I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
: is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
: you can't create detail.
:
: No but it sure can throw it away using bad glass
: and poor alignment, bad focus etc.

True.


: That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
: truth about their products to the point of lying.

: I don't know about that. I think not everyone takes the time to
: call Kodak tech support and ask questions regarding materials.
: My experience in general with Kodak is a good one.

Every company does it. They present the information that makes them
look good in a way that makes them look good.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
: is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
: you can't create detail.
:
: No but it sure can throw it away using bad glass
: and poor alignment, bad focus etc.

True.


: That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
: truth about their products to the point of lying.

: I don't know about that. I think not everyone takes the time to
: call Kodak tech support and ask questions regarding materials.
: My experience in general with Kodak is a good one.

Every company does it. They present the information that makes them
look good in a way that makes them look good.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

If I can chip in here, I'd like to ask what your take is on dedicated 120
film scanners for pre-press work, as opposed to a drum scan or a bureau?


I'd say it depends entirely on the scanner and whether
you do a lot of scanning for prepress.

(main body snipped)

So unless you can test a scanner before buying best to ask the
folks who do your reproductions.

Thanks for the reply. I'll ask a few questions and see what they say.

If I can chip in here, I'd like to ask what your take is on dedicated 120
film scanners for pre-press work, as opposed to a drum scan or a bureau?


I'd say it depends entirely on the scanner and whether
you do a lot of scanning for prepress.

(main body snipped)

So unless you can test a scanner before buying best to ask the
folks who do your reproductions.

Thanks for the reply. I'll ask a few questions and see what they say.

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: : Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: : digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints
:
: : No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: : sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: : tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: : smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: : detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: : under the same output conditions for an honest side
: : by side qualitative comparison.
:
: A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
: comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire
: to do so I won't.

: Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: paper.

??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?

sigh.. the dye cloud _mirrors_ in exact detail the
silver grain pattern. Dye cloud/silver grains-clumps.
No difference in continuity.

: Inkjets are dots of ink nowhere near as fine. They
: are not continuous but in fact spread on the paper.
: It looks continuous, but isn't.

:
: : I made from it compare
: : very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: : with an enlarger!!
:
: : True, real world comparison:
:
: : Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: : negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: : time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: : prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: : of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: : halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: : is different.
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap

: O.K. Frank. Maybe your's do look like crap. I've been
: doing it for 25+ years and mine look fantasic.

If you say so.

: and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out.

: Ink is absorbed by the paper. It inherently
: spreads (smears.) Better paper and printers
: help, but not prevent 100%

: (no offense intended)
: I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: there is no "smearing".

: it spreads.

That's different then smearing.

To smear means to spread, to spread to smear.


: If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
: end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
: You may be pleasantly surprised.

: Based on the consumer-type equipment you're buying,
: like your scanner, I doubt it's high end. High end
: output is what I'd typically get at my service bureau,
: where they spend tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes
: hundreds of thousands...) on "high end" equipment, not
: hundreds of dollars for printers and scanners at Office
: Max.

It's higher end consumer.

An oxymoron. No such thing as "high end" plus
"consumer." Not going to happen. Ever. High end
means high end components all around for best
results/reproductions possible. Can't get that
in any inexpensive scanner or digital equipment.
High end costs far more $$$.

: : Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
: : type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
: : have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
: : like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
: : most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
: : drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
: : resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
: : output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
: : to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
: : prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
: : though I doubt you'll need the loupe.
:
: Again that's a lot more work then I ever plan on doing.

: Not the point. The point is your subjective comparisons
: are not professionally qualitative.

I'm not following you. I don't need to do a side by side comparison
to see that a print from my 4mp digital P&S looks good.

You do if you want to know qualitatively and
quantitatively what you're talking about when
making such comparisons.

: I also know
: that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.

: sigh.. You're so ignorant about everything frank.
: Sorry to say but what's crap is your understanding of
: professional photography and the quality professionals
: I know are in fact able to obtain from 35mm enlargements.
: High quality enough to sell as artwork to major corporations
: across the country and at larger sizes than 16x20.

I've seen those prints and to my eyes they look like crap. It all depends
on a persons standards.

No. It depsnds on controlling the imaging variables...

: But you must have more extensive "professional"
: experience than they?

A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.

Yes, they are, if they know this issues involved.
Otherwise their enlargements would look like "crap"
the samae as yours. The enlargements I'm referring
aren't crap; they rival (though not equal) larger
formats because my use of the term "professional"
isn't "commercial." It's means meeting certain
standards.

In many cases they will generate work of lower quality.

Now that's crap.

When printing
or for that matter while Out in the field composing the image they are
under time pressueres that I am not under.

