If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
G- Blank wrote:
In article , Tom Phillips wrote: The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y. So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low resolution required to make a print. Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite enlargement. Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size, mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned, cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from scanned film. It almost seems like some people want to imply that you cannot get nice large clean prints from film. I urge anyone to go see an exhibit of Edward Burtynsky, or Galen Rowell, or numerous other well known film users, and still claim that the prints are inferior in some way. In the same manner, I don't feel we can rightly put down, nor dismiss direct digital images. At least some of the better cameras today allow some very nice quality images to be captured and printed, and quite often without any distracting artefacts nor aberrations. This is especially true for people using the latest medium format digital backs, the images from those are largely quite good. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
I'm chiming in late. I haven't done a direct film enlargement of 4x5 for
5-6 years. Imacon scans (by a service), my file prep, output to inkjet or lightjet. I won't claim to have ever made my own enlargements from 4x5 film. I always let a service make my enlargements for me. To qualify this I almost always was buying Cibachrome enlargement in the 8x10 to 16x20 range. Some with and some without silver masks. So one could reasonably argue that I wasn't getting the best from my images as some lab jock was mass producing. However, I did have two scans of the same 4x5 done. One a 150MB (8bit) scan from Imacon and the other a 400MB (8bit) scan from a tango scanner. At a size equivilent to a 30x40 it was difficult for me to find any details in the tango scan that weren't in the imacon scan. And that was looking at 100% in photoshop. Sure I had to scale up the Imacon print to get 300dpi on the 30x40 output. But at on the print it was also difficult to tell a difference. Now the service uses a new imacon yielding nearly 400MB (16bit) scans. Since I never go larger than 30x40, I've never gone back to a tango scanner. (Though I'm tempted for another reason. The wet mounting process of a tango drum scan avoids tons of dust and scratches that come through on the Imacon process.) Now I can't compare the details represented in the final print between a digital and direct film print. The digital has a lot. However the control I regain by doing the file prep myself is incredible. The shadow detail that I can get to Fuji Flex prints (or even to the few lightjetCibachrome prints I had made) blows film direct to Cibachrome away. Even comparing those Cibachromes made with silver masks. The positive to Cibachrome process is just too contrasty to capture the shadow and highlights. The ability to make very accurate selections and then affect only that area wonderful too. I have an image that is part in open shade and part in full sun. The open shade portion has a bluish cast. A careful selection and bit of warming up of the color and the two areas were better balanced with each other. Yes the wet darkroom can generate wonderful images, particularly at the hands of the masters. However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match. Ansel Adams is quoted at being extremely excited about the digital darkroom. His last book while he was living was done digitally. He was excited about the control digital allowed. Very consistent as his work was all about controlling each step of image production. Todd -- See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com "Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... G- Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y. So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low resolution required to make a print. Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite enlargement. Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size, mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned, cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from scanned film. It almost seems like some people want to imply that you cannot get nice large clean prints from film. I urge anyone to go see an exhibit of Edward Burtynsky, or Galen Rowell, or numerous other well known film users, and still claim that the prints are inferior in some way. In the same manner, I don't feel we can rightly put down, nor dismiss direct digital images. At least some of the better cameras today allow some very nice quality images to be captured and printed, and quite often without any distracting artefacts nor aberrations. This is especially true for people using the latest medium format digital backs, the images from those are largely quite good. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
"Todd Maurer" wrote: However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match. Huh, from one who has never made an optical print,...this becomes a stretch & its the only sentence I take issue with. A poorly done digital print can be just plain awful , in so many ways. I have seen many awful digitally printed images. -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
"G- Blank" wrote in message ... In article , "Todd Maurer" wrote: However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match. Huh, from one who has never made an optical print,...this becomes a stretch & its the only sentence I take issue with. A poorly done digital print can be just plain awful , in so many ways. I have seen many awful digitally printed images. So you should have that print I sent you, Gregory. Any opinions? You can email me privately, if you'd prefer. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
G- Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y. So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low resolution required to make a print. That's not what he said. He said "one can *enlarge* as if making a big print..." No, you can't. It's a misapplied term, which is typical of digital geeks misappropriating photographic process terminologies that don't actually apply to digital processes. Of course I will agree that in the case of sprayed ink of an inkjet the low resolution required is a factor, and thus scanning at higher resolutions is overkill. Typically (at least if one does professional scanning) the scan resolution/file size is matched to the intended output size for best quality. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
"rafe b" wrote: So you should have that print I sent you, Gregory. Its probably at the post office, which is closed today. I was going to get it Saturday, but was running late to a shoot so I'll get it tomorrow if its there. Any opinions? You can email me privately, if you'd prefer. I will certainly let you know, I'll email you. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: G- Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y. So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low resolution required to make a print. That's not what he said. He said "one can *enlarge* as if making a big print..." No, you can't. It's a misapplied term, Obviously enlarged is a misapplied term for the most part,... I can think of a possible exception.....digital projection lamphouse. which is typical of digital geeks misappropriating photographic process terminologies that don't actually apply to digital processes. I think they do it just to **** you off Of course I will agree that in the case of sprayed ink of an inkjet the low resolution required is a factor, and thus scanning at higher resolutions is overkill. My statement applies to all digital output devices which tend to require something be scanned with only so much overall resolution relative to the dimensions of the print to make the sharpest print the output device is able to make. An unsharp original negative will always be unsharp. The scanner can't make something inherently out of focus focused. -Likewise Enlargers, we all know that- You, me and Rafe. Typically (at least if one does professional scanning) the scan resolution/file size is matched to the intended output size for best quality. Thats optimal......and probably not realistic for all needs. I think the idea is to create one scan that works for most anticipated needs. Its only a problem when the needs go beyond the limits & their are plenty of people trying to make do some time the loss is less or inconsequential enough to warrant the fudge. Sometimes the fudge is quite apparent and should have been handled differently. the shame is that fewer and fewer people get to see were the fudge was made :-D -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
Todd Maurer wrote: snip a bit... Yes the wet darkroom can generate wonderful images, particularly at the hands of the masters. However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match. Ansel Adams is quoted at being extremely excited about the digital darkroom. His last book while he was living was done digitally. He was excited about the control digital allowed. Very consistent as his work was all about controlling each step of image production. Yes but you can be sure he wouldn't have advocated digital over film. These are different mediums with different results. He also often noted one had to be careful when publishing digitally, since it was possible to override the creative intentions of the artist in artifically manipulating the print values he worked so hard in the real darkroom to achieve. Todd -- See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com "Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... G- Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y. So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low resolution required to make a print. Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite enlargement. Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size, mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned, cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from scanned film. It almost seems like some people want to imply that you cannot get nice large clean prints from film. I urge anyone to go see an exhibit of Edward Burtynsky, or Galen Rowell, or numerous other well known film users, and still claim that the prints are inferior in some way. In the same manner, I don't feel we can rightly put down, nor dismiss direct digital images. At least some of the better cameras today allow some very nice quality images to be captured and printed, and quite often without any distracting artefacts nor aberrations. This is especially true for people using the latest medium format digital backs, the images from those are largely quite good. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: He also often noted one had to be careful when publishing digitally, since it was possible to override the creative intentions of the artist in artifically manipulating the print values he worked so hard in the real darkroom to achieve. More importantly preserving the intentions he worked to capture in the field - knowing that his work and manifestation of those intentions was preplanned before it ever hit the darkroom. -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
G- Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: G- Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y. So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low resolution required to make a print. That's not what he said. He said "one can *enlarge* as if making a big print..." No, you can't. It's a misapplied term, Obviously enlarged is a misapplied term for the most part,... I can think of a possible exception.....digital projection lamphouse. which is typical of digital geeks misappropriating photographic process terminologies that don't actually apply to digital processes. I think they do it just to **** you off Naw. They're merely intentionally ignorant Of course I will agree that in the case of sprayed ink of an inkjet the low resolution required is a factor, and thus scanning at higher resolutions is overkill. My statement applies to all digital output devices which tend to require something be scanned with only so much overall resolution relative to the dimensions of the print to make the sharpest print the output device is able to make. An unsharp original negative will always be unsharp. The scanner can't make something inherently out of focus focused. -Likewise Enlargers, we all know that- You, me and Rafe. Typically (at least if one does professional scanning) the scan resolution/file size is matched to the intended output size for best quality. Thats optimal......and probably not realistic for all needs. I think the idea is to create one scan that works for most anticipated needs. Its only a problem when the needs go beyond the limits & their are plenty of people trying to make do some time the loss is less or inconsequential enough to warrant the fudge. Sometimes the fudge is quite apparent and should have been handled differently. the shame is that fewer and fewer people get to see were the fudge was made :-D One scan fits all is not how I as a professional would print digitally. There was a reason the old Kodak CD and similar still available, for instance, provided a range of different pre press resolutions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two ways of looking at how large to print | Scott W | Digital Photography | 12 | April 10th 05 06:36 PM |
Two ways of looking at how large to print | Scott W | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 12:30 AM |
Negative -> Print Traditional; Positive -> Print Digital | Geshu Iam | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 109 | October 31st 04 03:57 PM |
Scanning in film camera photo lab prints? | What's In A Name? | Digital Photography | 18 | October 22nd 04 07:10 PM |
Print Dryers for Flattening Prints | Dan Quinn | In The Darkroom | 0 | January 29th 04 12:13 AM |