Digital BW, The Print

Ross, 

Here are the sharpest canon lenses I know about. I own the first four in
the list.

#1 The 50mm Macro Canon
#2 The 100mm Macro Canon
#3 The 24mm Canon
#4 The 17-35mm Canon L

Lenses I KNOW to be top quality lenses (I have friends who have them).

The 50mm 1.4 Canon
The 70-200mm Canon L IS
The 300mm F4 L IS
The 300mm F2.8 L
The Canon 28-135mm IS is an excellent all around lens, but not in the
above class of lenses. It isn't as sharp as I would want in the close up modes.

> Jerry Olson seems to be quite happy with the
> sharpness of his prints from his recently acquired
> D60. The resolution/sharpness debate that has
> ensued has been interesting. The math seems to
> come down to the fact that the lack of resolution/
> detail that can reside in a 6MP file cannot possibly
> match that of film. 

I never argued anything different. On PAPER this is certainly true.  I
invite skeptics to examine actual prints side by side and then tell me
that an 11x14 Canon D60 print isn't as sharp as a Darkroom color print
shot on a film like Provia. I almost always shoot at ISO 100, and almost
always use a tripod. This helps significantly.

> Anyone have any opinions on the newer Sigmas or
> Tokinas.

I have a sigma 70-300mm Apochromatic that is very sharp. I had a Tokina
28-80 Pro 2.6-2.8 lens that I would rank up there with the canon L
lenses. It was outstanding,
but REALLY heavy.

You can't get a true ultra wide zoom for the current pro bodies, except
the Contax Digital camera. Your 17-35mm will only be about 27mm - 55mm
or so.

Remember. After you get your 18 megabyte image on screen, to upsample it
using either Fred Miranda's stairstep filter, or genuine fractals, to a
file size that will be 300 DPI at the print size you want. 

These filters cannot add any detail or sharpness, but neither do they
take any away. I can see no loss in quality at all with these two
filters, when enlarged to 13x19 inches at 300 DPI. 

Then AFTER you have enlarged the image to the size you want, run Fred
Miranda's dedicated D60 Sharpen filter. It will sharpen your image as
sharp as it can be, without introducing any visible artifacts, at 100
percent view size on screen.  

Then make your print and tell me it isn't sharp!

The Canon EF 28-70 is exceptionally sharp, huge, and expensive! But not
very heavy.

 Hope this helps. 

Jerry

> > Jerry Olson seems to be quite happy with the
> > sharpness of his prints from his recently acquired
> > D60. The resolution/sharpness debate that has
> > ensued has been interesting. The math seems to
> > come down to the fact that the lack of resolution/
> > detail that can reside in a 6MP file cannot possibly
> > match that of film.
>
> I never argued anything different. On PAPER this is certainly true.  I
> invite skeptics to examine actual prints side by side and then tell me
> that an 11x14 Canon D60 print isn't as sharp as a Darkroom color print
> shot on a film like Provia.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry...you keep comparing apples and oranges.  Compare a
scanned negative printed on an inkjet, with a digital image printed on an
inkjet.  No one at all ever has argued with you that the chemical print is
sharper than the inkjet print, becuase they aren't...but you keep bringing
that comparison up...and no one else does....

> Then make your print and tell me it isn't sharp!

You can make ANY image sharp...no one is arguing at all that the images from
your D-60 aren't as sharp as can be.  Sharpness is simply a misnomer...as
I've said a dozen times, a two pixel camera will give you the sharpest
images you could possibly have.

I'm going to "label" the first paragraph I wrote #432, and the second #675.
When ever you bring up either of those topics, I'll simply reply with the
appropriate number, and save my self a lot of typing.

Austin

Austin, you certainly know by now what I'm talking about when I tell
somebody 
that a D60, or D1x image printed on a 13x19 inch piece of paper will be
the 
equal of a darkroom print made from a slide made on provia, or a
negative made on supra or portra 100 negative films printed on the color
paper of choice. Forget all the technical mumbo jumbo and compare the 2
prints. That's what I mean about being equal or better.

jerry

> You can make ANY image sharp...no one is arguing at all that the images from
> your D-60 aren't as sharp as can be.  Sharpness is simply a misnomer...as
> I've said a dozen times, a two pixel camera will give you the sharpest
> images you could possibly have.

I KNOW that. We aren't talking about the same thing. I don't know how to
make it any clearer that what I've stated a hundred times. DO THE
COMPARISON side by side tests. Just do it. anybody. do it.  Tell me what
the results are. 

And I really don't want to continue this discussion any more on this
list. It's been done to death.

Thanks

Jerry,

> Austin, you certainly know by now what I'm talking about when I tell
> somebody
> that a D60, or D1x image printed on a 13x19 inch piece of paper will be
> the
> equal of a darkroom print made from a slide made on provia, or a
> negative made on supra or portra 100 negative films printed on the color
> paper of choice. Forget all the technical mumbo jumbo and compare the 2
> prints. That's what I mean about being equal or better.

You're argument is irrelevant, no one is arguing that an inkjet print isn't
sharper than a darkroom print, no matter WHAT the original image source
is...your comparison is invalid.  You are NOT comparing digital to film by
doing such.  Everyone else is talking about FILM vs digital, not darkroom
prints vs inkjet prints.

> > You can make ANY image sharp...no one is arguing at all that
> the images from
> > your D-60 aren't as sharp as can be.  Sharpness is simply a
> misnomer...as
> > I've said a dozen times, a two pixel camera will give you the sharpest
> > images you could possibly have.
>
> I KNOW that. We aren't talking about the same thing. I don't know how to
> make it any clearer that what I've stated a hundred times. DO THE
> COMPARISON side by side tests. Just do it. anybody. do it.  Tell me what
> the results are.

I've done it probably many hundred times.  My images from my film cameras
are EQUALLY as sharp as my high end digital cameras, which, mind you, are
higher end than a D60.

> And I really don't want to continue this discussion any more on this
> list. It's been done to death.

Well, and I don't mean to be mean, but that's because it comes across that
you don't "get it"...and keep saying the same thing over and over...

Austin

Austin,

And of course you never say the same thing over and over.... :)

Austin, I don't believe anyone has ever won an argument with you. I
can't recall it anyhow.  I know what I know, you know what you know. We
disagree and always will.

This will be my last dissuasion with you about which is better, digital
or film. :(

Jerry

> This will be my last dissuasion with you about which is better, digital
> or film. :(

Jerry,

No one is arguing with you which is better, people are simply discussing the
LIMITS of both.  I know this may come as a surprise to you (that's sarcasm),
but digital does have limits...  It's important to understand the limits of
any medium you are using, that is if you want to make the most out of that
medium...and I'm sure there are those that simply do it right without
knowing squat...but that ain't me.

