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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
So here is an interesting test look at the linked photo, on screen, and
then print out the photo, at 300 dpi. On screen the bottom image has much more detail but when printed the top looks sharper. Show the printed photo to a number of people as ask which is sharper. If there were printed at say 150 dpi then which looks sharper depends on how far away you are. Step back about 10 feet and you will see the same effect. http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg The point is looking on screen can fool you, there is nothing wrong with looking at the photo at 100% on the screen as long as you don't use this as the only judgement for the quality of the photo. Scott Scott |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Brown wrote:
I expect I'll be taking a picture this weekend - probably a macro of a dried flower using the triple extension. I'm hoping my friendly local lab won't mind me just dropping the dark slide off with them, otherwise I have no idea how I'm going to get this processed. Be sure to take the bellows extention into consideration when doing macro work or everything will be underexposed (been there done that). Check with your labs. I have a box of E6 unopened. (The owner of) the only lab I found locally that knew what 4x5 was said, Oh, our JOBO has a tank that can accept 4x5. I'm not sure how it works. You can wrap it up and mail it off though. If you buy a Polaroid back off of ebay, you can shoot Polaroid positives right off, and you can also use it has a holder for ready load. If I ever really decide to do chrome, I'm headed in that direction. Bob |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:49:04 -0500, rafeb wrote:
Owamanga wrote: There's nothing overly wrong with occasionally critiquing at 100% or more if the possible destination print dimensions require that, but in many cases it's like a bank teller who uses an electron microscope to check your signature. A fine waste of time. For 4x6" prints, most definitely a waste of time. Maybe even for 8x10" Right, then in principle, we agree. At this point I've sold a good number large-ish prints (20x30", 24x36") that formerly I'd only done at 8x10 or 12x18". I'm getting enough $ from these to where I think my on-screen viewing time is well justified and properly compensated. Although there is nothing wrong with the strive for perfection, I'd add, that in my experience of what people have been able to sell in the past, work that is now hanging in homes and work places, the expectation of a high resolution print from 35mm format at these dimensions just isn't there. I have a 48" by 36" B&W print of Paris that hangs in the bathroom, possibly from a 35mm camera, definitely film. Up close it's as grainy as hell, but realistically what would you expect? It's "atmospheric." :-) -- Owamanga! |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:00:59 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote: Owamanga wrote: [] As far as I know, as yet, no CRT or LCD has a 6Mpix resolution. I guess it won't be long, but right now that's a pipe-dream. 9MP monitors are already available... http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/ Ah yes. At $7,000 every household will have one by the end of the year. ;-) That thing makes HD standards look positively shabby. -- Owamanga! |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote: I disagree that you need a print to properly see or judge a digital image. There have only been a few situations (in my experience) where a print revealed flaws that were not evident on-screen. It is not so much that a print will reveal flaws that you can not see on the screen as the other way around, flaws that you see on the screen will often not be visible on the final print. The other part of this is detail that you can see on the screen my not be visible on the print. As I posted earlier a shot that looks better on the screen can look worse when printed, again check out the link to the photo and see which half looks better on the screen and then print at 300 dpi and see which looks better printed. http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg Scott |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Owamanga wrote: Although there is nothing wrong with the strive for perfection, I'd add, that in my experience of what people have been able to sell in the past, work that is now hanging in homes and work places, the expectation of a high resolution print from 35mm format at these dimensions just isn't there. I have a 48" by 36" B&W print of Paris that hangs in the bathroom, possibly from a 35mm camera, definitely film. Up close it's as grainy as hell, but realistically what would you expect? I don't want to represent myself as a pro photographer -- I'm definitely not. On the other hand, in recent years, I've made a nice chunk of change selling prints. And I've learned this much -- it's not my own judgment of the print that matters, but what my customer thinks. Customer being defined as he or she who hands me the cash. (Most often she than he, by the way.) Were it entirely up to me, I'd be a bit leery of making 24x26" prints from 35 mm negatives, or 20x30" prints from 10D captures. But I'm not going to tell a paying customer that I won't do that, nor will I feel the least bit guilty when I do. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Scott W wrote:
The eye can see detail to 0.7 line pairs per inch for 100% contrast, at a light level of 23 foot lamberts, this drops to 0.4 line pairs per inch at 10% contrast. And you can see down to less then 2% contrast if the line pairs per inch are at 0.1. At what distance, and do you assume that viewing distances for monitors and prints are proportional? What all this means is that you will see detail on the screen that you will not see in the print. I follow the logic, but in practice I almost always find things in the print that were not obvious on the monitor, and not the other way round. For instance, if I use the clone tool to remove a neon orange "for sale" sign on a dock, I might work at 300% or even 1000%. At 200% on the monitor it looks nearly flawless, but in the print it's not quite that good. Bob |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
bob wrote: Scott W wrote: The eye can see detail to 0.7 line pairs per inch for 100% contrast, at a light level of 23 foot lamberts, this drops to 0.4 line pairs per inch at 10% contrast. And you can see down to less then 2% contrast if the line pairs per inch are at 0.1. At what distance, and do you assume that viewing distances for monitors and prints are proportional? It depends of the size and resolution of your monitor, for mine I figure I need to be back about 4 to 6 feet. It also depends on how close you view your prints. BTW I am assuming 8 x 10 prints when I say 4 to 6 feet. What all this means is that you will see detail on the screen that you will not see in the print. I follow the logic, but in practice I almost always find things in the print that were not obvious on the monitor, and not the other way round. For instance, if I use the clone tool to remove a neon orange "for sale" sign on a dock, I might work at 300% or even 1000%. At 200% on the monitor it looks nearly flawless, but in the print it's not quite that good. The eye has can see the lowest contrast detail at at about 0.1 line pairs per minute (or about 30 line pairs per inch when viewed at 12 inches). If you have a low contrast defect that is blown up large enough it will be less visible then when it is seen smaller. My guess is that something like this is going on. Scott |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Scott W wrote:
So here is an interesting test look at the linked photo, on screen, and then print out the photo, at 300 dpi. On screen the bottom image has much more detail but when printed the top looks sharper. Show the printed photo to a number of people as ask which is sharper. There's either something wrong with your equipment or with mine. On my screen the top photo is clearer. On my printer, the top photo remains clearer at both 150 and 300 pixels per inch (as set in Photoshop). At roughly 400% it becomes evident that the top photo is a blurred (Gaussian?) version of the bottom, and that the blurring masks the hideous .jpg artifacts that make the bottom image appear hazy. Zooming in on the tower at 1600% you can see that this is clearly the case -- The artifacts in the bottom image spray the highlights over everything. Perhaps the top photo was sharpened after it was blurred. Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson R800 versus 2200 image quality | Ben Kaufman | Digital Photography | 0 | December 31st 04 05:26 AM |
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams | Richard Lee | Digital Photography | 21 | August 23rd 04 07:04 PM |
Sigma wins image quality challenge. Bayer user in disbelief. | Georgette Preddy | Digital Photography | 3 | August 7th 04 01:48 PM |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
still image quality | paul flynn | Digital Photography | 1 | June 28th 04 11:07 PM |