Digital BW, The Print

I just read a very interesting article that Tyler Boley has published
on his site. Using highly magnified areas of actual prints he
demonstrates the importance of multiple shades of gray inks (and
variable dot size) to produce the highest possible resolution in a B&W
print.

Specifically the comparison is between the ABW Epson driver and 2
RIPs, (the high end StudioPrint and the more affordable and ever
popular QTR). The RIPs control 2 quad tone Piezography inksets (from
Jon Cone), each of a different hue , loaded together on a 9600.
 
As a bonus we are also given the same image area scanned to the same
size from a contact print of the original neg. Despite the
shortcomings of the silver print, it still looks more "organic" than
anything from an inkjet. Scattered grains of silver form a more
pleasing structure than dithered dots. Of course, all this is at a
microscopic level and it wouldn't surprise me if many readers find the
whole thing irrelevant .

Yet, it is fascinating to see what actual prints look like under
magnification. As Tyler points out, we don't actually see this level
of detail when we look at a print but it sure influences our
perception of the image - even if we can't pinpoint the reason.

So.... draw your own conclusions!

http://tinyurl.com/47efo9


Antonis

"Antonis" <antonisphoto@...> wrote:

> I just read a very interesting article that Tyler Boley 
> has published on his site. Using highly magnified areas 
> of actual prints he demonstrates the importance of 
> multiple shades of gray inks (and variable dot size) 
> to produce the highest possible resolution in a B&W
> print.
> ...

I, too, was impressed by Tyler's comparison.  His conclusions and 
images are consistent with mine.  I, frankly, have 4 printers running 
with versions of Eboni or Carbon-6 (with 3MK = K8 in the 1800).  I'm 
sold on the basic K6+ approach for my work. 

> Specifically the comparison is between the ABW Epson driver and 2
> RIPs, (the high end StudioPrint and the more affordable and ever
> popular QTR). The RIPs control 2 quad tone Piezography inksets (from
> Jon Cone), each of a different hue , loaded together on a 9600.

We can get essentially the same results with RGB curves in an ICC 
(made with QTR's Create ICC-RGB) and the Epson driver, when used with 
a K6 type inkset, if the dilutions are put in positions that 
facilitate this.  That is, I think the number and dilutions of inks 
is the main difference, not the driver.  The Epson driver-ICC 
approach gives us a "color managed" workflow and direct printing from 
Photoshop in Windows, which makes a nice workflow, particularly for 
Windows users.

>...  the silver print, ... looks more "organic" than
> anything from an inkjet. 

Recall that the silver print was a contact print.  I wonder what an 
enlargement with that extra lens in the image path would look like.  
I moved to digital from silver printing to take advantage of what the 
computer and image editors could do in terms of improving the image.  
For me, while I can measure but rarely see the advantages of a direct 
film to silver print, the advantages of computer/Photoshop tools, 
among other factors, far outweigh the silver print advantages.  
Perhaps what the contact silver print shows -- but the drum scanned 
negative shows even more -- is that there is still room for 
improvement.  I still see more in my negatives than I see on the 
paper, but the digital processing got me closer to matching the 
negative than I was able to achieve with only an enlarger.


> ... draw your own conclusions!
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/47efo9

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pr_roark

Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:56 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How tiny dots determine real resolution in a B&W
ink print

 

Tyler, 

I wonder how much better the ink prints would look on glossy or smooth
surface paper for this comparison? The silver was a contact I assume on
glossy paper it has no paper texture to deal with. 

Gary W. 

 

 

"Antonis" <antonisphoto@...> wrote:

> I just read a very interesting article that Tyler Boley 
> has published on his site. Using highly magnified areas 
> of actual prints he demonstrates the importance of 
> multiple shades of gray inks (and variable dot size) 
> to produce the highest possible resolution in a B&W
> print.
> ...






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

It's a logical assumption that the photo surfaces would print with more resolution. The 
fact is that the coatings are very different from the clay like material used on matte, and 
can't take as much ink. Multi density mono ink methods' ability to deliver as much info 
from file to paper as possible depend on being able to put down high ink percentages of 
light inks, and decent total ink as well.
So far the photo surface coatings have not performed nearly as well in this regard,so even 
many are making satisfying prints on them, they do less well under scrutiny than the best 
matte systems. Workers making ink setups even for color run into this difference and 
know it well. The best matte coatings do not, even with a textured paper, scatter the inks 
as one might imagine, but describe the dots very well. Hope that makes sense.
The photo surface approach is evolving and of course will improve over time.
Hope this helps, it a bit hard to explain without an entire write-up on how the best 
systems utilize multi density mono inks, and why it works.
Tyler 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Wagner" <gcwagner@...> 
wrote:

>
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pr_roark
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:56 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How tiny dots determine real resolution in a B&W
> ink print
> 
>  
> 
> Tyler, 
> 
> I wonder how much better the ink prints would look on glossy or smooth
> surface paper for this comparison? The silver was a contact I assume on
> glossy paper it has no paper texture to deal with. 
> 
> Gary W. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> "Antonis" <antonisphoto@> wrote:
> 
> > I just read a very interesting article that Tyler Boley 
> > has published on his site. Using highly magnified areas 
> > of actual prints he demonstrates the importance of 
> > multiple shades of gray inks (and variable dot size) 
> > to produce the highest possible resolution in a B&W
> > print.
> > ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> It's a logical assumption that the photo surfaces would print 
> with more resolution.

I suspect with today's printers and coated papers, whether matte or 
glossy, the dot structure is the main limiting factor for print 
resolution, not whether a paper is glossy or matte.


> ...The best matte coatings do not, even with a textured 
> paper, scatter the inks as one might imagine, but describe 
> the dots very well.

In high resolution scans I see a fairly tight dot structure with both 
matte and glossy papers -- if I see dots at all.  

In this regard, I was  making and printing old photo reproductions 
for the local museum again.  For that project, where the old photo 
reproductions don't have much fine detail in them, I use the 3-MK 
workflow.  There isn't that much information or image resolution for 
the dilute, very smooth, low noise workflows to transmit.  I also 
find that the very fine-grained, sharp image structure of the 3-MK 
workflow makes the images appear sharper than they are.  It also 
tends to hide some of the old originals' defects.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Edward Weston's prints, seemingly always contacts, were superior in
every respect to Ansel Adams' enlargements in my experience. And few
darkroom photographers have made 

In that context, it would be interesting to compare enlargements to
Tyler's contacts and inkjets: I'm pretty sure the inkjets would 
out-resolve the enlarged print in every case. My own testing suggests
prints from MCRX condenser enlarger with superb Rodenstock enlarging
lens is far inferior to routine scan/inkjet in most respects.

Think whether you'd prefer a mural from an enlarger or from an inkjet
printer. I've seen a lot of both and do have a preference.

Would reasons for that preference extend to common very small prints,
such as 11X14? I think it does. 

Comparison of inkjet to contact is interesting and very worthwhile in
the abstract (thank you Tyler), but it would be more worthwhile to 
those of us with more visual and less theoretic concerns to compare
inkjet to enlargement: few photographers have ever done letter-size,
much less 16X20 contacts :-)



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
<antonisphoto@...> wrote:

>
> I just read a very interesting article that Tyler Boley has published
> on his site. Using highly magnified areas of actual prints he
> demonstrates the importance of multiple shades of gray inks (and
> variable dot size) to produce the highest possible resolution in a B&W
> print.
> 
> Specifically the comparison is between the ABW Epson driver and 2
> RIPs, (the high end StudioPrint and the more affordable and ever
> popular QTR). The RIPs control 2 quad tone Piezography inksets (from
> Jon Cone), each of a different hue , loaded together on a 9600.
>  
> As a bonus we are also given the same image area scanned to the same
> size from a contact print of the original neg. Despite the
> shortcomings of the silver print, it still looks more "organic" than
> anything from an inkjet. Scattered grains of silver form a more
> pleasing structure than dithered dots. Of course, all this is at a
> microscopic level and it wouldn't surprise me if many readers find the
> whole thing irrelevant .
> 
> Yet, it is fascinating to see what actual prints look like under
> magnification. As Tyler points out, we don't actually see this level
> of detail when we look at a print but it sure influences our
> perception of the image - even if we can't pinpoint the reason.
> 
> So.... draw your own conclusions!
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/47efo9
> 
> 
> Antonis
>

<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Edward Weston's prints, seemingly always contacts, were superior ...

There's nothing quite like an 8x10 contact. In fact, with the old 
photos I'm digitally restoring, many seem to be 5x7 contacts.  While 
the "noise" level from the paper positive texture is high, the amount 
of detail that can be extracted from these old images is wonderful.

>...few photographers have ever done letter-size,
> much less 16X20 contacts :-)

Before inkjets "made the grade" I was using 16 x 20 imagesetter 
internegatives and contact printing them.  The sharpness could be 
amazing, but what a hassle it was -- and expensive also.  No way I'd go 
back to that workflow.

For now, I think inkjets rule when it comes to large display prints.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Djon43,

>Comparison of inkjet to contact is interesting and very worthwhile 
>in the abstract (thank you Tyler), 

Ditto my thanks, excellent article.


>...but it would be more worthwhile to those of us with more visual 
>and less theoretic concerns to compare inkjet to enlargement...

Good point, and I'd like to add a 3rd element: digital capture.  I'd
like to see the same subject taken with a 12mp or greater modern DSLR
with equivalent lens.  

I'm not looking for a film vs digital contest here, but would like to
see how the prints compare in the context of this thread.  I am
impressed with the prints I'm getting from my 10mp DSLR with top notch
prime lenses.  I'd love to see the hi-magnification comparison with
the others.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Hi Clayton,

>... I'd like to see the same subject taken with a 12mp 
> or greater modern DSLR with equivalent lens.  

I'm interested in DSLR sharpness or resolution also -- not 
necessarily directly comparing to the test Tyler ran, but to the 
issues of how to get the most out of the DSLR systems, as it relates 
to the type of B&W I do.  From my large display landscape 
perspective, resolution was always a significant factor for me.

I've tried for years to have at least some objective criteria.  The 
bottom line for resolution has been 5 pl/mm at display size -- where 
I use 16x20 as the main target.  5 lp/mm is what many believe is the 
approximate limit of our eyes at "normal" viewing distance, but with 
the caveat that edge detection visual systems can distinquish higher 
frequencies.  (The 5D2 is close on paper, so that is part of why I'm 
going there.)

Optics are an obvious variable I've tried to learn something about.  
Most lens reviews are, however, almost useless in predicting the 
level of performance I want.  I've found the MTF curves to be more 
useful, particularly the high resolution (40 lp/mm) tests at 
http://www.photodo.com/products.html (but they're aging). 
 
See also http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm for a 
convenient colection of Canon lens MTF charts.  These look like what 
Canon publishes on its site, but arranged conveniently.  

Note the definitions of the terms.

Right now, I'm inclined to think that the meridonial MTF performance 
at f8 and at the edge of the frame (18 mm out) may be very 
significant for the performance I'm looking for.

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/MTF-Canon35f2.jpg and look at 
the meridonial MTF measures.  

So, right now, while I expect film to take my serious wide angle 
business for a while longer, the Canon 35mm f2 is going to be my 
first attempt at getting the most out of the 5D2 on the wide-normal 
side (with 2-fram shots taking me wider).  With the 90 TS, I think 
I'll have my best shot at what I'm looking for.  

I'll let you know if the MTF meridonial measure correlation to 
performance continues to hold.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

If you want to get the best out of the 5D2 wide angle, get some of the new
Zeiss lenses for Canon.
I have used them on the D2x / D3 and they are head and shoulders above the
Nikon lens in resolution and contrast when wide open -  F8. Note that based
on sensor pixel pitch the 5D2 is probably diffraction limited from about
F5.6 so you have to use a lens that is great at 5.6 or wider to have a
chance of maxing out the sensor. But of course F5.6 is not very compatible
with most landscape photography, so you may find the 5D2 is not much better
@ f16 than the 5D1 !!  One of the challenges of digital photography.

See Lloyd Chambers discussion of the 21 mpixel full frame diffraction issues
(based on 1Ds MK3, but still 100% relevant).
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Diffraction/example-1DsM3.html

Mike



2008/9/27 pr_roark <pr_roark@...>

>   Hi Clayton,
>
> >... I'd like to see the same subject taken with a 12mp
> > or greater modern DSLR with equivalent lens.
>
> I'm interested in DSLR sharpness or resolution also -- not
> necessarily directly comparing to the test Tyler ran, but to the
> issues of how to get the most out of the DSLR systems, as it relates
> to the type of B&W I do. From my large display landscape
> perspective, resolution was always a significant factor for me.
>
> I've tried for years to have at least some objective criteria. The
> bottom line for resolution has been 5 pl/mm at display size -- where
> I use 16x20 as the main target. 5 lp/mm is what many believe is the
> approximate limit of our eyes at "normal" viewing distance, but with
> the caveat that edge detection visual systems can distinquish higher
> frequencies. (The 5D2 is close on paper, so that is part of why I'm
> going there.)
>
> Optics are an obvious variable I've tried to learn something about.
> Most lens reviews are, however, almost useless in predicting the
> level of performance I want. I've found the MTF curves to be more
> useful, particularly the high resolution (40 lp/mm) tests at
> http://www.photodo.com/products.html (but they're aging).
>
> See also http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm for a
> convenient colection of Canon lens MTF charts. These look like what
> Canon publishes on its site, but arranged conveniently.
>
> Note the definitions of the terms.
>
> Right now, I'm inclined to think that the meridonial MTF performance
> at f8 and at the edge of the frame (18 mm out) may be very
> significant for the performance I'm looking for.
>
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/MTF-Canon35f2.jpg and look at
> the meridonial MTF measures.
>
> So, right now, while I expect film to take my serious wide angle
> business for a while longer, the Canon 35mm f2 is going to be my
> first attempt at getting the most out of the 5D2 on the wide-normal
> side (with 2-fram shots taking me wider). With the 90 TS, I think
> I'll have my best shot at what I'm looking for.
>
> I'll let you know if the MTF meridonial measure correlation to
> performance continues to hold.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
>
> 
>


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

Paul, Sharpness in the digital landscape has always been an issue for me.
Aside from the mechanics of focusing the light on the senor, we also have to
deal with processing of the image; USM in Photoshop, Clarity Slider in LR,
Nik Sharp, etc.  There are many ways to improve or screw up an image. IS any
one aware of a good comprehensive test or series of test that have been done
to take the myth and marketing out of it and get down to the brass tacks? 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pr_roark
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 4:28 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] DSLR sharp? -- was How tiny dots determine real
resolution in a B&W ink print

 

Hi Clayton,

>... I'd like to see the same subject taken with a 12mp 
> or greater modern DSLR with equivalent lens. 

I'm interested in DSLR sharpness or resolution also -- not 
necessarily directly comparing to the test Tyler ran, but to the 
issues of how to get the most out of the DSLR systems, as it relates 
to the type of B&W I do. From my large display landscape 
perspective, resolution was always a significant factor for me.

I've tried for years to have at least some objective criteria. The 
bottom line for resolution has been 5 pl/mm at display size -- where 
I use 16x20 as the main target. 5 lp/mm is what many believe is the 
approximate limit of our eyes at "normal" viewing distance, but with 
the caveat that edge detection visual systems can distinquish higher 
frequencies. (The 5D2 is close on paper, so that is part of why I'm 
going there.)

Optics are an obvious variable I've tried to learn something about. 
Most lens reviews are, however, almost useless in predicting the 
level of performance I want. I've found the MTF curves to be more 
useful, particularly the high resolution (40 lp/mm) tests at 
http://www.photodo. <http://www.photodo.com/products.html> com/products.html
(but they're aging). 

See also http://www.ocf.
<http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm>
berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm for a 
convenient colection of Canon lens MTF charts. These look like what 
Canon publishes on its site, but arranged conveniently. 

Note the definitions of the terms.

Right now, I'm inclined to think that the meridonial MTF performance 
at f8 and at the edge of the frame (18 mm out) may be very 
significant for the performance I'm looking for.

See http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/MTF-Canon35f2.jpg>
k.com/BW-Info/MTF-Canon35f2.jpg and look at 
the meridonial MTF measures. 

So, right now, while I expect film to take my serious wide angle 
business for a while longer, the Canon 35mm f2 is going to be my 
first attempt at getting the most out of the 5D2 on the wide-normal 
side (with 2-fram shots taking me wider). With the 90 TS, I think 
I'll have my best shot at what I'm looking for. 

I'll let you know if the MTF meridonial measure correlation to 
performance continues to hold.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

 



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

> Zeiss lenses for Canon.

It's always good to see top manufacturers compete.  I don't think 
Zeiss has any offerings in the range I'm now targetting.  Zeiss is 
clearly a favorite of mine, however.  I'll keep an eye on their 
offerings.

For now and for mild wide angles, I'm inclined to use Leica-M as the 
standard against which to compare MTF curves -- in part because they 
exist.  I'm just staying away from the extreme wide angles until I 
see acceptable mild wide results.

>... Note that based on sensor pixel pitch the 5D2 is 
> probably diffraction limited from about F5.6 ...

> See Lloyd Chambers discussion of the 21 mpixel full 
> frame diffraction issues
> (based on 1Ds MK3, but still 100% relevant).
> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Diffraction/example-1DsM3.html

As with most good lenses, the Leica lens in the above test was best 
in the center at f 5.6.  After that, diffraction becomes a limiting 
factor -- in the center with the 21 mp sensor as well as with most 
other systems I've used.  I'm impressed the sensor can see the 
difference between f5.6 and f8. On the other hand, I was amazed my 
little Rebel 8 mp can detect as much as it can. 

I think these things are all somewhat additive factors.  Diffraction 
limit is not a solid wall.  Diffraction losses increasingly and 
continuously lower the contrast of moderate resolution test targets 
as lens openings become smaller.  But that is just one factor.  
Similarly, I expect the resolution increases of the sensors will 
continue to improve the overall image quality, even when the lens is 
stopped down somewhat and is contributing quite a bit of the contrast 
losses of the overall system.

Then again, at the edge it's usually more that diffraction limit that 
is the problem with the lens (and sensor).  For me, it's just a 
question of whether I can squeeze enough out of the system to be, 
overall, worth using.


> ... we also have to deal with processing of the image ...
> There are many ways to improve or screw up an image.

That's definitely the case, and I've experienced both directions.  
Hopefully, my average is becoming more positive.

> Is any one aware of a good comprehensive test or series 
> of test that have been done to take the myth and marketing 
> out of it and get down to the brass tacks?

I don't know of any single test that gives me the bottom line I'm 
looking for.  So, I just explore each factor I'm aware of and do the 
best I can.  

With lens sharpness, in my own testing I use resolution test targets 
for some purposes, as well as a sharp, clear distant mountain range 
(or similar detail rich distant target) to look for de-centering of 
an element, which shows up as one side being sharper than the other.  
This is a manufacturing defect for which I do send lenses back to the 
sellers when I detect the problem.  It's sadly common, but if you buy 
from NY, state law, I believe, requires the sellers to give a 14 day 
return.  Check for decentering and return if its significant.

In terms of outside testing, the Photodo tests are about the best 
I've seen.  (I think the person may have been a Hasselblad employee 
who was able to use their equipment.)  I'm not sure how much I trust 
the Canon charts, but they're better than nothing. In these MTF 
tests, as I indicated before, the edge performane of the highest 
resolution target seems to be most telling.

European magazines and groups seem to do better testing that we get 
in the US magazines.  

I followed Modern Photo for years, but I could detect only a small 
correlation between what they said and what I saw in my own testing 
and shooting.   

The newer Popular Photo tests don't show center v. edge, which is a 
rather critical omission, in my view.  In one lens I was exploring, 
the Popular Photo test was amazing, but a person with both the 
supposedly great independent lens and the Canon L comparable one 
showed that there was a huge difference in off-center performance 
that was lost in the rather un-critical Pop Photo test.  I've seen 
more than one example of this.  (Have you noticed magazines are 
reluctant to be very critical of major advertisers?)

In addition to lens sharpness, the vibration of SLRs has been a real 
problem for me.  I was very impressed, however, with the little Canon 
Rebel.  Even with my light travel tripod, there are almost no losses 
with the 90 TS due to camera vibration -- even with the mirror 
flapping.  (I do wish they'd make an auto bracketing that left the 
mirror up between shots, however.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

At the end..;
" few photographers have ever done letter-size,
>much less 16X20 contacts :-)"

Well, why is that ?? Get with it :  )

gar



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/27/2008 at 4:48 PM djon43 wrote:

>Edward Weston's prints, seemingly always contacts, were superior in
>every respect to Ansel Adams' enlargements in my experience. And few
>darkroom photographers have made 
>
>In that context, it would be interesting to compare enlargements to
>Tyler's contacts and inkjets: I'm pretty sure the inkjets would 
>out-resolve the enlarged print in every case. My own testing suggests
>prints from MCRX condenser enlarger with superb Rodenstock enlarging
>lens is far inferior to routine scan/inkjet in most respects.
>
>Think whether you'd prefer a mural from an enlarger or from an inkjet
>printer. I've seen a lot of both and do have a preference.
>
>Would reasons for that preference extend to common very small prints,
>such as 11X14? I think it does. 
>
>Comparison of inkjet to contact is interesting and very worthwhile in
>the abstract (thank you Tyler), but it would be more worthwhile to 
>those of us with more visual and less theoretic concerns to compare
>inkjet to enlargement: few photographers have ever done letter-size,
>much less 16X20 contacts :-)
>
>

I work for a good-sized commercial studio.  As such we tend to have 8 or 
so samples of our most used lenses.  With our Canon wide lenses, there 
is quite a variation in quality among wide angle samples.  In talking to 
a Canon tech at Canon Professional Services, he admitted that there's 
still quite a bit of sample variation among wide angle lenses, 
especially the zooms.  So if it's really important to you, make sure to 
test you lens when you buy it, if possible against a couple of other new 
lenses.  Buy the best one.

