a "Little sharper".

Jerry

> I believe you are comparing sharpened images with unsharpened images, and,
> rightly so, claiming they sharpened images are sharper.  I simply don't
> believe that is a legit comparison.

I do, when talking about photographic darkroom prints.
 
> Personally, I do not sharpen any of my images, and I absolutely guarantee
> you my images are as sharp as you can get.

VERY doubtful. :)

Actually you're both wrong, see:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Quoting:

The D60 has 72% the total resolution of full frame
35mm Provia scanned at 4000 dpi. 
But perceived image quality may approach that of film
because of the low noise-- the absence grain.

Jim N

--- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> Austin, if you don't sharpen your images at all,
> they CANNOT be as sharp
> as they can get. ALL images with scanned with
> scanners need at leas a
> little sharpening. I've read this so often, it's
> taken for granted. No
> matter how sharp your images are, run your image
> through the KPT
> equalizer and see if they aren't just a "Little
> sharper".
> 
> Jerry
> 
> > I believe you are comparing sharpened images with
> unsharpened images, and,
> > rightly so, claiming they sharpened images are
> sharper.  I simply don't
> > believe that is a legit comparison.
> 
> I do, when talking about photographic darkroom
> prints.
>  
> > Personally, I do not sharpen any of my images, and
> I absolutely guarantee
> > you my images are as sharp as you can get.
> 
> VERY doubtful. :)
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Jerry,

> Austin, as I have said so many times, My digital images are VERY sharp,

And I have never disputed that, no one CARES about the sharpness.  A TWO
pixel sensor is equally as sharp!  It's simply not relevant.

> and full of shadow and highlight detail.

That's a dubious statement at best.  Do you mean it has detail in the
shadows and highlights?  So what?  That's tonality, not image detail, and
has nothing to do with resolution.

> The D60 is better than the D30
> at both. The images are as sharp as I'll ever need or want them up to 20
> inches. (with the D60). They will easily equal film. You say they won't.

No, I KNOW they simply don't at larger enlargements.  They DO at smaller
enlargements, where the higher resolution of the film is not apparent.

> I have them side by side and say they will. they do.

You have lousy film or are looking at small prints then.

> I'm of course talking about maximum sharpened digital
> images. I sharpen as much as I can get without showing any artifacts.

Why?  That reduces tonality.  Not EVERYTHING is "sharp".  I think you
somehow believe sharpness is good, it isn't necessarily, and can in fact
degrade the actual image.

> I'm 100 percent satisfied with my D 60 images
> to 20 inches.

That's good for you!  And that's what matters to YOU, but I am not happy
with them at all above 8x10.

> They absolutely equal provia scanned film at 4000 DPI.

Some images probably do, but a lot of digital images will be lacking in
detail when put side by side with a film image.  This is of course, talking
larger than 8x10.

> IF
> you haven't actually tried this with the D60 and an Epson 1280,

I have.

> please
> don't tell me film is better. It isn't.

Film is still better for enlargements larger than 8x10, and for a lot of
8x10s too...

Austin

Jerry,

> Simple Austin.  You can't sharpen a provia slide before you print it in
> the darkroom on let say, a cibachrome type paper. You get it as sharp as
> your enlarging lens allows.

Now we're getting somewhere.  BTW, you CAN absolutely sharpen chemical
images.  The sharpening techniques used in PS CAME from the wet darkroom
techniques.

You ARE not comparing scanned film to digital images?  Also, photographic
paper has a lot to do with the sharpness of the images.  You simply are not
doing a legit comparison.  You should be comparing the D-60 -> 1280 workflow
vs the film -> photographic paper workflow.  That's entirely different than
your claims.

> I suppose you could use the unsharp mask when printing 35mm color
> prints, but I REALLY couldn't be bothered with the hassle that that
> would be, nor would I ever devote that much time to a single image.

How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner vs your D60,
printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?

Austin

> I read an article on the mentioning that Tokina makes the Rolleinar
> lenses. I believe it was about a year ago in Shutterbug.
>
> Jerry
>
> > > Also, If you have not been using digital, there is a tremendous "Fun"
> > > factor. You will begin having a LOT of fun again.

Here are the facts that have been relayed to me:

There were three of these lenses for 6000 series cameras, 50/4, 80/2.8, and
150/4.  They were called Rolleigon, not Rolleinar.  These were made by
Tokina for Rollei, but Rollei made the shutters and barrels and Tokina only
made the optics. These were discontinued in 1989.

For the 35mm Rollei there was a series of lenses sold as Rolleinar.  These
were made by Mamiya/Sekor and are optically identical to the lenses for
Mamiya's 35mm SLR cameras.  After Mamiya shut down 35mm production, Rollei
went shopping for sources and first gave the contract to Makina.  Makina
could not meet Rollei quality control standards, so this line was killed and
Rollei got lenses from Kino Precision, Sigma, Tokina and others.  Tokina did
make a few of these lenses, but most were made by other firms.

Hi Jerry,

> Austin, if you don't sharpen your images at all, they CANNOT be as sharp
> as they can get.

Please explain why you believe that.

> ALL images with scanned with scanners need at leas a
> little sharpening.

Not true.

> I've read this so often, it's taken for granted.

Well, it may be taken for granted, but it's not universally true.

> No
> matter how sharp your images are, run your image through the KPT
> equalizer and see if they aren't just a "Little sharper".

Yes, and that looses tonality.

> > Personally, I do not sharpen any of my images, and I absolutely
> guarantee
> > you my images are as sharp as you can get.
>
> VERY doubtful. :)

No need to doubt, as I simply do not.  Todd has seen my images...and they
simply do not need any sharpening.

Regards,

Austin

In the Austin/Jerry interchange on digital vs. film, Jerry said the 
following:

> I suppose you could use the unsharp mask when printing 35mm color
> prints, but I REALLY couldn't be bothered with the hassle that that
> would be, NOR WOULD I EVER DEEVOTE THAT MUCH TIME TO A SINGLE 
> IMAGE. [emphasis added]
> 
> Jerry

That statement really surprised me.  

I figure that when you're printing out digital snapshot photos 
someone might have a really abbreviated workflow.  

But I always figured that you hotshot photographers labored for hours 
over your prize photos.  Is that not true, Jerry?  
 
I don't even bother printing ordinary pics.  But for the few that I 
think are much better than average, I sometimes spend quite a bit of 
time with them in Photoshop.

Also, Jerry, if you don't spend the minute or two it takes to apply 
unsharp mask in Photoshop with 35mm scans, I'm assuming you don't do 
it with your digital pics, either, which means you're using in-camera 
sharpening.  With the D30 or D60 that also means you're not capturing 
RAW images, doesn't it?  (Since RAW images always bypass in-camera 
sharpening, as far as I'm aware.)

Since I trust Photoshop more than any in-camera after-capture 
processing, I'd much prefer to work with RAW images and do all the 
processing in Photoshop.  Doesn't matter to me that it takes a bit of 
extra time.  For the better images the time is well spent.  -- Herb

Jim,

> Actually you're both wrong, see:
>
> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
>
> Quoting:
>
> The D60 has 72% the total resolution of full frame
> 35mm Provia scanned at 4000 dpi.

I skimmed over the link you provided, and I don't see anything I've said
that is in conflict with what that article says...it only talks about
MTFs...you apparently were referring to this link:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

I design digital imaging equipment, and have been doing so for over 20
years.  I know intimately how digital cameras work, and what they are
capable of.

Your statement above, and the source you quoted it from, is simply wrong and
misleading.  The sensor used in the D60 uses what is called a "Bayer"
pattern, which means it uses a quad (four) sensor grouping of RGBG (One red,
one blue and two green, extra green for increased contrast).  The data from
these sensors is interpolated.  What this means is you do not get 6M REAL
pixels from the camera, you get 6M INTERPOLATED pixels from the camera.  The
camera has 6M SENSORS, NOT 6M PIXELS.  Interpolation basically means the
data is "derived"...as in not in the original image in the first place.

Film does not have this issue, as film has all three colors available at
point on the film.

Here are the FACTS for a legitimate image capture medium comparison, not a
processed image comparison:

The Canon D60 image SENSOR has 3072 x 2048 SENSORS.  That means 1.5M Red
sensors, 1.5M Blue sensors and 3M Green sensors, and therefore 1.5M Red
"data", 1.5M Blue "data" and 3M Green "data".  If the data is 8 bits, let's
say for arguments sake, that's 6M BTYES.

35mm film scanned at 4000 SPI gives you 4000 x 6000 FULL COLOR PIXELS, or
24M Red "data", 24M Blue "data" and 24M green "data", that's 72M BYTES.

Hum.  You want to compare a device that gives you 6M BYTES of data with one
that gives you 72M BYTES of data, and believe their image "quality" is the
same?

> But perceived image quality may approach that of film
> because of the low noise-- the absence grain.

That is very true...but that is purely sharpness...not detail, and as I've
said, I can sharpen a film image, reducing the tonality, and get the same
results...but that isn't as true to the original scene accuracy.

Regards,

Austin

on 7/24/02 6:36 PM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@... wrote:

> 35mm film scanned at 4000 SPI gives you 4000 x 6000 FULL COLOR PIXELS, or
> 24M Red "data", 24M Blue "data" and 24M green "data", that's 72M BYTES.
> 
> Hum.  You want to compare a device that gives you 6M BYTES of data with one
> that gives you 72M BYTES of data, and believe their image "quality" is the
> same?

If we are concerned with the perceived quality of an image, and not just
with technical theory and numbers, aren't we missing an essential point
here?

When you scan the 35mm film, you are scanning something that is already one
step removed from reality.  The slide image, no matter how much information
it contains, is a translation of reality into another form.  This is a
translation and not a replication, since the nature of the film and the lens
used will obviously change the colors, the tones, the contrast, the
sharpness of the original image as we would have perceived it.  I have seen
this repeatedly in my own freelance work:  I specialize in photographing art
work, and have often experimented to see if I would get better results by
scanning a slide of a painting as opposed to making a direct digital image.
In many regards, the latter is often superior.  It's not that the direct
digital image necessarily contains more "information" than the film version
does; rather, the quality of the information that it contains - overall -
creates an image that has more to do with the original than.

In my opinion, quality is thus relative.  I hope we can allow each other to
have our own definitions of image quality without having to resort to
verbal, numerical or theoretical lashings.


Stephen Petegorsky
petegorsky@...
www.spphoto.com

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> That's a dubious statement at best.  Do you mean it has detail in the
> shadows and highlights?  

Of course it has!!

So what?  That's tonality, not image detail, and
> has nothing to do with resolution.

???? HUH?

Who cares what it is? The pictures look great !!!
> 
> > The D60 is better than the D30
> > at both. The images are as sharp as I'll ever need or want them up to 20
> > inches. (with the D60). They will easily equal film. You say they won't.
> 
> No, I KNOW they simply don't at larger enlargements.  You're right, at huge enlargements, you win.

But they DO up to 20 inches, and that's all I ever want.

 They DO at smaller
> enlargements, where the higher resolution of the film is not apparent.
> 
> > I have them side by side and say they will. they do.
> 
> You have lousy film or are looking at small prints then.

Provia is not lousy film, and I'm looking at 18 inch prints.
> 
> > I'm of course talking about maximum sharpened digital
> > images. I sharpen as much as I can get without showing any artifacts.
> 
> Why?  That reduces tonality.  Not EVERYTHING is "sharp".  I think you
> somehow believe sharpness is good, it isn't necessarily, and can in fact
> degrade the actual image. Yes. A soft focus high key image looks better in soft focus.  And high key.

Not my images. Maybe Your images.  Of course I'm talking about that
which should BE sharp. out of focus areas are out of focus. I'm not
concerned about their sharpness!

> > I'm 100 percent satisfied with my D 60 images
> > to 20 inches.

> That's good for you!  And that's what matters to YOU, but I am not happy
> with them at all above 8x10. 

That's amazing. And you say you have made a good inkjet print from a D60
using 
epson 's 1280 printer? And if you go over 8x10 inches, the image gets
less sharp? 

We really DO have to agree to disagree.

They are every bit as sharp at 18 inches as they are at 8x10.
> 
> > They absolutely equal provia scanned film at 4000 DPI.
> 
> Some images probably do, but a lot of digital images will be lacking in
> detail when put side by side with a film image.  This is of course, talking
> larger than 8x10.

SOME images will. Yes. 

IF
> > you haven't actually tried this with the D60 and an Epson 1280,
> 
> I have.

> Film is still better for enlargements larger than 8x10, and for a lot of
> 8x10s too...

You are wrong. Period. :) We will simply have to agree to disagree.

If you can get a sharper image from a DARKROOM Print at 8x10 from
provia, than I can get from that same image taken on a D60 and printed
the way I print at the same size, I'll buy you lunch at the most
expensive place in Grand Forks. :)  'Course I don't have to ever worry
about that, as it just ain't gonna happen.

Jerry 
>

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> > Simple Austin.  You can't sharpen a provia slide before you print it in
> > the darkroom on let say, a cibachrome type paper. You get it as sharp as
> > your enlarging lens allows.

I know that. Who in the world has time to print hundreds of images in
the darkroom using unsharp masking techniques? Not me!
> 
> Now we're getting somewhere.  BTW, you CAN absolutely sharpen chemical
> images.  The sharpening techniques used in PS CAME from the wet darkroom
> techniques.

I know that. I used to print dye transfer a long time ago.
> 
> You ARE not comparing scanned film to digital images?  Also, photographic
> paper has a lot to do with the sharpness of the images.  

I know that. 

You simply are not
> doing a legit comparison.  You should be comparing the D-60 -> 1280 workflow
> vs the film -> photographic paper workflow.  That's entirely different than
> your claims.

No its not, it's what I claim. i'm talking about every day printing
here, not a contest between the worlds 2 top printers, one digital and
one film. 

> How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner vs your D60,
> printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?

I'm talking about darkroom prints versus digital printing. What you
suggest would make your prints digital.

Jerry

> Here are the facts that have been relayed to me:
> 
> There were three of these lenses for 6000 series cameras, 50/4, 80/2.8, and
> 150/4.  They were called Rolleigon, not Rolleinar.  These were made by
> Tokina for Rollei, but Rollei made the shutters and barrels and Tokina only
> made the optics. These were discontinued in 1989.

Yes, they were Rolleigon, not Rolleinar for the medium format cameras. Sorry.


> 
> For the 35mm Rollei there was a series of lenses sold as Rolleinar.  These
> were made by Mamiya/Sekor and are optically identical to the lenses for
> Mamiya's 35mm SLR cameras.  After Mamiya shut down 35mm production, Rollei
> went shopping for sources and first gave the contract to Makina.  Makina
> could not meet Rollei quality control standards, so this line was killed and
> Rollei got lenses from Kino Precision, Sigma, Tokina and others.  Tokina did
> make a few of these lenses, but most were made by other firms.

Crooks! :) I suppose Hassleblad lenses are now made in Korea or Taiwan
by Soligor!

Jerry

I can't tell you how many top professionals have stated in print that
scanned images ALWAYS need at least a little sharpening.

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > Austin, if you don't sharpen your images at all, they CANNOT be as sharp
> > as they can get.
> 
> Please explain why you believe that.

Sure.

Make the sharpest scan you can. Make a 16x20 print.  Run the image
either through KPT equalizer at about 300 Percent, or unsharp mask about
5 times at 125 percent.  Make another 16x20 print. If you can't see ANY
difference in sharpness, Methinks you need new spectacles. :).

> > ALL images with scanned with scanners need at leas a
> > little sharpening.
 
> Not true.

Then there are dozens of top pros that are misinformed.

> > I've read this so often, it's taken for granted.
> 
> Well, it may be taken for granted, but it's not universally true.
>
> > matter how sharp your images are, run your image through the KPT
> > equalizer and see if they aren't just a "Little sharper".
> 
> Yes, and that looses tonality.

Not enough to bother with
> 
> > > Personally, I do not sharpen any of my images, and I absolutely
> > guarantee
> > > you my images are as sharp as you can get.
> >
> > VERY doubtful. :)
> 
> No need to doubt, as I simply do not.  Todd has seen my images...and they
> simply do not need any sharpening.

How do you know unless you sharpen them? 

Granted you'd never see the difference in small prints!

Jerry 


"Things Smell Differently to Short People in a Crowded Elevator"

Monimiyehudin Fnorntgroynt III

At the luminous landscape site there has been several comparisons
between digital and film. Digital has always won in comparison to Provia
35mm film, at least in the samples I saw a year or so ago before I
bought my D30 and D60.

> Hum.  You want to compare a device that gives you 6M BYTES of data with one
> that gives you 72M BYTES of data, and believe their image "quality" is the
> same?

Sure do. It is the same in the prints I've seen at the sizes I've
stated. I don't give a whit what any technician says about all this
blather. I know what my eyes see, and while they are not the greatest
eyebulbs in the world, they sure can tell in side by side prints what I
see. 

Are you trying to tell me that provia film is  nearly 10 times sharper
than the D60 at say, 20 inch images?

I'll fall down laughing. :)

> > But perceived image quality may approach that of film
> > because of the low noise-- the absence grain.

Whatever it is, I'm totally and completely satisfied with my D60, and
can consistently beat 35mm film in quality at the size prints I make.
Sharper. Better highlight detail. Better Shadow detail. Consistently. No
question, no doubt about it. 

Once again, if you are talking about superexpensive scanners, you're
right. I'm just talking ordinary equipment your average photographer has
access to in his own digital darkroom. 

Jerry

'Time Flies Straight as an Arrow.
Fruit Flies like a banana'

Harry Palmer
Also Groucho marx, et. al.

AAAARRRRRrrrrrgh!

Enough! We've gone over this many times before, Austin and I.  He'll
never convince me film is better, and I'll never convince hime digital
is better. So we will just have to agree to disagree. 

Of course he's wrong, though. :)

Jerry

on 7/24/2002 10:22 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Re: Canon D60 Question

 

Jerry et. al:

Jerry, when you say that closeups look sharper than "wide shots" this sounds
to me like a little bit more resolution is needed. It's like shooting video,
(not high def), the closeups look acceptably sharp, but the wide shots look
kind of dull and blurry.  Meaningful detail is larger in the close up and it
looks ok.  The detail in the wide shot is too small to resolve at all and
looks hopelessly blurry. TV stations often crank up the "detailing" or
"sharpness" for video, resulting in a kind of electronic look on tv compared
to scanned films on tv.

I was working with a still photographer last fall who shot with a D30 and
printed to a fujix. The prints looked gorgeous, provided that they were
portraits but lacked detail in wider shots.  With the added detail of the
close up, sharpening was more effective, especially with digital as grain
did not increase when sharpening a lot, as would have happened with scanned
film.  I will say this, I did not like what the camera did with the
highlights when they were too bright to capture along with the shadows, even
when capturing raw files.  I must say that the speed of digital allowed this
photographer to sell a lot of prints on the spot straight from the fujix,
which also printed colors no ink can come close to, especially in the dark
colors (oops, I forgot this is the b&w forum, never mind).

Just trying to spice up this lively conversation...I'm looking forward to
seeing some of these D60 photos in upcoming print exchanges! Keep up the
good work.

-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question


> Bob, I know this is very weird, but if I have a 40 or so MG file, my
> larger prints are always sharper than my small ones. A 13 or 15 inch
> print is always sharper and more detailed than an 8x10. This assumes a
> 300 or 360 DPI file resolution at the output size.
>
> In fact, a 4x5 print is nowhere near as detailed and sharp as a 12 inch
> print. Is this normal?

If your printer has to print a smaller image the chance that the ink bleeds
increases compared to the maximum size that the printer can print. This can
be a very small difference in ink bleed but a huge difference in sharpness.
For a similar reason I print my targets for profiling at the left side of
the 9000, the target is much smaller than the usual print size done on the
printer and by printing at the left side the head has to travel over a
longer distance per stroke so more drying time in between. That resembles
the normal drying time better.

In Photoshop you place a smaller copy of the image on the normal size and
print that total to the largest size possible on the printer. Check the
differences in sharpness with a loupe. Detail is another matter, a larger
print will always show more detail if the file is too big for both printed
sizes. Foggy scenes not counting.

Ernst

Jerry,

I really think you continually miss Austin's point.  He is not saying that
your prints...or the output from a D60...or any other digital camera are not
sharp.  He's simply saying film images scanned with a high end scanner
contain more information and this translates into differences in tonality
and detail (NOT SHARPNESS) that are hard to see in a 8x10...but are easy to
see in a enlargement (e.g., 16x20).  I shoot both 35mm digital (D1x and
formerly D1) and film (mainly tmax).  I love my digital camera...don't get
me wrong...but film that I scan with my 4000dpi film scanner or occasionally
with a Imacon or Crosfield drum scanner contains a whole hell of a lot more
tonal information and particularly DETAIL than my D1x is capable of dishing
out. Just take a photo of some grass in a field with evening light and the
difference is easy to see at actual pixels on the screen or in an enlarged
print close up.  BOTH prints are totally sharp...I have control over
that...but they are not equal in these other respects.

Now this may not matter to you depending on your subject matter, print size
or viewing distance...but if you get out the loupe it's easy to see...and
Austin's technical reasoning is very sound and quite honestly much more
sophisticated than the simple comparison's of sharpness that typically
appear in digital vs. film reviews all over the net.  Remember, unbiased
digital vs. film reviews are almost impossible these days because of the
huge pressure from the photo industry to move digital (to sell expensive,
quickly obsolete cameras).

My guess is that as time goes on the size of the enlargement that you can
make with "equal effective tonality and detail" will increase.  I saw output
today from a new phase one back on a mamiya 645...these were color model
shots blown up to 7 feet tall really impressive...but when we stripped those
images to BW they didn't hold up...but they did pretty good 2x3
feet...beautiful eye vein detail for example.

But there is no doubt that there are many jobs were digital is just
fantastic...I have had several in the past 6 months in which I need quick
turn around of images taken of one time events under difficult lighting
conditions...digital to the rescue with very happy clients in the end...but
I think there is also still a big role for film given the current
limitations of the cameras...for how long...I'm not sure...but I was just
buying yet another film camera today....

Robert

PS I really liked your image for the July print exchange...I believe that
was scanned medium format film? <wink>

On 7/24/02 8:15 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> AAAARRRRRrrrrrgh!
> 
> Enough! We've gone over this many times before, Austin and I.  He'll
> never convince me film is better, and I'll never convince hime digital
> is better. So we will just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Of course he's wrong, though. :)
> 
> Jerry

Hi Jerry,

Daring to dip a toe in these turbulent waters, I was interested in some
other results of Norman Koren with a 1270. He measured the sharpness of the
printer at a range of magnifications of printing, and found that up to about
8x10 the sharpness of the print is limited by the printer's capabilities.
That is why the 1280/90 will give slightly sharper prints up to this size if
you use 2880 dpi instead of the 1440 of the 1270.

But at about 8x10 the ultimate sharpness of the printer was reached, and in
prints above this size the sharpness was purely dependant on the sharpness
of the camera.

So, summing up, in prints at 8x10 and below, you may see no differences
between a sharp image and a not-so-sharp one, because the printer is the
limiting factor. In prints above 8x10, the differences in the image
sharpness take over and become more apparent.

Bob Frost

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>

>
> That's amazing. And you say you have made a good inkjet print from a D60
> using
> epson 's 1280 printer? And if you go over 8x10 inches, the image gets
> less sharp?
>
> We really DO have to agree to disagree.
>
> They are every bit as sharp at 18 inches as they are at 8x10.
> >
> > > They absolutely equal provia scanned film at 4000 DPI.
> >
> > Some images probably do, but a lot of digital images will be lacking in
> > detail when put side by side with a film image.  This is of course,
talking

> > larger than 8x10.
>
> SOME images will. Yes.
>
> IF
> > > you haven't actually tried this with the D60 and an Epson 1280,
> >
> > I have.
>
> > Film is still better for enlargements larger than 8x10, and for a lot of
> > 8x10s too...
>
> You are wrong. Period. :) We will simply have to agree to disagree.

At 04:31 PM 7/24/2002, Herb wrote:
>In the Austin/Jerry interchange on digital vs. film, Jerry said the
>following:
>
> > I suppose you could use the unsharp mask when printing 35mm color
> > prints, but I REALLY couldn't be bothered with the hassle that that
> > would be, NOR WOULD I EVER DEEVOTE THAT MUCH TIME TO A SINGLE
> > IMAGE. [emphasis added]
> >
> > Jerry
>
>That statement really surprised me.
>
>I figure that when you're printing out digital snapshot photos
>someone might have a really abbreviated workflow.
>
>But I always figured that you hotshot photographers labored for hours
>over your prize photos.  Is that not true, Jerry?

I believe Jerry was talking about traditional unsharp masking in the 
darkroom, not digital unsharp masking in PhotoShop.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

Bob, I know this is very weird, but if I have a 40 or so MG file, my
larger prints are always sharper than my small ones. A 13 or 15 inch
print is always sharper and more detailed than an 8x10. This assumes a
300 or 360 DPI file resolution at the output size.

In fact, a 4x5 print is nowhere near as detailed and sharp as a 12 inch
print. Is this normal?

The only thing a 2280 print does as far as I can tell, is it enhances
the deep black on a black and white print from the 1280. I'm getting
incredible blacks from this setting, along with the "Photo Paper"
setting. 

In fact, With a generations profile from CD Tobie, I am getting brighter
and much more accurate colors from my 1160 that I can get from the 1280.
This is very strange.  I would have expected epson's dye inks to be
noticeably brighter than the generations with profile, but they aren't.

I've tried a couple dozen different settings on the 1280, including all
the media settings, and most of the built in epson profiles, and
although the 1280 prints are smoother than the 1160, the colors are
brighter and more appealing with the generations inks.  This is all on
EAM and Photo Matte Papers, and the results are consistent from paper to
paper, printer to printer. I had another 1280 printer that died right
out of warranty, and when I used the color inks that came with it, I can
see that they were brighter than the current 1280 set. 

As usual, I have no idea what's going on here, except I intend to get
another Generations/Niagra II CIS for the 1280 when my current epson
inks run out.


Jerry



Bob Frost wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> Daring to dip a toe in these turbulent waters, I was interested in some
> other results of Norman Koren with a 1270. He measured the sharpness of the
> printer at a range of magnifications of printing, and found that up to about
> 8x10 the sharpness of the print is limited by the printer's capabilities.
> That is why the 1280/90 will give slightly sharper prints up to this size if
> you use 2880 dpi instead of the 1440 of the 1270.
> 
> But at about 8x10 the ultimate sharpness of the printer was reached, and in
> prints above this size the sharpness was purely dependant on the sharpness
> of the camera.
> 
> So, summing up, in prints at 8x10 and below, you may see no differences
> between a sharp image and a not-so-sharp one, because the printer is the
> limiting factor. In prints above 8x10, the differences in the image
> sharpness take over and become more apparent.
> 
> Bob Frost
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
> 
> >
> > That's amazing. And you say you have made a good inkjet print from a D60
> > using
> > epson 's 1280 printer? And if you go over 8x10 inches, the image gets
> > less sharp?
> >
> > We really DO have to agree to disagree.
> >
> > They are every bit as sharp at 18 inches as they are at 8x10.
> > >
> > > > They absolutely equal provia scanned film at 4000 DPI.
> > >
> > > Some images probably do, but a lot of digital images will be lacking in
> > > detail when put side by side with a film image.  This is of course,
> talking
> > > larger than 8x10.
> >
> > SOME images will. Yes.
> >
> > IF
> > > > you haven't actually tried this with the D60 and an Epson 1280,
> > >
> > > I have.
> >
> > > Film is still better for enlargements larger than 8x10, and for a lot of
> > > 8x10s too...
> >
> > You are wrong. Period. :) We will simply have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

> Are you trying to tell me that provia film is  nearly 10 times sharper
> than the D60 at say, 20 inch images?

Jerry, you aren't listening.  Sharpness has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.
It's purely YOUR metric, and a dubious one at that.  As I've said, you can
get the absolute sharpest possible images from two pixels, period.

From what I gather, I don't believe you understand what sharpness really is,
but YOU like it in your images, and that's fine...but it's YOUR metric, and
does NOT reflect an accurate representation of reality.  In REALITY,
everything is NOT sharp, period.  There are tonal transitions between
things, and they aren't necessarily going to be as steep as you may like
them...and for you to change these gradations means you are changing the
accuracy of your representation.  That's fine, but realize YOU are doing it
to suit YOUR likes, and not everyone likes it that way.

> Whatever it is, I'm totally and completely satisfied with my D60, and
> can consistently beat 35mm film in quality at the size prints I make.
> Sharper. Better highlight detail. Better Shadow detail. Consistently. No
> question, no doubt about it.

There is no possible way that you get better detail, period.  There aren't
enough pixels in the sensor to do so.  I also know you don't better latitude
than I can on film.  As I've said, sharpness can easily be dealt with on
either film or digital...it's a dubious metric at best.  I'd bet you dinner
anywhere in the world you want...

> Once again, if you are talking about superexpensive scanners, you're
> right. I'm just talking ordinary equipment your average photographer has
> access to in his own digital darkroom.

Boy...if that isn't a caveat...  Yes, you get better pictures from your D60
than someone with a $400 flat bed scanner...I have no doubt.

Regards,

Austin

> AAAARRRRRrrrrrgh!
>
> Enough! We've gone over this many times before, Austin and I.  He'll
> never convince me film is better,

Probably not...unless you decide to look at some REAL images to compare your
D60 images to...not those from flat bed scanners and Pentax P&S cameras ;-)

> and I'll never convince hime digital
> is better. So we will just have to agree to disagree.
>
> Of course he's wrong, though. :)

Yeah, but Jerry, I have digital cameras, and have for years, that make your
D-60 images look like a P&S...and the images from these TRUE pixel cameras
(NOT Bayer pattern interpolated images) simply aren't better than I can do
on film, except my 7k x 7k scanning back...which is VERY VERY good, but is
only good for things that stand very still for a long time.

Austin

> > How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner 
> vs your D60,
> > printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?
> 
> I'm talking about darkroom prints versus digital printing. What you
> suggest would make your prints digital.
> 
> Jerry

Ah...your just chicken ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> > > I have them side by side and say they will. they do.
> >
> > You have lousy film or are looking at small prints then.
>
> Provia is not lousy film, and I'm looking at 18 inch prints.

