Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 8/20/2004 9:14:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> So in spite of the wonders of digital, which I use for some 
> things, and the big prints that various users are happy with,  film has 
> dramatically more 
> resolution.
> 
> Of course others will argue and I know that, so let's not fill up the group 
> with endless digi 
> vs film.  They both have their uses.
> 
> And for "big prints", it depends on how far you view them from.  How does it 
> look from 
> "where they'll see it", as opposed to with a loupe?
> 
> Scott


I love to pick on blanket statements. Based on the same lens, same image 
circle, same imager size, even a Bayer sensor beats film anytime. Kodak has a 36 
megapixel sensor that is slightly smaller than 645 format. It can beat scanned 
color 4x5 film.

Film has more resolution than digitl ONLY if you use a larger format than 
digital, but we knew that from the film days. The resolution kings out there are 
the Clyde Butchers of the world who use 8x20" cameras with B&W film. But it 
takes 160 square inches of "imager" to do it (without batteries if you wish).

Assuming you have a quality device and capture technique, you only need about 
1,000 pixels of DIGITAL capture to equal an inch of film, since you 
interpolate ORIGINAL data. Film is always second generation data, inherently.

Black and white film is sharper than color film on any given format at any 
given ISO rating. That being said, capturing with color film allows you to post 
process filter the scene. Although not the same as putting say, an orange 
filter over T-max, you can create a greater variety of products from a color 
capture.

I have shot every format from Minox Spy Camera to 20x24. I am currently on my 
25th digital camera in 8 years, own 17 printers, including Big Epsons and 
have made big prints. I still have 10 digicams because they all suck at one 
application or another. I used to have 50 lenses and Nikon Hasselblad and Sinar 
when I shot film. No single camera can do it all.

I can say with a high degree of certainty after all that that on a "square 
millimeter of capture" basis, digital IS sharper than film.

The biggest problem I see with digial imaging is: overexposure in capture and 
Oversharpening the output. Don't let bad practitioners with ugly output cause 
you to badly judge good technology.

Claude





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

> > So in spite of the wonders of digital, which I use for some 
> > things, and the big prints that various users are happy with,  film has 
> > dramatically more 
> > resolution.

Hi

Well maybe it has in some respects. However, when I look at my own move from 35mm B/
W film to digital (1 Ds) I mainly see better pictures and better prints - and more of them. 

Of course the fact that I got new lenses to go with the new camera helped, I'm seeing quite 
a lot of the benefits from the new glass alone.

Having made the transition from film/darkroom to film/scanning to all digital I'd hate to 
go back to film - maybe I just never found the smell of chemicals as attractive as some :-)

bye for now
Keith Cooper

PS I've written up some of my thoughts on my own transition from B/W film to digital in 
some articles at: <http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/features.html>  If you've seen the 
site before, I've just finished re-writing it from scratch.

I don't see how that observation could be challenged, short of assuming 
sloppy technique.  It doesn't make film 'better', or the final images 
necessarily preferable, but 35 mm film/lenses can record roughly 4-10x 
as much information as a DSLR.  I've read several analyses, but this is 
based on my own tests.

Excellent 35mm lenses can record 120-140 lp/mm on film - actual, not 
theoretical, without 'artifacts'.  Excellent 35mm DSLR 40-60 lp/mm, 
with artifacts.  Even a relatively inexpensive scanner (Minolta 5400) 
can read 100 lp/mm, again actual observed.  The math is trivial, and 
sectional prints confirm it (I don't make very large prints).

Yes, I use my DSLR almost exclusively these days, and I'm pleased with 
the results.

Dan

On Aug 21, 2004, at 2:27 PM, kcooper666 wrote:

> > > So in spite of the wonders of digital, which I use for some
>  > > things, and the big prints that various users are happy with,  
> film has
>  > > dramatically more
>  > > resolution.
>


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

Now I'm curious to know which DSLR you use for which format(s), Dan, 
and at which size print you would instead use which film(s) with the 
Minolta 5400 (to which I might upgrade my Polaroid SprintScan 4000).

My work space is so small that I don't think I can mat and frame 
larger than 16x20. So I'm trying to optimize my gear for images 
printed no larger than 11x14. And wondering which digital exposures 
scale up as well as 35mm film scales up to 12x18, or even larger. I 
say "or even larger" because, when I find inside one of my exposures 
an image I want to print at all, it's usually well within the borders 
of the 35mm frame as well as closer to square than to 3:2.

