Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: enlargements - digital vs film  (Read 24213 times)
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #100 on: October 24, 2007, 02:28:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is an article in the brand new issue of Rangefiner Magazine that is very much on topic with this discussion. Luckily it is online in pdf. Here you go...

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Oct07/120.pdf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This article is a joke. You have to wonder if he just zoomed the window in photoshop for the digital crops. No decent interpolation routine woudl produce that much pixelation. He's also pretty vague about exactly what size he's resizing to, mentioning print size but not PPI.
Logged

ecemfjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #101 on: October 25, 2007, 12:28:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This article is a joke. You have to wonder if he just zoomed the window in photoshop for the digital crops. No decent interpolation routine woudl produce that much pixelation. He's also pretty vague about exactly what size he's resizing to, mentioning print size but not PPI.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi, refering only to the amount of information, the article is right. Even although the interpolated image will look better that the original, the amount of information on it will be, as much, the same.

Manuel
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #102 on: October 25, 2007, 12:34:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi, refering only to the amount of information, the article is right. Even although the interpolated image will look better that the original, the amount of information on it will be, as much, the same.

Manuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That doesn't change the fact that the crappy interpolation used presents an unfair portrayal of the digital image. Do you honestly think a 1DsMk2 image would look that bad when printed at 16x20?
Logged

EricV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #103 on: October 25, 2007, 02:12:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This article is a joke. You have to wonder if he just zoomed the window in photoshop for the digital crops. No decent interpolation routine woudl produce that much pixelation. He's also pretty vague about exactly what size he's resizing to, mentioning print size but not PPI.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The article seems perfectly straightforward and fair.  It is a comparison of the raw output of digital versus film, not a comparison of optimized prints from either source.  I presume the digital file was indeed enlarged pixel by pixel in Photoshop, with no interpolation whatsoever.  I also presume no noise reduction or sharpening was applied.  And it looks like the film was printed directly, not scanned and digitized.  Of course further manipulation would improve prints made from both sources, but that's not what this article was about.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #104 on: October 25, 2007, 02:28:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That doesn't change the fact that the crappy interpolation used presents an unfair portrayal of the digital image. Do you honestly think a 1DsMk2 image would look that bad when printed at 16x20?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my local dealer a few years back they had a 30x20" picture taken with a 1DsII just after it came out. It was of a white tram in bright sunshine and even though the top of the tram wasn't burnt out, you could still make out detail in the shadows under the tram. Dead sharp and no grain. Very technically impressive and way better than any 35mm film could do with that same scene.


To go off at a tangent, when doing smaller images, digital doesn't always fare so well as you usually have to resample down for small sizes. Film at low levels of enlargement or at film size [10"x8" contacts wow] look even better usually. When I had my busines card printed, the idiots at the printers said there was no need to have anything more than 300dpi, not quite getting that it was a minimum suggestion, not a maximum. But resampling down to that dpi made for crappy images and no sharpening would ever make them look good. Resampling them down to 600dpi, produced very acceptable images, but I had to argue with the printers to use that dpi. The cards looked great once printed to my terms and that also included ignoring their monitor profiles as my design looked awful on their screens.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
ecemfjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #105 on: October 25, 2007, 03:32:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That doesn't change the fact that the crappy interpolation used presents an unfair portrayal of the digital image. Do you honestly think a 1DsMk2 image would look that bad when printed at 16x20?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really. I think a fair comparisol can be performed only after both pictures have been enhanced usign the best technology and knowledge one can reasonable afford. That one is important because using the best technology and expertise is beyond my means.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #106 on: October 31, 2007, 02:35:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not really. I think a fair comparisol can be performed only after both pictures have been enhanced usign the best technology and knowledge one can reasonable afford. That one is important because using the best technology and expertise is beyond my means.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that thatīs a fair way of looking at the question - why would you ever work either system to anything less than your best possible level?

Of course it has to be at a subjective level - there`s no other way where anything else makes sense, for you might as well then start comparing 8x10 transparencies with 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 or anything else thatīs around; Olympus with Canon FF etc. etc. (I do have to admit that some here are already doing this, so perhaps the less said the better!)

In the end, unless you have very deep pockets or an ultra friendly dealer who wants to get to know your sister better, you just have to soldier on and make the most of what is.

Enjoy and donīt waste life looking for perfection: itīs an illusion; trust me, Iīm unfortunately old enough to have discovered this.

Rob C
Logged

Digiteyesed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #107 on: October 31, 2007, 03:51:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Getting back to the original question, I'm mainly a digital shooter, although I do enjoy using film when I can afford to. When I'm teaching photography classes and students ask me whether a film or a digital camera is better, I invariably respond that the best camera to own is one that inspires you to get out and make some pictures.

:-)
Logged

Neutral Hills Stills
A visual journey through this unique area of East Central Alberta, Canada.
Slough
Guest
« Reply #108 on: November 01, 2007, 12:29:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Getting back to the original question, I'm mainly a digital shooter, although I do enjoy using film when I can afford to. When I'm teaching photography classes and students ask me whether a film or a digital camera is better, I invariably respond that the best camera to own is one that inspires you to get out and make some pictures.

:-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Wise words. I am sure digital cameras have inspired a whole new generation of brick wall photographers ...

Seriously though, I am sure digital has increased the general enthusiasm for photography.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #109 on: November 01, 2007, 01:35:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Wise words. I am sure digital cameras have inspired a whole new generation of brick wall photographers ...

Seriously though, I am sure digital has increased the general enthusiasm for photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably true, but do the final images get any more of an airing than they did on paper? Hopefully, not!

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad