Digital BW, The Print

Claude writes:

> The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film than any other
> single shot digicam and it's only $1,200 street
> price ...

You can get an excellent film SLR for $250 or so.

On 6/16/03 6:06 PM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:

> Claude writes:
> 
>> The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film than any other
>> single shot digicam and it's only $1,200 street
>> price ...
> 
> You can get an excellent film SLR for $250 or so.
> 
And it won't be outdated in another six months...and your "negatives" won't
be obsolete either when the technology improves likewise...you can simply
rescan the film.  If you capture the image with a 6megapixel camera...that's
all image will ever be.

Robert

In the debate over shooting digital -vs- shooting film and scanning 
there is one quality advantage to shooting digital that I don't see 
mentioned.

When you shoot digital the resulting file is first generation! Meaning, 
the original scene passes through just the camera lens and on to the 
capture chip. When shooting film the image passes through the camera 
lens on to the film and then when scanning a second lens is involved 
with possible imperfections. Then there is chance that the film is not 
laying flat.. and the the potential of grain aliasing.. and some curve 
or setting in the scanning driver software not being optimal. And how 
many of us can afford the best film scanners and become masters at the 
scanning process ? All these pitfalls are eliminated when shooting 
digital. For this reason... often when I look at files from GOOD 
digital cameras the tones seem to be smoother and the transitions 
better than work shot on film and scanned. I think it has to do with 
the fact that the vast majority of scans are less than perfect in some 
regard.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

-Jeff

Jeff,

> When you shoot digital the resulting file is first generation! Meaning,
> the original scene passes through just the camera lens and on to the
> capture chip.

It, technically, isn't ANY "generation".  It is interpreted by the sensor,
then by an A/D, then by some thresholding/levels adjustment/PRNU and then a
Bayer composition algorithm...etc. etc.  The thought of "generation" with
digital camera image capture is really meaningless.  I can come up with ten
different processings that happen to the file...so if you want to assign a
"generation" to every time the data is changed, well, digital will fall FAR
behind film in that regard.  It also matters how much the "fidelity"
(accuracy of reproduction) of the image is affected by each change...

> When shooting film the image passes through the camera
> lens on to the film and then when scanning a second lens is involved
> with possible imperfections.

Yes, and with every processing that happens to your digital camera image it
changes the image.

> Does this make sense to anyone else?

Sigh.  (this isn't aimed at you, BTW)...  What makes sense is that, for some
reason, there is so much misinformation about digital imaging out on the
web, and therefore in people's minds...and that there are a LOT of people
who leave their sense behind and somehow want digital image capture to be
better than it is...for what ever reason.

Austin

On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 12:41 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>
> It, technically, isn't ANY "generation".  It is interpreted by the 
> sensor,
> then by an A/D, then by some thresholding/levels adjustment/PRNU and 
> then a
> Bayer composition algorithm...etc. etc.  The thought of "generation" 
> with
> digital camera image capture is really meaningless.  I can come up 
> with ten
> different processings that happen to the file...so if you want to 
> assign a
> "generation" to every time the data is changed, well, digital will 
> fall FAR
> behind film in that regard.  It also matters how much the "fidelity"
> (accuracy of reproduction) of the image is affected by each change...
>
>> When shooting film the image passes through the camera
>> lens on to the film and then when scanning a second lens is involved
>> with possible imperfections.
>
> Yes, and with every processing that happens to your digital camera 
> image it
> changes the image.
>
>> Does this make sense to anyone else?
>
> Sigh.  (this isn't aimed at you, BTW)...  What makes sense is that, 
> for some
> reason, there is so much misinformation about digital imaging out on 
> the
> web, and therefore in people's minds...and that there are a LOT of 
> people
> who leave their sense behind and somehow want digital image capture to 
> be
> better than it is...for what ever reason.
>
> Austin

Austin;

I am 100% sure that you know multiples more about this than I do.... 
but I think you  missed the main thrust of my post, perhaps because I 
did not express myself correctly.

My main point is this : The vast majority of users out there can not 
create 100% perfect scans due to either a lack of equipment or scanning 
experience. And jobbing out the scans is often not an option and also 
does not guarantee a perfect scan for a particular output. Putting the 
fact of pure resolution aside, I think many photographers will get 
better prints from a good pro digital SLR (if the prints are kept small 
in size do to the relatively low resolution of most digital cameras) 
than they will from shooting film and scanning. The exception is the 
photographer who has the time and money and expertise to really get in 
to truly hight end scanning.