More crap.

I am not under those pressures
to deliver product and can spend days getting the print to look they I want it to
without having to worry about what others may think. The again as a white collar
"professional" I'm not as impressed by the buzz words you like to use.

And I'm not impressed with your insistent ignorance.
You simply assert enlargements from 35mm to 16x20 are
"crap" yet you don't know (1) why your enlargements
are crap or (2) how to control your photographic
variables in order to get better quality enlargements.
That's the difference between an amateur and a real
professional...

: Yes. Good professional quality photography
: takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.

It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it.

Complete ignorance and nonsense on your part. It's
because you don't understand anything yet then
assume you actually know something based on your
empirical and subjective amateur experience. If you
knew something you wouldn't insist on words like "crap"
to explain your enlargement problems and wouldn't draw
irrelevant conclusions like it's the "materials."

It's not the materials...

Of course a person
with the proper amount of knowledge will know his and not waste time trying
to do what can't be done.

That's total meaningless nonsense you are simply
making up.

Here's the truth, though sometimes I wonder why I
"waste" my time trying to tell you something you
don't appear to care to understand:

The optics, depth of field, resolution-MTF of the
film-camera system, plus optics and alignment of
the enlarging system, and sometimes on the image
subject matter itself all affect the quality of the
end enlargement. Most people simply never spend the
time and effort to assess those factors before going
out to shoot whatever it is they shoot. Professionals
whose end goal is the highest quality enlargements do.
If those factors are all carefully considered and the
variables strictly controlled, there's no reason very
high quality enlargements from 35mm cannot be made.
You won't get the same as with LF, but you will get
better quality.

Tell me, Frank, have you _ever_ performed an MTF
test of your film-camera system? And assessed the
weak links and made corrections in equipment, optics,
and film? Or have you ever performed depth of field
tests with graphs to calulated your system's needed
circle of confusion size _for_ the enlargments you
plan to make? (Yes, Frank, one should determine the
desired degree of enlargement before even making an
exposure.) Bet you don't even know how to do that.
I've a chart I made that tells me what circle of
confusion size and hyperfocal distance I need to get
a certain quality at a particular enlargment size.

A person with "the proper amount of knowledge" does
all these things _before_ going out to shoot anything,
so they don't "waste time" haphazardly hoping for good
results that translate into superb enlargements. When
shooting they use the best optics, the proper tripod,
the right f-stop (to prevent diffraction), the right
film, the right composition with a suitable subject
for a _planned_ enlargement of that subject. They never
shoot haphazardly "see what you get, hope for the best"
style. Even a slight breeze or something as simple as
failure to lock up the mirror on your SLR when tripping
the shutter can degrade an image for desired enlargement.
Are you using 400 speed film, or Kodachrome 64? It all
makes a difference and any one variable not addressed
and controlled for the planned enlargement can result
in a lesser quality when enlarging.

In other words, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. As I
say, scans of film can also lose detail and sharpness in
critical areas (highlight and shadow areas and _will_
with ALL low end consumer scanners), so unless you get
the best scan by a good scanning technician using a high
end scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
shot with enlargement in mind.

That's all I have to say on the matter. Continue to
obfuscate in ignorance if you choose.

: : I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
: : scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.
: :
: : Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
: : my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)
:
: : A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: : film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: : a good choice or not.
:
: It's a good scanner.

: Perhaps a decent consumer scanner. Professionally
: it's a cheap flatbed desktop scanner. A "good"
: professional film scanner costs way more than $600.
: Tell me, Frank, have you done a signal to noise test
: to determine the actual Dmax (optical density?)

Nobody here has claimed that it's anything but a consumer grade scanner.

You just said it was a "high end" consumer scanner.
Again, no such animal. The only way to pragmatically
tell is s/n test.

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: : Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: : digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints
:
: : No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: : sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: : tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: : smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: : detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: : under the same output conditions for an honest side
: : by side qualitative comparison.
:
: A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
: comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire
: to do so I won't.

: Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: paper.

??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?

sigh.. the dye cloud _mirrors_ in exact detail the
silver grain pattern. Dye cloud/silver grains-clumps.
No difference in continuity.

: Inkjets are dots of ink nowhere near as fine. They
: are not continuous but in fact spread on the paper.
: It looks continuous, but isn't.

:
: : I made from it compare
: : very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: : with an enlarger!!
:
: : True, real world comparison:
:
: : Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: : negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: : time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: : prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: : of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: : halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: : is different.
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap

: O.K. Frank. Maybe your's do look like crap. I've been
: doing it for 25+ years and mine look fantasic.

If you say so.

: and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out.

: Ink is absorbed by the paper. It inherently
: spreads (smears.) Better paper and printers
: help, but not prevent 100%

: (no offense intended)
: I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: there is no "smearing".

: it spreads.

That's different then smearing.

To smear means to spread, to spread to smear.


: If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
: end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
: You may be pleasantly surprised.

: Based on the consumer-type equipment you're buying,
: like your scanner, I doubt it's high end. High end
: output is what I'd typically get at my service bureau,
: where they spend tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes
: hundreds of thousands...) on "high end" equipment, not
: hundreds of dollars for printers and scanners at Office
: Max.

It's higher end consumer.

An oxymoron. No such thing as "high end" plus
"consumer." Not going to happen. Ever. High end
means high end components all around for best
results/reproductions possible. Can't get that
in any inexpensive scanner or digital equipment.
High end costs far more $$$.

: : Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
: : type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
: : have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
: : like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
: : most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
: : drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
: : resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
: : output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
: : to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
: : prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
: : though I doubt you'll need the loupe.
:
: Again that's a lot more work then I ever plan on doing.

: Not the point. The point is your subjective comparisons
: are not professionally qualitative.

I'm not following you. I don't need to do a side by side comparison
to see that a print from my 4mp digital P&S looks good.

You do if you want to know qualitatively and
quantitatively what you're talking about when
making such comparisons.

: I also know
: that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.

: sigh.. You're so ignorant about everything frank.
: Sorry to say but what's crap is your understanding of
: professional photography and the quality professionals
: I know are in fact able to obtain from 35mm enlargements.
: High quality enough to sell as artwork to major corporations
: across the country and at larger sizes than 16x20.

I've seen those prints and to my eyes they look like crap. It all depends
on a persons standards.

No. It depsnds on controlling the imaging variables...

: But you must have more extensive "professional"
: experience than they?

A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.

Yes, they are, if they know this issues involved.
Otherwise their enlargements would look like "crap"
the samae as yours. The enlargements I'm referring
aren't crap; they rival (though not equal) larger
formats because my use of the term "professional"
isn't "commercial." It's means meeting certain
standards.

In many cases they will generate work of lower quality.

Now that's crap.

When printing
or for that matter while Out in the field composing the image they are
under time pressueres that I am not under.

More crap.

I am not under those pressures
to deliver product and can spend days getting the print to look they I want it to
without having to worry about what others may think. The again as a white collar
"professional" I'm not as impressed by the buzz words you like to use.

And I'm not impressed with your insistent ignorance.
You simply assert enlargements from 35mm to 16x20 are
"crap" yet you don't know (1) why your enlargements
are crap or (2) how to control your photographic
variables in order to get better quality enlargements.
That's the difference between an amateur and a real
professional...

: Yes. Good professional quality photography
: takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.

It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it.

Complete ignorance and nonsense on your part. It's
because you don't understand anything yet then
assume you actually know something based on your
empirical and subjective amateur experience. If you
knew something you wouldn't insist on words like "crap"
to explain your enlargement problems and wouldn't draw
irrelevant conclusions like it's the "materials."

It's not the materials...

Of course a person
with the proper amount of knowledge will know his and not waste time trying
to do what can't be done.

That's total meaningless nonsense you are simply
making up.

Here's the truth, though sometimes I wonder why I
"waste" my time trying to tell you something you
don't appear to care to understand:

The optics, depth of field, resolution-MTF of the
film-camera system, plus optics and alignment of
the enlarging system, and sometimes on the image
subject matter itself all affect the quality of the
end enlargement. Most people simply never spend the
time and effort to assess those factors before going
out to shoot whatever it is they shoot. Professionals
whose end goal is the highest quality enlargements do.
If those factors are all carefully considered and the
variables strictly controlled, there's no reason very
high quality enlargements from 35mm cannot be made.
You won't get the same as with LF, but you will get
better quality.

Tell me, Frank, have you _ever_ performed an MTF
test of your film-camera system? And assessed the
weak links and made corrections in equipment, optics,
and film? Or have you ever performed depth of field
tests with graphs to calulated your system's needed
circle of confusion size _for_ the enlargments you
plan to make? (Yes, Frank, one should determine the
desired degree of enlargement before even making an
exposure.) Bet you don't even know how to do that.
I've a chart I made that tells me what circle of
confusion size and hyperfocal distance I need to get
a certain quality at a particular enlargment size.