Thanks.
--
Sam


At 5:51 PM -0400 8/21/04, Dan Marder wrote:

>I don't see how that observation could be challenged, short of assuming
>sloppy technique.  It doesn't make film 'better', or the final images
>necessarily preferable, but 35 mm film/lenses can record roughly 4-10x
>as much information as a DSLR.  I've read several analyses, but this is
>based on my own tests.
>
>Excellent 35mm lenses can record 120-140 lp/mm on film - actual, not
>theoretical, without 'artifacts'.  Excellent 35mm DSLR 40-60 lp/mm,
>with artifacts.  Even a relatively inexpensive scanner (Minolta 5400)
>can read 100 lp/mm, again actual observed.  The math is trivial, and
>sectional prints confirm it (I don't make very large prints).
>
>Yes, I use my DSLR almost exclusively these days, and I'm pleased with
>the results.
>
>Dan

Sam,

My only DSLR is a Canon 300D, with a variety of lenses.  Most of my 
photos tend to be scenic/landscape, which is a detail-rich subject; 
portraits, etc. are obviously much less demanding.  My ultimate quality 
reference for film is my Contax G.

I'm happy with my digital images at 6x9", sometimes a little more.  A 
12x18 never looks sharp to me, no matter what tools I apply - detail at 
that size is clearly 'pretend'.  Again, that would depend on the 
subject.

Scanned film prints at 12x18 rich with detail, and could probably go 
quite a bit larger.

Dan

On Aug 22, 2004, at 10:43 AM, Sam McCandless wrote:

> Now I'm curious to know which DSLR you use for which format(s), Dan,
>  and at which size print you would instead use which film(s) with the
>  Minolta 5400 (to which I might upgrade my Polaroid SprintScan 4000).
>


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

Hi

I use a 1Ds and in some of my direct comparisons with scanned B/W film I feel there is 
more 'real' detail from the digital route.

However I feel that when you start comparing scanned film (I used an FS4000) and digital 
images at 100% the ways in which the detail breaks down is too different to be easily 
compared with most pictures.

I've had numerous 1Ds images printed at about 27"x16" where I'm quite happy with the 
level of detail. Most people who buy prints don't turn up with a magnifying glass.

I'd also note that many who would take the magnifying glass to the prints often fall into 
the 'talk about it, but don't actually do it' category ;-) :-)

bye for now

Keith Cooper
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk

Hi Keith,

> I use a 1Ds and in some of my direct comparisons with scanned B/W
> film I feel there is
> more 'real' detail from the digital route.

You may "feel" that way, but it's simply not reality, unless something is
wrong with the film method you are comparing to.  Now, don't take that to
mean that the images from a 1Ds can't be superb, most certainly they can be.

> I've had numerous 1Ds images printed at about 27"x16" where I'm
> quite happy with the
> level of detail. Most people who buy prints don't turn up with a
> magnifying glass.

I guess it's a matter of "apparent" detail, vs, real detail (as in detail
that was in the original scene, or image fidelity).  Most people don't go
back to the original scene to see what detail is real, and what is made
up...so unless you do the analysis on the basis of *true* image fidelity,
digital images can certainly appear to have detail.  Fact is, some people
prefer the less detail, and sharper edges that are derived from digital
images.  Cartoons have nice crisp lines, and can appear to have a lot of
crisp detail as well ;-)

If you are printing a 1Ds image with one of the edges being 27", and the
long edge of the sensor is ~4,500 sensors across (not counting the Bayer
pattern reconciliation, which in reality decreases the color fidelity
substantially, but luckily, color isn't that important), you would only have
166 pixels/inch to print with, which is barely below the low end of the
acceptable scale (which is typically 180)...so I do believe you get prints
of that size, without any "rezzing up", that appear reasonably good from a
distance...and providing you shoot at one of the lower ISO settings,
somewhat high shutter speed and/or use a tripod.  Though, at 166 PPI to
print with, you may see a bit pixelation...though that doesn't mean the
image can't be a great image.

> I'd also note that many who would take the magnifying glass to
> the prints often fall into
> the 'talk about it, but don't actually do it' category ;-) :-)

That category would not be one I fall in, or even close to.

Regards,

Austin

> You may "feel" that way, but it's simply not reality, unless something is
> wrong with the film method you are comparing to.  Now, don't take that to
> mean that the images from a 1Ds can't be superb, most certainly they can be.

I should have clarified that with more detail - I often shot on moderately fast films, and 
with lower quality 'glass' than I now use so the jump in performance from the move to a 
1Ds is a bit more reasonable -- and so it should be for that much money!

I am loathe to try and make detailed (quantitative) comparisons, since to me it is the 
quality of the final product (from my own artistic point of view) that matters.

I think I'd prefer not to get drawn into detailed comparisons too much (which can get a bit 
too much like arguing politics some times :-)

For the larger prints I used the up-sampling in PS Raw to get images that print at 240dpi.

Quite a lot of people have commented on the level of detail in some of my landscape work, 
although I suspect they were not used to such huge prints :-)

I look forward to the 1Ds Mk2 when the detail gets even more 'real' - that or I win the 
lottery and move to MF digital - but then I'd have to take a tripod with me more often, 
which I generally hate.


bye for now

Keith Cooper

We get quickly used to the great ease and convenience of digital -
myself I use a Fuji S2 that has quite strong resolution. However I
recently bought a used Mamiya M6 6x6 rangefinder, and I guess it will
take some time and money for digital to reach that level of detail -
and also dynamic range. 
I will have a look at the next generation of Hi-Rez DSLRs, like the
d2x or the 1ds Mk2, but they will be very expensive and most likely
still not be a the level of the M6.

On the other hand I have shot 1700 frames in India last autumn, and
everyone who has seen the prints (many 11x14 and some larger than that
have raved about them and noone das the least thing to say about image
quality.

regards, Bernie

Hi Bernie,

> On the other hand I have shot 1700 frames in India last autumn, and
> everyone who has seen the prints (many 11x14 and some larger than that
> have raved about them and no one das the least thing to say about image
> quality.

Keep in mind, you can achieve exceptional images from a Holga...or just
about any camera, even a little cheapo P&S or even a disposable camera.
Polaroids even!  So, digital is simply another imaging medium, and nothing
more.  Like any tool, using the right tool for the job is essential, and
that typically depends on what your goal is.  There are many different goals
(and methods of achieving the same goal).

Regards,

Austin

Well said, and my feeling is that that goes for printing and printer too.
Sometimes I think we get lost in dmax, curves, etc. while forgetting the
image.  On the other hand, I feel that familiarity and mastery of our chosen
tools should be so complete as to allow ³transparent & almost automatic² use
for our visual expression.

On 8/27/04 10:29 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:
> 
> Keep in mind, you can achieve exceptional images from a Holga...or just
> about any camera, even a little cheapo P&S or even a disposable camera.
> Polaroids even!  So, digital is simply another imaging medium, and nothing
> more.  Like any tool, using the right tool for the job is essential, and
> that typically depends on what your goal is.  There are many different goals
> (and methods of achieving the same goal).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> 



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

Last year a friend borrowed my Olympus Stylus (an $80 p&s) for a week
long trip to Cuba. She asked for a film recomendation and I suggested
any 400 color print film. When she returned, she took the film to a
drugstore mini-lab, used the Kodak scan CD and printed on a 2200. 

Her images are absolutely stunning. This is a person that I had to
help load film onto a reel and answer some very basic PS questions.
But she's shown all over the country, been awarded grants, has her
work hanging in the State Capitol, has many awards, etc. 

While her technical skill are maybe C- and she's happy to shoot with
any camera, her eye and soul finds incredible images that I don't see.
I've been out shooting with her and she just sees things I don't. 

Next week I'm going to an exhibition she's curated. I bet she never
bothered to ask what kind of camera the photographer used. Probably
doesn't know or care if the images were captured digitaly or on film. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee
<j.vee@g...> wrote:
> Well said, and my feeling is that that goes for printing and printer
too.
> Sometimes I think we get lost in dmax, curves, etc. while forgetting the
> image.  On the other hand, I feel that familiarity and mastery of
our chosen
> tools should be so complete as to allow ³transparent & almost
automatic² use
> for our visual expression.
> 
> On 8/27/04 10:29 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > 
> > Keep in mind, you can achieve exceptional images from a Holga...or
just
> > about any camera, even a little cheapo P&S or even a disposable
camera.
> > Polaroids even!  So, digital is simply another imaging medium, and
nothing
> > more.  Like any tool, using the right tool for the job is
essential, and
> > that typically depends on what your goal is.  There are many
different goals

> > (and methods of achieving the same goal).
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Austin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

50 lenses Claud?
Obviously you have too much money for your own good, so how about spreading
some of it towards me as I have only 2 lenses and am quite poor.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: claudej1@... [mailto:claudej1@...] 
Sent: 21 August 2004 17:19
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Film has "dramatically" more resolution



---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]