This is what I have seen in the real world (so far).

-Jeff

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert 
Morrison <rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> On 6/16/03 6:06 PM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> 
> > Claude writes:
> > 
> >> The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film than any other
> >> single shot digicam and it's only $1,200 street
> >> price ...
> > 
> > You can get an excellent film SLR for $250 or so.
> > 
> And it won't be outdated in another six months...and your 
"negatives" won't
> be obsolete either when the technology improves 
likewise...you can simply
> rescan the film.  If you capture the image with a 6megapixel 
camera...that's
> all image will ever be.
> 
> Robert

Every system has its limitations. If you shoot a Holga you can still 
get creative images that are fun. Shoot 35mm and perhaps you 
will get into a situation you wish for 4x5 or even 8x10... come on 
people... just because its digital doesn't mean its not a capable 
system. Its a TOOL thats all... if its for you fine, if not... fine! But 
don't claim its trash and not worth the money for everyone. If I 
paid for film, processing, and scanning for all the images I have 
run through my digital cameras it would be WAY more than the 
cost of the digital camera. My S2 is on image 4300 ish... divided 
by 36 exp per roll x about $7 per roll = over $800... just for the 
film, no processing. Its also much easier to get through airports!
Digital won't be outdated in 6 months! Yes newer cameras come 
out and offer more but that doesn't mean that your camera stops 
working! Your car is also outdated in 1 year with that analogy, my 
guess is you don't run out and buy a new one or consider yours 
obsolete. I get tired of the digital bashing... its a tool people, thats 
all! Use it or not, whatever, but thats your opinion for your 
workflow. Why do you bash the concept! It works great for some.

Dave

Been reading this thread with interest.... 
Lot's of interesting perspectives from both sides.  One thing for sure is that digital 
isn't going away. Its fascinating that those that have absolute comfort scanning 
digitally and printing digitally are averse to digital capture.  I shoot digital because I 
don't like chemicals in my studio or house. For the things I shoot my 'old' canon 1D 
allows prints up to 20x30 and i get excellent conversions to black and white with 
software (imaging factory) where I have great control of what film emulation or use of 
filters.   Clearly digial capture has become good enough that the issue has become a 
matter of opinion not a matter of fact.  Use what you like!

Eric HIss



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Morrison 
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:

> On 6/16/03 6:06 PM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> 
> > Claude writes:
> > 
> >> The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film than any other
> >> single shot digicam and it's only $1,200 street
> >> price ...
> > 
> > You can get an excellent film SLR for $250 or so.
> > 
> And it won't be outdated in another six months...and your "negatives" won't
> be obsolete either when the technology improves likewise...you can simply
> rescan the film.  If you capture the image with a 6megapixel camera...that's
> all image will ever be.
> 
> Robert

Jeff writes:

> When you shoot digital the resulting file is
> first generation!

So is a film scan.  Both film and electronic photography involve an analog
image capture and a conversion to digital form.  The digicam does this
inside the camera; for film, this is done later, with a scanner.

> Meaning, the original scene passes through just
> the camera lens and on to the capture chip. When
> shooting film the image passes through the camera
> lens on to the film and then when scanning a
> second lens is involved with possible imperfections.

In theory, this is a handicap; in practice, the quality of the optical
systems is so high that they do not limit the final image quality.
Furthermore, it's easier to design good scanner optics than it is to design
good capture optics, because the circumstances are much more constrained,
and focus and quality need only be maintained along a horizontal line or a
microscopic point, not throughout a rectangular image field.

An important and unavoidable principle that affects all systems that
interface with the real world, including imaging systems, is that it is
_always_ possible to design and build a completely analog system that will
match or surpass the quality of any digital system.  However, digital
systems usually provide a better price/quality ratio because they eliminate
the need for close tolerances in all system components except the analog
endpoints (image capture and image printing/display, in the case of
photography).

This is why audio CDs are so successful:  Although it's certainly possible
to build a completely analog system that blows CDs away, doing so is so
painfully expensive that virtually no one can afford it--audio CDs bring a
high level of quality to the average audiophile at a very low price.