No, Provia is not lousy film, but I have not seen the images you are
comparing to...so I can only guess they are inferior, and that inferiority
has to do with something, and I doubt it's the film.  By lousy, I meant the
images were lousy, or the printing was lousy...or the film was improperly
exposed or improperly developed...etc.

> > > I'm 100 percent satisfied with my D 60 images
> > > to 20 inches.
>
> > That's good for you!  And that's what matters to YOU, but I am not happy
> > with them at all above 8x10.
>
> That's amazing. And you say you have made a good inkjet print from a D60
> using
> epson 's 1280 printer? And if you go over 8x10 inches, the image gets
> less sharp?

Actually, 1270 and 3000...and no, I'm not talking about sharpness.

> We really DO have to agree to disagree.
>
> They are every bit as sharp at 18 inches as they are at 8x10.

Yes, they probably are, but that doesn't matter.  They lack detail and
tonality.

> > Film is still better for enlargements larger than 8x10, and for a lot of
> > 8x10s too...
>
> You are wrong. Period. :) We will simply have to agree to disagree.
>
> If you can get a sharper image from a DARKROOM Print at 8x10 from
> provia,

Homie don't make no darkroom prints any more...only scanned film.  I even
recently sold my D2 w/ Aristo cold light...

> ...than I can get from that same image taken on a D60 and printed
> the way I print at the same size, I'll buy you lunch at the most
> expensive place in Grand Forks. :)

Whoopee!  Burger King ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Bingo, Robert, that is exactly what I have been saying, and...you seem to
corroborate my claims too.

Thanks!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Morrison [mailto:rmorrison@...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:02 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> I really think you continually miss Austin's point.  He is not saying that
> your prints...or the output from a D60...or any other digital
> camera are not
> sharp.  He's simply saying film images scanned with a high end scanner
> contain more information and this translates into differences in tonality
> and detail (NOT SHARPNESS) that are hard to see in a 8x10...but
> are easy to
> see in a enlargement (e.g., 16x20).  I shoot both 35mm digital (D1x and
> formerly D1) and film (mainly tmax).  I love my digital camera...don't get
> me wrong...but film that I scan with my 4000dpi film scanner or
> occasionally
> with a Imacon or Crosfield drum scanner contains a whole hell of
> a lot more
> tonal information and particularly DETAIL than my D1x is capable
> of dishing
> out. Just take a photo of some grass in a field with evening light and the
> difference is easy to see at actual pixels on the screen or in an enlarged
> print close up.  BOTH prints are totally sharp...I have control over
> that...but they are not equal in these other respects.
>
> Now this may not matter to you depending on your subject matter,
> print size
> or viewing distance...but if you get out the loupe it's easy to see...and
> Austin's technical reasoning is very sound and quite honestly much more
> sophisticated than the simple comparison's of sharpness that typically
> appear in digital vs. film reviews all over the net.  Remember, unbiased
> digital vs. film reviews are almost impossible these days because of the
> huge pressure from the photo industry to move digital (to sell expensive,
> quickly obsolete cameras).
>
> My guess is that as time goes on the size of the enlargement that you can
> make with "equal effective tonality and detail" will increase.  I
> saw output
> today from a new phase one back on a mamiya 645...these were color model
> shots blown up to 7 feet tall really impressive...but when we
> stripped those
> images to BW they didn't hold up...but they did pretty good 2x3
> feet...beautiful eye vein detail for example.
>
> But there is no doubt that there are many jobs were digital is just
> fantastic...I have had several in the past 6 months in which I need quick
> turn around of images taken of one time events under difficult lighting
> conditions...digital to the rescue with very happy clients in the
> end...but
> I think there is also still a big role for film given the current
> limitations of the cameras...for how long...I'm not sure...but I was just
> buying yet another film camera today....
>
> Robert
>
> PS I really liked your image for the July print exchange...I believe that
> was scanned medium format film? <wink>
>
>
> On 7/24/02 8:15 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:
>
> > AAAARRRRRrrrrrgh!
> >
> > Enough! We've gone over this many times before, Austin and I.  He'll
> > never convince me film is better, and I'll never convince hime digital
> > is better. So we will just have to agree to disagree.
> >
> > Of course he's wrong, though. :)
> >
> > Jerry
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>

Hi Robert,

 I love my digital camera...don't get
> me wrong...but film that I scan with my 4000dpi film scanner or occasionally
> with a Imacon or Crosfield drum scanner contains a whole hell of a lot more
> tonal information and particularly DETAIL than my D1x is capable of dishing
> out. 

I know. But I think Austin thinks everybody has access to these high end
scanners. I am always speaking of the ordinary equipment most of us use.
If you are scanning negatives on a hundred thousand dollar scanner, I
absolutely agree they're sharper and more detailed with much better
tonality than our beloved D60 and Dx1's.

Jerry

Hi Austin,

Cluck Cluck Ba WAAk! :)

Austin, when you use the best equipment there is, I understand that your
scans are going to be superior to my little but beloved D60.  But if 
you just use regular equipment, you will see a difference and the
digital images is better. IMHOOC!

Wish there was some kind of an image we could both take that would be
identical. I would take it on my D60, Canon Macro lens, IS0 100 setting.
 You would use a film camera, the lens of your choice, provia film, and
print a DARKROOM print of it. We'll put the same images side by side,
and see which is the nicest, most desireable, best looking, sharpest
print. I have full confidence my image would be better at any size up to
and including an 11x17 print on 13x19 inch paper. 

Jerry :)

> > > How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner
> > vs your D60,
> > > printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?

No. You'd probably use some fancy high priced scanner that would blow
away my little D60.

But if you are talking film darkroom prints, see above.

However I don't know how we could get basically the same image.

Austin and Jerry,

I have just such an image if either one of you are interested (BTW I 
am not particularly interested!)

The same scene taken with (1)Nikon D100 raw and (2)Nikon F4 on 
Provia. The same 80-200 F2.8 lens, but shot at 100 mm for D100 and 
150 mm for F4.

My own conclusion using my routine work-flow(s): It's a toss-up!

Keep the discussions going. They raise some very good points, and are 
entertaining (!).

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Hi Austin,
> 
> Cluck Cluck Ba WAAk! :)
> 
> Austin, when you use the best equipment there is, I understand that 
your
> scans are going to be superior to my little but beloved D60.  But 
if 
> you just use regular equipment, you will see a difference and the
> digital images is better. IMHOOC!
> 
> Wish there was some kind of an image we could both take that would 
be
> identical. I would take it on my D60, Canon Macro lens, IS0 100 
setting.
>  You would use a film camera, the lens of your choice, provia film, 
and
> print a DARKROOM print of it. We'll put the same images side by 
side,
> and see which is the nicest, most desireable, best looking, sharpest
> print. I have full confidence my image would be better at any size 
up to
> and including an 11x17 print on 13x19 inch paper. 
> 
> Jerry :)
> 
> > > > How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner
> > > vs your D60,
> > > > printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?
> 
> No. You'd probably use some fancy high priced scanner that would 
blow

> away my little D60.
> 
> But if you are talking film darkroom prints, see above.
> 
> However I don't know how we could get basically the same image.

> I love my digital camera...don't get
> me wrong...but film that I scan with my 4000dpi film scanner or
occasionally
> with a Imacon or Crosfield drum scanner contains a whole hell of a lot
more
> tonal information and particularly DETAIL than my D1x is capable of
dishing
> out.
> I know. But I think Austin thinks everybody has access to these high end
> scanners. I am always speaking of the ordinary equipment most of us use.
> If you are scanning negatives on a hundred thousand dollar scanner, I
> absolutely agree they're sharper and more detailed with much better
> tonality than our beloved D60 and Dx1's.

On the contrary. 4000 dpi 35mm scanners are commonplace these days. You can
buy one of these and an SLR for less than the cost of the D60.

High Their Austin!

> >From what I gather, I don't believe you understand what sharpness really is,
> but YOU like it in your images, and that's fine...but it's YOUR metric, and
> does NOT reflect an accurate representation of reality.

I live in North Dakota. (Somebody has to) My reality is not yours. 

  In REALITY,
> everything is NOT sharp, period.  

I certainly know that. Usually my #2 pencils.

There are tonal transitions between
> things, and they aren't necessarily going to be as steep as you may like
> them...and for you to change these gradations means you are changing the
> accuracy of your representation.  That's fine, but realize YOU are doing it
> to suit YOUR likes, and not everyone likes it that way.

I know! I'm only talking about what suits me. I know sharpness,
resolution and accutance are not the same thing.
 

> There is no possible way that you get better detail, period.  There aren't
> enough pixels in the sensor to do so.  I also know you don't get better latitude
> than I can on film.  

I sure as hell can get better shadow and highlight detail than you can
on film, if I process the image in photoshop.  Digital has a much
greater range of tones than film.

> > Once again, if you are talking about superexpensive scanners, you're
> > right. I'm just talking ordinary equipment your average photographer has
> > access to in his own digital darkroom.
> 
> Boy...if that isn't a caveat...  Yes, you get better pictures from your D60
> than someone with a $400 flat bed scanner...I have no doubt.

I can get better pictures with my D60 than you can get with provia and a
canon or nikon 4000 DPI scanner. 

But the minute you are talking about a really high end professional
superexpensive scanner, you're right.

:)

Jerry

Austin, I'd sure like to see one of your 35mm provia images. I'd like to
really see the fantastic detail and sharpness of which you speak.

Jerry

Again, you keep talking about the very best of equipment that exists. I
agree with you on that. Your super expensive equipement CAN put my
beloved little D60 to shame.

> No, Provia is not lousy film, but I have not seen the images you are
> comparing to...so I can only guess they are inferior, 

I'd not call my images inferior in any way.

 I meant the
> images were lousy, or the printing was lousy...

I rarely take lousy images. They'd never get on the computer.

or the film was improperly
> exposed or improperly developed...etc.

Then they wouldn't get on my computer in the first place, unless I could
turn them into an art piece. And I have done that a few times.

> Homie don't make no darkroom prints any more...only scanned film.  I even
> recently sold my D2 w/ Aristo cold light..

Sold my beleler 4x5, color head, cold light, and condensor head also.
Don't do Darkroom anymore! 

> > ...than I can get from that same image taken on a D60 and printed
> > the way I print at the same size, I'll buy you lunch at the most
> > expensive place in Grand Forks. :)
> 
> Whoopee!  Burger King ;-)

UGGGggh! Charcoal broiled hamburgers?  I think NOT ! :)

Actually we have a very good restaurant here. You could pay as much as
$24 for a tenderolin steak!!!

Jerry

Thanks Ernst,

Well that would explain it. I've always wondered why my bigger prints
are better than the 8x10's!

Jerry

> > Bob, I know this is very weird, but if I have a 40 or so MG file, my
> > larger prints are always sharper than my small ones. A 13 or 15 inch
> > print is always sharper and more detailed than an 8x10. This assumes a
> > 300 or 360 DPI file resolution at the output size.
> >
> > In fact, a 4x5 print is nowhere near as detailed and sharp as a 12 inch
> > print. Is this normal?
> 
> If your printer has to print a smaller image the chance that the ink bleeds
> increases compared to the maximum size that the printer can print. This can
> be a very small difference in ink bleed but a huge difference in sharpness.
> For a similar reason I print my targets for profiling at the left side of
> the 9000, the target is much smaller than the usual print size done on the
> printer and by printing at the left side the head has to travel over a
> longer distance per stroke so more drying time in between. That resembles
> the normal drying time better.
> 
> In Photoshop you place a smaller copy of the image on the normal size and
> print that total to the largest size possible on the printer. Check the
> differences in sharpness with a loupe. Detail is another matter, a larger
> print will always show more detail if the file is too big for both printed
> sizes. Foggy scenes not counting.
>

On 7/25/02 1:06 PM, "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...> wrote:

> On the contrary. 4000 dpi 35mm scanners are commonplace these days. You can
> buy one of these and an SLR for less than the cost of the D60.

Right...in many ways working with film is cheaper...a 4000dpi 35mm scanner
can be had for much less than $1000.  However, the real cost of film is in
how it slows down the workflow.  If that doesn't matter then I think film is
the superior way to go for working large...or working in situations where
you can't depend on being able to recharge your digital batteries or having
a laptop or digital wallet to download the files...that's where the Leica
comes in.

Robert

Hi Jan,

Yes, a tossup is a fair statement.  I think my digital images look nicer
than the film print of the same image though. I always thought I was a
picky person until I met Austin. I just am not in his class technically,
and wouldn't want to be. It would take all the fun out of digital photography!

Jeryr

janishilesh wrote:

> 
> Austin and Jerry,
> 
> I have just such an image if either one of you are interested (BTW I
> am not particularly interested!)
> 
> The same scene taken with (1)Nikon D100 raw and (2)Nikon F4 on
> Provia. The same 80-200 F2.8 lens, but shot at 100 mm for D100 and
> 150 mm for F4.
> 
> My own conclusion using my routine work-flow(s): It's a toss-up!
> 
> Keep the discussions going. They raise some very good points, and are
> entertaining (!).
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Hi Austin,
> >
> > Cluck Cluck Ba WAAk! :)
> >
> > Austin, when you use the best equipment there is, I understand that
> your
> > scans are going to be superior to my little but beloved D60.  But
> if
> > you just use regular equipment, you will see a difference and the
> > digital images is better. IMHOOC!
> >
> > Wish there was some kind of an image we could both take that would
> be
> > identical. I would take it on my D60, Canon Macro lens, IS0 100
> setting.
> >  You would use a film camera, the lens of your choice, provia film,
> and
> > print a DARKROOM print of it. We'll put the same images side by
> side,
> > and see which is the nicest, most desireable, best looking, sharpest
> > print. I have full confidence my image would be better at any size
> up to
> > and including an 11x17 print on 13x19 inch paper.
> >
> > Jerry :)
> >
> > > > > How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner
> > > > vs your D60,
> > > > > printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?
> >
> > No. You'd probably use some fancy high priced scanner that would
> blow
> > away my little D60.
> >
> > But if you are talking film darkroom prints, see above.
> >
> > However I don't know how we could get basically the same image.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Thanks, Jerry, for the very helpful answer. Yes, I thought it would be fun.
I tried out a couple of consumer digital cameras, and although the
resolution was not adequate, it was a kick using them. Another thing, I
think that the digital camera technology gives the user a lot of good
color/exposure benefits for the money --- better general speaking than what
most film cameras offer --- good overall color, that beats by a mile what
the consumer gets from the one hour lab when using color neg. Almost all the
shots I did with a couple of Olympus consumer cameras had color that was
almost dead-on ... Usually slightly over-saturated, but easily fixed in PS.

If you let me know what your reactions to the large prints you are making
from the D60, I would appreciate it very much.