Austin

Hallo Austin and Jerry,

Yes, everything has it's limits.
What about the limit of this:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp
It's a 22 Megapixel back for MF?

But of cause it's not like a D60.  

Something for us to test and take interest instead of the D60?
I have the body and lenses - I just need this back to test if it's 
better than Technical Pan and Technodol on MF???

What do you think? I think I would get rather good prints on a 1290 
B/W with this back. But I think Techn. Pan and some Technodol cost me 
less?

Everything is a matter of taste, religion, technics and money!
Don't ever try to convert anybody - everyone has a right to has 
his/her opinion and religion. As long one is pieceful - that is!

By the way - try Minolta Multi Pro with VueScan - trash the Minolta 
software for negative film! (A new Minolta software is to be expected 
in some weeks though..)


Fiat Lux!
Bo
Sweden


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > This will be my last dissuasion with you about which is better, 
digital
> > or film. :(
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> No one is arguing with you which is better, people are simply 
discussing the
> LIMITS of both.  I know this may come as a surprise to you (that's 
sarcasm),
> but digital does have limits...  It's important to understand the 
limits of
> any medium you are using, that is if you want to make the most out 
of that
> medium...and I'm sure there are those that simply do it right 
without

> knowing squat...but that ain't me.
> 
> Austin

Ross writes:

> Since I have been bitten by the digital bug I
> decided to bite the bullet and go for one of the
> new 6MP prosumer cameras that have come to
> market lately.

You must have been bitted badly if you decided to spend all that money on
another digital body after being dissatisifed with the first one.

> As I am new to the Canon family I would
> like some advice on what are appropriate
> lenses that will provide the best quality
> results. As much as I would like to get all
> Canon L lenses, I am afraid that is not a
> reality for my strained budget.

Your budget wouldn't be so strained if you had not blown it all on two
digital camera bodies.

> Does anyone have any recommendations for
> lenses other that the L series that would
> provide excellent results.

If all you need is six megapixels, most lenses will manage that without any
difficulty.  No point in buying a lens that can resolve 100 lp/mm, since
your camera can't use it.

> The math seems to come down to the fact that
> the lack of resolution/detail that can reside
> in a 6MP file cannot possibly match that of
> film.

Correct ... however, for a full-frame image at normal viewing distances
(equal to the diagonal of the image), six megapixels is almost optimal;
human eyes can only see 6-8 megapixels under such conditions, and so
anything beyond that is a waste.  Film does provide more, but unless you are
getting closer to the image, you won't be able to see it (and of course this
is even more true for MF and LF).

> I certainly accept that and recognize that
> I will probably not get quite the level of
> detail that I may desire.

It depends on what you want.  At normal viewing distances, it should look
okay.  However, if you are interested in very sharp images that can be
examined in huge enlargements from a few inches away and still show fine
detail, you're going to be disappointed with digital cameras.

On the other hand, if you've always shot Tri-X from the hip and fine detail
has never been a key element in your photographic style, digital should do
fine--you should get at least equivalent results to what you were getting
with your Leica M2, and it will cost only a few times more money than the
Leica.

> Every time Jerry talks about how happy he
> is with the sharpness/detail of his up to
> 13x19 output from his D60 I am asking myself
> what lenses he might be using.

Since the camera is limited to 6 megapixels, and since any decent lens can
resolve 6 megapixels easily, whatever gives Jerry his impression of
sharpness and detail, it cannot be the lens.

Ross, I ran a test between the raw image and the superfine JPEG image,
and can see no visible difference at all. If I need to get shadow detail
and highlight detail that can't be had in a single photo, I just shoot 2
pictures and combine them with a layer mask in photoshop and use the
best of each image. I almost always use a tripod, so this is easy. I'm
starting to get very interested in panorama pictures lately, and have
been taking 2 or 3 images and stitching them together in photoshop. This
enhances your resolution even more, and you can make even larger prints
with no loss in resolution. 

If you don't mind the extra hassle and storage space that you would
need, you could shoot in the raw mode, and do as much editing as
possible in photoshop in the 16 bit mode before switching to 8 bit. But,
I've made direct comparisons, and can't see any difference, so I just
shoot everything in the superfine mode.

Jerry


> I am wondering  what your experience has been
> converting the raw D60 files to B&W. Does it
> compare at all favorably with 35mm b&w film that
> has been scanned? 

better. absolutely NO grain. 

 I would
> really appreciate your opinion and any thoughtd
> you may have on the best methodology for
> conversion to grayscale.

The channel mixer in photoshop, use the monochromatic mode, play around
with the sliders. Select your sky, and use the red channel. Select your
trees and use the green channel, etc.

> Happy bokeh to you both. It is only in recent
> years that the "Bokeh" discussion seems to have
> come to my attention. Now I know why I have
> always loved the out of focus areas from my Leica
> lenses. When a tree falls in the forest does it
> make a sound if no one is there to hear it?

I hardly ever shoot a photo that has an out of focus background, being
primarily a landscape photographer.  See http://www.westernechoes.com

I graduated high school in 1959. I've been making photos since I was 10 also.
Bokeh I just heard of 3
 or 4 years ago.

Sounds like a trend that someone started and all the followers picked up
on it. I doubt if anyone heard of it 20 years ago.

Jerry

>

Sm7,

Yes, I'm sure that back would equal tech pan!  But how much does it
cost? You could probably buy a LOT of tech pan, technidol and a drum
scanner for a lot less than that back!

 Jerry



sm7bxd wrote:

> 
> Hallo Austin and Jerry,
> 
> Yes, everything has it's limits.
> What about the limit of this:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp
> It's a 22 Megapixel back for MF?
> 
> But of cause it's not like a D60.
> 
> Something for us to test and take interest instead of the D60?
> I have the body and lenses - I just need this back to test if it's
> better than Technical Pan and Technodol on MF???
> 
> What do you think? I think I would get rather good prints on a 1290
> B/W with this back. But I think Techn. Pan and some Technodol cost me
> less?
> 
> Everything is a matter of taste, religion, technics and money!
> Don't ever try to convert anybody - everyone has a right to has
> his/her opinion and religion. As long one is pieceful - that is!
> 
> By the way - try Minolta Multi Pro with VueScan - trash the Minolta
> software for negative film! (A new Minolta software is to be expected
> in some weeks though..)
> 
> Fiat Lux!
> Bo
> Sweden
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> >
> > > This will be my last dissuasion with you about which is better,
> digital
> > > or film. :(
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > No one is arguing with you which is better, people are simply
> discussing the
> > LIMITS of both.  I know this may come as a surprise to you (that's
> sarcasm),
> > but digital does have limits...  It's important to understand the
> limits of
> > any medium you are using, that is if you want to make the most out
> of that
> > medium...and I'm sure there are those that simply do it right
> without
> > knowing squat...but that ain't me.
> >
> > 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;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/

Here, I've got to say you are wrong. The images my macro lenses make are
very noticeably sharper than with a couple other lenses I own that
aren't that sharp. (The 28-135mm Canon for one. ) So YES it does make a
difference in what lenses you are using!	

