Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
I am really happy to see someone else saying this for a change. Ink
jets
are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.

It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5
years.


Why do digital fans always claim this.


Have -you- had any real cibachromes (The ultra glossy on polyester base
kind, not the cheap-o "prints from slides" type R paper kind or
internegative printing) from the newest fine grained slide film? Yes film
has gotten better since the last time you had an analog print made as
well.

And no, we aren't a bunch of ignorant people with our heads stuck in the
sand. The newest inkjets are better (good enough?) but they aren't "the
end" for high quality imaging.

Stacey

Exactly what is, "the end" for high quality digital imaging? - What should
one get to create the best possible digital blow-up?

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. But to my eye, by the time you get to 12MP with current A4
inkjets, you have a photographic system that is a lot better than
35mm, however you print the 35mm.

Okay, the qualifier is that you are going for the best match for an
inkjet system output. In that regard, I would agree the direct
digital capture is better for most people when outputting to inkjet.
It is easier, involves less guessing, and is faster. Scanning film
and adjusting for proper printed output is a skill honed by
experience.

I am really happy to see someone else saying this for a change. Ink
jets are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.

It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5
years.

Au Contraire, David. I've not only seen them, I've spent thousands of
dollars on Epson inkjet printers over the last 5 years, and regularly buy
large format output for tradeshow displays and the like, which are also
high-end inkjet prints. They're great for vector art and such, but no
match for a good optical photo print of photographic subjects.

But, then, I have the distinct impression that we look at very different
aspects of photographic images, given your comments about the "lack of
noise" in digital imaging. To me, a lot of those images look like a form
of posterization, where image details that *should* have texture just
don't.

Neil

Stacey wrote:
Joe Pucillo wrote:


Another question: why do they have all those commercials for
high-def TVs? The picture on those sets are no better than the
low-def set I'm watching the commercial on!




Exactly, take film and "dumb it down" using the same "home quality" output
used for most digicam shots and of course they are going to look the same,
just like a high def TV commercial isn't going to look "high def" of a low
def TV. Since the printers can only deal with so many DPI at this time,
they are the bottle neck. Whatever you feed into most printers is going to
be limited by the printer, especially inkjets. I've used scanned 4X5
negatives vs scanned 6X4.5 images printed 8x10 on an inkjet and the 4X5
looks no better. Printed in the darkroom the difference is obvious.

I do agree with the OP that film is going/needs to become more "digital
friendly" and I wouldn't be surprized to see color negative film that is
-only- scanable without the orange mask used for analog printing etc.


Escept that fume rooms also compensate for the orange mask, the orange
mask is actually a colour filter, with film there are three types of
silver emulsion, those that are sensitive to blue only, those that are
senitive to blue/green and those that are sensitive to all colours
(pan-chromatic). Black and White darkroom paper uses emulsions that are
blue sensitive only, and that is why you can use a red or yellow safe
light, and not fog the paper.

Okay, so the first layer is sensitive to blue, but so are the other two
layers, so they filter out the blue, the next layer is blue/green so by
filtering out the blue they get green only, then they filter out the
green, and use a pan-chromatic third layer. Different emulsions may
have slightly different sensitivities, and by changing the filter colour
slightly, they can compensate for that.

Paul

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:45:37 -0500, Paul Schmidt
wrote:



I do agree with the OP that film is going/needs to become more "digital
friendly" and I wouldn't be surprized to see color negative film that is
-only- scanable without the orange mask used for analog printing etc.


Escept that fume rooms also compensate for the orange mask, the orange
mask is actually a colour filter, with film there are three types of
silver emulsion, those that are sensitive to blue only, those that are
senitive to blue/green and those that are sensitive to all colours
(pan-chromatic). Black and White darkroom paper uses emulsions that are
blue sensitive only, and that is why you can use a red or yellow safe
light, and not fog the paper.


The orange layer is actually a color correction layer to compensate
for the inaccuracies and crossover characteristics of the color dye
layers. It has nothing to do with the yellow filter between the blue
recording layer and the other two layers. That gets bleached out
during processing.

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5
years.

Au Contraire, David. I've not only seen them, I've spent thousands of
dollars on Epson inkjet printers over the last 5 years, and regularly buy
large format output for tradeshow displays and the like, which are also
high-end inkjet prints. They're great for vector art and such, but no
match for a good optical photo print of photographic subjects.

Interesting. The fine art photographers say exactly the opposite: that in
blind tests, people prefer inkjet prints the vast majority of the time.

Whatever. My original point was that by the time you get to A4, inkjets have
plenty of resolution. My experience is that it takes 645 to reliably provide
more detail than inkjets can render at A4. And 1Ds image are significantly
better than 6MP dSLR images at A4. (My simple test is to print the full
frame and then print a crop. If the crop doesn't show more detail, then the
original did not have more detail in it than the printer is capable of
rendering.)

But, then, I have the distinct impression that we look at very different
aspects of photographic images, given your comments about the "lack of
noise" in digital imaging. To me, a lot of those images look like a form
of posterization, where image details that *should* have texture just
don't.

I'm just irritated at seeing grain noise in my scans from films people
loudly proclaim to be "extremely fine grain". And I've never seen a high-res
scan from any film that was as clean as ISO 100 dSLR images.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. But to my eye, by the time you get to 12MP with current A4
inkjets, you have a photographic system that is a lot better than
35mm, however you print the 35mm.

Okay, the qualifier is that you are going for the best match for an
inkjet system output. In that regard, I would agree the direct
digital capture is better for most people when outputting to inkjet.
It is easier, involves less guessing, and is faster. Scanning film
and adjusting for proper printed output is a skill honed by
experience.

I am really happy to see someone else saying this for a change. Ink jets
are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.

It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5 years.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Last one I saw was several prints off the latest Roland. That was in January
at a Printing Industry trade show. One of the nicest pieces was on canvas.
Nice technology for one off (or low volume) prints. The representative claimed
three year durability in direct sunlight (depending upon printing "paper" or
surface material, and coating), which is really great.

Anyway, if you mean desktop printers, then sure, I see those all the time. Of
course, it is my personal preference to like commercial printing results, or
chemical prints, better than I like Epson printer outputs. While the images
have often been quite nice, there was nothing about the print that impressed
me, it is just a different choice for some.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5
years.

Au Contraire, David. I've not only seen them, I've spent thousands of
dollars on Epson inkjet printers over the last 5 years, and regularly buy
large format output for tradeshow displays and the like, which are also
high-end inkjet prints. They're great for vector art and such, but no
match for a good optical photo print of photographic subjects.

Interesting. The fine art photographers say exactly the opposite: that in
blind tests, people prefer inkjet prints the vast majority of the time.

And the general public likes the -super contrasty- blown out prints made on
consumer paper as well..


Whatever.

Isn't that the line they use on Jerry Springer?



--

Stacey

Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 03:11:55 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


Ink jets are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.


Oh, blarney.

I personally know a dozen or two professional
photographers doing just that.


So what? A 'professional' will use what is "good enough" at the least cost
and least hassle no matter what the field.
--

Stacey

Gary Beasley wrote:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:45:37 -0500, Paul Schmidt

The orange layer is actually a color correction layer to compensate
for the inaccuracies and crossover characteristics of the color dye
layers. It has nothing to do with the yellow filter between the blue
recording layer and the other two layers. That gets bleached out
during processing.

At some point I would think they could develop a negative film that didn't
need this mask i.e. optimized for scanning?

--

Stacey

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 03:11:55 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


Ink jets are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.


Oh, blarney.

I personally know a dozen or two professional
photographers doing just that.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com