Jim

On 7/23/02 9:33 AM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> Jim,
> 
> I think that canon makes a 24mm f 1.4 lens that would be about 37 mm on
> a 35mm camera. All canon's L lenses are Super sharp. The Canon  50mm 1.4
> was rated sharper than the Summilux, at 1/10th the price, so you don't
> have to get Leica lenses for sharpness. A long time ago, Leica and Zeiss
> lenses were sharper than any others. This is no longer the case today.
> It may surprise you to know that Tokina makes the Rolleinar lenses for
> the SLR Rolleiflexes. Tamron makes the Bronica Lenses. Both are very
> sharp lenses indeed.
> 
> This afternoon I'm going to print some of the tests I made yesterday
> with the D60, and will let you know the results.
> 
>> I shoot with a Leica M6 and a Hasselblad. I scan on a UMAX Powerlook 3000 -
>> max res is 3048 pixels. Not the best for 35, but quite nice for medium
>> format.
> 
> I don't know if the D60 will equal that if you are scanning at 3000 DPI
> with Hasselblad lenses. That combination should be great. It all depends
> on how picky you are. I have a friend, who does fine art photographs,
> uses Minoltas and their lenses, never ever worrys about sharpness, and
> makes 4x6 foot prints. They are beautiful, when you stand back a few
> feet. As long as you don't get out a loupe and view the prints from 2
> inches, I think you'll be very happy indeed with the D60. Especially if
> you have any of the super sharp canon macro lenses!
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Also, If you have not been using digital, there is a tremendous "Fun"
> factor. You will begin having a LOT of fun again.
> 
>

on 7/25/2002 1:14 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>> ...than I can get from that same image taken on a D60 and printed
>> the way I print at the same size, I'll buy you lunch at the most
>> expensive place in Grand Forks. :)
> 
> Whoopee!  Burger King ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin


Here's a list: I think there are a few burger kings in there somewhere. The
Kosmos Cafe sounds kind of cool:

Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar
2851 Columbia Rd S      795-5688      area 701
Arby's
1419 Columbia Rd S    795-9913
Aurora's Cosino
108 3rd St N    772-1877
Base Exchange
105 Building Air Force Base    594-8581
Big Al's Pasta Parlor
3450 Gateway Dr Hwy 2 W    772-2222
Bonzer's
420 DeMers Ave    775-0365
Branigans Restaurant & Bar Menu    795-6010
Bronze Boot  Steak House & Lounge
1804 N Washington St    746-5433
Burger King
3765 Gateway Dr    772-0343
Burger King
3151 32nd Ave S    787-2435
Burger King
1416 S Washington    772-3025
Burger Time
2651 DeMers Ave    775-2776
China Buffet
3555 Gateway Dr    787-0888
China Garden Restaurant
2550 32nd Ave S    772-0660
China King
2533 32nd Ave S    746-9121
Chuck House Ranch Restaurant
3450  Gateway Dr Hwy 2 W    772-2222
Common Ground Coffee Cafe
421 DeMers Ave    795-9891
Crosswinds Cafe
Grand Forks International Airport    746-7231
Darcy's Cafe
1400 11 Ave N    775-4050
Del's Coffee Shop
South Forks Plaza    772-3311
Domino's Pizza  Menu 
2215 Gateway Dr    746-0311
Emerald Grill
1200 47th St N    780-0888
Fire Island Grill & Bar
3615 Gateway Dr    775-3141
GF Goodribs Steakhouse & Lounge
4223 12th Ave N    746-7115
Giovanni's Pizza
1113 Washington St S    775-6013
Giuliana's Italian Restaurant
3225 Washington St S    795-1590
Gramma Butterwick's Restaurant
1421 Washington St S    772-4764
Grand Junction Grilled Steak Subs
2750 Gateway Dr    795-2530

Green Mill
1930 S Columbia Rd    780-9000
Ground Round Restaurant
2800 32nd Ave S    775-4646
Happy Joe's Pizza & Ice Cream Parlor
2909 Washington St S    772-6655
Hardee's Family Restaurant
East - 213 S Washington St  Menu     775-0102
Hardee's Family Restaurant
North - 1801 Gateway Dr       Menu     746-5136
Hardee's Family Restaurant
West - 1750 Columbia Rd      Menu     772-8249
Holiday Inn Peartree Restaurant
Jct I-29 & Hwy 2 West    772-7131
Hunan Chinese Restaurant
2100 Columbia Rd S    772-0556
I - 29 Cafe
4401 32nd Ave S    746-6584
Italian Moon
810 S Washington    772-7277
Jeannie's Restaurant  Menu   
1106 Washington St S  58201    772-6966
Joe Dimaggio's Sports Cafe
118 3rd St N    775-5699
John Barley-Corne
2800 Columbia Rd-Columbia Mall    775-0501
Kentucky Fried Chicken 
706 S Washington    772-3447
Kosmos Cafe
21 4th St S    746-9431
Lola's Northern Italian Restaurant
124 3rd St N    775-5454
McDonald's
1125 S Washington St    772-0231
McDonald's
Hwy 2 & I-29    746-7980
McDonald's
2910 32nd Ave S    772-2410
Mexican Village
1218 Washington St S    775-3653
Muddy Rivers Bar & Grill
710 1st Ave N    787-0733
NCO Open Mess
309 Building Air Force Base    594-4421
Palace Pantry
South Forks Plaza    795-1778
Paradiso/LaCampana Mexican Restaurant
905 Washington St S    772-3000
Parrot's Cay Tavern & Grill, The
1149 36th Ave S    795-4053
Perkins  Menu 
1305 Columbia Rd S    746-0493
Perkins  Menu 
1213 47th St N    775-0900

Pizza Hut  Menu 
1418 S Washington St  ( Delivery or Carry-Out)    772-6000
Pizza Hut  Menu  
2751 32nd Ave S    (Dine-In or Carry-Out)    772-7800
Planet Pizza
2503 Washington St S    775-2426
Players Sports Grill And Bar
2120 Washington St S    780-9201
Ponderosa Steak House
Columbia Rd & 28th Ave S    746-1301
Ponderosa Steak House
1800 Washington St S    772-9521
Popolino's Pizza
1505 11th Ave N    746-7677
Quizno's Classic Subs
2650 32nd Ave S    746-6866
Ramada Inn
Jct I-29 & Hwy 2 W    775-3951
Red Lobster Restaurants Menu
2675 32nd Ave S    772-8770
The Red Pepper
1011 University Ave    775-9671
Red River Cafe
315 DeMers Ave    772-3900
Royal Fork Buffet Restaurant
Columbia Mall    746-0869
Sanders 1997
22 S 3rd St    746-8970
Shangri-La Restaurant
4220 5th Ave N    775-5549
Slapshot Pizza of GF
1909 Gateway Dr    746-4771
Southgate Casino Bar & Grill
2525 Washington St S    775-7941
Speedway
805 42nd St N    772-8548
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
1850 Columbia Rd S   Menu     772-3526
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
2512 Washington St S              Menu    772-9334
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
Gateway Dr & N Washington  Menu    772-6357
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
Columbia Mall                            Menu    772-1513
Subway Sandwiches & Salads
32nd Ave S-Holiday Station Store Menu    772-9335
Taco Bell
1301 Washington St S    772-6196
Taco Bell
2515 32nd Ave S    795-9001
Taco John's No 1
2522 Gateway Dr    772-5712

Taco John's No 2
1111 Washington St S    772-9550
Taco John's No 3
2651 24th Ave S    780-9800
2-29 Cafe
4720 Gateway Dr    772-1273
Upper Crust Pizza & Subs, The
121 5th St N    775-7477
Village Inn Restaurant
2451 Columbia Rd S    772-7241
Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers
Columbia Mall   Menu     746-1198
Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers
1503 Washington St S  Menu     772-6536
 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

Hi Jim, the D60 results are great. Sharp, really nice. Even at 13x19. 
There isn't a 90 minute photo in the country that could touch it.

In our most recent print exchange there were a few digital shots, one
with a canon G2 and one with a Nikon 885. You could easily have passed
them off as hasselblad images.

jerry



James Klebau wrote:

> 
> Thanks, Jerry, for the very helpful answer. Yes, I thought it would be fun.
> I tried out a couple of consumer digital cameras, and although the
> resolution was not adequate, it was a kick using them. Another thing, I
> think that the digital camera technology gives the user a lot of good
> color/exposure benefits for the money --- better general speaking than what
> most film cameras offer --- good overall color, that beats by a mile what
> the consumer gets from the one hour lab when using color neg. Almost all the
> shots I did with a couple of Olympus consumer cameras had color that was
> almost dead-on ... Usually slightly over-saturated, but easily fixed in PS.
> 
> If you let me know what your reactions to the large prints you are making
> from the D60, I would appreciate it very much.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On 7/23/02 9:33 AM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> 
> > Jim,
> >
> > I think that canon makes a 24mm f 1.4 lens that would be about 37 mm on
> > a 35mm camera. All canon's L lenses are Super sharp. The Canon  50mm 1.4
> > was rated sharper than the Summilux, at 1/10th the price, so you don't
> > have to get Leica lenses for sharpness. A long time ago, Leica and Zeiss
> > lenses were sharper than any others. This is no longer the case today.
> > It may surprise you to know that Tokina makes the Rolleinar lenses for
> > the SLR Rolleiflexes. Tamron makes the Bronica Lenses. Both are very
> > sharp lenses indeed.
> >
> > This afternoon I'm going to print some of the tests I made yesterday
> > with the D60, and will let you know the results.
> >
> >> I shoot with a Leica M6 and a Hasselblad. I scan on a UMAX Powerlook 3000 -
> >> max res is 3048 pixels. Not the best for 35, but quite nice for medium
> >> format.
> >
> > I don't know if the D60 will equal that if you are scanning at 3000 DPI
> > with Hasselblad lenses. That combination should be great. It all depends
> > on how picky you are. I have a friend, who does fine art photographs,
> > uses Minoltas and their lenses, never ever worrys about sharpness, and
> > makes 4x6 foot prints. They are beautiful, when you stand back a few
> > feet. As long as you don't get out a loupe and view the prints from 2
> > inches, I think you'll be very happy indeed with the D60. Especially if
> > you have any of the super sharp canon macro lenses!
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Also, If you have not been using digital, there is a tremendous "Fun"
> > factor. You will begin having a LOT of fun again.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

> In our most recent print exchange there were a few digital shots, one
> with a canon G2 and one with a Nikon 885. You could easily have passed
> them off as hasselblad images.

Thanks Jerry, that's good to know. I'll sell my hassy stuff tomorrow and get
a G2. With all the money left over, I'll buy you dinner at the China King or
Happy Joe's Pizza & Ice Cream Parlor.

> > > ...than I can get from that same image taken on a D60 and printed
> > > the way I print at the same size, I'll buy you lunch at the most
> > > expensive place in Grand Forks. :)
> > 
> > Whoopee!  Burger King ;-)
> 
> UGGGggh! Charcoal broiled hamburgers?  I think NOT ! :)
> 
> Actually we have a very good restaurant here. You could pay as much as
> $24 for a tenderolin steak!!!
> 
> Jerry

Dat come wit fries?

;-)

> > There is no possible way that you get better detail, period.  
> There aren't
> > enough pixels in the sensor to do so.  I also know you don't 
> get better latitude
> > than I can on film.  
> 
> I sure as hell can get better shadow and highlight detail than you can
> on film, if I process the image in photoshop.  Digital has a much
> greater range of tones than film.

I disagree, but would like you to explain why you believe that.

> > Boy...if that isn't a caveat...  Yes, you get better pictures 
> from your D60
> > than someone with a $400 flat bed scanner...I have no doubt.
> 
> I can get better pictures with my D60 than you can get with provia and a
> canon or nikon 4000 DPI scanner. 
> 
> But the minute you are talking about a really high end professional
> superexpensive scanner, you're right.

Well, my scanner is 10 years old, and they sell for $2k now...

Regards,

Austin

BK...here I come!

> > > > How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner
> > > vs your D60,
> > > > printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?
>
> No. You'd probably use some fancy high priced scanner that would blow
> away my little D60.

Leafscan 45...

> But if you are talking film darkroom prints, see above.
>
> However I don't know how we could get basically the same image.

Send me your D60, and I'll take the images, and send the images back to
you...

;-)

Austin, 

I believe the salad and potato are extra. 

With a glass of wine and tip, I've heard you can't get out of this place
for under $45 a person. Far too rich for me.  I've never paid over $20
for a meal in my life, and I doubt I ever will.

Remember I'm a tightwad.

That restaurant is the only one in town I have never eaten in, because
of the high prices.


Jerry




Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > > > ...than I can get from that same image taken on a D60 and printed
> > > > the way I print at the same size, I'll buy you lunch at the most
> > > > expensive place in Grand Forks. :)
> > >
> > > Whoopee!  Burger King ;-)
> >
> > UGGGggh! Charcoal broiled hamburgers?  I think NOT ! :)
> >
> > Actually we have a very good restaurant here. You could pay as much as
> > $24 for a tenderolin steak!!!
> >
> > Jerry
> 
> Dat come wit fries?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

> > I sure as hell can get better shadow and highlight detail than you can
> > on film, if I process the image in photoshop.  Digital has a much
> > greater range of tones than film.
> 
> I disagree, but would like you to explain why you believe that.

I believe it as I do it on a daily basis. I have always been able to get
much more out of photoshop and computer than a piece of film. I can't
believe you can't. Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
if they couldn't do better than film?


> 
> Well, my scanner is 10 years old, and they sell for $2k now...

And it was how much ten years ago?

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Austin I have had scans made with a leafscan. They are very high
quality. But most of today's scanners could easily equal equal the
quality of that 10 year old scanner. The D-60 comes closer than you'd
think, with desktop size prints.  By the way, wasn't that scanner about
500 pounds, and didn't it take over an hour and a half to scan a 35mm
slide?  The one Monarch Photo in Fargo had took that long and weighed
about that much. He didn't have it long, too unproductive. Too time
consuming. etc.  But nice quality!

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > > > > How about we compare a scanned piece of film on a 5080 scanner
> > > > vs your D60,
> > > > > printed all on the same paper/printer etc????  Up for that?
> >
> > No. You'd probably use some fancy high priced scanner that would blow
> > away my little D60.
> 
> Leafscan 45...
> 
> > But if you are talking film darkroom prints, see above.
> >
> > However I don't know how we could get basically the same image.
> 
> Send me your D60, and I'll take the images, and send the images back to
> you...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

> Austin I have had scans made with a leafscan. They are very high
> quality. But most of today's scanners could easily equal equal the
> quality of that 10 year old scanner.

No scanner made today can equal it for B&W, period.  The Leaf scans B&W AS
B&W, not as RGB...converted.  All new scanners scan B&W as RGB and convert
it...

> By the way, wasn't that scanner about
> 500 pounds,

85.

> and didn't it take over an hour and a half to scan a 35mm
> slide?

Possibly a color slide, but it scans 6x6 B&W in 4 minutes or less.

> The one Monarch Photo in Fargo had took that long and weighed
> about that much. He didn't have it long, too unproductive. Too time
> consuming. etc.  But nice quality!

Actually, it is the most prolific bureau scanner of all time...though the
bureaus have been moving to newer scanners...so it isn't that unproductive.
You just have to know how to use it, and keep the bulb calibrated so your
exposure times are not excessive.  Scan time is very deterministic...number
of lines x (exposure time + line overhead) plain and simple.

But, for me, it's simply great, and as I've said, NO scanner can equal it
for B&W.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> > > I sure as hell can get better shadow and highlight detail than you can
> > > on film, if I process the image in photoshop.  Digital has a much
> > > greater range of tones than film.
> >
> > I disagree, but would like you to explain why you believe that.
>
> I believe it as I do it on a daily basis.