A person with "the proper amount of knowledge" does
all these things _before_ going out to shoot anything,
so they don't "waste time" haphazardly hoping for good
results that translate into superb enlargements. When
shooting they use the best optics, the proper tripod,
the right f-stop (to prevent diffraction), the right
film, the right composition with a suitable subject
for a _planned_ enlargement of that subject. They never
shoot haphazardly "see what you get, hope for the best"
style. Even a slight breeze or something as simple as
failure to lock up the mirror on your SLR when tripping
the shutter can degrade an image for desired enlargement.
Are you using 400 speed film, or Kodachrome 64? It all
makes a difference and any one variable not addressed
and controlled for the planned enlargement can result
in a lesser quality when enlarging.

In other words, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. As I
say, scans of film can also lose detail and sharpness in
critical areas (highlight and shadow areas and _will_
with ALL low end consumer scanners), so unless you get
the best scan by a good scanning technician using a high
end scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
shot with enlargement in mind.

That's all I have to say on the matter. Continue to
obfuscate in ignorance if you choose.

: : I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
: : scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.
: :
: : Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
: : my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)
:
: : A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: : film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: : a good choice or not.
:
: It's a good scanner.

: Perhaps a decent consumer scanner. Professionally
: it's a cheap flatbed desktop scanner. A "good"
: professional film scanner costs way more than $600.
: Tell me, Frank, have you done a signal to noise test
: to determine the actual Dmax (optical density?)

Nobody here has claimed that it's anything but a consumer grade scanner.

You just said it was a "high end" consumer scanner.
Again, no such animal. The only way to pragmatically
tell is s/n test.

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
:
: Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
: for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
: of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
: experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
: some people just don't look that close to imagery.

I may not be saying this right. I don't believe that a digital print will give results
as good as what's possible with traditional printing is capable of. I do think that
with modern printers, inks and papers the results that are possible are better then
what Tom is representing (or seems to be representing) them to be.

I wasn't representing anything other than disputing
your claim that you get better images with inkjets
from scans than you can direct photochemical prints.
If so you're doing something wrong in your shooting/
printing.

Like I said, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. Low
end scans lose critical detail and sharpness in film
highlight and shadow areas, so unless you get the best
scan by a good scanning technician using a high end
scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
where enlargement variables have been addressed and
controlled when shooting.

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
:
: Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
: for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
: of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
: experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
: some people just don't look that close to imagery.

I may not be saying this right. I don't believe that a digital print will give results
as good as what's possible with traditional printing is capable of. I do think that
with modern printers, inks and papers the results that are possible are better then
what Tom is representing (or seems to be representing) them to be.

I wasn't representing anything other than disputing
your claim that you get better images with inkjets
from scans than you can direct photochemical prints.
If so you're doing something wrong in your shooting/
printing.

Like I said, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. Low
end scans lose critical detail and sharpness in film
highlight and shadow areas, so unless you get the best
scan by a good scanning technician using a high end
scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
where enlargement variables have been addressed and
controlled when shooting.

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: : In article ,
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
: : bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: : think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: : smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
: :
: : Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
: : for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
: : of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
: : experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
: : some people just don't look that close to imagery.
:
: I may not be saying this right. I don't believe that a digital print will give results
: as good as what's possible with traditional printing is capable of. I do think that
: with modern printers, inks and papers the results that are possible are better then
: what Tom is representing (or seems to be representing) them to be.

: I wasn't representing anything other than disputing
: your claim that you get better images with inkjets
: from scans than you can direct photochemical prints.
: If so you're doing something wrong in your shooting/
: printing.

I never made the claim that I get better images with an inkjet
from scans then I did from traditional prints.

: Like I said, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
: your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. Low
: end scans lose critical detail and sharpness in film
: highlight and shadow areas, so unless you get the best
: scan by a good scanning technician using a high end
: scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
: better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
: where enlargement variables have been addressed and
: controlled when shooting.

My 35mm don't look like crap either and I never said they did.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: : In article ,
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
: : bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: : think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: : smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
: :
: : Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
: : for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
: : of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
: : experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
: : some people just don't look that close to imagery.
:
: I may not be saying this right. I don't believe that a digital print will give results
: as good as what's possible with traditional printing is capable of. I do think that
: with modern printers, inks and papers the results that are possible are better then
: what Tom is representing (or seems to be representing) them to be.

: I wasn't representing anything other than disputing
: your claim that you get better images with inkjets
: from scans than you can direct photochemical prints.
: If so you're doing something wrong in your shooting/
: printing.

I never made the claim that I get better images with an inkjet
from scans then I did from traditional prints.

: Like I said, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
: your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. Low
: end scans lose critical detail and sharpness in film
: highlight and shadow areas, so unless you get the best
: scan by a good scanning technician using a high end
: scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
: better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
: where enlargement variables have been addressed and
: controlled when shooting.

My 35mm don't look like crap either and I never said they did.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------