The new "Zeiss" lenses for Nikon and Canon are made by Cosina.  Ken 
Rockwell tested some of the lenses for Nikon and found them to be 
inferior to the Nikon lenses.  Now maybe his samples were bad, or maybe 
he screwed up the tests, but it is something to think about if you're 
considering buying them.

On 28/09/2008 pr_roark wrote:
> In addition to lens sharpness, the vibration of SLRs has been a real 
> problem for me. I was very impressed, however, with the little Canon 
> Rebel. Even with my light travel tripod, there are almost no losses 
> with the 90 TS due to camera vibration -- even with the mirror 
> flapping. (I do wish they'd make an auto bracketing that left the 
> mirror up between shots, however.)

Paul, you might be interested to read this, if you haven't already:

http://panocamera.com/blog/?p=26

It's about a Nintendo DS handheld game computer, modified to control a 
Canon DSLR camera and grant your wish...

-- 

Peter Marquis-Kyle

Peter De Smidt wrote:


> So if it's really important to you, make sure to 
> test you lens when you buy it, if possible against a couple of other new 
> lenses.  Buy the best one.


Before getting any new lens it may be a good idea to buy the
Imatest software first and test the quality of the lenses
you already have and will get. Imatest is no longer cheap
though but may prove a good investment for any testing
including scanner resolution like I did with the demo version.

Erwin Puts thinks there are enough older lenses around that
can still perform as good as the latest ones. By cherry
picking (with Imatest) a bunch of secondhand FF lenses you
could still end with a top quality range. They may not have
all the bells and whistles of the new versions but that
shouldn't show in the images.

Then there are the lenses that perform in all the tests:
Sigma 70 mm f2.8 macro, the Tamron 28-75 mm f.2.8, the new
Sigma 50mm f1.4. The first two on many bodies. Of course FF
wide angles have been less in demand for some time and that
will change with 3 FF systems below 3K$.

Few sites with user lens reviews are as readable as
www.dyxum.com but that one is only for the Alpha mount.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

> 
> In terms of outside testing, the Photodo tests are about the best 
> I've seen.  (I think the person may have been a Hasselblad employee 
> who was able to use their equipment.) 

Hello Paul,

Yes, Photodo has always been popular for lens testing. There is
another more recent website that has been testing lens as well,
although the numbers of lens tested seems pretty significant.

http://photozone.de/

But how much can one rely on these lens test when samples variation
may be an important factor. Also, some lens test may have been done
using APS-C size sensor where a more central part of the lens is used
versus a camera with a full-frame photo-sensor.

Cheers,
Andre

Post-capture sharpening is an optical illusion, so testing it is not  
as straightforward as counting visible lines per inch. I don't believe  
there would be any valid method other than visual evaluation, at a  
fixed distance, using side by side prints with the same size, image,  
media, inks, printer, profile and lighting . But then; the results  
would really only tell you about that combo, and might well be  
different for other combos.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Sep 27, 2008, at 7:48 PM, "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...>  
wrote:

> Paul, Sharpness in the digital landscape has always been an issue  
> for me.
> Aside from the mechanics of focusing the light on the senor, we also  
> have to
> deal with processing of the image; USM in Photoshop, Clarity Slider  
> in LR,
> Nik Sharp, etc.  There are many ways to improve or screw up an  
> image. IS any
> one aware of a good comprehensive test or series of test that have  
> been done
> to take the myth and marketing out of it and get down to the brass  
> tacks?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric Neilsen Photo
>
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> 214 827-8301
>
>
>
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> SKype ejprinter
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
> pr_roark
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 4:28 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] DSLR sharp? -- was How tiny dots determine real
> resolution in a B&W ink print
>
>
>
> Hi Clayton,
>
>> ... I'd like to see the same subject taken with a 12mp
>> or greater modern DSLR with equivalent lens.
>
> I'm interested in DSLR sharpness or resolution also -- not
> necessarily directly comparing to the test Tyler ran, but to the
> issues of how to get the most out of the DSLR systems, as it relates
> to the type of B&W I do. From my large display landscape
> perspective, resolution was always a significant factor for me.
>
> I've tried for years to have at least some objective criteria. The
> bottom line for resolution has been 5 pl/mm at display size -- where
> I use 16x20 as the main target. 5 lp/mm is what many believe is the
> approximate limit of our eyes at "normal" viewing distance, but with
> the caveat that edge detection visual systems can distinquish higher
> frequencies. (The 5D2 is close on paper, so that is part of why I'm
> going there.)
>
> Optics are an obvious variable I've tried to learn something about.
> Most lens reviews are, however, almost useless in predicting the
> level of performance I want. I've found the MTF curves to be more
> useful, particularly the high resolution (40 lp/mm) tests at
> http://www.photodo. <http://www.photodo.com/products.html> com/ 
> products.html
> (but they're aging).
>
> See also http://www.ocf.
> <http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm>
> berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm for a
> convenient colection of Canon lens MTF charts. These look like what
> Canon publishes on its site, but arranged conveniently.
>
> Note the definitions of the terms.
>
> Right now, I'm inclined to think that the meridonial MTF performance
> at f8 and at the edge of the frame (18 mm out) may be very
> significant for the performance I'm looking for.
>
> See http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/MTF-Canon35f2.jpg 
> >
> k.com/BW-Info/MTF-Canon35f2.jpg and look at
> the meridonial MTF measures.
>
> So, right now, while I expect film to take my serious wide angle
> business for a while longer, the Canon 35mm f2 is going to be my
> first attempt at getting the most out of the 5D2 on the wide-normal
> side (with 2-fram shots taking me wider). With the 90 TS, I think
> I'll have my best shot at what I'm looking for.
>
> I'll let you know if the MTF meridonial measure correlation to
> performance continues to hold.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 “OWNE 
> R” 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, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

There are specific test that can be done with equipment this is true. But
many photographers will NOT go out and but it, nor will they field test 15
lens 3 of each type, just to get the best. Their ability to visually
discriminate which is best may also hamper their choice. So, for many using
the digital paradigm of USM, Sharpening in PS and all the other avenues of
image enhancement to a direct comparison to film, through lens to paper is
going to be a wild and wooly path. This is why in another forum I recently
stated that with all the information running around about this method and
that method as being "the best", you really need to look long and hard at
personal bias and precise workflow being cited. There is lots of out dated
information, slightly wrong, wildly wrong, right but for a different
workflow input and output. Etc.   

 

The level of pixel placement of paper is wide and varied. I still think that
many fine prints are being made the old fashioned way; silver and paper. 

 

All images captured with a lens are optical illusions. All it takes is one
trip to the optometrist to confirm that.  : )  There is an interesting test
on the xrite site that was being discussed on the Alt Photo Process group.
This is kind of fun:  http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77

Visually we see things differently. How we get there is also open to boat
loads of path that can all arrive at the same dock but the absolute path
taken by anyone of us is quite different.  

 

So my point here is that some may have developed, adopted, or otherwise come
to a workflow. Their lens selection may enhance or be hindered by that
workflow.  

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cdtobie
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 8:15 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DSLR sharp? -- was How tiny dots determine real
resolution in a B&W ink print

 

Post-capture sharpening is an optical illusion, so testing it is not 
as straightforward as counting visible lines per inch. I don't believe 
there would be any valid method other than visual evaluation, at a 
fixed distance, using side by side prints with the same size, image, 
media, inks, printer, profile and lighting . But then; the results 
would really only tell you about that combo, and might well be 
different for other combos.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@DataColor. <mailto:CDTobie%40DataColor.com> com

On Sep 27, 2008, at 7:48 PM, "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@worldnet
<mailto:e.neilsen2%40worldnet.att.net> .att.net> 
wrote:

> Paul, Sharpness in the digital landscape has always been an issue 
> for me.
> Aside from the mechanics of focusing the light on the senor, we also 
> have to
> deal with processing of the image; USM in Photoshop, Clarity Slider 
> in LR,
> Nik Sharp, etc. There are many ways to improve or screw up an 
> image. IS any
> one aware of a good comprehensive test or series of test that have 
> been done
> to take the myth and marketing out of it and get down to the brass 
> tacks?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
> 



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

David, Why repost your first comments? That is the point. An image needs to
progress PAST the point of capture. It will be processed. I don't dispute
that having an accurate way to measure is a good thing, but the reality of
how much happens after that also needs to be taken in to the discussion. 

 

Is there a digital workflow where NO sharpening takes place after capture?
If not, or not commonly being used here, then this optical illusion that you
refer MUST be a part of the discussion; and as you point out, not such a
straight forward thing to measure.

 

So as far as we know, what brave independent tester is taking that on?  

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cdtobie
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 8:15 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DSLR sharp? -- was How tiny dots determine real
resolution in a B&W ink print

 

Post-capture sharpening is an optical illusion, so testing it is not 
as straightforward as counting visible lines per inch. I don't believe 
there would be any valid method other than visual evaluation, at a 
fixed distance, using side by side prints with the same size, image, 
media, inks, printer, profile and lighting . But then; the results 
would really only tell you about that combo, and might well be 
different for other combos.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@DataColor. <mailto:CDTobie%40DataColor.com> com






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

Is there a way to mount Leica M lenses on a Canon DSLR.  I know that
Steve Gandy sells adapters for R lenses, but I did not think the M
lenses could me used on a DSLR.  I would love to use my Leica lenses
on my 40D.

Steve

> For now and for mild wide angles, I'm inclined to use Leica-M as the 
> standard against which to compare MTF curves -- in part because they 
> exist.  I'm just staying away from the extreme wide angles until I 
> see acceptable mild wide results.
> 
> >... Note that based on sensor pixel pitch the 5D2 is 
> > probably diffraction limited from about F5.6 ...
> 
> > See Lloyd Chambers discussion of the 21 mpixel full 
> > frame diffraction issues
> > (based on 1Ds MK3, but still 100% relevant).
> > http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Diffraction/example-1DsM3.html
> 
> As with most good lenses, the Leica lens in the above test was best 
> in the center at f 5.6.  After that, diffraction becomes a limiting 
> factor -- in the center with the 21 mp sensor as well as with most 
> other systems I've used.  I'm impressed the sensor can see the 
> difference between f5.6 and f8. On the other hand, I was amazed my 
> little Rebel 8 mp can detect as much as it can. 
>

I didn't repost; my iPhone apparently sent my post again after  
thinking the first send had not gone through... Sorry.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@DataColor.com

On Sep 28, 2008, at 1:19 PM, "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...>  
wrote:

> David, Why repost your first comments? That is the point. An image  
> needs to
> progress PAST the point of capture. It will be processed. I don't  
> dispute
> that having an accurate way to measure is a good thing, but the  
> reality of
> how much happens after that also needs to be taken in to the  
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Is there a digital workflow where NO sharpening takes place after  
> capture?
> If not, or not commonly being used here, then this optical illusion  
> that you
> refer MUST be a part of the discussion; and as you point out, not  
> such a
> straight forward thing to measure.
>
>
>
> So as far as we know, what brave independent tester is taking that on?
>
>
>
> Eric Neilsen Photo
>
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> 214 827-8301
>
>
>
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> SKype ejprinter
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
> Cdtobie
> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 8:15 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DSLR sharp? -- was How tiny dots determine  
> real
> resolution in a B&W ink print
>
>
>
> Post-capture sharpening is an optical illusion, so testing it is not
> as straightforward as counting visible lines per inch. I don't believe
> there would be any valid method other than visual evaluation, at a
> fixed distance, using side by side prints with the same size, image,
> media, inks, printer, profile and lighting . But then; the results
> would really only tell you about that combo, and might well be
> different for other combos.
>
> C. D. Tobie
> WW Product Technology Mngr.
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> DataColor.com
> CDTobie@DataColor. <mailto:CDTobie%40DataColor.com> com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 “OWNE 
> R” 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, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

At 01:28 PM 9/28/2008, you wrote:

>Is there a way to mount Leica M lenses on a Canon DSLR. I know that
>Steve Gandy sells adapters for R lenses, but I did not think the M
>lenses could me used on a DSLR. I would love to use my Leica lenses
>on my 40D.

No.  I use Leica R lenses on my Canons but a far better solution in 
every way is Leica M lense on a Leica M8.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

They were made for each other. My wife has that setup and I have never  
seen digital 35mm with such tonal range, almost 3D looking.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Sep 28, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Tina Manley wrote:

> a far better solution in
> every way is Leica M lense on a Leica M8.

Hi Tina,

> 
> ... far better solution in every way is Leica M lense on a Leica M8.
> 

I really don't have very high expectations for a wide angle DSLR.  My 
moving to the 5D2 is for the 90 TS, which gets me back the medium 
telephoto tilt combination that I so highly value(d) with my 150 Sonnar 
on the SL66 (which is heavy and does not do well with Tech Pan due to 
film flatness issues).  The 90 TS is up to the job 
(Photozone: "Technically the lens is about as good as it gets ...").  
Now the question is whether the new ff Canon is.  We'll see.

I expect to stick with the Bronica RF 645, 45 mm lens, and TP for 
serious wide angle shooting.  However, I wanted some moderate wide 
angle for the 5D2 just as a practical complement the 90 for situations 
where I need hand held, fast shooting with more coverage.  If it's too 
doggie, I'll stick with my 50 2.5 macro, which does at least very well 
on the Rebel. 

I expect rangefinders to dominate the wide side when it comes to image 
quality on digital cameras.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

gar, amusing, but maybe you missed my point :-)

My point: comparing a scan's inkjet to a contact print isn't as
relevant as comparing a scan's inkjet to a darkroom enlargemtent. 

Darkroom enlargements using superior enlarging lenses are more lossey
detail-wise than inkjets from reasonably OK scans (eg using Epson
flatbeds with 6X7 or 4000ppi Nikon with 35mm). This is most obvious in
the corners/edges, but it applies to the center as well. That's one of
the reasons inkjets can look wonderful at sizes where enlarged murals
 turn to mud.

Hay !! 

I have no problem with your point. I see the digital file as un-lossey contact negative. I used this technique with my old Gemni Star 80 back in the '80s printing on liquid light. You can serve your image on the platter that suits the image. I played around with internegs alot in my stinky finger days.  How well this really works nowdays, I don't know yet with my budget. But since getting back into photography, I determined that my inkjets should make very good large contact sheets to make use of the wet paper process. Just for the look (blacks) that many of us are accustomed to.

Cheers !!

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/29/2008 at 3:40 PM djon43 wrote:

>gar, amusing, but maybe you missed my point :-)
>
>My point: comparing a scan's inkjet to a contact print isn't as
>relevant as comparing a scan's inkjet to a darkroom enlargemtent. 
>
>Darkroom enlargements using superior enlarging lenses are more lossey
>detail-wise than inkjets from reasonably OK scans (eg using Epson
>flatbeds with 6X7 or 4000ppi Nikon with 35mm). This is most obvious in
>the corners/edges, but it applies to the center as well. That's one of
>the reasons inkjets can look wonderful at sizes where enlarged murals
> turn to mud. 
>
> 
>
>

tyler,

your article says you printed at the full 4000ppi.  don't epson
printers typically print at a native resolution of 360dpi (or is it
720dpi)?  i'm trying to understand the relationship of the 4000ppi to
the 360dpi.  thanks.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> It's a logical assumption that the photo surfaces would print with
more resolution. The 
> fact is that the coatings are very different from the clay like
material used on matte, and 
> can't take as much ink. Multi density mono ink methods' ability to
deliver as much info 
> from file to paper as possible depend on being able to put down high
ink percentages of 
> light inks, and decent total ink as well.
> So far the photo surface coatings have not performed nearly as well
in this regard,so even 
> many are making satisfying prints on them, they do less well under
scrutiny than the best 
> matte systems. Workers making ink setups even for color run into
this difference and 
> know it well. The best matte coatings do not, even with a textured
paper, scatter the inks 
> as one might imagine, but describe the dots very well. Hope that
makes sense.
> The photo surface approach is evolving and of course will improve
over time.
> Hope this helps, it a bit hard to explain without an entire write-up
on how the best 

> systems utilize multi density mono inks, and why it works.
> Tyler 
>

c1asia wrote:
> tyler,
>
> your article says you printed at the full 4000ppi.  don't epson
> printers typically print at a native resolution of 360dpi (or is it
> 720dpi)?  i'm trying to understand the relationship of the 4000ppi to
> the 360dpi.  thanks.
>
>   
One is scanner resolution (4000 spi). One is output resolution to the 
printer (360ppi).
--
Bruce Watson

Yes, Bruce is right.
There is another entire project involving native printer/driver
resolution, the potential benifits of giving it info at that res, and
if so how best to get there.
Definitely beyond the scope of those tests. I chose to overwhelm the
drivers with info so there could be no doubt about giving them enough,
and also make the potential relevance of the file detail essentially moot.
Obvioulsy each driver has it's own methods, but I think letting each
do it's thing in this case is also part of the evaluation. The intent
of the testing was very specific, but implies many other issues beyond
it's scope.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
<bwyg@...> wrote:

>
> c1asia wrote:
> > tyler,
> >
> > your article says you printed at the full 4000ppi.  don't epson
> > printers typically print at a native resolution of 360dpi (or is it
> > 720dpi)?  i'm trying to understand the relationship of the 4000ppi to
> > the 360dpi.  thanks.
> >
> >   
> One is scanner resolution (4000 spi). One is output resolution to the 
> printer (360ppi).
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

sorry, i'm not quite catching on to your response.  i know the 4000 is
the resolution of your scan.  but are you saying you then sent all
4000 to the printer rather than do any kind of resizing to your
typical 360 output?  that's just how i read the article.

"Original images were 4000ppi drum scans from very thin emulsion (long
discontinued and forgotten brand) 120 B&W negatives. All ink prints
were done at 100% full 4000ppi on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308..."


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, Bruce is right.
> There is another entire project involving native printer/driver
> resolution, the potential benifits of giving it info at that res, and
> if so how best to get there.
> Definitely beyond the scope of those tests. I chose to overwhelm the
> drivers with info so there could be no doubt about giving them enough,
> and also make the potential relevance of the file detail essentially
moot.
> Obvioulsy each driver has it's own methods, but I think letting each
> do it's thing in this case is also part of the evaluation. The intent
> of the testing was very specific, but implies many other issues beyond
> it's scope.
> Tyler
> http://www.custom-digital.com/
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
> <bwyg@> wrote:
> >
> > c1asia wrote:
> > > tyler,
> > >
> > > your article says you printed at the full 4000ppi.  don't epson
> > > printers typically print at a native resolution of 360dpi (or is it
> > > 720dpi)?  i'm trying to understand the relationship of the
4000ppi to

> > > the 360dpi.  thanks.
> > >
> > >   
> > One is scanner resolution (4000 spi). One is output resolution to the 
> > printer (360ppi).
> > --
> > Bruce Watson
> >
>

yes, you have it exactly.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "c1asia"
<c1asia@...> wrote:
>
> sorry, i'm not quite catching on to your response.  i know the 4000 is
> the resolution of your scan.  but are you saying you then sent all
> 4000 to the printer rather than do any kind of resizing to your
> typical 360 output?  that's just how i read the article.
> 
> "Original images were 4000ppi drum scans from very thin emulsion (long
> discontinued and forgotten brand) 120 B&W negatives. All ink prints
> were done at 100% full 4000ppi on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308..."
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Bruce is right.
> > There is another entire project involving native printer/driver
> > resolution, the potential benifits of giving it info at that res, and
> > if so how best to get there.
> > Definitely beyond the scope of those tests. I chose to overwhelm the
> > drivers with info so there could be no doubt about giving them enough,
> > and also make the potential relevance of the file detail essentially
> moot.
> > Obvioulsy each driver has it's own methods, but I think letting each
> > do it's thing in this case is also part of the evaluation. The intent
> > of the testing was very specific, but implies many other issues beyond
> > it's scope.
> > Tyler
> > http://www.custom-digital.com/
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
> > <bwyg@> wrote:
> > >
> > > c1asia wrote:
> > > > tyler,
> > > >
> > > > your article says you printed at the full 4000ppi.  don't epson
> > > > printers typically print at a native resolution of 360dpi (or
is it
> > > > 720dpi)?  i'm trying to understand the relationship of the
> 4000ppi to
> > > > the 360dpi.  thanks.
> > > >
> > > >   
> > > One is scanner resolution (4000 spi). One is output resolution
to the 

> > > printer (360ppi).
> > > --
> > > Bruce Watson
> > >
> >
>