So why isn't digital sweeping away film as CD swept away LPs?  For one
important reason:  CDs succeeded because the replaced the middle portion of
an analog system with a digital system, which is always a win-win situation.
Digital photography in contrast, is replacing one of the analog
endpoints--image capture--with a new system, while the digital part in the
middle remains the same.  Thus, "digital" photography is actually nothing
more than the adoption of a (potentially better) analog system, and since
analog systems improve only slowly, the advances of digital are much more
gradual.

Right now, digital is limited almost entirely by the analog electronic
sensor that replaces film.  As this sensor improves, digital will continue
to advance over film.

Most people understand digital photography only poorly, and the very
expression itself invites misunderstanding, since it hides the fact that
digital is actually introducing a new analog technology, not a new digital
technology.  This is why analogies between digital photos and audio CDs are
flawed, and it is also why, even after years, digital photography still
hasn't replaced film entirely--and it may never do so.

> Then there is chance that the film is not laying flat..
> and the the potential of grain aliasing.. and some curve
> or setting in the scanning driver software not being
> optimal.

This defect, and all the others you mention, are defects of analog capture.
But "digital" photography is just a change in analog capture, so while you
eliminate some of the problems with film, you introduce others with
electronic sensors.  Overall, electronic sensors _should_ ultimately
prevail, as they have more advantages than disadvantages when compared to
film.  But the situation is not nearly as cut and dried as the notion of
"digital" implies, and so you should probably not hold your breath.

> All these pitfalls are eliminated when shooting
> digital.

But others are added.  A few are inherent to electronic sensors and
unavoidable (e.g., thermal noise); others are just design choices that can
be fixed (e.g., use of a single CCD with a matrix color filter).

> I think it has to do with the fact that the vast
> majority of scans are less than perfect in some
> regard.

I agree.  Scanning is part art and part science, and it takes a long time to
learn to do it well (and a good scanner).  For this reason, probably 99% of
all film scans are dramatically substandard when compared to what would
actually be possible with a drum scanner and an expert operator.

The elimination of scanning is a huge advantage to digital photography.  But
the best film scans still leave digital images very much in the shade.

Jeff writes:

> My main point is this : The vast majority of users out
> there can not create 100% perfect scans due to either
> a lack of equipment or scanning experience.

Agreed.

> And jobbing out the scans is often not an option and also
> does not guarantee a perfect scan for a particular output.

Also agreed.  You can pay for your own scanner for the price of scanning
just one roll of film at a lab (if you want _good_ scans), and often the
person scanning it at the lab has scarcely any more experience than you do.

> Putting the fact of pure resolution aside, I think many
> photographers will get better prints from a good pro
> digital SLR (if the prints are kept small in size do to
> the relatively low resolution of most digital cameras)
> than they will from shooting film and scanning.

I agree.  The choice is complicated, though, by the extremely high cost of
digital equipment.  That will change someday, but today, it's a lot of money
for the relatively low image quality.

Also, getting more on topic, digicams are an especially poor choice for
black and white imaging, because they are all designed for color, and you
lose an enormous amount of information in your images when you are forced to
convert from an RGB image capture to a grayscale image.

> The exception is the photographer who has the time and
> money and expertise to really get in to truly hight
> end scanning.

All of this applies to printing as well.  Getting decent black and white
prints on your own is very time-consuming and expensive, no matter how you
do it.  Getting good prints cheaply isn't too inaccessible, but getting the
best prints--whether they are ink-jet or wet prints--is just as difficult as
scanning film.  This is no coincidence, because they are both analog
processes.  And they are not going to go away.

I also know little or nothing of digital capture (I do use an Olympus C4000
for digital infrared b&w), but am interested.  Out of boredom, I have been
placing objects (calladium leaves etc.) on the bed of my Heidelberg scanner
to try a little collage.  Actually, I was fairly astounded at the detail and
tonal range of the scans.  Given the limited DOF, they surpass anything I've
seen so far, including high-end scans of my LF negs.  It occurred to me that
I might have something akin to an 8x10 digital camera that slowly captures
140mb 16-bit files, probably not a fair comparison to a digital SLR.  But,
the lure is there.  Adding to the lure is the X-disc, a small pocket size
hard drive that you dump the media into in the field (40gb or so).
Belkin/Nixvue has one also.  From what I have seen, I figure a SLR body,
memory and a couple of lenses is a $10K shot more or less.  Does anyone know
of a reasonably unbiased source comparing digital capture and film scans,
with high-res examples?  Right now I mostly use 35mm scanning on a Nikon
4000ED (into portability), not a pro scanner but pretty good.  thanks.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "e8121" <e8121@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Taking the plunge


> Been reading this thread with interest....
> Lot's of interesting perspectives from both sides.  One thing for sure is
that digital
> isn't going away. Its fascinating that those that have absolute comfort
scanning
> digitally and printing digitally are averse to digital capture.  I shoot
digital because I
> don't like chemicals in my studio or house. For the things I shoot my
'old' canon 1D
> allows prints up to 20x30 and i get excellent conversions to black and
white with
> software (imaging factory) where I have great control of what film
emulation or use of
> filters.   Clearly digial capture has become good enough that the issue
has become a
> matter of opinion not a matter of fact.  Use what you like!
>
> Eric HIss
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Morrison
> <rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> > On 6/16/03 6:06 PM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > Claude writes:
> > >
> > >> The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film than any other
> > >> single shot digicam and it's only $1,200 street
> > >> price ...
> > >
> > > You can get an excellent film SLR for $250 or so.
> > >
> > And it won't be outdated in another six months...and your "negatives"
won't
> > be obsolete either when the technology improves likewise...you can
simply
> > rescan the film.  If you capture the image with a 6megapixel
camera...that's
> > all image will ever be.
> >
> > Robert
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Ken writes:

> Does anyone know of a reasonably unbiased source
> comparing digital capture and film scans, with high-res
> examples?

I've never seen a comparison that wasn't trying to prove that one is better
than the other.

Furthermore, there are so many variables in such comparisons that they are
usually meaningless, and even when expertly done they are questionable.

And still furthermore, neither method of image capture is generally superior
to the other.  It depends on what you want.  Digital has never been troubled
by grain, for example, and film has never lacked resolution.  Digital is
plagued by thermal noise in long exposures; film is plagued by reciprocity
failure under the same circumstances.

They are both analog processes, and neither is perfect.  Neither process has
been completely perfected, either: digital is in its infancy and has a very
long way to go before it is perfected (although it is already limited in
some aspects); film is quite mature and improvements are much smaller and
more incremental, but in theory it could do easily ten times better than it
does now (I just hope someone is still working on that).  Both will
presumably be much better in the future than they are now or have been in
the past.

> Right now I mostly use 35mm scanning on a Nikon
> 4000ED (into portability), not a pro scanner but
> pretty good.

There are an awful lot of pros using high-end Nikons and other "desktop"
scanners.  There are even pro labs using them.  Better a well-done scan from
a high-end CCD scanner than a careless scan from a drum.  Cheap scanners can
be limited, although I think that even a scan from a modest desktop scanner
can be more than sufficient for most purposes if done with care
(particularly for color negative film, which doesn't press scanners as hard
as transparencies or B&W).

Claude writes:

> The camera did get hot in my hands and
> I kept cycling through cards and battery
> recharges. All Jepegs.

If the camera was that hot, I'd expect that you'd have an increasing problem
with thermal noise, especially in low light.  Did you?

> The clients were sorting through them on several
> workstations. This type of work absolutely demanded
> digital capture.

It sounds well suited to digital.  How did they do it before digital cameras
existed?

> Also, picture packages were printed on dye sub printers.

Dye subs look just like photo prints if they are from a decent printer.  My
ALPS printer produced beautiful results (better than any ink-jet), but it
was so difficult to get it to work with my PC and to get it to even load
paper correctly that I eventually gave up.

> This job would have been impossible (for
> me) without digital capture.

So how was it done before?  Or was it simply not done at all?

Ken writes:

> So, for many of us the bottom line is cost (and
> a non-convinced wife in the background).

A non-convinced wife is justified in her skepticism.  Digital is not
justifiable on the basis of image quality or price.  Speed and convenience
can justify it, if these take priority over quality and cost.  It all
depends on your priorities ...

Initial cost:  Film
Continuing cost:  Digital
Speed:  Digital
Image quality:  Film
Prints:  Film
Web:  Digital
E-mail:  Digital
Publication:  (either)

... and so on.

Billy writes:

> It was done before by using medium/large format POLAROID!

Ten thousand Polaraoid images?  How could that possibly be cost-effective?

It was done before by using medium/large format POLAROID!

There are still scores of Chicago shooters using old Crown/Speed Graphics or BJs for type 59/559 film ... it's just a matter of market niche. Digital *is* a more elegant solution but the market niche was served in the pre-dit era as well.

BC

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony Atkielski 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Taking the plunge


  Claude writes:

  > The camera did get hot in my hands and
  > I kept cycling through cards and battery
  > recharges. All Jepegs.

  If the camera was that hot, I'd expect that you'd have an increasing problem
  with thermal noise, especially in low light.  Did you?

  > The clients were sorting through them on several
  > workstations. This type of work absolutely demanded
  > digital capture.

  It sounds well suited to digital.  How did they do it before digital cameras
  existed?

  > Also, picture packages were printed on dye sub printers.

  Dye subs look just like photo prints if they are from a decent printer.  My
  ALPS printer produced beautiful results (better than any ink-jet), but it
  was so difficult to get it to work with my PC and to get it to even load
  paper correctly that I eventually gave up.

  > This job would have been impossible (for
  > me) without digital capture.

  So how was it done before?  Or was it simply not done at all?



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

... you wouldn't do 10,000 images shooting a 4x5 press camera!

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony Atkielski 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Taking the plunge


  Billy writes:

  > It was done before by using medium/large format POLAROID!

  Ten thousand Polaraoid images?  How could that possibly be cost-effective?



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Billy writes:

> ... you wouldn't do 10,000 images shooting a 4x5 press camera!

So it actually couldn't be done before digital.

But then again, the next question that arises is:  If the overall purpose
was still served by press cameras with far fewer images, was it really
necessary to shoot 10,000 images just because digital allowed it?

Obviously the 10,000 images couldn't have been done by any single shooter using the old medium/largePOLAROID workflow.
Coverage of the event with 3x4/4x5/5x7/8x10 images for onsite sale and delivery *could* be done, and it has been done prior to the dit era, so in *that* sense it's been done before and continues to be done without dit capture.
The 10,000 images allowed a greater variety of images for the clients to select from, with fewer images to "eat" due to the print on demand component of the dit workflow. 
The ability to EASILY create multiple copies of an image are another plus to dit capture for this purpose.

IMO it's just a (r)evolutionary step for event coverage, an already extant market niche for which dit capture is a VERY welcomed near perfect solution.

BC

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony Atkielski 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Taking the plunge


  Billy writes:

  > ... you wouldn't do 10,000 images shooting a 4x5 press camera!

  So it actually couldn't be done before digital.

  But then again, the next question that arises is:  If the overall purpose
  was still served by press cameras with far fewer images, was it really
  necessary to shoot 10,000 images just because digital allowed it?



        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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

I have just acquired a Mamiya 645. Once I pick a film,
PlusX125,  TMax100, PortraBW400, I plan to do some
comparison shots between my 4 MP Olympus E-10 and
the film scanned at 2000 dpi with my Polaroid SprintScan45.

Output via an Epson 3000 with Cone driver and Cone or MIS
inks.

The results may be subjective, way too many variables to
control or normalize, but at least I will not be attempting 
to force one to be best. 

( I think, from some early observations, the digital will
produce prints equal in quality up to ~ 12x16 print size.
The PlusX125 cannot support heavy sharpening due to grain.
Other films to be eval'd this weekend. ) 


Best,
Alex


"Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Ken writes:
> 
> > Does anyone know of a reasonably unbiased source
> > comparing digital capture and film scans, with high-res
> > examples?
> 
> I've never seen a comparison that wasn't trying to prove that one is
better
> than the other.
> 
> Furthermore, there are so many variables in such comparisons that
they are
> usually meaningless, and even when expertly done they are questionable.
>

Alex, you might want to include delta 100 and fuji Accros(100) in your bw evaluation.(Ultra fine grain, smooth tonal scale). They are my film of choice for chemical darkroom work (16x20 from 35 mm) but have not yet tried them on the digital side.
Alan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: B. Alex Pettit Jr. 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Taking the plunge


  I have just acquired a Mamiya 645. Once I pick a film,
  PlusX125,  TMax100, PortraBW400, I plan to do some
  comparison shots between my 4 MP Olympus E-10 and
  the film scanned at 2000 dpi with my Polaroid SprintScan45.

  Output via an Epson 3000 with Cone driver and Cone or MIS
  inks.

  The results may be subjective, way too many variables to
  control or normalize, but at least I will not be attempting 
  to force one to be best. 

  ( I think, from some early observations, the digital will
  produce prints equal in quality up to ~ 12x16 print size.
  The PlusX125 cannot support heavy sharpening due to grain.
  Other films to be eval'd this weekend. ) 


  Best,
  Alex


  "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
  > Ken writes:
  > 
  > > Does anyone know of a reasonably unbiased source
  > > comparing digital capture and film scans, with high-res
  > > examples?
  > 
  > I've never seen a comparison that wasn't trying to prove that one is
  better
  > than the other.
  > 
  > Furthermore, there are so many variables in such comparisons that
  they are
  > usually meaningless, and even when expertly done they are questionable.
  > 



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Alex,  i shoot with a mamiya and a bronica 645 some and scan the output.
one film i especially like is Scala, though getting it processed is more
involved than the other films.  Ilford Delta 100 works well for me too.
anyway, might be another couple to add to your test.  ymmv..  

kenb

> -----Original Message-----
> From: B. Alex Pettit Jr. [mailto:a_pettit_jr@...] 
> 
> I have just acquired a Mamiya 645. Once I pick a film, 
> PlusX125,  TMax100, PortraBW400, I plan to do some comparison 
> shots between my 4 MP Olympus E-10 and the film scanned at 
> 2000 dpi with my Polaroid SprintScan45.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> Alex

Another short ( albeit OT ) extension of this thread ..

I am currently having the film processed at a local lab.
They recommended Tmax100 as being most compatible with
their chemistry. May my results be quite biased by not
processing the film myself ? ( I know the few rolls of
PlusX125 showed significant grain )

Thanks,
Alex

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Brookner"
<kenb@b...> wrote:

> Alex,  i shoot with a mamiya and a bronica 645 some and scan the output.
> one film i especially like is Scala, though getting it processed is more
> involved than the other films.  Ilford Delta 100 works well for me too.
> anyway, might be another couple to add to your test.  ymmv..  
> 
> kenb
>

if you're good at processing bw film, then you can very probably do
better than a lab--you control the whole process including the developer
choice, time, temp, etc.  i used to do my own processing and kept my
jobo pretty busy, but lately i just send my bw film to the lab along
with my color.  it saves me a lot of time, and although i can do it
better, they do an acceptable job for me and i hate to process film.
always trade-offs!  :)

scala must be processed in a scala capable lab.

the proof is in the bw print at your final size, me thinks.

kenb

> From: B. Alex Pettit Jr. [mailto:a_pettit_jr@...] 
> Another short ( albeit OT ) extension of this thread ..
> 
> I am currently having the film processed at a local lab.
> They recommended Tmax100 as being most compatible with
> their chemistry. May my results be quite biased by not 
> processing the film myself ? ( I know the few rolls of 
> PlusX125 showed significant grain )

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 05:43 AM, B. Alex Pettit Jr. wrote:

> I have just acquired a Mamiya 645. Once I pick a film,
> PlusX125,  TMax100, PortraBW400, I plan to do some
> comparison shots between my 4 MP Olympus E-10 and
> the film scanned at 2000 dpi with my Polaroid SprintScan45

Why only 2000dpi, dosen't the Polaroid support 4000dpi for this format?

> Output via an Epson 3000 with Cone driver and Cone or MIS
> inks.
>
> The results may be subjective, way too many variables to
> control or normalize, but at least I will not be attempting
> to force one to be best.

If you only scan at 2000 on a 4000dpi scanner you are biasing the 
result towards digital capture.

> ( I think, from some early observations, the digital will
> produce prints equal in quality up to ~ 12x16 print size.

Absolutely not my experience even with 35mm film, let alone medium 
format film...that is unless you are getting some really bad developing.

> The PlusX125 cannot support heavy sharpening due to grain.
> Other films to be eval'd this weekend. )

Then you have a serious developing problem.  Try Xtol or Acufine.  
These negs will easly go to 24x36 with excellent sharpness and 
detail...or and your E10 won't.  I have shoot TriX at 250 and developed 
in acufine and these negs, likewise give beautiful prints well beyond 
the size limits of your 3000.

You are right to say that there are many variables.  I think it is a 
really valuable exercise for each photographer to do their own 
comparisons.  At the very least the E10 will be good as a "digital 
polaroid" for checking lighting in the the studio.

Robert

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 06:02 AM, Alan Zimmerman wrote:

> Alex, you might want to include delta 100 and fuji Accros(100) in your 
> bw evaluation.(Ultra fine grain, smooth tonal scale). They are my film 
> of choice for chemical darkroom work (16x20 from 35 mm) but have not 
> yet tried them on the digital side.

They are excellent for digital.  The Accros developed with Acufine is 
completely grainless.  I believe Delta 100 in D76 1:1 is one of 
Austin's preferred combos for scanning.

Robert

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 07:46 AM, B. Alex Pettit Jr. wrote:

> May my results be quite biased by not
> processing the film myself ?

Your results can be hugely biased by not having control over developer 
and processing.  You don't need to do the processing yourself, but you 
do need to make sure that the lab you are using is using the best 
developer for the film.  X-tol with Tmax 100 will give excellent 
results...but so will PlusX125 with Acufine.  As I mentioned Tri-X 
(320), shot at 250 gives outstanding results for scanning when 
developed with Acufine.

Honestly, I think one of the biggest reasons that people say that cheap 
digital cameras can equal the performance of film is poor processing of 
the film.  Now that is a real variable, but it is something that can be 
improved.

Robert

Alex,
If you want to prove for sure the superiority of the film - go for it. 
 I never liked E-10.
I shot a few assignments on E-20 and the results do not come even close 
to the results
from 5.5MP Nikon 1DX or 6.15MP Fuji S2 which I use right now.  So, 
what's the
point of doing this comparison?  Maybe I am missing something?
Regards,
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle



B. Alex Pettit Jr. wrote:

> I have just acquired a Mamiya 645. Once I pick a film,
> PlusX125,  TMax100, PortraBW400, I plan to do some
> comparison shots between my 4 MP Olympus E-10 and
> the film scanned at 2000 dpi with my Polaroid SprintScan45.
>
> Output via an Epson 3000 with Cone driver and Cone or MIS
> inks.
>
> The results may be subjective, way too many variables to
> control or normalize, but at least I will not be attempting
> to force one to be best.
>
> ( I think, from some early observations, the digital will
> produce prints equal in quality up to ~ 12x16 print size.
> The PlusX125 cannot support heavy sharpening due to grain.
> Other films to be eval'd this weekend. )
>
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
>
> "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > Ken writes:
> >
> > > Does anyone know of a reasonably unbiased source
> > > comparing digital capture and film scans, with high-res
> > > examples?
> >
> > I've never seen a comparison that wasn't trying to prove that one is
> better
> > than the other.
> >
> > Furthermore, there are so many variables in such comparisons that
> they are
> > usually meaningless, and even when expertly done they are questionable.
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12ongbbsq/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3179269&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM> 
>
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


-- 





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

Robert,
This is a 4x5" format scanner ( the original SprintScan model also ),
and will do only 2000 dpi ( well, 2000x4000 but software does not seem
to support that )

This particular lab uses HC110 developer ( for the PlusX )...
Another lab I just called uses TmaxRS.

Best,
Alex

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Morrison
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
....and

> > the film scanned at 2000 dpi with my Polaroid SprintScan45
> 
> Why only 2000dpi, dosen't the Polaroid support 4000dpi for this format?
> If you only scan at 2000 on a 4000dpi scanner you are biasing the 
> result towards digital capture.
> 
> > ( I think, from some early observations, the digital will
> > produce prints equal in quality up to ~ 12x16 print size.
> 
> Absolutely not my experience even with 35mm film, let alone medium 
> format film...that is unless you are getting some really bad developing.
> 
> > The PlusX125 cannot support heavy sharpening due to grain.
> > Other films to be eval'd this weekend. )
> 
> Then you have a serious developing problem.  Try Xtol or Acufine.  
> These negs will easly go to 24x36 with excellent sharpness and 
> detail...or and your E10 won't.  I have shoot TriX at 250 and developed 
> in acufine and these negs, likewise give beautiful prints well beyond 
> the size limits of your 3000.
> 
> Robert

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 12:33 PM, B. Alex Pettit Jr. wrote:

> This particular lab uses HC110 developer ( for the PlusX )...
> Another lab I just called uses TmaxRS.

Then go with the lab using TmaxRS and shoot Tmax100.

Robert

Robert writes:

> Your results can be hugely biased by not having
> control over developer and processing.

When I first went back to B&W film, I had a lab develop it, and the results
were so contrasty and grainy that I almost gave up.  I knew that Tri-X was
grainy, but this was horrible, and I assumed that my memories were more
optimistic than the reality.  Thank goodness I was forced to do some of my
own development for Tech Pan, and when I tried developing my own Tri-X just
to get into practice for the Tech Pan, I was amazed at the difference
between my work and the lab.  When I developed it myself, it was a zillion
times smoother, with much finer grain.  That convinced me to go back to B&W.

Apparently the lab uses an Ilford chemistry optimized for high speed (two
minutes, I think).  They have it balanced to match their printing process,
so the prints from their development look okay (at least at snapshot size).
But the negatives are very contrasty and grainy compared to developing the
film more slowly in a properly-matched developer for the film.  Worlds
apart!

Sometimes I wonder if this is also true for color, but color is such a pain
that I cannot really afford try doing it myself.

At 03:33 PM 6/18/2003, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>Sometimes I wonder if this is also true for color, but color is such a pain
>that I cannot really afford try doing it myself.

It's not really that difficult. Just last night I developed 8 35mm rolls 
and 7 4x5 sheets of Provia and Velvia. It took about three hours. I use the 
Tetenal three-batch E-6 kit (the five liter size) and a Jobo CPE-2 
processor. The Jobo makes the temperature control and time repeatability a 
breeze. C-41 is about the same degree of difficulty. I would say that, with 
a table top processor, color is only a little more difficult than black and 
white. And I don't have to worry about the lab "technician" dropping my 
film on the floor and stepping on it. I can do that myself! :-)

Stan

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

Claude writes:

> It's an interesting approach in theory, but I
> have tried this and it doens't work.

With an HDTV camera?  An expensive experiment, although you need the
resolution to even approach practicality.  And even then, the resolution is
far below still photography.

But it all depends on what you need; photojournalism has been known to use
video stills regularly.

> Those are not fair statements. You are underestimating
> the timing it takes to capture those images, and the
> amount of skills required to do so.

Sorry, but when photographers claim that they need thousands or tens of
thousands of exposures to capture the same things that other photographers
captured with 4x5 cameras in years past, it's pretty obvious that quantity
is being substituted for quality.  Eventually you arrive a a point where you
just shoot images continuously and then pick a few stills later on.
Shooting like that can be done by an unattended camera, almost--it certainly
does not require a talented photographer.  It just requires a photo editor
with time on his hands.

> I have a friend who photographs for the NBA and the NFL.
> He used to shoot bags of slide film. Now he has 3 Canon
> 1d's and 1 1Ds. Doing kids dancing, gymanistics, any
> kind of sport is NOT a matter of just spraying the air
> with exposures as you suggest.

I'm not suggesting it; photographers who blow through 15,000 exposures at a
single event are suggesting it.

In theory, the ideal photographer only needs one shot, which he will take at
the perfect instant in time.  A less than ideal photographer will have to
take quite a few shots, a few of which might be suitable.  A
non-photographer will just shoot continuously, and the photo editor will
pick the random shots that happened to come out good.  It's a simple matter
of mathematics.

> There are lots of people who earn a good living
> precisely because they CAN nail those shots.

The more they shoot, the more likely they are to nail the shots ... and the
less talent they need to do so.

> You comments are offensive to those who make a living
> trying to get those great shots and using the best
> equipment they can afford to do the job.

If they are taking offense, that is their problem, not mine.  Of course, if
they tacitly recognize that they are using a shotgun approach to getting
their photos, I can see why they'd be upset if anyone explicitly pointed
this out.  But it's really hard to see why, say, sports today requires 100
or 1000 times more exposures than sports of yesterday.  And frankly, I don't
see any great improvement in the shots that actually find their way to
press.

Additionally, sports photography--one of the few types of photography that
can somewhat justify a shotgun approach, although not as much as one might
think--is only a tiny part of photography as a whole.

> I'm trying to give you some factual experienced
> anwers and make some good points, but you only seem
> to be interested in making fun of something you don't
> understand and insult the ones who do.

I'm not making fun of anyone.  I'm calling into serious question the notion
that one can just take thousands and thousands of photographs and be a
better photographer in consequence, which in turn is often used to justify
going to digital photography.