Jerry 

> > Every time Jerry talks about how happy he
> > is with the sharpness/detail of his up to
> > 13x19 output from his D60 I am asking myself
> > what lenses he might be using.

> Since the camera is limited to 6 megapixels, and since any decent lens can
> resolve 6 megapixels easily, whatever gives Jerry his impression of
> sharpness and detail, it cannot be the lens.

Jerry,

I think you're in apples and oranges here...  No one disagrees that the
lense doesn't make a difference (in the case of the D60), of course it
does...but 6M pixels does NOT reach the resolution of the best lenses out
there.  That's a fact.

Austin

> Here, I've got to say you are wrong. The images my macro lenses make are
> very noticeably sharper than with a couple other lenses I own that
> aren't that sharp. (The 28-135mm Canon for one. ) So YES it does make a
> difference in what lenses you are using!
>
> Jerry
>
> > > Every time Jerry talks about how happy he
> > > is with the sharpness/detail of his up to
> > > 13x19 output from his D60 I am asking myself
> > > what lenses he might be using.
>
> > Since the camera is limited to 6 megapixels, and since any
> decent lens can
> > resolve 6 megapixels easily, whatever gives Jerry his impression of
> > sharpness and detail, it cannot be the lens.

> Ross, I ran a test between the raw image and the superfine JPEG image,
> and can see no visible difference at all. If I need to get shadow detail
> and highlight detail that can't be had in a single photo, I just shoot 2
> pictures and combine them with a layer mask in photoshop and use the
> best of each image. I almost always use a tripod, so this is easy.

Jerry,

What if the cat moves?

;-)

Austin

Hi Ross,

Jerry has already responsed with some good advice, but I'll add my 2 cents...FWIW...

The Canon 28-135 IS lens is a great walk-around lens - not as sharp as many others in the Canon lineup - but, the IS will benefit you greatly in handheld situations. That said, I have used this lens tripod mounted and have been very happy with the results. Remember to turn IS off when on a tripod...this lens does not currently have the next generation IS system. Overall, though, IMO it's a great lens as a starter lens for the Canon D30/D60; if you like zooms, of course.

On the longer end, the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS zoom or the 70-200/4L are both fantastic lenses. The decision here comes down to whether you need/want the IS and how much weight you are willing to carry. I have the f/4 version and can assure you that it is a fine lens. My decision here was based on weight. I tend to carry my photo gear great distances from the car so, to my mind, every ounce needs to be considered.

The 28-70/2.8L is also a great lens, but, again, weight becomes an issue here. Also, I have heard rumors that Canon might be announcing an IS version of this lens so I would wait, at least until after Photokina, before making any purchasing decision on this one.

For primes, as others have stated you probably would be hard-pressed to beat the 50/1.4 or the 100 Macro. I have the 20/2.8 prime which, I believe, has a Photodo rating around 3.5. 4.0 is considered by many to be the cutoff point for absolutely critical work, but I have been very happy with the images produced by my 20mm. And, it is/was MUCH less expensive than the 16-35/2.8L! Of course, I'm not much of an extreme wide-angle guy, therefore did not want to invest in the wide zoom. Keep in mind that a 20mm lens on the D30/D60 is equivalent to 32mm. The 35mm length is very comfortable for me, with the 24mm (full frame) about a wide as I feel comfortable shooting...though I've seen some fantastic 20mm shots...maybe I just need to "see" better with my wider lenses. ;-)

If I remember correctly, one of your posts asked about doing B&W with the D60. My opinions are based on the D30 at full file size and interpolated...the D60 might produce slightly better results... I have made many attempts at trying to get acceptable B&W prints from my D30 image files from 5x7 to 11x17. To date, I have not been able to produce a final result that meets my standards. However, to be fair, I have been a LF B&W shooter for 30+ years both in the wet darkroom and, most recently (2 years) in the light room, so maybe my standards are set too high! ;-) I have read of others getting acceptable 5x7 B&W prints from D30 files (300DPI), but have not seen one of these "acceptable prints" with my own eyes.

Hope this helps in your lens purchasing decisions.

Best regards,
Alan

-----Original Message-----
From:	bearlick_2000 [SMTP:rmullins@...]
Sent:	Friday, September 06, 2002 5:26 PM
To:	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	[Digital BW] Digital sharpness vs film- Canon D60

Hello from a lurker on this list. I am currently 
printing with the old piezo inks using a 1160 and 
primarily EAM and Photo Rag papers.  I have been 
unhappy with the extent of the warming of this ink 
over time and so am about to switch to Piezotone 
Selenium. All of my B&W imaging to date has been 
from 35mm negatives and silver print scans and I 
am very happy with the quality of the files and 
quality of the Piezo prints from my 1160, 
especially as to the sharpness and resolution of 
the images. Most of my output has come from my 
beloved Leica M2. For negative scanning I use the 
Polaroid SS35, a 2700 dpi film scanner.

Last year, in order to get into digital imaging, I 
acquired a Nikon 990 that has been marginally 
satisfactory for color prints up to 8x10 but have 
not had the quality that I would like for larger 
formats or for B&W conversion. B&W is my first 
love. Since I have been bitten by the digital bug I 
decided to bite the bullet and go for one of the 
new 6MP prosumer cameras that have come to 
market lately. I put my name on a waiting list for 
the Canon D60 back in June and just received my 
camera body last week. Now to the meat of my 
inquiry. As I am new to the Canon family I would 
like some advice on what are appropriate lenses 
that will provide the best quality results. As much 
as I would like to get all Canon L lenses, I am 
afraid that is not a reality for my strained budget. 
Does anyone have any recommendations for 
lenses other that the L series that would provide 
excellent results.

Jerry Olson seems to be quite happy with the 
sharpness of his prints from his recently acquired 
D60. The resolution/sharpness debate that has 
ensued has been interesting. The math seems to 
come down to the fact that the lack of resolution/
detail that can reside in a 6MP file cannot possibly 
match that of film. I certainly accept that and 
recognize that I will probably not get quite the 
level of detail that I may desire. For Jerry my 
question is- what lenses is he using on his D60 
body and what would he be willing to recommend 
for someone that is looking for the best  possible 
results. 