Digital does not have a much greater range of tones than film.  The exposure
latitude of film is larger than digital, at least the digital cameras and
backs I have.

> I have always been able to get
> much more out of photoshop and computer than a piece of film. I can't
> believe you can't.

I don't quite know what you mean by that.  Since I scan film, as well as use
digital cameras and backs, I find film has far better tonality in both
highlights and shadows than digital input.

What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to "manipulate"/"process"
the image?

> Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
> if they couldn't do better than film?

Actually, I use PS simply for dust spotting very infrequently, but mostly
for simply printing to the Piezo plug-in, that's it.  Nothing else.  I do
all my setpoints and tonal corrections in the scanner driver.  Some people
find it better to scan in HDR mode (16 bit, HDR means High Dynamic Range
BTW) and do the setpoints and tonal curves in PS...but I have no need to.

Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...

> > Well, my scanner is 10 years old, and they sell for $2k now...
>
> And it was how much ten years ago?

$16k

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> Austin,
>
> I believe the salad and potato are extra.
>
> With a glass of wine and tip, I've heard you can't get out of this place
> for under $45 a person. Far too rich for me.  I've never paid over $20
> for a meal in my life, and I doubt I ever will.

Yeah, but you made an offer, and if I take you up on that, it's gonna cost
you more than $20...even at Burger King ;-)

> Remember I'm a tightwad.
>
> That restaurant is the only one in town I have never eaten in, because
> of the high prices.

Well, that might change...

Austin

Moreno, we are talking about letter size prints in the print exchange
here. i don't know how they would hold up at large sizes. But the images
I saw were certainly hasselblad quality.

Happy Joes, Great food at the local restaurant.

China King, Who knows? I hate Chinese food.

Jerry

> Thanks Jerry, that's good to know. I'll sell my hassy stuff tomorrow and get
> a G2. With all the money left over, I'll buy you dinner at the China King or
> Happy Joe's Pizza & Ice Cream Parlor.
>

Austin, this is contrary to everything I have ever read about digital
images. The one thing that has almost universal agreement is that
digital has a much wider tonal range and latitude than film. There are
museum photographers that are making 6 foot prints out of digital images
(Copying color paintings) that are FAR superior to Fuji Velvia in every
way. Of course they are using sinar cameras and 100,000 dollar sensors
and scanning backs.

Jerry

> > I believe it as I do it on a daily basis.
> 
> Digital does not have a much greater range of tones than film.  The exposure
> latitude of film is larger than digital, at least the digital cameras and
> backs I have.

Time to get some better equipment, Austin :)

Most people can get much wider tonal ranges from digital.
 
> > I have always been able to get
> > much more out of photoshop and computer than a piece of film. I can't
> > believe you can't.
> 
> I don't quite know what you mean by that.  Since I scan film, as well as use
> digital cameras and backs, I find film has far better tonality in both
> highlights and shadows than digital input.

You are in the minority.
> 
> What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to "manipulate"/"process"
> the image?

I use it for every image I print. You surely don't think you can get
such nice images right out of a camera, do you? I do burning and dodging
techniques that simply cannot be done in a darkroom. Also color
corrections, and of course the touch up and addition and removal of
little things, like twigs, leaves, etc., that simply don't belong in a
nice landscape. 

> > Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
> > if they couldn't do better than film?
> 
> Actually, I use PS simply for dust spotting very infrequently, but mostly
> for simply printing to the Piezo plug-in, that's it.  Nothing else.  

I do everything in Photoshop. I love it. It is a creative person's dream program.


> Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...

So no sharpening program can make any of your images any sharper.  I
just don't buy it.

> > > Well, my scanner is 10 years old, and they sell for $2k now...
> >
> > And it was how much ten years ago?

I have a couple scans made on a leaf scanner. And they sure did get
sharper when I sharpened them in photoshop!!!
> 
> $16k

I can get much better black and white photos from converted color images
using photoshop's channel mixer. Of this, there is NO doubt. I shoot
everything in color now, and convert.

Jerry

> 
> No scanner made today can equal it for B&W, period.  

That's your opinion, austin, not mine.

The Leaf scans B&W AS
> B&W, not as RGB...converted.  All new scanners scan B&W as RGB and convert
> it...
And give you much nicer black and white images as well!!
't it take over an hour and a half to scan a 35mm
> > slide?
> 
> Possibly a color slide, but it scans 6x6 B&W in 4 minutes or less.
> 
> > The one Monarch Photo in Fargo had took that long and weighed
> > about that much. He didn't have it long, too unproductive. Too time
> > consuming. etc.  But nice quality!
> 
> Actually, it is the most prolific bureau scanner of all time...though the
> bureaus have been moving to newer scanners...so it isn't that unproductive.
> You just have to know how to use it, and keep the bulb calibrated so your
> exposure times are not excessive.  Scan time is very deterministic...number
> of lines x (exposure time + line overhead) plain and simple.
> 
> But, for me, it's simply great, and as I've said, NO scanner can equal it
> for B&W.

Doubtful, I'm sure dozens of scanners could equal a 10 year old scanner!!

Jerry

You could spend $20 at burger king? My God, what would you order that
could possibly cost that much?

I doubt anyone is using a leafscanner to scan 35mm images today. They
could only do 8 or 10 a day. Who'd pay that much money for a 35mm scan?

Jerry

> > Austin,
> >
> > I believe the salad and potato are extra.
> >
> > With a glass of wine and tip, I've heard you can't get out of this place
> > for under $45 a person. Far too rich for me.  I've never paid over $20
> > for a meal in my life, and I doubt I ever will.
> 
> Yeah, but you made an offer, and if I take you up on that, it's gonna cost
> you more than $20...even at Burger King ;-)
> 
> > Remember I'm a tightwad.
> >
> > That restaurant is the only one in town I have never eaten in, because
> > of the high prices.
> 
> Well, that might change... 

Possibly, but It would really hurt to spend that much on a meal.
>

Jerry,

Since YOU haven't seen ant B&Ws scanned on a Leaf, how could you offer that
opinion?  I HAVE compared the Leaf to Polaroid and Nikon scans converted,
and there is no doubt.

Austin

> I can get much better black and white photos from converted color images
> using photoshop's channel mixer. Of this, there is NO doubt. I shoot
> everything in color now, and convert.
>
> Jerry
>
> The Leaf scans B&W AS
> > B&W, not as RGB...converted.  All new scanners scan B&W as RGB
> and convert
> > it...
> And give you much nicer black and white images as well!!
> 't it take over an hour and a half to scan a 35mm
> > > slide?

> > But, for me, it's simply great, and as I've said, NO scanner
> can equal it
> > for B&W.
>
> Doubtful, I'm sure dozens of scanners could equal a 10 year old scanner!!

Not for B&W image quality.

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> Austin, this is contrary to everything I have ever read about digital
> images. The one thing that has almost universal agreement is that
> digital has a much wider tonal range and latitude than film.

I believe you are confusing overall latitude, which digital does have, vs,
"instantaneous" latitude, as in for a particular scene/setting etc.  For
example, digital sensors can adjust such that they can see in very dark
scenes, like a digital video camera does.  But, that doesn't mean it has a
wider overall response.

> > Digital does not have a much greater range of tones than film.
> The exposure
> > latitude of film is larger than digital, at least the digital
> cameras and
> > backs I have.
>
> Time to get some better equipment, Austin :)

Well, that's not the problem ;-)

> Most people can get much wider tonal ranges from digital.

Not in a single image.

> > > I have always been able to get
> > > much more out of photoshop and computer than a piece of film. I can't
> > > believe you can't.
> >
> > I don't quite know what you mean by that.  Since I scan film,
> as well as use
> > digital cameras and backs, I find film has far better tonality in both
> > highlights and shadows than digital input.
>
> You are in the minority.

We may be in a semantic "game" here again...just like your issue with
"sharpness", which I contend isn't the issue, but you're having trouble
seeing why I say that.

> >
> > What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to
> "manipulate"/"process"
> > the image?
>
> I use it for every image I print. You surely don't think you can get
> such nice images right out of a camera, do you?

Er, I do.

> I do burning and dodging
> techniques that simply cannot be done in a darkroom.

I never burn or dodge at all these days, and haven't had to for years.  The
only time I did that in the darkroom was when I made a mistake in exposure
or development.

> Also color
> corrections, and of course the touch up and addition and removal of
> little things, like twigs, leaves, etc., that simply don't belong in a
> nice landscape.

That I understand for your use, I simply don't need it.

> > > Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
> > > if they couldn't do better than film?
> >
> > Actually, I use PS simply for dust spotting very infrequently,
> but mostly
> > for simply printing to the Piezo plug-in, that's it.  Nothing else.
>
> I do everything in Photoshop. I love it. It is a creative
> person's dream program.

Hum.  I don't believe I'd say it that way.  I'm quite creative, but I do my
creating in the scene/exposure/development etc.  I have no need to create
outside the image that is on film, it's final in and of it self...

> > Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...
>
> So no sharpening program can make any of your images any sharper.  I
> just don't buy it.

I didn't say that, sure you can make them "sharper", but to what good?  You
lose tonality, and then the image is degraded.  I believe you are really
overplaying the "sharp" issue.

> > > > Well, my scanner is 10 years old, and they sell for $2k now...
> > >
> > > And it was how much ten years ago?
>
> I have a couple scans made on a leaf scanner. And they sure did get
> sharper when I sharpened them in photoshop!!!

How do you know that was the scanner, and not the original film?

Also, are you talking B&W (after all, this IS a B&W list, now isn't it ;-)?
If you are talking color, yes, color images from CCD scanners do typically
like to be sharpened somewhat, simply because they use red and blue
channels, which are typically fuzzy due to the way CCDs respond to those two
colors.

Regards,

Austin

On 7/25/02 8:41 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> Hi Jim, the D60 results are great. Sharp, really nice. Even at 13x19.
> There isn't a 90 minute photo in the country that could touch it.
> 
> In our most recent print exchange there were a few digital shots, one
> with a canon G2 and one with a Nikon 885. You could easily have passed
> them off as hasselblad images.
> 
> jerry
> 

Thanks again, Jerry.

I shoot a lot with my hasselblad, and sounds like the D60 might it for me up
to 16X20 inches. I have been printing on an Epson 3000 with quad inks -- the
negs are scanned on my Umax Powerlook 3000 (maxxed at 3048ppi). When I get
my Epson 7600 I will be printing many of my Hass negs at 24 by 24, and at
24X30(cropped). I wonder if the D60 will do as well as the Hass at those
print sizes.

Jim

I told you before, I have 2 scans made at maximum resolution on a Leaf
Scanner, from a black and white negative (T max 100, Rolleiflex Sl66,
Zeiss Planar Lens, Tripod, etc. etc.). THe quality is very high, but no
higher than my agfa 2500 T scanner. And I'm certain the new Nikon 8000
etc. can equal it.

Opinion offered. 

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> 
> Since YOU haven't seen ant B&Ws scanned on a Leaf, how could you offer that
> opinion?  I HAVE compared the Leaf to Polaroid and Nikon scans converted,
> and there is no doubt.
> 
> Austin
> 
> > I can get much better black and white photos from converted color images
> > using photoshop's channel mixer. Of this, there is NO doubt. I shoot
> > everything in color now, and convert.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > The Leaf scans B&W AS
> > > B&W, not as RGB...converted.  All new scanners scan B&W as RGB
> > and convert
> > > it...
> > And give you much nicer black and white images as well!!
> > 't it take over an hour and a half to scan a 35mm
> > > > slide?
> 
> > > But, for me, it's simply great, and as I've said, NO scanner
> > can equal it
> > > for B&W.
> >
> > Doubtful, I'm sure dozens of scanners could equal a 10 year old scanner!!
> 
> Not for B&W image quality.
> 
> 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/

Jerry,

You must really be on another planet than I am, as your results often
completely differ from mine, and from many other people's I know...and I
simply can't explain it...rationally.  Are you sure your name isn't Anthony?
;-)

I KNOW the Leaf is much better in all respects than the Agfa 2500.   Not
that the Agfa is a bad scanner at all, but it isn't even in the same league
as the Leaf.  I've also tested the Leaf against the Nikon 8000, and no, the
Nikon isn't better, IMO, unless you need the extra resolution.

Also, scanner operation is VERY critical to how good your scans come out.
That's just a fact of life, just like taking the original image, operator
experience and vision weigh in heavily on the ability to make a high quality
outcome.

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:16 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canon D60 Question
>
>
> I told you before, I have 2 scans made at maximum resolution on a Leaf
> Scanner, from a black and white negative (T max 100, Rolleiflex Sl66,
> Zeiss Planar Lens, Tripod, etc. etc.). THe quality is very high, but no
> higher than my agfa 2500 T scanner. And I'm certain the new Nikon 8000
> etc. can equal it.
>
> Opinion offered.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > Since YOU haven't seen ant B&Ws scanned on a Leaf, how could
> you offer that
> > opinion?  I HAVE compared the Leaf to Polaroid and Nikon scans
> converted,
> > and there is no doubt.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > > I can get much better black and white photos from converted
> color images
> > > using photoshop's channel mixer. Of this, there is NO doubt. I shoot
> > > everything in color now, and convert.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > > The Leaf scans B&W AS
> > > > B&W, not as RGB...converted.  All new scanners scan B&W as RGB
> > > and convert
> > > > it...
> > > And give you much nicer black and white images as well!!
> > > 't it take over an hour and a half to scan a 35mm
> > > > > slide?
> >
> > > > But, for me, it's simply great, and as I've said, NO scanner
> > > can equal it
> > > > for B&W.
> > >
> > > Doubtful, I'm sure dozens of scanners could equal a 10 year
> old scanner!!
> >
> > Not for B&W image quality.
> >
> > Austin

> > > What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to
> > "manipulate"/"process"
> > > the image?
> >
> > I use it for every image I print. You surely don't think you can get
> > such nice images right out of a camera, do you?
> 
> Er, I do.

Not possible Austin. In your entire lifetime, you would never come upon
a perfect, flawless landscape that couldn't be improved, however
slightly by a tweak in photoshop. Even Ansel Adams, would have loved
photoshop. He was well aware of the digital revolution and stated many
times that he wish he could participate in it.

There are many little tiny things that would result in an improvement in
a lot of his prints, if he had only have had photoshop. In some cases,
it would have amounted to nothing more than adding a little more sky
than he had captured on film.  Or retouching some of his best images
that were damaged by the fire that damaged a lot of his negatives. I'm
speaking of little tweaks here, nothing major. 
> 
> > I do burning and dodging
> > techniques that simply cannot be done in a darkroom.
> 
> I never burn or dodge at all these days, and haven't had to for years.  The
> only time I did that in the darkroom was when I made a mistake in exposure
> or development.

Austin, then I would have to question the quality of your prints. Every
print I've ever made in my life required burning and dodging. And there
is no mistakes made. If you know exactly what you want your print to
look like, dodging, burning, curves, levels are everyday standard fare.
No print should leave you home without some.

Same with Weston, Adams, etc. It simply not possible for you to have a
PERFECT print every time without darkroom tweaking, or photoshop
tweaking.  To prove it, send me a file and a print that you think is
perfect, one you think could not be improved upon no matter what. One
that is a straight print, that you have made no adjustments to. I'll
make a minor adjustment or two, which will improve it. Maybe a lot,
maybe just a little bit. But there will be an improvement.


> > Also color
> > corrections, and of course the touch up and addition and removal of
> > little things, like twigs, leaves, etc., that simply don't belong in a
> > nice landscape.
> 
> That I understand for your use, I simply don't need it.

Then you are not shooting fine art landscapes.  What kind of photos do
you shoot?
> 
> > > > Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
> > > > if they couldn't do better than film?
> > >
> > > Actually, I use PS simply for dust spotting very infrequently,
> > but mostly
> > > for simply printing to the Piezo plug-in, that's it.  Nothing else.

Then I'd have to say, even sight unseen that your prints can stand improvement.

> > I do everything in Photoshop. I love it. It is a creative
> > person's dream program.
 
> Hum.  I don't believe I'd say it that way.  I'm quite creative, but I do my
> creating in the scene/exposure/development etc.  I have no need to create
> outside the image that is on film, it's final in and of it self...

Then it certainly is not all the image it could be.

Again, send me a file and print that you think is perfect, one that you
have made no alterations in. I'll improve it for you. Free, even.
> 
> > > Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...
> >
> > So no sharpening program can make any of your images any sharper.  I
> > just don't buy it.
> 
> I didn't say that, sure you can make them "sharper", but to what good?  You
> lose tonality, 

Not if you apply just the right amount of sharpening....

and then the image is degraded. 

Wrong. That means 99 percent of all photoshop users degrade their images
when they sharpen them. This is patently absurd.

 I believe you are really
> overplaying the "sharp" issue.

I love sharpness, along with all the other things that make a good
photo. And that certainly includes dodging and burning, and tweaking. 
 

> How do you know that was the scanner, and not the original film?

I have a 20X stereo microscope. I know exactly how sharp a piece of film is.
> 
> Also, are you talking B&W (after all, this IS a B&W list, now isn't it ;-)?

As of a couple years ago, I have been shooting everything in color, and
converting in channel mixer in photoshop. This goes for Digital as well.
You can get MUCH better tones that way than simply desaturating the
color image.

Jery

Hi Austin. 

As you may know, I've had a leafscan made from my favorite Rollei
negative. 

I've also scanned the same neg on my agfa T2500 scanner. Quality for all
practical purposes is absolutely identical. 16x20 prints show not a whit
of difference.  I didn't have my scanner at the time I had the leafscan
made. So when I got it, I made a scan just to see if the leafscan was
any better.  It wasn't. As good, yes. Better, no. Not sharper, not more detailed.


> I KNOW the Leaf is much better in all respects than the Agfa 2500.   Not
> that the Agfa is a bad scanner at all, but it isn't even in the same league
> as the Leaf.  

What is there about the agfa that puts it outside the leaf's wonderfulness?

I have hand no hands on experience with the leaf, so all I know is the
comparison of the image I recieved from the lab that did it.

I've also tested the Leaf against the Nikon 8000, and no, the
> Nikon isn't better, IMO, unless you need the extra resolution.

Good God Austin, you mean you admit there's a scanner that has better
resolution than the leaf? :)

> Also, scanner operation is VERY critical to how good your scans come out.
> That's just a fact of life, just like taking the original image, operator
> experience and vision weigh in heavily on the ability to make a high quality
> outcome.

I know it. I'm not positive the guy who scanned my leafscan was an
expert.  I'll never know. He's long gone, and so is the leaf scanner at
his lab. But my own scan is of equal quality to his leafscan. 

Jerry
>

I agree.  But I love to argue with Austin. He knows more technically
that I could ever hope to know, but I do wonder sometimes about some of
the comments he makes about fine art printing. :)

Jerry

Tim Spragens wrote:
> 
> > Austin, then I would have to question the quality of your prints.
> 
> D*** Jerry, this is in part a matter of style and concept. 

I know Tim,

No matter what Austin and I think, a third party would probably think
differently than either of us. 

There are certain kinds of art I hate, and will never understand. But
I'm well aware that many people like them a lot.

Jer


I have one

> of Austin's prints, a very pleasing one. I'd likely have handled it
> differently, but appreciate what he's done with it, or not done, as
> the case may be. I've a couple of yours as well, and would say the
> same.
> 
> We're all working with certain self-imposed contraints, which makes
> our photos parts of ourselves. I'll be using film as long as I can
> buy it, because, in part, of it's restrictions and peculiar
> qualities; in part because of its portablility and lack of need for
> batteries. If you're in Martin's A3 group, you'll see something that
> most likely could not be captured digitally, and a tonality that is
> different from digital capture.
> 
> To each his/her own tools, and let's hope that the options don't
> disappear anytime soon.
> 
> Tim
> 
> --
> Tim Spragens
> 
> http://www.borderless-photos.de
> http://www.borderless-photos.com
> 
> 
> 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/

> Austin, then I would have to question the quality of your prints.

D*** Jerry, this is in part a matter of style and concept. I have one 
of Austin's prints, a very pleasing one. I'd likely have handled it 
differently, but appreciate what he's done with it, or not done, as 
the case may be. I've a couple of yours as well, and would say the 
same.

We're all working with certain self-imposed contraints, which makes 
our photos parts of ourselves. I'll be using film as long as I can 
buy it, because, in part, of it's restrictions and peculiar 
qualities; in part because of its portablility and lack of need for 
batteries. If you're in Martin's A3 group, you'll see something that 
most likely could not be captured digitally, and a tonality that is 
different from digital capture. 

To each his/her own tools, and let's hope that the options don't 
disappear anytime soon.

Tim


-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

> I agree.  But I love to argue with Austin. He knows more technically
> that I could ever hope to know, but I do wonder sometimes about some
> of the comments he makes about fine art printing. :)

Yes Jerry, but Austin's a snapping turtle, won't let go until it 
thunders (Hi Austin, I know you!), Seems you are as well, Jer. We're 
working in an area where opinion and fact are easily clouded. I enjoy 
both of your prints, but tend to trust Austin's technology, even if I 
may disagree when the ink hits the paper.

Tim


-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Hi Jerry,

> > I KNOW the Leaf is much better in all respects than the Agfa 2500.   Not
> > that the Agfa is a bad scanner at all, but it isn't even in the
> same league
> > as the Leaf.
>
> What is there about the agfa that puts it outside the leaf's
> wonderfulness?

Higher resolution for 35mm, scans B&W with a single ND filter...and the
overall scanner design.  The Leaf is designed with no mirrors or deflections
in the light path, I do not believe the Agfa can say that...as it is a
flatbed.  I also don't know what lense the Agfa uses, but the Leaf uses a
Rodigon APO flat field lense, that is quite high end.  Believe me, I have no
disrespect for the Agfa, but it's a multi-purpose scanner that has
compromises in design...

> > I've also tested the Leaf against the Nikon 8000, and no, the
> > Nikon isn't better, IMO, unless you need the extra resolution.
>
> Good God Austin, you mean you admit there's a scanner that has better
> resolution than the leaf? :)

Only for MF.  The Leaf has higher resolution for 35mm...5080 vs 4000!
Actually, the way the Leaf does multiple resolutions is "interesting"...you
end up with the ability to make the same sized prints...no matter what the
format...and that works well for me.

> I know it. I'm not positive the guy who scanned my leafscan was an
> expert.  I'll never know. He's long gone, and so is the leaf scanner at
> his lab. But my own scan is of equal quality to his leafscan.

If you want, Jerry, you can send me a B&W MF negative, and I'll send you a
scan.

BTW, were your Leaf scans B&W or color?

Regards,

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> > > I use it (PS) for every image I print. You surely don't think you can
get
> > > such nice images right out of a camera, do you?
> >
> > Er, I do.
>
> Not possible Austin. In your entire lifetime, you would never come upon
> a perfect, flawless landscape that couldn't be improved, however
> slightly by a tweak in photoshop.

No, I haven't, but I don't shoot landscapes...and I'm sure my belief in what
makes a perfect picture is different than yours...

> There are many little tiny things that would result in an improvement in
> a lot of his prints, if he had only have had photoshop. In some cases,
> it would have amounted to nothing more than adding a little more sky
> than he had captured on film.

That to me makes the image disingenuous...not reality.  I know it's a fine
line, and there is a lot of debate on this exact issue, and I'd prefer not
to get into it, but I'm a purist, and I simply don't do things like that.
And...I'm not condemning people who do in any way, shape or form.

> Or retouching some of his best images
> that were damaged by the fire that damaged a lot of his negatives.

Yes, that is a PERFECTLY valid use for PS image manipulation, IMO.

> > > I do burning and dodging
> > > techniques that simply cannot be done in a darkroom.
> >
> > I never burn or dodge at all these days, and haven't had to for
> years.  The
> > only time I did that in the darkroom was when I made a mistake
> in exposure
> > or development.
>
> Austin, then I would have to question the quality of your prints.

Have you ever seen any?  No one has ever questioned the quality of my
prints...and I've been doing commercial photography for near 20 years...as
well as commissioned fine art work.

> Every
> print I've ever made in my life required burning and dodging.

REQUIRED???  I can't imagine that.

> And there
> is no mistakes made. If you know exactly what you want your print to
> look like, dodging, burning, curves, levels are everyday standard fare.
> No print should leave you home without some.

Curves and levels, absolutely.

> Same with Weston, Adams, etc. It simply not possible for you to have a
> PERFECT print every time without darkroom tweaking, or photoshop
> tweaking.  To prove it, send me a file and a print that you think is
> perfect, one you think could not be improved upon no matter what. One
> that is a straight print, that you have made no adjustments to. I'll
> make a minor adjustment or two, which will improve it. Maybe a lot,
> maybe just a little bit. But there will be an improvement.

How do you gauge "improvement"?????

> > > Also color
> > > corrections, and of course the touch up and addition and removal of
> > > little things, like twigs, leaves, etc., that simply don't belong in a
> > > nice landscape.
> >
> > That I understand for your use, I simply don't need it.
>
> Then you are not shooting fine art landscapes.

Well, no...I would not call what I shoot "fine art landscapes"...

> What kind of photos do
> you shoot?

http://www.darkroom.com/Images/LABOWL02w.jpg
http://www.darkroom.com/Images/JS01aw.jpg
http://www.darkroom.com/Images/Mv03bw.jpg

Realize these are web images, and what YOU see on your monitor is not
necessarily what the final print looks like...this is simply illustrative of
the types of images I shoot in B&W.

> > > > > Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
> > > > > if they couldn't do better than film?
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I use PS simply for dust spotting very infrequently,
> > > but mostly
> > > > for simply printing to the Piezo plug-in, that's it.  Nothing else.
>
> Then I'd have to say, even sight unseen that your prints can
> stand improvement.

Not to me...or to the people who buy them.  Jerry, you're not the be all and
end all of what, to me (or any one else), is a perfect print.  That's up to
ME, not you.  I present my work as I want it presented...period.

> > > > Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...
> > >
> > > So no sharpening program can make any of your images any sharper.  I
> > > just don't buy it.
> >
> > I didn't say that, sure you can make them "sharper", but to
> what good?  You
> > lose tonality,
>
> Not if you apply just the right amount of sharpening....
>
> and then the image is degraded.
>
> Wrong. That means 99 percent of all photoshop users degrade their images
> when they sharpen them. This is patently absurd.

Yeah, but that's not what I said.  I said "I DO NOT NEED TO SHARPEN, AND IF
I DID IT WOULD DEGRADE THE IMAGE", specifically referring to B&W images
scanned on my Leaf.  For color, that's a different story...for another
scanner that does NOT scan B&W in RGB, that's a different story.

>  I believe you are really
> > overplaying the "sharp" issue.
>
> I love sharpness, along with all the other things that make a good
> photo.

A good photo to YOU...  Keep that in mind.

> I have a 20X stereo microscope. I know exactly how sharp a piece
> of film is.

Well, I have a 90x ;-)

> >
> > Also, are you talking B&W (after all, this IS a B&W list, now
> isn't it ;-)?
>
> As of a couple years ago, I have been shooting everything in color, and
> converting in channel mixer in photoshop.

Well, then YOU DO need to sharpen because of that.  It's simply a property
of CCD imaging sensors and Red and Blue channels.

> This goes for Digital as well.

You really don't have a choice there...the camera you have does NOT take the
image in B&W anyway, it ONLY takes it in RGBG...

> You can get MUCH better tones that way than simply desaturating the
> color image.

Er, huh?

Regards,

Austin

P.S.  I can taste those burgers all ready ;-)

> I shoot a lot with my hasselblad, and sounds like the D60 might
> it for me up
> to 16X20 inches. I have been printing on an Epson 3000 with quad
> inks -- the
> negs are scanned on my Umax Powerlook 3000 (maxxed at 3048ppi). When I get
> my Epson 7600 I will be printing many of my Hass negs at 24 by 24, and at
> 24X30(cropped). I wonder if the D60 will do as well as the Hass at those
> print sizes.
>
> Jim

Jim,

There's no logical reason the D60 could give the same "image quality" as a
Hasselblad will for images 16 x 20 and above....(assuming well "produced"
images, of course).  And...of course, that depends on what one means by
"image quality"...but by what I consider "image quality", simply no.

The D60 has a sensor resolution of 3072 x 2048...which would mean 2048 over
16", which is 128 pixels per inch to the printer...  Yes, you can "uprez"
it...but that does not add more REAL detail to the image, as what's there is
what's there...  Note, this does not take into account that the pixels from
the D60 are interpolated, and film from the Hasselblad is not...and that you
can shoot B&W natively with the Hasselblad.

I have a digital camera that has higher resolution than the D60, and it
gives a TRUE RGB images, not interpolated images as the D60 does...and they
do stand up to about 8x10...and beyond that, there is simply no contest, the
Hasselblad is far superior.  The digital camera I have uses standard Nikon
mount lenses...which are equally on par with the Canon lenses for the D60,
and it gives 2700 x 3400 (9M) TRUE 24 bit (or 48 bit) pixels with no
interpolation at all.

That's just my experience...and, it in no way is meant to degrade the D60,
as it is a fantastic camera, and certainly produces fantastic images, but it
has limitations, in reality.  I suggest before you "dis" your Hasselblad,
you do a real image comparison of your needs...

Regards,

Austin

on 7/26/2002 11:37 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>>>> What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to
>>> "manipulate"/"process"
>>>> the image?
>>> 
>>> I use it for every image I print. You surely don't think you can get
>>> such nice images right out of a camera, do you?
>> 
>> Er, I do.
> 
> Not possible Austin. In your entire lifetime, you would never come upon
> a perfect, flawless landscape that couldn't be improved, however
> slightly by a tweak in photoshop. Even Ansel Adams, would have loved
> photoshop. He was well aware of the digital revolution and stated many
> times that he wish he could participate in it.


Unless you can light your photograph from scratch, and have most equipment
you need at your disposal, including crew, then selective lightening and
darkening, and curves etc are essential to making a fine photograph and not
a technical reproduction.

It's very very rare that nature provides perfection without a bit of help
from a visionary.  
 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> There's no logical reason the D60 could give the same "image 
quality" as a
> Hasselblad will for images 16 x 20 and above....(assuming 
well "produced"
> images, of course).  And...of course, that depends on what one 
means by
> "image quality"...but by what I consider "image quality", simply no.

