Digital BW, The Print

This is not meant to start a digital vs film war. I think we all
know there are some places where digital works fine and places where
it doesn't, but digital is getting better all the time. Also, I did
not find anything useful by doing an archive search on this subject,
so here goes...

As I do a lot of B&W landscapes I have not made the switch to
digital capture. I have been scanning 6x7 negatives to maximize
print quality for 8x10 and 11x14 and use the 1280 w/PT Sellenium
inks. I've been happy with the output. Needless to say, I would
love ditch the film processing step, but assume that I would notice
a significant difference in the output if I went to 35mm digital
capture for this type of work.

However, for my smaller B&W 35mm work, like street work, that I
would produce as 5x7 (or possibly 8X10), I have been thinking about
a Nikon D100 (as I have Nikon lenses).

I would like some input before droping the money on a D100 body!

Questions:

1.) Has anyone on this forum compared the piezo "small print"
quality from 35mm/6+ mp digital versus 100 and 400 ASA film scanned
at 4000 dpi? At 5x7, is there noticable/significant quality
differences in the resulting print?

2.) Assuming there are folks on this list that are using the
35mm/6+ mp cameras...what is your overall satisfaction level with
this tool matched with the piezo system?

Thanks...Val

> From: Val Brunell [mailto:vbrunell1@...]
>
> As I do a lot of B&W landscapes I have not made the switch to
> digital capture. I have been scanning 6x7 negatives to maximize
> print quality for 8x10 and 11x14 and use the 1280 w/PT Sellenium
> inks. I've been happy with the output. Needless to say, I would
> love ditch the film processing step, but assume that I would notice
> a significant difference in the output if I went to 35mm digital
> capture for this type of work.

Probably, at larger sizes. But with landscapes, you have one more
possibility that you may not have considered: panorama stitching. You can
easily put together a 12000 pixel wide image. Even the Photomerge function
in PS CS is pretty good, although I still prefer Pano Tools and PTGui.

> However, for my smaller B&W 35mm work, like street work, that I
> would produce as 5x7 (or possibly 8X10), I have been thinking about
> a Nikon D100 (as I have Nikon lenses).
>
> I would like some input before droping the money on a D100 body!
>
> Questions:
>
> 1.) Has anyone on this forum compared the piezo "small print"
> quality from 35mm/6+ mp digital versus 100 and 400 ASA film scanned
> at 4000 dpi? At 5x7, is there noticable/significant quality
> differences in the resulting print?

For 5x7 prints, the sharpness and noise level is probably limited by the
inkjet dither. Six megapixels is more than enough. At 8x10, you might be
able to notice a tiny reduction in sharpness, if you really look for it, but
you can certainly find out whether it's a problem by reducing one of your
existing images to 2048x3072 and printing it. As to noise, the latest
digicams are excellent.

> 2.) Assuming there are folks on this list that are using the
> 35mm/6+ mp cameras...what is your overall satisfaction level with
> this tool matched with the piezo system?

I love my 10D. It's probably a tad better than the D100 in the noise
department, but not so much that I'd recommend trading in all that Nikon
glass. Many people consider them better than film at higher ISOs. But I may
not be as obsessive as you are about sharpness. I've produced nice 12x18"
prints, which is only about 170ppi, so my standards may be different.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

I shoot mostly with my D100 these days, and interestingly enough, I
find that the larger the digital inkjet print, the better it looks to
me.  I find that for smaller print sizes, the dither interferes a little
with the details, which you are trying to see, so you also look more
closely at it.  But in the larger sizes, the details print large enough
to not fight with the dither pattern.  The dither does not change at all
non matter the print size, so it's not like grain which becomes more
apparent as the enlargement gets bigger.  In fact, to my film trained
eyes and mind, I'm continuously amazed by larger inkjet prints because I
still expect larger prints to have grain, which simply isn't there.
     Now, for my color wedding work, I have my lab print all sizes on
their Fuji Pictrography machine and there is no dither or pattern at
all.  It's wonderful and as good as film for all sizes at least up to
12"x18".

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul D. DeRocco [mailto:pderocco@...] 
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 11:06 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] "Small" Work
<snip>
> For 5x7 prints, the sharpness and noise level is probably 
> limited by the
> inkjet dither. Six megapixels is more than enough. At 8x10, 
> you might be
> able to notice a tiny reduction in sharpness, if you really 
> look for it, but
> you can certainly find out whether it's a problem by reducing 
> one of your
> existing images to 2048x3072 and printing it. As to noise, the latest
> digicams are excellent.
<snip>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Val Brunell [mailto:vbrunell1@...] 
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 7:31 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] "Small" Work
> 
> 
(snip)
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1.) Has anyone on this forum compared the piezo "small print" 
> quality from 35mm/6+ mp digital versus 100 and 400 ASA film 
> scanned at 4000 dpi? At 5x7, is there noticable/significant 
> quality differences in the resulting print?
> 
> 2.) Assuming there are folks on this list that are using the 
> 35mm/6+ mp cameras...what is your overall satisfaction level 
> with this tool matched with the piezo system?
> 
Val,

Here is a site that has a great deal of film to digital comparisons with
lots of side by side examples:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html

I have a number of prints from print exchanges up to 13X19 printed with a
number of B&W workflows. I am very impressed with some of the work and have
seen some very high quality 13X19 prints from 6 mega pixel cameras. I don't
see why a D100 would not be fine for 5x7 and 8x10 prints. (Except that I am
a Canon fan.<G>)

I primarily shoot 4x5 and 6x7 myself. I do shoot a fair amount of 35mm too.
When prices come down I will probably switch from 35mm to a digital SLR
myself. 

Martin Wesley
www.carolynfrayn.com/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

Are you aware that Nikon have announced a new Nikon body D70 to be 
released in Spring. There is info on www.dpreview.com I am also a Nikon 
user and am following the discussion with interest. Currently I have a 
Sony 717 which has exceeded all my expectations.
Trish
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 04:30 PM, Val Brunell wrote:

> This is not meant to start a digital vs film war. I think we all
> know there are some places where digital works fine and places where
> it doesn't, but digital is getting better all the time. Also, I did
> not find anything useful by doing an archive search on this subject,
> so here goes...
>
> As I do a lot of B&W landscapes I have not made the switch to
> digital capture. I have been scanning 6x7 negatives to maximize
> print quality for 8x10 and 11x14 and use the 1280 w/PT Sellenium
> inks. I've been happy with the output. Needless to say, I would
> love ditch the film processing step, but assume that I would notice
> a significant difference in the output if I went to 35mm digital
> capture for this type of work.
>
> However, for my smaller B&W 35mm work, like street work, that I
> would produce as 5x7 (or possibly 8X10), I have been thinking about
> a Nikon D100 (as I have Nikon lenses).
>
> I would like some input before droping the money on a D100 body!
>
> Questions:
>
> 1.) Has anyone on this forum compared the piezo "small print"
> quality from 35mm/6+ mp digital versus 100 and 400 ASA film scanned
> at 4000 dpi? At 5x7, is there noticable/significant quality
> differences in the resulting print?
>
> 2.) Assuming there are folks on this list that are using the
> 35mm/6+ mp cameras...what is your overall satisfaction level with
> this tool matched with the piezo system?
>
> Thanks...Val
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> � 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> � 	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> � 	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>


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

Val,

I use a 10d with the original piezography/R9 plug-in,
and my common sizes for printing is 4x6 and 6x9.  With
the plug-in, I really see no need to print with
conventional methods.  Tonally and aesthetically, they
are very similar.  When enlarging, I utilized Ilford
fibre based matte VC papers - the matte papers used
for piezography give the same look in my images.

This is the greatest benefit to the 6mp cameras - no
film costs, no associated developing costs (and no
losses in developing), no scanning and therefore no
dust/scratch removal - the resulting images are sharp.
 After using the 10d/piezography, I sold my 35mm
systems and haven't looked back.

I have not used the Piezography ICC system yet - but
as the MIS UT-2 for the 1280 is available and seems to
be a more versatile solution for the epson driver,
I'll give that a shot soon to compare notes with the
plug-in for small images.


Don


> Questions:
> 
> 1.) Has anyone on this forum compared the piezo
> "small print"
> quality from 35mm/6+ mp digital versus 100 and 400
> ASA film scanned
> at 4000 dpi? At 5x7, is there noticable/significant
> quality
> differences in the resulting print?
> 
> 2.) Assuming there are folks on this list that are
> using the
> 35mm/6+ mp cameras...what is your overall
> satisfaction level with
> this tool matched with the piezo system?
> 
> Thanks...Val
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Don...Thank you and others that responded to my post for all the 
great info...Val

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:

> Val,
> 
> I use a 10d with the original piezography/R9 plug-in,
> and my common sizes for printing is 4x6 and 6x9.  With
> the plug-in, I really see no need to print with
> conventional methods.  Tonally and aesthetically, they
> are very similar.  When enlarging, I utilized Ilford
> fibre based matte VC papers - the matte papers used
> for piezography give the same look in my images.
> 
> This is the greatest benefit to the 6mp cameras - no
> film costs, no associated developing costs (and no
> losses in developing), no scanning and therefore no
> dust/scratch removal - the resulting images are sharp.
>  After using the 10d/piezography, I sold my 35mm
> systems and haven't looked back.
> 
> I have not used the Piezography ICC system yet - but
> as the MIS UT-2 for the 1280 is available and seems to
> be a more versatile solution for the epson driver,
> I'll give that a shot soon to compare notes with the
> plug-in for small images.
> 
> 
> Don
> 
>

Don,

I received your sample prints that you created using this approach.  
I can honestly say that I could not detect much of a difference 
between the BO print and the piezography print. IMO, both prints 
were sharp and had nice tonality.

As you know, I am considering the Canon Digital Rebel. But, I am not 
convinced that this is the best tool for my objectives. Recently, 
I've strongly considered purchasing a Medium Format range finder 
such as the Mamiya 7II or the Bronica RF645.

What is my objective?

To create fine art quality 13x19 prints. My subject matter is my 
family and travel.

Why am I considering the Rebel?

1) Convenience
2) Excellent Reputation
3) I can leverage my current Canon lenses
4) Econonmics - no film, no scanning, no hassle
5) Digital is the future
6) I am willing take more chances and learn from mistakes since the 
price for doing so is low.

Why am I considering the MF Rangefinder?

1) Scannning a 6x4.5 or 6x7 negative at 3200 dpi enables a large 
file for printing at 13 x 19.

2) Lens quality, optics, and overall image quality from the Medium 
Format is better than the 6 MP digital.  Can anyone disagree?

3) My perception is that most fine art black and white photographers 
use either a medium format or large format camera.  Is there an 
equivalent camera in the Digital space?

If I go with the Rebel, the largest image I can print at 300 DPI is 
10.24 x 6.8 (3072/300 x 2048/300).  Is there any reason not to use 
Interpolation to increase the file size to 13 x 19 while maintaining 
300 dpi?

Thanks,
David





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:

> Val,
> 
> I use a 10d with the original piezography/R9 plug-in,
> and my common sizes for printing is 4x6 and 6x9.  With
> the plug-in, I really see no need to print with
> conventional methods.  Tonally and aesthetically, they
> are very similar.  When enlarging, I utilized Ilford
> fibre based matte VC papers - the matte papers used
> for piezography give the same look in my images.
> 
> This is the greatest benefit to the 6mp cameras - no
> film costs, no associated developing costs (and no
> losses in developing), no scanning and therefore no
> dust/scratch removal - the resulting images are sharp.
>  After using the 10d/piezography, I sold my 35mm
> systems and haven't looked back.
> 
> I have not used the Piezography ICC system yet - but
> as the MIS UT-2 for the 1280 is available and seems to
> be a more versatile solution for the epson driver,
> I'll give that a shot soon to compare notes with the
> plug-in for small images.
> 
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> > Questions:
> > 
> > 1.) Has anyone on this forum compared the piezo
> > "small print"
> > quality from 35mm/6+ mp digital versus 100 and 400
> > ASA film scanned
> > at 4000 dpi? At 5x7, is there noticable/significant
> > quality
> > differences in the resulting print?
> > 
> > 2.) Assuming there are folks on this list that are
> > using the
> > 35mm/6+ mp cameras...what is your overall
> > satisfaction level with
> > this tool matched with the piezo system?
> > 
> > Thanks...Val
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

> From: David Sinai [mailto:dsinai@...]
>
> As you know, I am considering the Canon Digital Rebel. But, I am not
> convinced that this is the best tool for my objectives. Recently,
> I've strongly considered purchasing a Medium Format range finder
> such as the Mamiya 7II or the Bronica RF645.
>
> What is my objective?
>
> To create fine art quality 13x19 prints. My subject matter is my
> family and travel.
>
> If I go with the Rebel, the largest image I can print at 300 DPI is
> 10.24 x 6.8 (3072/300 x 2048/300).  Is there any reason not to use
> Interpolation to increase the file size to 13 x 19 while maintaining
> 300 dpi?

If anything, explicit upsampling will give better results than relying upon
the printer driver to do the upsampling. That's certainly true of the Epson
1280. The Epson 2200 has a new option for smoothing the jaggies, which I
haven't tried. But if you use something like Genuine Fractals you can
artificially preserve sharp edges when you upsample. I've also heard that
QImage has an interpolator that's superior to the Bicubic algorithm in PS.

However, the only reason to consider 300ppi a minimum standard is if your
style relies upon absolute razor sharpness, and extreme detail even in large
images. I've made 12x18 prints (on 13x19 paper) from my 10D, which is only
170ppi, and have gotten beautiful results. They're not razor sharp, but no
one would call them blurry. They're certainly better than butter knife
sharp. ;-)

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

well, yes, interpolation reduces image sharpness and is only good as 
a "last resort."

I would suggest that you can easily get away with about 220ppi on 
larger prints so the Rebel will get you closer than you think... but 
it won't match medium format.

another option... with everyone dumping their film gear for digital, 
used film gear is getting down right cheap.  why not get yourself the 
rebel and pick up a Mamiya 645? that way you can do both.

mark

...
> If I go with the Rebel, the largest image I can print at 300 DPI is 
> 10.24 x 6.8 (3072/300 x 2048/300).  Is there any reason not to use 
> Interpolation to increase the file size to 13 x 19 while 
maintaining 
> 300 dpi?
> 
> Thanks,
> David
...

On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 10:49  PM, David Sinai wrote:

> 2) Lens quality, optics, and overall image quality from the Medium
> Format is better than the 6 MP digital.  Can anyone disagree?

Yes, everyone does different types of photography and what may be 
unacceptable for one person may be great for another, the only way you 
are going to decide is to try both yourself. The other thing is that 
there are some people out there that will never be happy with digital, 
they will want to put a 100x lupe on 40x50 prints from a 1mp camera so 
that they can point out how inferior it is.

Borrow or rent both cameras and shoot like you normally would and make 
prints from both then hang them on the wall and ask people to pick 
which is best or which is digital, chances are most people will not be 
able to tell the difference. I am not sure why there is such an 
obsession to put high powered lupes on large prints to determine 
quality, prints should be judged the way they are normally viewed by 
the people buying them, not a bunch of super critical photographers 
with high powered lupes.

Cort

--
Cort Anderson
Training Wheels, llc
www.trwheels.com
620-488-2960
620-488-3196 fax

To Cort's point, I am most concerned with how the image looks when 
displayed.  To me, that means somewhat close inspection with the 
naked eye.  For my landscapes I have been pleased with B&W 6x7 
scanned at 4000 dpi and printed at 11x14 with the Piezo plug-in.  I 
can notice a difference if I substitute 35mm (for the 6x7) at the 
11x14 print size, and even a bit at 8x10.

But my smaller scale B&W work printed at 5x7 meets my personal 
standard and it appears from all the posts that I would probably be 
satisfied with the output from the 6+mp dslrs for this stuff.

So I will probably evolve to 2 formats for B&W:  6x7 film for 
landscape work and 35mm digital for most everything else.  I may 
wait for the Nikon D70 before taking the plunge, although the 
reports on the Fuji S2 are tempting (but twice the price!).

Again, I would like to thank the many that posted on this.  I've 
gotten a lot of great input...Val



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Cort Anderson 
<stats@t...> wrote:
> On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 10:49  PM, David Sinai wrote:
> 
> > 2) Lens quality, optics, and overall image quality from the 
Medium
> > Format is better than the 6 MP digital.  Can anyone disagree?
> 
> Yes, everyone does different types of photography and what may be 
> unacceptable for one person may be great for another, the only way 
you 
> are going to decide is to try both yourself. The other thing is 
that 
> there are some people out there that will never be happy with 
digital, 
> they will want to put a 100x lupe on 40x50 prints from a 1mp 
camera so 
> that they can point out how inferior it is.
> 
> Borrow or rent both cameras and shoot like you normally would and 
make 
> prints from both then hang them on the wall and ask people to pick 
> which is best or which is digital, chances are most people will 
not be 
> able to tell the difference. I am not sure why there is such an 
> obsession to put high powered lupes on large prints to determine 
> quality, prints should be judged the way they are normally viewed 
by 
> the people buying them, not a bunch of super critical 
photographers 

> with high powered lupes.
> 
> Cort
> 
> --
> Cort Anderson
> Training Wheels, llc
> www.trwheels.com
> 620-488-2960
> 620-488-3196 fax