Anyone have any opinions on the newer Sigmas or 
Tokinas. I need ultra wide zoom and because of 
price am possibly considering the Canon EF 20-35 
d3.4-4.5 or if ok, the faster Sigma AF 2.8 20-4- Ex 
DG DF. I also would like a 28-70 where I am 
considering a used Canon EF 28-70 2.8  L or ? . 
Finally I would like to get the Canon 100-400 f4-
5.6 L IS. Any other suggestions would be 
appreciated. 

I hope that my lense questions are not too far off 
topic for this list.  It is because of Jerry's pleasure 
with the sharpness of his D60 output that 
prompts me to bend the list topic a bit here. 
Every time Jerry talks about how happy he is with 
the sharpness/detail of his up to 13x19 output 
from his D60 I am asking myself what lenses he 
might be using. If anyone is offended by my inquiry 
let me extend my apologys in advance.

In conclusion, I just want to say that this list is the 
most fabulous one that I subscribe to. I get the 
digest version and look forward to receiving them 
each day. You guys are all awesome!

Ross Mullins




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/ 



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

Jerry writes:

> Yes, I'm sure that back would equal tech pan!

On a 6x6 negative, Tech Pan provides up to about 576 megapixels, or 26 times
the resolution of the digital back described.

> So YES it does make a difference in what
> lenses you are using!

I addressed only resolution, and since your impression of sharpness and
detail seems to be a function of more than just resolution, that impression
does not necessarily invalidate my statement.

OK Jerry,

Thanks for your advice, I'll keep to Techn Pan and Technodol,
until I can afford that Sinar back for my Hassy. Or any other digital 
camera at about 22 Meg.

Until it happens, yes I will be happy with Techn Pan and my MF camera,
It's good enought for me. 

I can also get fairly good with that outfit, I hope as good as yours?

Though, the Technodol is wet.


Fiat Lux!
Bo 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Sm7,
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that back would equal tech pan!  But how much does it
> cost? You could probably buy a LOT of tech pan, technidol and a drum
> scanner for a lot less than that back!
> 
>  Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> sm7bxd wrote:
> > 
> > Hallo Austin and Jerry,
> > 
> > Yes, everything has it's limits.
> > What about the limit of this:
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp
> > It's a 22 Megapixel back for MF?
> > 
> > But of cause it's not like a D60.
> > 
> > Something for us to test and take interest instead of the D60?
> > I have the body and lenses - I just need this back to test if it's
> > better than Technical Pan and Technodol on MF???
> > 
> > What do you think? I think I would get rather good prints on a 
1290
> > B/W with this back. But I think Techn. Pan and some Technodol 
cost me
> > less?
> > 
> > Everything is a matter of taste, religion, technics and money!
> > Don't ever try to convert anybody - everyone has a right to has
> > his/her opinion and religion. As long one is pieceful - that is!
> > 
> > By the way - try Minolta Multi Pro with VueScan - trash the 
Minolta
> > software for negative film! (A new Minolta software is to be 
expected
> > in some weeks though..)
> > 
> > Fiat Lux!
> > Bo
> > Sweden
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> > <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This will be my last dissuasion with you about which is 
better,
> > digital
> > > > or film. :(
> > >
> > > Jerry,
> > >
> > > No one is arguing with you which is better, people are simply
> > discussing the
> > > LIMITS of both.  I know this may come as a surprise to you 
(that's
> > sarcasm),
> > > but digital does have limits...  It's important to understand 
the
> > limits of
> > > any medium you are using, that is if you want to make the most 
out
> > of that
> > > medium...and I'm sure there are those that simply do it right
> > without
> > > knowing squat...but that ain't me.
> > >
> > > 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 
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;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/

Anthony, I guarantee you that back could equal technical pan in a 16x20
inch print. Museums  are using scanning backs to copy their paintings,
and the detail they are getting is FAR better than Fujichrome Velvia
film. And this is in HUGE prints. 

Jerry

And isn't that 22 Megapixels Compressed?  Aren't they several hundred
when uncompressed? 

A

> Anthony, I guarantee you that back could equal technical pan in a 16x20
> inch print. Museums  are using scanning backs to copy their paintings,
> and the detail they are getting is FAR better than Fujichrome Velvia
> film. And this is in HUGE prints.

The digital scanning backs are ok (especially the 12k 4x5 backs), but if you
want sharp, it's pretty hard to beat a 3ft x 6ft polaroid.

Well, I do have an apple computer, and I suppose you have a PC :)

Austin, in the future, just assume what I say is applied to the entire
image. I'm including everything that makes up the print, and the final
print is the only thing that matters in the end.  I have 3 lenses that
can make sharper 13x19 images than 2 other lenses I own, and it is
easily provable. Call it Sharpness/detail/resolution/ whatever you want,
but keep in mind I'm applying all of these things together to make up
the final print.   In THAT case, The canon macro lenses can deliver a
better 13x19 inch print than can the other two lenses that aren't in the
same class as the macro. Also, in THAT case my digital prints are better
than darkroom prints. . :)

P.S.,

I know you have vast knowledge of practically any subject.  :). Do you
know of anything at all that could remove Dektol Stains from a pair of
white pants? (Serious question).

Jerry, with Dektol Stains yet to be removed ...

> Hi Ross,

> Jerry has already responsed with some good advice, but I'll add my 2 cents...FWIW...

I agree with everything that Alan said, except the quality of a print
from the D-30. I have easily made 11x16 prints from the D-30 that are
VERY sharp in black and white. This doesn't apply to images taken at
infinity, just closeups. The D60 is quite a bit better than the D30. For
infinity pictures, especially with buildings and trees on the far
horizon, the digital cameras don't quite make it yet. There is just too
much fine detail to resolve. Here, I'm speaking of wide angle lens
photos. A telephoto lens wouldn't have that problem. Digital images are
sharpest the closer you get to your subjects. Closeups of people, cats,
dogs, flowers, etc. are very very sharp, even at 13x19 inches, where
landscapes aren't quite up to that yet.

Jerry

If you like, I can send you a JPEG image of a cat, and even though it's
just a screen resolution of 72 DPI, you can easily tell the original is
very sharp.

Bo,

I would think Tech Pan and a Hassy neg would be good enough for ANY
body. 

Hope your scanner can take advantage of that combination! 

Except Austin, of course. :+)

sm7bxd wrote:

> 
> OK Jerry,
> 
> Thanks for your advice, I'll keep to Techn Pan and Technodol,
> until I can afford that Sinar back for my Hassy. Or any other digital
> camera at about 22 Meg.
> 
> Until it happens, yes I will be happy with Techn Pan and my MF camera,
> It's good enought for me.
> 
> I can also get fairly good with that outfit, I hope as good as yours?

Austin, I'm speaking of tripoded landscape photographs, as I believe I
did mention...

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > Ross, I ran a test between the raw image and the superfine JPEG image,
> > and can see no visible difference at all. If I need to get shadow detail
> > and highlight detail that can't be had in a single photo, I just shoot 2
> > pictures and combine them with a layer mask in photoshop and use the
> > best of each image. I almost always use a tripod, so this is easy.
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> What if the cat moves?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 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,

Quote you:
"Hope your scanner can take advantage"
End Qoute!

That's the problem. I wish I had more money!
The Minolta Multi Pro $3000 scanner can not take advantage of it 
fully out - but I assure you - it's *enought*!

However for some some extra $'s I can have it drum scanned "outside"!
So far I manage A2 I think, but as I have not seen your D60 result in 
real I'm not sure!
 
But I believe you as well as Austin!
*We* have all our different standards.
*And* using those standards, (without to much theory), we can express 
ourself in different ways. 
Some call it tweaking, I think. 
It's good if one can't see the tweaking at all - that is an art in 
itself!

This is like TV - go on You and Austin, I kind of like it!
After this the air might be cleaner.
(And indeed afterwards the US don't have to sign that Kyoto 
agreement...because of this....however don't blow the ozone whole 
further, it's now filled with "bouquet"??)

<smile>

Fiat Lux!
Bo
Sweden



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Bo,
> 
> I would think Tech Pan and a Hassy neg would be good enough for ANY
> body. 
> 
> Hope your scanner can take advantage of that combination! 
> 
> Except Austin, of course. :+)
> 
> sm7bxd wrote:
> > 
> > OK Jerry,
> > 
> > Thanks for your advice, I'll keep to Techn Pan and Technodol,
> > until I can afford that Sinar back for my Hassy. Or any other 
digital
> > camera at about 22 Meg.
> > 
> > Until it happens, yes I will be happy with Techn Pan and my MF 
camera,
> > It's good enought for me.
> > 
> > I can also get fairly good with that outfit, I hope as good as 
yours?

But they are so clumsy to carry when backpacking... and what's a sheet
of film cost, about 200 dollars per shot?

Jer

> The digital scanning backs are ok (especially the 12k 4x5 backs), but if you
> want sharp, it's pretty hard to beat a 3ft x 6ft polaroid.
>

Jerry writes:

> Anthony, I guarantee you that back could equal
> technical pan in a 16x20 inch print.

A 16x20-inch print cannot even come close to exhausting the resolution of
Technical Pan.  In order to exhaust the resolution of Tech Pan at 300 ppi,
you need a print that measures nearly seven feet on a side.

> Museums  are using scanning backs to copy their
> paintings, and the detail they are getting is FAR
> better than Fujichrome Velvia film.

How did you get from Tech Pan to Velvia?

> And isn't that 22 Megapixels Compressed?

Pixels cannot be compressed.  Only files can be compressed.

Moreno writes:

> ... it's pretty hard to beat a 3ft x 6ft polaroid.

Are those cameras still around?  How many are there, and who is using them
(and for what purposes)?

Jerry Olson wrote:

>
>I know you have vast knowledge of practically any subject.  :). Do you
>know of anything at all that could remove Dektol Stains from a pair of
>white pants? (Serious question).
>
>Jerry, with Dektol Stains yet to be removed ...
>
>
>  
>
YEAH, there was a "stain out" treatment I used to buy at Looking Glass 
photo in Berkeley California..  It worked wonders on my shirts and pants 
in college... Just put it on those brown processing stains and they 
disappeared.. Check the Yellow Pages for Looking Glass photo in 
Berkeley..  If it's still there they have it..


Actually Photographer's Formulary  makes one the B&H carries, and 
there's another one too..

Just go to the B&H site and search for "stain remover."
  
Keith
 



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

Fine artists use them to show the amazing quality you can get from a
huge contact print. They are quite something to see if you have never
seen one!

Jerry   There are only about 6 or fewer in existence now, so I've heard.
I believe a lot of art students have been able to use the cameras with
school grants. I saw a large exhibit once, maybe a hundred prints, and
they were amazing. For some reason, I didn't see any sports pictures. :)

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> 
> Moreno writes:
> 
> > ... it's pretty hard to beat a 3ft x 6ft polaroid.
> 
> Are those cameras still around?  How many are there, and who is using them
> (and for what purposes)?
> 
> 
> 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/

Thanks! I have a couple pair of otherwise near new white trousers that I
could save. I'll try B&H first. I've tried practically everything, and
nothing seems to work.

Jer

Bo, I think with a multi pro 3000 scanner,  2 1/4 tech pan neg and an
epson printer, you will be able to get sharp enough prints even Austin
would like. I do have a few tech pan negatives I've scanned on my Agfa
T2500 (2500 DPI Optical) that are exceptionally sharp. Your minolta
should do better, it's much more recent technology, and 3000 DPI to
boot. a 20x24 print should be a piece of cake.

jerry

> Quote you:
> "Hope your scanner can take advantage"
> End Qoute!
> 
> That's the problem. I wish I had more money!
> The Minolta Multi Pro $3000 scanner can not take advantage of it
> fully out - but I assure you - it's *enought*!
> 
> However for some some extra $'s I can have it drum scanned "outside"!
> So far I manage A2 I think, but as I have not seen your D60 result in
> real I'm not sure!
> 
> But I believe you as well as Austin!
> *We* have all our different standards.
> *And* using those standards, (without to much theory), we can express
> ourself in different ways.
> Some call it tweaking, I think.
> It's good if one can't see the tweaking at all - that is an art in
> itself!
> 
> This is like TV - go on You and Austin, I kind of like it!
> After this the air might be cleaner.
> (And indeed afterwards the US don't have to sign that Kyoto
> agreement...because of this....however don't blow the ozone whole
> further, it's now filled with "bouquet"??)
> 
> <smile>
> 
> Fiat Lux!
> Bo
> Sweden
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Bo,
> >
> > I would think Tech Pan and a Hassy neg would be good enough for ANY
> > body.
> >
> > Hope your scanner can take advantage of that combination!
> >
> > Except Austin, of course. :+)
> >
> > sm7bxd wrote:
> > >
> > > OK Jerry,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your advice, I'll keep to Techn Pan and Technodol,
> > > until I can afford that Sinar back for my Hassy. Or any other
> digital
> > > camera at about 22 Meg.
> > >
> > > Until it happens, yes I will be happy with Techn Pan and my MF
> camera,
> > > It's good enought for me.
> > >
> > > I can also get fairly good with that outfit, I hope as good as
> yours?
> 
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;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/

> > Anthony, I guarantee you that back could equal
> > technical pan in a 16x20 inch print.
> 
> A 16x20-inch print cannot even come close to exhausting the resolution of
> Technical Pan.  In order to exhaust the resolution of Tech Pan at 300 ppi,
> you need a print that measures nearly seven feet on a side.

All I said is the prints would be equal in quality. They would. I'm sure
the tech pan could go much higher.

> > Museums  are using scanning backs to copy their
> > paintings, and the detail they are getting is FAR
> > better than Fujichrome Velvia film.
> 
> How did you get from Tech Pan to Velvia?

The museum in question had compared velvia to the sinar scanning back
and the sinar won hands down. Just extolling the virtues of digital prints.
> 
> > And isn't that 22 Megapixels Compressed?
> 
> Pixels cannot be compressed.  Only files can be compressed.

Yeeaaahs! aren't those FILES compressed?

Jerry

Jerry Olson wrote:

>Fine artists use them to show the amazing quality you can get from a
>huge contact print. They are quite something to see if you have never
>seen one!
>
>Jerry   There are only about 6 or fewer in existence now, so I've heard.
>I believe a lot of art students have been able to use the cameras with
>school grants. I saw a large exhibit once, maybe a hundred prints, and
>they were amazing. For some reason, I didn't see any sports pictures. :)
>
>  
>

HAHAHAHAHA!

Although it would look awesome to see one or two....  LOL

Anyone remember when the US Football receiver ran into the old CBS 
upright TV cam on the sidelines?   What a headache?   I can imagine the 
same happening with the Polaroid.. LOL


Keith
 



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

> The museum in question had compared velvia to the sinar scanning back
> and the sinar won hands down. Just extolling the virtues of
> digital prints.

I have a 7k x 7k scanning back (that's 51,380,224 REAL pixels BTW, or over
150M bytes of data at 8 bits/color), and it gives amazing results...but
that's hardly even close to a 6M pixel Bayer pattern camera, and it's not
really good for anything outside the studio.

Austin

> Bo, I think with a multi pro 3000 scanner,  2 1/4 tech pan neg and an
> epson printer, you will be able to get sharp enough prints even Austin
> would like.

I don't have any problem at all with sharpness...or...resolution, but thanks
for the thoughts, there, Jerry ;-)

Austin

> > And isn't that 22 Megapixels Compressed?
>
> Pixels cannot be compressed.  Only files can be compressed.

Anthony,

The statement doesn't say what you think it says...you're being too literal
(but anyway, pixels CAN be compressed, but that's another subject).  I take
it to be asking if the FILE size of 22M pixels is the FILE size for a
compressed image.

Austin

Er, Jerry, I thought you only took pictures of cats?  Damn.  I'd like to see
a picture of a cat on a tripod, or a cat being used as a quadpod.  Most
interesting idea...

Austin

>
> Austin, I'm speaking of tripoded landscape photographs, as I believe I
> did mention...
>
> Jerry
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > Ross, I ran a test between the raw image and the superfine JPEG image,
> > > and can see no visible difference at all. If I need to get
> shadow detail
> > > and highlight detail that can't be had in a single photo, I
> just shoot 2
> > > pictures and combine them with a layer mask in photoshop and use the
> > > best of each image. I almost always use a tripod, so this is easy.
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > What if the cat moves?
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Austin

Jerry,

> Well, I do have an apple computer, and I suppose you have a PC :)

I have both.

> Austin, in the future, just assume what I say is applied to the entire
> image. I'm including everything that makes up the print, and the final
> print is the only thing that matters in the end.

That doesn't negate the discussion of starting with film, and printing with
digital, vs, starting with digital and printing with digital, does it?

> I have 3 lenses that
> can make sharper 13x19 images than 2 other lenses I own, and it is
> easily provable. Call it Sharpness/detail/resolution/ whatever you want,

But sharpness is VERY different than detail/resolution.  That I believe is
the issue that we keep bumping against, that you aren't separating the two.

> I know you have vast knowledge of practically any subject.  :).

Well, not really, but I pick and choose the things that I "argue"
about...very carefully.

> Do you
> know of anything at all that could remove Dektol Stains from a pair of
> white pants? (Serious question).
>
> Jerry, with Dektol Stains yet to be removed ...

Hum.  I would try some Ritz I believe it is, you can get it in a grocery
store.  I've used it to remove rust stains.  Or, I'd simply buy a new pair
of pants.

Austin

> But they are so clumsy to carry when backpacking... and what's a sheet
> of film cost, about 200 dollars per shot?

I think is was more like a couple of thousand.

It's not the kind of camera I'd want to backpack with. Most landscape
photographers shooting with 20x24 and larger cameras usually build them into
the back of a van. Just pull up to a scene and open the doors. Only trouble
is you need to compose with the rear view mirror.

> Moreno writes:
>
> > ... it's pretty hard to beat a 3ft x 6ft polaroid.
>
> Are those cameras still around?  How many are there, and who is using them
> (and for what purposes)?

The last I heard a NY photographer did a series of (literally) life-sized
portraits of surviving 911 firefighters and policemen. I believe Polaroid
has two of the cameras, and they're only available for inhouse rental. I
think one of the major uses would be art documentation.

> >Do you
> >know of anything at all that could remove Dektol Stains from a pair of
> >white pants? (Serious question).
> >
> >Jerry, with Dektol Stains yet to be removed ...

You could always try http://www.photosol.com

Follow the link for Photofinish.

Any idea what this puppy might sell for when it's available???

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "sm7bxd" <sm7bxd@y...> 
wrote:
> Hallo Austin and Jerry,
> 
> Yes, everything has it's limits.
> What about the limit of this:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp
> It's a 22 Megapixel back for MF?
> 
> But of cause it's not like a D60.  
> 
> Something for us to test and take interest instead of the D60?
> I have the body and lenses - I just need this back to test if it's 
> better than Technical Pan and Technodol on MF???
> 
> What do you think? I think I would get rather good prints on a 1290 
> B/W with this back. But I think Techn. Pan and some Technodol cost 
me 
> less?
> 
> Everything is a matter of taste, religion, technics and money!
> Don't ever try to convert anybody - everyone has a right to has 
> his/her opinion and religion. As long one is pieceful - that is!
> 
> By the way - try Minolta Multi Pro with VueScan - trash the Minolta 
> software for negative film! (A new Minolta software is to be 
expected 
> in some weeks though..)
> 
> 
> Fiat Lux!
> Bo
> Sweden
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > 
> > > This will be my last dissuasion with you about which is better, 
> digital
> > > or film. :(
> > 
> > Jerry,
> > 
> > No one is arguing with you which is better, people are simply 
> discussing the
> > LIMITS of both.  I know this may come as a surprise to you 
(that's 
> sarcasm),
> > but digital does have limits...  It's important to understand the 
> limits of
> > any medium you are using, that is if you want to make the most 
out 

> of that
> > medium...and I'm sure there are those that simply do it right 
> without
> > knowing squat...but that ain't me.
> > 
> > Austin

Jerry writes:

> All I said is the prints would be equal
> in quality.

They might.  They'd be even more equal in 4x6 snapshots.

> The museum in question had compared velvia to
> the sinar scanning back and the sinar won hands
> down.

Velvia is an extraordinarily poor choice for archival pictures of paintings.
One of the key ideas of archiving pictures of such art objects, I should
think, would be to preserve their colors, and Velvia exaggerates colors so
dramatically that this wouldn't be possible.

Scanning backs are nice if your subject is completely motionless.  But then
again, so is LF film.

> Yeeaaahs! aren't those FILES compressed?

Yes, but the number of pixels they contain does not change.

Austin,

Have you read Simon Bond's book of cartoons entitled '101 uses of a Dead
Cat'?

Bob Frost.

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

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>

> or a cat being used as a quadpod.  Most
> interesting idea...

Bob,

Why no, I haven't.  I'll keep a look out for it next time I'm in B&N ;-)

Austin

> Austin,
> 
> Have you read Simon Bond's book of cartoons entitled '101 uses of a Dead
> Cat'?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> 
> > or a cat being used as a quadpod.  Most
> > interesting idea...

Nope, I take landscape photos mostly. But I do have 3 Feline American
Models, that I use once in a while. Never used one as a quadpod though.
Interesting Concept...

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Er, Jerry, I thought you only took pictures of cats?  Damn.  I'd like to see
> a picture of a cat on a tripod, or a cat being used as a quadpod.  Most
> interesting idea...
> 
> Austin
>

The article on the museum mentioned that each file was close to 600
megabytes, I believe. In any case they showed comparison full page
pictures with the 4x5 scanning back and velvia, and even a blind person
could tell the digital was far superior to velvia in every respect.

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > The museum in question had compared velvia to the sinar scanning back
> > and the sinar won hands down. Just extolling the virtues of
> > digital prints.
> 
> I have a 7k x 7k scanning back (that's 51,380,224 REAL pixels BTW, or over
> 150M bytes of data at 8 bits/color), and it gives amazing results...but
> that's hardly even close to a 6M pixel Bayer pattern camera, and it's not
> really good for anything outside the studio.
> 
> 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/

No, but I read a parody of that book. It's title was 101 uses for a Dead
Simon Bond.
It was hilarious.

Jerry

Bob Frost wrote:

> 
> Austin,
> 
> Have you read Simon Bond's book of cartoons entitled '101 uses of a Dead
> Cat'?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> 
> > or a cat being used as a quadpod.  Most
> > interesting idea...
> 
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;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/

Thanks Moreno, I contacted them, am waiting for reply..
Jerry

> > >Jerry, with Dektol Stains yet to be removed ...
> 
> You could always try http://www.photosol.com
> 
> Follow the link for Photofinish.
>

The exhibit I saw were about 18x24 inches or so, I'm quite sure they
weren't 6 feet tall. Polaroid probably made camera in more than one size.

Jerry

"Editor P.O.V. Image Service" wrote:

> 
> Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> >Fine artists use them to show the amazing quality you can get from a
> >huge contact print. They are quite something to see if you have never
> >seen one!
> >
> >Jerry   There are only about 6 or fewer in existence now, so I've heard.
> >I believe a lot of art students have been able to use the cameras with
> >school grants. I saw a large exhibit once, maybe a hundred prints, and
> >they were amazing. For some reason, I didn't see any sports pictures. :)
> >
> >
> >
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Although it would look awesome to see one or two....  LOL
> 
> Anyone remember when the US Football receiver ran into the old CBS
> upright TV cam on the sidelines?   What a headache?   I can imagine the
> same happening with the Polaroid.. LOL
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> [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
> 
> 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/

Anthony, some pictures are VERY flat, and need the contrast of velvia.
In any case, the museum had completely switched to digital, and just
used velvia as an example of the detail film was capable of vs the
detail the scanning back was capable of.

Jerry

Jerry,

Please understand that I was not dissing the D30. I have one and absolutely LOVE it; though I am anxiously anticipating the next generation
digital offering from Canon. I'm hoping we'll approach MF quality, at that time. I have chuckled as I read the numerous e-mails flying around
regarding digital vs. film, D30/D60 (insert hardware of choice here) sharpness, etc. I have many 11x17 landscape images from my D30 that I
am delighted with. I, too, was a REAL skeptic about the quality claims of D30 images, especially compared to scanned 35mm and traditional
Type C prints, before I personally viewed the results; based on a good workflow from RAW image files. I'm sold.

With regard to my statements concerning B&W from D30 files, I don't remember saying that they were not sharp. However, I have not been
able to produce 11x17 B&Ws from the D30 that can hang on the same wall as my LF output. And, for LF, I am not doing anything special--mostly
Tri-X scanned on an Epson Expression 1680 using Silverfast 6. The D30 images just simply don't have the "look" I'm after; richness of tonality.
Absolute sharpness has never been a major concern of mine even back during my wet darkroom days. Beyond the normal things one expects,
like pleasing composition, etc., I try to obtain a tonal "richness" to all my B&W prints with open yet contrasty shadows and highlights that "sing!"

The D30 B&W output, though nice, just doesn't "grab" me. I know that you know what I'm referring to here. Color images, on the other hand,
are absolutely AMAZING! I never knew what could be accomplished with digital until I stepped up to the D30. Before the D30, I thought digital
was digital, and sensor type--CCD or CMOS--who cares? As you know there ain't a 4-5 megapixel Sony, Olympus, or other, digital camera
that even comes close to the D30/D60, 1D, D100, S2, etc. OK, Canon, how about a 9-12 megapixel full-frame (or closer to it) CMOS sensor
with build quality of the EOS 1 series? Maybe the EOS 1C? I can only dream!!

Best regards,
Alan

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jerry Olson [SMTP:jerryolson@...]
Sent:	Saturday, September 07, 2002 2:37 PM
To:	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Re: [Digital BW] Digital sharpness vs film- Canon D60


> Hi Ross,

> Jerry has already responsed with some good advice, but I'll add my 2 cents...FWIW...

I agree with everything that Alan said, except the quality of a print
from the D-30. I have easily made 11x16 prints from the D-30 that are
VERY sharp in black and white. This doesn't apply to images taken at
infinity, just closeups. The D60 is quite a bit better than the D30. For
infinity pictures, especially with buildings and trees on the far
horizon, the digital cameras don't quite make it yet. There is just too
much fine detail to resolve. Here, I'm speaking of wide angle lens
photos. A telephoto lens wouldn't have that problem. Digital images are
sharpest the closer you get to your subjects. Closeups of people, cats,
dogs, flowers, etc. are very very sharp, even at 13x19 inches, where
landscapes aren't quite up to that yet.

Jerry

If you like, I can send you a JPEG image of a cat, and even though it's
just a screen resolution of 72 DPI, you can easily tell the original is
very sharp.


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/ 



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

Hi Jerry,

How do you combine your images? FWIW, there is a good tutorial by George DeWolfe (who just got a D60 BTW) on the subject of extending
the dynamic range of digital images, in the most recent issue of Camera Arts. If you're interested, I could send you the steps involved. I have
used Fred Miranda's DRI action, too, but have found a few instances of images where it doesn't work properly. The downside to any of these
techniques is that they have to be done in 8-bit mode. I try to stay in 16-bit for as long as possible.

Best regards,
Alan

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jerry Olson [SMTP:jerryolson@...]
Sent:	Saturday, September 07, 2002 9:19 AM
To:	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Re: [Digital BW] Digital sharpness vs film- Canon D60

Ross, I ran a test between the raw image and the superfine JPEG image,
and can see no visible difference at all. If I need to get shadow detail
and highlight detail that can't be had in a single photo, I just shoot 2
pictures and combine them with a layer mask in photoshop and use the
best of each image. I almost always use a tripod, so this is easy. I'm
starting to get very interested in panorama pictures lately, and have
been taking 2 or 3 images and stitching them together in photoshop. This
enhances your resolution even more, and you can make even larger prints
with no loss in resolution. 

If you don't mind the extra hassle and storage space that you would
need, you could shoot in the raw mode, and do as much editing as
possible in photoshop in the 16 bit mode before switching to 8 bit. But,
I've made direct comparisons, and can't see any difference, so I just
shoot everything in the superfine mode.

Jerry


> I am wondering  what your experience has been
> converting the raw D60 files to B&W. Does it
> compare at all favorably with 35mm b&w film that
> has been scanned? 

better. absolutely NO grain. 

 I would
> really appreciate your opinion and any thoughtd
> you may have on the best methodology for
> conversion to grayscale.

The channel mixer in photoshop, use the monochromatic mode, play around
with the sliders. Select your sky, and use the red channel. Select your
trees and use the green channel, etc.

> Happy bokeh to you both. It is only in recent
> years that the "Bokeh" discussion seems to have
> come to my attention. Now I know why I have
> always loved the out of focus areas from my Leica
> lenses. When a tree falls in the forest does it
> make a sound if no one is there to hear it?

I hardly ever shoot a photo that has an out of focus background, being
primarily a landscape photographer.  See http://www.westernechoes.com

I graduated high school in 1959. I've been making photos since I was 10 also.
Bokeh I just heard of 3
 or 4 years ago.

Sounds like a trend that someone started and all the followers picked up
on it. I doubt if anyone heard of it 20 years ago.

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

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/ 



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

The best way is putting the underexposed image on a layer directly above
the overexposed image. Add a layer mask, and use the eraser at about 40
percent opacity and a large soft brush with white and black colors to
erase or add to the mask. Be sure you are working on the mask, not the
image. You can then reveal the shadow detail from the lower image so it
appears in the upper image. Then switch colors and erase the light
portions which will reveal the darker portions of the image. You can
make one of the images opacity about 60 percent so you can see the layer
underneath and where to brush. 

I get Camera arts and have seen the article.  I just heard about Fred
Miranda's action, which I'm going to get and try. He has a lot of very
useful actions!

Jerry

> Hi Jerry,
> 
> How do you combine your images? FWIW, there is a good tutorial by George DeWolfe (who just got a D60 BTW) on the subject of extending
> the dynamic range of digital images, in the most recent issue of Camera Arts. If you're interested, I could send you the steps involved. I have
> used Fred Miranda's DRI action, too, but have found a few instances of images where it doesn't work properly. The downside to any of these
> techniques is that they have to be done in 8-bit mode. I try to stay in 16-bit for as long as possible.
>

"A. Huntley" wrote:
> 
> Jerry,

 I, too, was a REAL skeptic about the quality claims of D30 images,
especially compared to scanned 35mm and traditional
> Type C prints, before I personally viewed the results; based on a good workflow from RAW image files. I'm sold.

The D60 is even better than the D30. Quite a bit sharper. 13x19's are great!
> 
> With regard to my statements concerning B&W from D30 files, I don't remember saying that they were not sharp. However, I have not been
> able to produce 11x17 B&Ws from the D30 that can hang on the same wall as my LF output. 

No, it isn't that good, except for closeups, if you have one of the
supersharp canon macro lenses. Landscapes taken at infinity don't quite
make it yet.

> The D30 B&W output, though nice, just doesn't "grab" me. I know that you know what I'm referring to here. Color images, on the other hand,
> are absolutely AMAZING! I never knew what could be accomplished with digital until I stepped up to the D30. Before the D30, I thought digital
> was digital, and sensor type--CCD or CMOS--who cares? As you know there ain't a 4-5 megapixel Sony, Olympus, or other, digital camera
> that even comes close to the D30/D60, 1D, D100, S2, etc. OK, Canon, how about a 9-12 megapixel full-frame (or closer to it) CMOS sensor
> with build quality of the EOS 1 series? Maybe the EOS 1C? I can only dream!!

It will happen. In a few years they will have an 18 megapixel camera. I
would think they will come out with a full frame chip in the next
generation, as contax has one now.

> I agree with everything that Alan said, except the quality of a print
> from the D-30. I have easily made 11x16 prints from the D-30 that are
> VERY sharp in black and white. This doesn't apply to images taken at
> infinity, just closeups. The D60 is quite a bit better than the D30. For
> infinity pictures, especially with buildings and trees on the far
> horizon, the digital cameras don't quite make it yet. There is just too
> much fine detail to resolve. Here, I'm speaking of wide angle lens
> photos. A telephoto lens wouldn't have that problem. Digital images are
> sharpest the closer you get to your subjects. Closeups of people, cats,
> dogs, flowers, etc. are very very sharp, even at 13x19 inches, where
> landscapes aren't quite up to that yet.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> If you like, I can send you a JPEG image of a cat, and even though it's
> just a screen resolution of 72 DPI, you can easily tell the original is
> very sharp.
> 
> 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/
> 
> [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
> 
> 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/