Like many others, I'm not much interested in logic here (i.e., 
theory, talking about what the results supposedly _should be_ rather 
than looking at how they _actually are_).  I'm interested in what I 
can see with my eyes.  I understand that Austin thinks there's a big 
difference even when viewed with the eyes, but I think his standards 
(or his eyes) are a bit different from the rest of ours.  (I haven't 
seen enough digital vs. film comparison to decide conclusively for 
myself, though...)

> 
> The D60 has a sensor resolution of 3072 x 2048...which would mean 
2048 over
> 16", which is 128 pixels per inch to the printer...  Yes, you 
can "uprez"
> it...but that does not add more REAL detail to the image, as what's 
there is
> what's there...  

The best analysis I've seen so far of digicam vs. film resolution is 
the one done by Norman Koren (already referred to in this thread) to 
be found at:  http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

Koren concludes that the D60 has 72% of the resolution of Provia 100 
film scanned with an excellent 4000 dpi scan.  (He also says that the 
D30 has about 55% of the resolution of the Provia 100F.)

But, he goes on to say that you can't conclude that prints from the 
film will have better image quality just because they have higher 
resolution:  

"[R]emember that resolution is not the only factor that influences 
image quality. Digital cameras will have better image quality than 
film cameras with the same resolution because they have much less 
grain (noise). "

That, at least, is what he's concluded from his own extensive hands 
on tests of film and digital prints.  

How much of the gap in resolution would the D60's lower noise than 
film make up?  I don't know.  From many accounts, including Koren's, 
any actual gap in image quality is very small.

Koren goes on to say:

"The image quality of digital cameras will equal 35mm with fewer 
pixels than predicted by MTF alone because digital cameras have much 
less noise."

"Skies in digital camera images are virtually grainless. That makes a 
big difference in perceived quality. Many photographers will perceive 
images from the current generation of high-end 6 megapixel cameras-- 
the Canon EOS D60 and the Nikon D100-- to be equal to 35mm.  We are 
there now!"
 
"Digital camera images I've seen (modest as well as fine) are sharp 
right down to the pixel level. This can be difficult to achieve with 
a high resolution film scan because it requires sharpening, and 
sharpening increases grain. To minimize grain enhancement, I usually 
use unsharp mask with a threshold and mask out the sky. You can only 
sharpen a film image so much before it gets ugly. "

Koren's remarks are basically just he's worked out in trying to 
formulate a theory to fit what he's seen (that the 6MP digicams are 
nearly the equal of 35mm).  He's very carefully trying to figure out 
why digital prints somehow seeem to look better than they should.  Is 
his theory right about why this is so?  I have no idea.  

But Koren's theorizing seems much more persuasive to me than Austin's 
comments, which sound much more like he wants to convince me that the 
facts should fit his theory when -- from most accounts from people 
who have seen with their own eyes -- they don't.  (And I know Austin 
does maintain that he can see a big difference.  Maybe so, I have yet 
to see a print from one of the 6MP digicams so I'll have to wait 
before I decide conclusively for myself.)

-- Herb

Morning Austin! 

> > What is there about the agfa that puts it outside the leaf's
> > wonderfulness?
> 
> Higher resolution for 35mm, scans B&W with a single ND filter...and the
> overall scanner design.  

I wasn't thinking of 35mm here, but 2 1/4.

The Leaf is designed with no mirrors or deflections
> in the light path, I do not believe the Agfa can say that...as it is a
> flatbed.  I also don't know what lense the Agfa uses, 

Macro Rodenstock APO, I believe; it's one of their best lenses.

but the Leaf uses a
> Rodigon APO flat field lense, that is quite high end.  Believe me, I have no
> disrespect for the Agfa, but it's a multi-purpose scanner that has
> compromises in design...

> > I know it. I'm not positive the guy who scanned my leafscan was an
> > expert.  I'll never know. He's long gone, and so is the leaf scanner at
> > his lab. But my own scan is of equal quality to his leafscan.

> If you want, Jerry, you can send me a B&W MF negative, and I'll send you a
> scan.

I may take you up on your offer.  I would like to rescan one of my
favorite negs on my agfa, then send it to you and have you scan it on
your leaf at the maximum possible quality.  It is an image of a mountain
stream after a fresh snowfall, taken after sunset with a fuji 6x9. 
Unfortunately, I had the wrong film in the camera for this shot, it was
vericolor H.C. We were just driving by this stream in Montana, and I
didn't have a lot of time to set up the shot, or change films, as the
light was rapidly disappearing.  The exposure was about a minute, so you
can see it was getting dark fast! But the image itself is one of my
favorites, and I would love to get the highest possible quality from it. 

I'll rescan it on my agfa, and then send it to you. (I can do a better
job now, I've had much more experience with scanning since I last
scanned it).

When you send it back, send a 11x17 (Roughly) print with it, that you've
printed as well as you can.  I'll print your file as is, with no
adjustments from me, as large as I can on my 1280 printer. And then I'll
see what a leaf really can do and if it is really that much better than
the agfa. Please scan at least 2500 DPI. More if you can. I really hope
your scanner is better than the agfa in this case, as I would love to
get a 3 foot print of it someday to hang in my living room. I'll be glad
to pay you for your print, CD, and postage. 

Jerry

> BTW, were your Leaf scans B&W or color?

Both Tmax Black and white.

Jerry
>f

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bruce <smthopr@e...> wrote:
> Unless you can light your photograph from scratch, and have most 
equipment
> you need at your disposal, including crew, then selective 
lightening and
> darkening, and curves etc are essential to making a fine photograph 
and not
> a technical reproduction.
> 
> It's very very rare that nature provides perfection without a bit 
of help
> from a visionary.  
>  
> -Bruce


I'm with Bruce here.  Austin's statement that he does no manipulation 
in Photoshop sounds bizarre to me.  I realize he does some amount of 
digital manipulation in his wonderful scanner in capturing the scan, 
but this is nowhere near what seems necessary to come up with the 
best image possible.

Austin seems to take some pride in the fact that he takes pictures 
that don't need Photoshop processing.  But one of the surprising 
things to me when I first discovered photography was that even the 
great photographers do lots of work processing the image after they 
capture it on film.

At the beginning of his book, _The Negative_, Ansel Adams says:

"My work, for example, is frequently regarded as 'realistic,' while 
in fact the value relationships within most of my photographs are far 
from a literal transcription of actuality.  I employ numerous 
photographic controls to creat an image that represents 'the 
equivalent of what I saw and felt.' . . . If I succeed, the viewer 
accepts the image as its own fact, and responds emotionally and 
aesthetically to it."

Sorry, but I just can't believe that you can get the control over the 
image you need to produce the best photos (in a digital workflow) 
unless you're doing some work in Photoshop.  I realize you can get 
some of the control you need from scanner settings, but you certainly 
can't get the kind of selective control that is often necessary.

-- Herb

Hi Again Austin,

> No, I haven't, but I don't shoot landscapes...and I'm sure my belief in what
> makes a perfect picture is different than yours...

Ah, that explains a lot. I don't know where I got the idea you also shot landscapes.
> 
> > There are many little tiny things that would result in an improvement in
> > a lot of his prints, if he had only have had photoshop. In some cases,
> > it would have amounted to nothing more than adding a little more sky
> > than he had captured on film.
> 
> That to me makes the image disingenuous...not reality.  I know it's a fine
> line, and there is a lot of debate on this exact issue, 

Reality? But the sky was there. The lens simply didn't have enough wide
coverage to include it. Why on earth would it matter if you added the
sky in the camera, in the darkroom, or in the computer? You are creating
an image. That's what I do, anyway.

I create and make images, I don't just take what's there before the
camera and settle for that. An image can always be improved!

This is especially true in this instance:  MANY times in my life I have
seen a beautiful waterfall setting.  There is always a little twig or
stick, or in come cases even a tree trunk that is sticking out of the
waterfall that absolutely SHOULD NOT be in that image. It is only by
accident it is there. It wasn't always there. Why would I include it in
an otherwise beautiful photograph? I wouldn't. I'd remove it. THAT's the
way I see the picture. Makes not a whit of difference if I make the
alteration or not, for me.  

I could always wade out and remove the stick I suppose, but the result
would be the same in the photo. 

I had an instructor at Brooks, who is no longer with us, who let me in
on his little secret one time when we were shooting pictures. This
couldn't apply today, you'd end up in jail. But he used to carry a
pruner and saw on a long handle. If a tree branch or bush ruined his
composition, he'd just saw it down, or remove the branch.

There's plenty of times I'd have loved to have done that, but never did.
But now there's photoshop. Nothing to it!

> > > > I do burning and dodging
> > > > techniques that simply cannot be done in a darkroom.

> > > I never burn or dodge at all these days, and haven't had to for
> > years.  The
> > > only time I did that in the darkroom was when I made a mistake
> > in exposure
> > > or development.

Can't understand that. Don't think Ansel Adams or Weston ever made a
straight print. 

How could you possibly get the deep shadow detail with great contrast
without burning and dodging?

Or are you talking about studio lit setups? There, I can beleive you can
light it so you wouldn't need dodging etc., but I was mainly thinking of Landscapes.

> >
> > Austin, then I would have to question the quality of your prints.
> 
> Have you ever seen any?  No one has ever questioned the quality of my
> prints...and I've been doing commercial photography for near 20 years...as
> well as commissioned fine art work.

Yes, I'm sure they are fine, but couldn't they be better?  Did you
REALLY want that telephone line in your picture? 
> 
> > Every
> > print I've ever made in my life required burning and dodging.
> 
> REQUIRED???  I can't imagine that.

And I can't imagine printing without doing that. I don't think, as a
student at Brooks, I ever saw anybody ever make a straight print of
anything. I can't recall even one time that could have happened. They
were merciless about print quality there, and if there was the tiniest
thing that could be improved by dodging or burning, you did it.
>
To prove it, send me a file and a print that you think is
> > perfect, one you think could not be improved upon no matter what. One
> > that is a straight print, that you have made no adjustments to. I'll
> > make a minor adjustment or two, which will improve it. Maybe a lot,
> > maybe just a little bit. But there will be an improvement.
> 
> How do you gauge "improvement"?????

Ahh, we finally get to it. What's a great improvement to me may not be
to you. I can understand that, of course.  But I'm still right on this
one :).

> 
>
> Not to me...or to the people who buy them.  Jerry, you're not the be all and
> end all of what, to me (or any one else), is a perfect print.  

Sure I am. :)


> > > I didn't say that, sure you can make them "sharper", but to
> > what good?  You
> > > lose tonality,
> >
> > Not if you apply just the right amount of sharpening....
> >
> > and then the image is degraded.
> >
> > Wrong. That means 99 percent of all photoshop users degrade their images
> > when they sharpen them. This is patently absurd.
>
> >  I believe you are really
> > > overplaying the "sharp" issue.

Well, I have been told I have an obsession with sharpness... I guess it
all stems from the fact that I would love to have 8x10 contact quality
with lesser cameras... The images I shoot would be most difficult with a
large format. And I couldn't carry around that heavy equipment any more.

> A good photo to YOU...  Keep that in mind.
>
> 
> Well, I have a 90x ;-)

Stereo?


> > You can get MUCH better tones that way than simply desaturating the
> > color image.
> 
> Er, huh?


Surely you are aware of photoshops Channel Mixer and why you would use
it.  You would NEVER just desaturate an image, that would result in a
pretty lame print.

Jerry

If you Love Hamburgers, you REALLY don't want to eat at our Burger King....

Hi Austin,

I saw the three photos you put up.  I would have added a catch light in
the child's eyes in the first picture, it would really improve it, IMHO,
of course.

In the harbor scene, nothing appears very sharp, but I am willing to
chalk that up to monitor resolution.  To improve it, I can think of many
things I would do to it, but then it would be quite a different picture.
To me, it would be much improved, to you, you'd probably not agree at
all. 

Wonder what would happen if two  photographers got together, shot a
particular scene, and then, each photographer put it in photoshop and
gave his interprretation of it. Then when each was satisfied, they gave
them to a third photographer, and let him alter it to his liking. Then
to a fourth, etc.  

Wonder what it would end up like after it had been through 5
photographers? Wonder if they even COULD agree as to which was best?  It
would be interesting.

Jerry

> Unless you can light your photograph from scratch, and have most equipment
> you need at your disposal, including crew, then selective lightening and
> darkening, and curves etc are essential to making a fine
> photograph and not
> a technical reproduction.
>
> It's very very rare that nature provides perfection without a bit of help
> from a visionary.

Hi Bruce,

With proper metering, exposure, framing and development...and setpoints and
tonal curves, I can get exactly what I want from an image, with all the
tonal detail I want...and I take it as a challenge to get all that right.

I spend a lot of time calibrating my entire system to allow me to do that.
I love to work with what exists in a scene...and enjoy seeing what I see in
the "image" as it exists, not in what I can turn it in to via PS.  That's
simply my "workflow"...and what I like to do.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Herb,

> The best analysis I've seen so far of digicam vs. film resolution is
> the one done by Norman Koren (already referred to in this thread) to
> be found at:  http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
>
> Koren concludes that the D60 has 72% of the resolution of Provia 100
> film scanned with an excellent 4000 dpi scan.  (He also says that the
> D30 has about 55% of the resolution of the Provia 100F.)

It doesn't have NEAR 72% of the resolution, the statement is entirely
incorrect.  I've explained why in another post...

> Koren goes on to say:
>
> "The image quality of digital cameras will equal 35mm with fewer
> pixels than predicted by MTF alone because digital cameras have much
> less noise."

That is entirely subjective.  I prefer detail in my images, some people
prefer sharpness...it's all in what you believe is "quality".

> Koren's remarks are basically just he's worked out in trying to
> formulate a theory to fit what he's seen (that the 6MP digicams are
> nearly the equal of 35mm).  He's very carefully trying to figure out
> why digital prints somehow seeem to look better than they should.

Because they are sharp and have less detail.  Digital cameras give images
much like lithographs...very crisp lines, but not complete detail.  To some
people, that looks very good...  The eyes and the brain typically like this
"order".

It's "similar" to the issue of CDs vs albums.  CDs are very clean
sounding...and to most people that is enough to make them sound much
better...but to some people, albums have a higher fidelity and retain more
"detail" (as the "detail" that can be recorded by CDs falls off at 22kHz)
and therefore sound better...

Regards,

Austin

> How could you possibly get the deep shadow detail with great contrast
> without burning and dodging?

Exposure and development...

> Did you
> REALLY want that telephone line in your picture?

If it's there, it's there...  BTW, what telephone line are you talking
about?

> > >  I believe you are really
> > > > overplaying the "sharp" issue.
>
> Well, I have been told I have an obsession with sharpness...

Yes, you certainly do!  And I have one with detail ;-)

> > Well, I have a 90x ;-)
>
> Stereo?

It's got a screen (not CRT, it's a DynaScope)...so yes, I can view the image
with both eyes...

> > > You can get MUCH better tones that way than simply desaturating the
> > > color image.
> >
> > Er, huh?
>
>
> Surely you are aware of photoshops Channel Mixer and why you would use
> it.  You would NEVER just desaturate an image, that would result in a
> pretty lame print.

Yes, but I have no need to do any of that...

> If you Love Hamburgers, you REALLY don't want to eat at our
> Burger King....

OK, I'll take your word for that.  Got a Wendy's?

;-)

Hi Herb,

> Austin's statement that he does no manipulation
> in Photoshop sounds bizarre to me.

In PS, I simply crop the image, then images/size/export to Piezo.  I do some
dust spotting if there is a need to...but that's it.  Technically, I could
do the crop/image/size etc. in the scanner application, and merely use PS to
export to the Piezo plug-in...

> I realize he does some amount of
> digital manipulation in his wonderful scanner in capturing the scan,
> but this is nowhere near what seems necessary to come up with the
> best image possible.

In the scanner application, I only do setpoints and adjust the tonal curve
(typically via brightness and contrast, and if necessary with the tonal
curve tool, which is similar to the one in PS), which is part and parcel of
any film scanning process.

> Sorry, but I just can't believe that you can get the control over the
> image you need to produce the best photos (in a digital workflow)
> unless you're doing some work in Photoshop.

Was there something "wrong" with my images?

Regards,

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> I saw the three photos you put up.  I would have added a catch light in
> the child's eyes in the first picture, it would really improve it, IMHO,
> of course.

I take it you don't do much child photography...that shot was natural light,
in a crowded store...and when photographing a 1.5 year old child, you simply
can't ask him to "hold it" and wait until someone gets out their handy dandy
catch light to "get it right".  You've got .5 seconds to take the picture...
And, BTW, he does have brown eyes, and, much to my delight, the pupils are
distinguishable in the original scan (as well as in the 12 x 12 print we
have on the wall upstairs).

> In the harbor scene, nothing appears very sharp, but I am willing to
> chalk that up to monitor resolution.  To improve it, I can think of many
> things I would do to it, but then it would be quite a different picture.
> To me, it would be much improved, to you, you'd probably not agree at
> all.

...the original image is tack sharp.  In it, you can distinguish the
individual chain links in the chains...it has incredible detail,
surprisingly incredible detail (one of the reasons I really like that
image).  Sharpening degrades the tonality in the detail, which is why I
don't do it.  The world isn't simply "sharp", but it is in focus.  There is
a distinct difference...

Regards,

Austin

Austin, that is the POINT of photoshop tweaks!!!!!!

You PUT the catchlight there, because it would much improve the image. 
You would do it in a studio, you can't do it in a grab shot, but you CAN
do it in photoshop.

Jerry

> I take it you don't do much child photography...that shot was natural light,
> in a crowded store...and when photographing a 1.5 year old child, you simply
> can't ask him to "hold it" and wait until someone gets out their handy dandy
> catch light to "get it right".  You've got .5 seconds to take the picture...
> And, BTW, he does have brown eyes, and, much to my delight, the pupils are
> distinguishable in the original scan (as well as in the 12 x 12 print we
> have on the wall upstairs).
> 
> > In the harbor scene, nothing appears very sharp, but I am willing to
> > chalk that up to monitor resolution.  To improve it, I can think of many
> > things I would do to it, but then it would be quite a different picture.
> > To me, it would be much improved, to you, you'd probably not agree at
> > all.
> 
> ...the original image is tack sharp.  In it, you can distinguish the
> individual chain links in the chains...it has incredible detail,
> surprisingly incredible detail (one of the reasons I really like that
> image).  Sharpening degrades the tonality in the detail, which is why I
> don't do it.  The world isn't simply "sharp", but it is in focus.  There is
> a distinct difference...
> 
> 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/

Hi again!

> > How could you possibly get the deep shadow detail with great contrast
> > without burning and dodging?
> 
> Exposure and development...

Sorry, it just can't be done that way!!
> 
> > Did you
> > REALLY want that telephone line in your picture?

I mean if it had one, would you just leave it there? 
> 
> If it's there, it's there...  BTW, what telephone line are you talking
> about?

Generically speaking. I would remove ANY telephone pole or line.  Can't
stand them. 

Many a fine landscape has been ruined by telephone lines and poles.

> > If you Love Hamburgers, you REALLY don't want to eat at our
> > Burger King....
> 
> OK, I'll take your word for that.  Got a Wendy's?

>One of the best.

Hi Jerry,

> > > How could you possibly get the deep shadow detail with great contrast
> > > without burning and dodging?
> >
> > Exposure and development...
>
> Sorry, it just can't be done that way!!

Well, I, and many thousands of other people, have no problem doing it that
way...and again, my images bear that out.

> > > Did you
> > > REALLY want that telephone line in your picture?
>
> I mean if it had one, would you just leave it there?

Depends on where it was...or I wouldn't shoot it.

> >
> > If it's there, it's there...  BTW, what telephone line are you talking
> > about?
>
> Generically speaking. I would remove ANY telephone pole or line.  Can't
> stand them.

Ah, but that's YOU...in some images, they may work beautifully.

> Many a fine landscape has been ruined by telephone lines and poles.

Understand, but again, I don't shoot landscapes like you do apparently, so
my needs are different.

Austin

Jerry,

YOU believe it improves the picture, but for me, it does not.  I simply love
natural, unadulterated (sic...remember, it's a picture of a child ;-),
images...

Austin

> Austin, that is the POINT of photoshop tweaks!!!!!!
>
> You PUT the catchlight there, because it would much improve the image.
> You would do it in a studio, you can't do it in a grab shot, but you CAN
> do it in photoshop.
>
> Jerry
>
> > I take it you don't do much child photography...that shot was
> natural light,
> > in a crowded store...and when photographing a 1.5 year old
> child, you simply
> > can't ask him to "hold it" and wait until someone gets out
> their handy dandy
> > catch light to "get it right".  You've got .5 seconds to take
> the picture...
> > And, BTW, he does have brown eyes, and, much to my delight, the
> pupils are
> > distinguishable in the original scan (as well as in the 12 x 12 print we
> > have on the wall upstairs).
> >
> > > In the harbor scene, nothing appears very sharp, but I am willing to
> > > chalk that up to monitor resolution.  To improve it, I can
> think of many
> > > things I would do to it, but then it would be quite a
> different picture.
> > > To me, it would be much improved, to you, you'd probably not agree at
> > > all.
> >
> > ...the original image is tack sharp.  In it, you can distinguish the
> > individual chain links in the chains...it has incredible detail,
> > surprisingly incredible detail (one of the reasons I really like that
> > image).  Sharpening degrades the tonality in the detail, which is why I
> > don't do it.  The world isn't simply "sharp", but it is in
> focus.  There is
> > a distinct difference...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> In the scanner application, I only do setpoints and adjust the 
tonal curve
> (typically via brightness and contrast, and if necessary with the 
tonal
> curve tool, which is similar to the one in PS), which is part and 
parcel of
> any film scanning process.
> 
> > Sorry, but I just can't believe that you can get the control over 
the
> > image you need to produce the best photos (in a digital workflow)
> > unless you're doing some work in Photoshop.
> 
> Was there something "wrong" with my images?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Austin -- Haven't seen the images.  I'm sure they're great.  It just 
seems like you make it a point of honor to avoid Photoshop 
maniuplations, and take great pride in the fact that you can take 
pics with perfect exposure, focus, lighting, etc. 

I'm sure you're very skilled at taking photos.  But when even the 
masters spend time manipulating darkroom images in ways that are 
analogous to those you have available to you in Photoshop, it seems 
like misplaced pride to eschew the use of the methods.  It's 
certainly fine if that's what makes you happy, though.

But I do think any suggestion that properly taken pictures don't need 
Photoshop manipulation is just a bunch of bunk.  Great darkroom 
photographers of the past manipulated their photos in many of the 
same ways it's done now in Photoshop.  Would you have had the hubris 
to have told Ansel Adams that if he'd taken a better negative he 
wouldn't have had to do all that dodging and burning?  (Hmm, I'm 
guessing maybe you would have!) -- Herb

Hi Herb,

> It just
> seems like you make it a point of honor to avoid Photoshop
> maniuplations, and take great pride in the fact that you can take
> pics with perfect exposure, focus, lighting, etc.

That's somewhat true...but only in the sense that I do strive for perfect
exposure, focus, lighting, framing etc. with the film...but I don't do it to
avoid using PS.  I do believe my images are fine without PS...but that
doesn't mean ALL my images have perfect everything, I've never said that.
Certainly not the case.  I probably print one out of 10-20 at
BEST...sometimes only a handful out of 100 or more!

> ... it seems
> like misplaced pride to eschew the use of the methods.

I'm not in any way eschewing the use of these methods.  I was told I MUST
use them or my images are "inferior".  I say I do not need to.  I believe my
images are perfect without them.

> But I do think any suggestion that properly taken pictures don't need
> Photoshop manipulation is just a bunch of bunk.  Great darkroom
> photographers of the past manipulated their photos in many of the
> same ways it's done now in Photoshop.

It depends on what your goal is, doesn't it?  Now, my goal isn't to NOT
manipulate them in PS, but I find I have no need to.  I don't believe one
NEEDS to ALWAYS manipulate EVERY image in PS...

> Would you have had the hubris
> to have told Ansel Adams that if he'd taken a better negative he
> wouldn't have had to do all that dodging and burning?  (Hmm, I'm
> guessing maybe you would have!) -- Herb

Not at all, his photography is vastly different than mine (both in style and
use)...as well as the tools and technology he used.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> I do believe my images are fine without PS...but that
> doesn't mean ALL my images have perfect everything, I've never said 
that.
> Certainly not the case.  I probably print one out of 10-20 at
> BEST...sometimes only a handful out of 100 or more!
> 

All your points are well-made and well-taken. If you've got a shot 
you think is perfect without doing anything in Photoshop, then of 
course you don't need to do anything.

But answer me this:  From among the 80% or 90% of pictures that you 
decide not to print, don't you think there may be some that could be 
made "perfect" by doing something to them in Photoshop?  Why throw 
them away, when you've got Photoshop to tweak them into what you 
want?  

I realize most of those pics might be unworthy even after Photoshop 
manipulation.  But I find it hard to believe that there aren't any 
pics from among the many you weed out that couldn't be "perfected" in 
Photoshop.  And if there are, it really does seem like you've got an 
illogical bias against Photoshop.  -- Herb

Come on guys, this has devolved to the level of arguing over how 
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It should be no secret 
that the image is in the eye of the artist. Gaugan and VanGogh 
painted side by side in a number of locations and the result was 
what each man saw. Neither one was "right."

In technical photography manipulating the image is generally 
considered to be a no no; it rather is supposed to be an accurate 
depiction of the thing, event or what have you with little room for 
subjective influence. When I included a photograph in a journal 
article it would have been consided unconscionable manipulation of 
the data to have tweaked it unless it was made plain just what had 
been done and why. From reading a lot of Austin's postings it seems 
to me this is his approach, which, by the way, is entirely valid.

On the other hand fine art photography (what ever that is...),to my 
view, requires the involvement of the photographer/printer 
to produce the image that was previsualized at the time the film was 
exposed. AA likened the negative to a musical score that required 
interpretation to become the thing (the print) he saw when he 
captured the image.

Only the means of interpreting the final image changes from the wet 
dark room to the digital. 

Rant over,

Roger
rlsopher@...

Hi Herb,

> > I do believe my images are fine without PS...but that
> > doesn't mean ALL my images have perfect everything, I've never said
> that.
> > Certainly not the case.  I probably print one out of 10-20 at
> > BEST...sometimes only a handful out of 100 or more!
> >
>
> All your points are well-made and well-taken. If you've got a shot
> you think is perfect without doing anything in Photoshop, then of
> course you don't need to do anything.

My only point.

> But answer me this:  From among the 80% or 90% of pictures that you
> decide not to print, don't you think there may be some that could be
> made "perfect" by doing something to them in Photoshop?

To "some" degree, of course.

> Why throw
> them away, when you've got Photoshop to tweak them into what you
> want?

I don't simply throw them away, but I have enough images to deal with
already...and have no need to do that.

> ...it really does seem like you've got an
> illogical bias against Photoshop.  -- Herb

But Herb, I NEVER said I have ANY bias against Photoshop!!!  NEVER.  What I
said is I, and only I, don't find the need to do any manipulations in PS,
and others have said that it is an absolute must to do, or my images are
inferior...and I disagree.  That doesn't make me biased against PS...

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Herb,
> 
> But Herb, I NEVER said I have ANY bias against Photoshop!!!  
NEVER.  What I
> said is I, and only I, don't find the need to do any manipulations 
in PS,
> and others have said that it is an absolute must to do, or my 
images are
> inferior...and I disagree.  That doesn't make me biased against 
PS...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

I mistakenly had it the other way around; I really thought you were 
implying that if photos do need to be manipulated in Photoshop, then 
there is necessarily something imperfect about the way the 
photographer took the picture. 

-- Herb

> > Hi Herb,
> >
> > But Herb, I NEVER said I have ANY bias against Photoshop!!!
> NEVER.  What I
> > said is I, and only I, don't find the need to do any manipulations
> in PS,
> > and others have said that it is an absolute must to do, or my
> images are
> > inferior...and I disagree.  That doesn't make me biased against
> PS...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
>
> I mistakenly had it the other way around; I really thought you were
> implying that if photos do need to be manipulated in Photoshop, then
> there is necessarily something imperfect about the way the
> photographer took the picture.
>
> -- Herb

Hi Herb,

I won't disagree that some photos may in fact "work better" manipulated in
PS, and there was nothing that could be done in exposure etc. to make it
"work" as well...no doubt.  It's the artist's choice, as it's the artist's
vision to do what ever s/he wants to present the vision s/he is trying to
present...but...I also believe that at least some (if not a lot) of the
"manipulations" done in PS could be obviated by some up-front work when
taking the picture.

Again, that, in no way, makes me biased against PS.  It's nothing but yet
another tool.  Some tools can be over/miss-used...and some tools can be very
appropriately used.

Regards,

Austin

on 7/27/2002 3:16 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:46:18 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: Canon D60 Question
> 
>> Unless you can light your photograph from scratch, and have most equipment
>> you need at your disposal, including crew, then selective lightening and
>> darkening, and curves etc are essential to making a fine
>> photograph and not
>> a technical reproduction.
>> 
>> It's very very rare that nature provides perfection without a bit of help
>> from a visionary.
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> With proper metering, exposure, framing and development...and setpoints and
> tonal curves, I can get exactly what I want from an image, with all the
> tonal detail I want...and I take it as a challenge to get all that right.
> 
> I spend a lot of time calibrating my entire system to allow me to do that.
> I love to work with what exists in a scene...and enjoy seeing what I see in
> the "image" as it exists, not in what I can turn it in to via PS.  That's
> simply my "workflow"...and what I like to do.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin


Austin,

What a shame.  You've witnessed so many powerful images with flaws, and you
haven't exposed them because what existed was not quite right or good
enough.

My comment assumed proper metering, exposure, framing and development, and
tonal curves.  It's selecting where to put those curves that makes the image
stronger and more powerful.

Forgive me but your "purist" approach sometimes sounds to me like a painter
saying "never mix paints, you'll change the way they came from the factory!"

 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

on 7/27/2002 3:16 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 14:44:38 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Subject: RE: Canon D60 Question
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> YOU believe it improves the picture, but for me, it does not.  I simply love
> natural, unadulterated (sic...remember, it's a picture of a child ;-),
> images...
> 
> Austin

 
and your attitude about manipulation is sic...childish?;-) as opposed to
adult-erated
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr