Digital BW, The Print

I bought my Mamiya 7II and 65mm f4 for about $1000 US less than your
D60...ebay...another problem with digital...if you want the best and the
latest you end up buying new and paying list price...

Robert

On 9/5/02 3:05 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> Ah Yes, the Mamiya 7 II. Probably has the sharpest lenses you can buy in
> medium format.  Too bad they're priced only for the yachting set.
> 
> Jerry
> 
>> Particularly when it comes with an onboard nuclear reactor to power it, has
>> dual 100gb microdrives to store the images, takes my tiny M-mount lenses and
>> only costs the $450 that my Bessa did...wow...then it would be just as good
>> as my current rig with Neopan 100...hee hee...but not my Mamiya 7II.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Does anyone here have input as far as shooting digitally vs. 
scanning transparencies or negatives?  I have heard that you 
can get more latitude with digital.  Also, you don't have to worry 
about the whole scanning process and paying for good drum 
scans if you shoot digitally if the camera is capable enough.  Do 
most people in this group scan trannies or shoot digitally?  What 
level camera do you need to be able to print good 16x20's or 
bigger?  How big can you print with a 6 megapixel Canon 1D, 
D60, D30, or Fuji S2?  I'm curious to see what people are using 
to create their images.  Thanks!

Andy

On 9/4/02 7:18 PM, "akivisuals" <akivisuals@...> wrote:

> Does anyone here have input as far as shooting digitally vs.
> scanning transparencies or negatives?  I have heard that you
> can get more latitude with digital.

This is a frequent source of arguments on this list, but in my experience
shooting 35mm and 6x7cm film and a Nikon D1x 6 megapixel camera I get a
significantly broader latitude with film not digital.  The digital images
are nice for 8x10 BW prints but for larger work I prefer a 4000dpi scanned
negative.  I also find it very difficult to capture high contrast images
with digital...because either the shadows or the hilights are gone.  I've
often thought that you could capture these scenes by bracketing and then
blending the images in photoshop...but that would only work for static
situations.  Overall, I frequently use digital for color work or commercial
BW jobs and then shoot BW film (and sometimes color neg film) for my fine
art work.  One other thing that I find digital useful for are lower contrast
scenes where the lightening is really difficult.  In some cases I will use
the digital as a very expensive light meter...capturing an image...checking
it and then using similar settings on a film camera.

Robert

I would add to Robert's reply (which I 100% agree with) that another
factor is resolution. At 16x20 you will realize that film has
significantly greater resolution to render fine detail than does
digital. I use both film and digital  and for that absolutely killer
image with lots of detail, my weapon of choice is the Mamiya 7II and
Imacon scans of the film.
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: akivisuals [mailto:akivisuals@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:19 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Shooting digital vs. film
 
Does anyone here have input as far as shooting digitally vs. 
scanning transparencies or negatives?  I have heard that you 
can get more latitude with digital.  Also, you don't have to worry 
about the whole scanning process and paying for good drum 
scans if you shoot digitally if the camera is capable enough.  Do 
most people in this group scan trannies or shoot digitally?  What 
level camera do you need to be able to print good 16x20's or 
bigger?  How big can you print with a 6 megapixel Canon 1D, 
D60, D30, or Fuji S2?  I'm curious to see what people are using 
to create their images.  Thanks!

Andy





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT

 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2303158.3720906.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=810373/R=0/*http:/geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>


 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2303158.3720906.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=810373/R=1/*http:/geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

12MP files from the Fuji S2 have been resulting in really nice prints
up to 12x18 for me. That said, the quality is different than film -
there are some ways that I prefer the S2, and other ways that I prefer
Velvia. Certainly it can't compete with medium format yet, but right
now I'm pretty much discontinuing use of 35mm except for wide-angle work.

And definitely, definitely, no question about it, you get more
latitude from film. On the other hand, with digital, if your exposure
isn't dead-on, you find out instantly, so it's easier to fix.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "akivisuals"
<akivisuals@y...> wrote:

> Does anyone here have input as far as shooting digitally vs. 
> scanning transparencies or negatives?  I have heard that you 
> can get more latitude with digital.  Also, you don't have to worry 
> about the whole scanning process and paying for good drum 
> scans if you shoot digitally if the camera is capable enough.  Do 
> most people in this group scan trannies or shoot digitally?  What 
> level camera do you need to be able to print good 16x20's or 
> bigger?  How big can you print with a 6 megapixel Canon 1D, 
> D60, D30, or Fuji S2?  I'm curious to see what people are using 
> to create their images.  Thanks!
> 
> Andy

Charles,

> 12MP files from the Fuji S2

I don't believe you mean 12M PIXELS, perhaps 4M PIXELS...???

Austin

No, the Fuji S2 produces 12 megapixel files (4256 x 2848 @ 16-bit.)
These are similar in file size to 35mm film scans from my Canon 2710
(2700 dpi scanner) and have much, much less grain/noise than my film
scans. 4000dpi scans from high-quality 35mm originals would probably
be better. 

It has a 6.1 megapixel superCCD, which interpolates in-camera RAW
files to 12 megapixel output. In my opinion these interpolated files
are significantly better than upsampling in photoshop, but that's a
point of much debate. 

Check the resolution charts on dpreview.com, the S2 is the current
resolution king amongst "affordable" DSLRs - digital backs for MF of
course blow it out of the water. (Compared to D100 and D60 however, it
has far far greater resolution, though both of these are also
excellent cameras.)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis2pro/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> Charles,
> 
> > 12MP files from the Fuji S2
> 
> I don't believe you mean 12M PIXELS, perhaps 4M PIXELS...???
> 
> Austin

Hi Charles,

No, I was unaware that the S2 actually had a 6M pixel sensor.  Obviously,
I'm not keeping up with the current crop of Fuji digicams.

Thanks for the info!  I use a little 4700 Fuji for my P&S digicam...the
pictures are OK, at best...but fine for the web...which is the purpose of
digicams, IMO ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> No, the Fuji S2 produces 12 megapixel files (4256 x 2848 @ 16-bit.)
> These are similar in file size to 35mm film scans from my Canon 2710
> (2700 dpi scanner) and have much, much less grain/noise than my film
> scans. 4000dpi scans from high-quality 35mm originals would probably
> be better.
>
> It has a 6.1 megapixel superCCD, which interpolates in-camera RAW
> files to 12 megapixel output. In my opinion these interpolated files
> are significantly better than upsampling in photoshop, but that's a
> point of much debate.
>
> Check the resolution charts on dpreview.com, the S2 is the current
> resolution king amongst "affordable" DSLRs - digital backs for MF of
> course blow it out of the water. (Compared to D100 and D60 however, it
> has far far greater resolution, though both of these are also
> excellent cameras.)
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis2pro/
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Charles,
> >
> > > 12MP files from the Fuji S2
> >
> > I don't believe you mean 12M PIXELS, perhaps 4M PIXELS...???
> >
> > Austin

Austin,

Not quite sure what your quibble is about, but the Fuji S2 outputs either
6.17 million pixels ( or 12.1 million pixels (4256x2848) by different
interpolation methods from its 6.49 million sensor CCD. That's halfway now
to my LS4000 scanner which outputs 24 million, so the Fuji is getting there!

The quality is very good from what I've seen. It is better than the Canon
D60 (6 million) and the Nikon D100 (6 million).

The CCD-RAW Fuji files are 12 MB and the Tiffs 35 MB at 12 million pixel
resolution.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>

> Charles,
>
> > 12MP files from the Fuji S2
>
> I don't believe you mean 12M PIXELS, perhaps 4M PIXELS...???

> Austin,
>
> Not quite sure what your quibble is about,

Not "quibbling", there, Bob...I was unaware that the new Fuji used a 6M
sensor, and output interpolated 12M pixel images.

> but the Fuji S2 outputs either
> 6.17 million pixels ( or 12.1 million pixels (4256x2848) by different
> interpolation methods from its 6.49 million sensor CCD. That's halfway now
> to my LS4000 scanner which outputs 24 million, so the Fuji is
> getting there!

Well...remember, the digicams only have %50 of their pixels green, %25 red
and %25 blue...your film scanner has %100 of each color per pixel.

Austin

Charles,

I have seen some astounding prints on 13x19 paper in a couple of print
exchanges and I would agree with you. It is not so much a matter of quality
but of a different feel. At the moment I rather prefer the look I get from
scanned film but I expect that this may change with time and progress.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "charles_bandes" <byronbulb@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:10 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting digital vs. film


> 12MP files from the Fuji S2 have been resulting in really nice prints
> up to 12x18 for me. That said, the quality is different than film -
> there are some ways that I prefer the S2, and other ways that I prefer
> Velvia. Certainly it can't compete with medium format yet, but right
> now I'm pretty much discontinuing use of 35mm except for wide-angle work.
>
> And definitely, definitely, no question about it, you get more
> latitude from film. On the other hand, with digital, if your exposure
> isn't dead-on, you find out instantly, so it's easier to fix.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "akivisuals"
> <akivisuals@y...> wrote:
> > Does anyone here have input as far as shooting digitally vs.
> > scanning transparencies or negatives?  I have heard that you
> > can get more latitude with digital.  Also, you don't have to worry
> > about the whole scanning process and paying for good drum
> > scans if you shoot digitally if the camera is capable enough.  Do
> > most people in this group scan trannies or shoot digitally?  What
> > level camera do you need to be able to print good 16x20's or
> > bigger?  How big can you print with a 6 megapixel Canon 1D,
> > D60, D30, or Fuji S2?  I'm curious to see what people are using
> > to create their images.  Thanks!
> >
> > Andy
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I personaly think that when a D120 is out,shooting 35mm won´t make 
sense anymore.Maybe we're 2 years away from it. Then it will be 
digital for anything up to 11x17 and MF for anything seriously 
larger...

Hi Andy,

I have a D60, and you can print very sharp, highly detailed 13x19 inch
prints from that camera. I imagine the other cameras are about equal to
this camera. 

The Canon 1D only had 4 megapixels, so it wouldn't be quite the equal of
the D60, but it is based on the top of the line Canon camera body,
whereas the D60 is a couple steps down from that body.

Jerry

 How big can you print with a 6 megapixel Canon 1D,

> D60, D30, or Fuji S2?  I'm curious to see what people are using
> to create their images.  Thanks!
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jerry,

> I have a D60, and you can print very sharp, highly detailed 13x19 inch
> prints from that camera.

I agree with very sharp, any image can be made to be very sharp, film or
digital, but I question "highly" detailed at 13x19.  "Quite" detailed,
yes...and I'm sure they look pretty good, but I think you oversell the
ability of these digital cameras to capture "real" image detail.

The D60 has a 3152 x 2068 sensor, and it's an interpolated Bayer pattern
sensor.  Anyway, 2068 along a 13" side gives you only ~160 PPI to the
printer, which is somewhat marginally sufficient.  Whether you "rez" up or
not, rezzing up can't create detail that was not captured by the imaging
device in the first place.

One or two more generations of digicams (probably 16M pixels) and I'll buy
"highly" for a 35mm size digicam on a 13 x 19 ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Yeah, it's all a question of your standards and expectations. 

I must say though that the relative lack of noise and grain from the
digital cameras goes a long way to increasing the final detail level
compared to film. Even 4000 dpi scans from hasselblad negs done at my
portrait lab have _tons_ more noise/grain than I get with the S2. Mind
you, they have a lot more resolution, but a lot of that resolution is
being used to resolve grain patterns, which isn't helpful (imho) in a
final print. 

I'm of the opinion that one can make great 20x24" prints in-darkroom
from 35mm negs - other people tell me that 35mm is not useful past
11x14" - we probably have different standards. The same is probably
true here. I am delighted with the 12x18" prints I have been making
from the S2. I probably wouldn't be happy with them at 30x40" - it's
possible that you would think that my prints are soft or lacking in
detail, but my clients and viewers have been happy, and that's what
matters to me :)

I won't be badmouthing film anytime soon, I really really really miss
doing darkroom work, but the digital stuff just makes more sense for
the moment.

> I agree with very sharp, any image can be made to be very sharp, film or
> digital, but I question "highly" detailed at 13x19.  "Quite" detailed,
> yes...and I'm sure they look pretty good, but I think you oversell the
> ability of these digital cameras to capture "real" image detail.
> 
> The D60 has a 3152 x 2068 sensor, and it's an interpolated Bayer pattern
> sensor.  Anyway, 2068 along a 13" side gives you only ~160 PPI to the
> printer, which is somewhat marginally sufficient.  Whether you "rez"
up or
> not, rezzing up can't create detail that was not captured by the imaging
> device in the first place.
> 
> One or two more generations of digicams (probably 16M pixels) and
I'll buy

> "highly" for a 35mm size digicam on a 13 x 19 ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

For now, and perhaps long-term, we will just have to accept 
differences between digital capture and scanned film. In my 
experience as a first time digital camera user (D100), the results up 
to 12 x 18 print size are at least acceptable from my D-SLR. The 
look, however, is different from film captured images. To me, the 
differences are akin (but not identical) to the differences between 
35 mm and LF systems. Each is capable of compelling photographs, yet 
produce aesthetically different prints. Add to that the 
practicalities, such as portability, ability to be spontaneous (hand-
held), degree of enlargement, depth of focus, on, and on.  So, I do 
not expect my D100 to produce results identical to my film based 35 
mm system. I am hoping it is capable of producing compelling prints; 
and if it has this potential, whether or not I get compelling prints, 
is all up to me - the guy behind the viewfinder.

Best wishes.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "charles_bandes" 
<byronbulb@y...> wrote:
> Yeah, it's all a question of your standards and expectations. 
> 
> I must say though that the relative lack of noise and grain from the
> digital cameras goes a long way to increasing the final detail level
> compared to film. Even 4000 dpi scans from hasselblad negs done at 
my
> portrait lab have _tons_ more noise/grain than I get with the S2. 
Mind
> you, they have a lot more resolution, but a lot of that resolution 
is
> being used to resolve grain patterns, which isn't helpful (imho) in 
a
> final print. 
> 
> I'm of the opinion that one can make great 20x24" prints in-darkroom
> from 35mm negs - other people tell me that 35mm is not useful past
> 11x14" - we probably have different standards. The same is probably
> true here. I am delighted with the 12x18" prints I have been making
> from the S2. I probably wouldn't be happy with them at 30x40" - it's
> possible that you would think that my prints are soft or lacking in
> detail, but my clients and viewers have been happy, and that's what
> matters to me :)
> 
> I won't be badmouthing film anytime soon, I really really really 
miss
> doing darkroom work, but the digital stuff just makes more sense for
> the moment.
> 
> > I agree with very sharp, any image can be made to be very sharp, 
film or
> > digital, but I question "highly" detailed at 13x19.  "Quite" 
detailed,
> > yes...and I'm sure they look pretty good, but I think you 
oversell the
> > ability of these digital cameras to capture "real" image detail.
> > 
> > The D60 has a 3152 x 2068 sensor, and it's an interpolated Bayer 
pattern
> > sensor.  Anyway, 2068 along a 13" side gives you only ~160 PPI to 
the
> > printer, which is somewhat marginally sufficient.  Whether 
you "rez"
> up or
> > not, rezzing up can't create detail that was not captured by the 
imaging

> > device in the first place.
> > 
> > One or two more generations of digicams (probably 16M pixels) and
> I'll buy
> > "highly" for a 35mm size digicam on a 13 x 19 ;-)
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Austin

Austin, I don't want to restart THIS war again. I'm simply delighted
with the quality of my D60, and lets just leave it there.  I use Fred
Miranda's stair step action to get the image up to 13 inches wide at 300
DPI. I do NOT notice any lack of quality whatever when re sizing using
this plug in. Maybe you could measure a loss with one of your hundred
thousand dollar instruments, but to my eyebulbs, there is no loss at
all. No gain either. I'm still at a loss to understand what you mean by
missing detail. I've compared many a photo print to an epson print and
always prefer the epson print.
In fact I'm selling all my other cameras now. for 13x19 prints, none of
them produce better prints than the D60. As good, sure, but no better.
And I just love all the advantages of Digital.

Jerry,

Lets not start another discussion over this, if you want, reply to me
off line.

PS. I'm sure the next generations with 12 Megapixels will satisfy even
you.  Can hardly wait for the D120. 

> > I have a D60, and you can print very sharp, highly detailed 13x19 inch
> > prints from that camera.
> 
> I agree with very sharp, any image can be made to be very sharp, film or
> digital, but I question "highly" detailed at 13x19.  "Quite" detailed,
> yes...and I'm sure they look pretty good, but I think you oversell the
> ability of these digital cameras to capture "real" image detail.
> 
> The D60 has a 3152 x 2068 sensor, and it's an interpolated Bayer pattern
> sensor.  Anyway, 2068 along a 13" side gives you only ~160 PPI to the
> printer, which is somewhat marginally sufficient.  Whether you "rez" up or
> not, rezzing up can't create detail that was not captured by the imaging
> device in the first place.
> 
> One or two more generations of digicams (probably 16M pixels) and I'll buy
> "highly" for a 35mm size digicam on a 13 x 19 ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Jerry,

> I'm simply delighted
> with the quality of my D60, and lets just leave it there.

I KNOW you are simply delighted with your D60!

> I'm still at a loss to understand what you mean by
> missing detail.

Take the same picture with 35mm film camera vs a 35mm digicam, and you will
see that there is far more detail available in the film image than the
digital image.  Of course, that is film, exposure and processing dependant.

> I've compared many a photo print to an epson print and
> always prefer the epson print.

That's a different issue...that's an output issue.  I, too, prefer digital
prints to chemical prints, and my digital prints are sharper and have better
detail...and I had some damn good enlarging lenses too.

> PS. I'm sure the next generations with 12 Megapixels will satisfy even
> you.  Can hardly wait for the D120.

Possibly, but I'm holding out for 16 ;-)  But...I shoot mostly B&W and every
35mm digicam is "that" Bayer pattern color CCD (or the Foveon...anyone
really ever see one yet???), which isn't near as good for B&W as
film...perhaps someone will come up with a straight B&W 35mm body at some
point in time...but I'm not holding my breath.  It's a pretty niche market.

Regards,

Austin

> Possibly, but I'm holding out for 16 ;-)  But...I shoot mostly B&W and
every
> 35mm digicam is "that" Bayer pattern color CCD (or the Foveon...anyone
> really ever see one yet???), which isn't near as good for B&W as
> film...perhaps someone will come up with a straight B&W 35mm body at some
> point in time...but I'm not holding my breath.  It's a pretty niche
market.

Kodak has (or recently had) exactly that; a B&W version of one of their 35mm
bodied digital cameras.

> > Possibly, but I'm holding out for 16 ;-)  But...I shoot mostly B&W and
> every
> > 35mm digicam is "that" Bayer pattern color CCD (or the Foveon...anyone
> > really ever see one yet???), which isn't near as good for B&W as
> > film...perhaps someone will come up with a straight B&W 35mm
> body at some
> > point in time...but I'm not holding my breath.  It's a pretty niche
> market.
>
> Kodak has (or recently had) exactly that; a B&W version of one of
> their 35mm
> bodied digital cameras.

Hi Moreno,

It wasn't 16M pixel if I remember correctly.  The ones I know of are real
BEASTS though...  What model number are you talking about?

Regards,

Austin

One thing I forgot to mention on my original post is the big reason that I'm
still using film...portability.  I shoot prime lenses.  My Voigtlander Bessa
R2 Rangefinder (think Leica M6 here) and four prime lenses fit in a small
bag that I bought for my since traded Nikon N990 digital camera.  The  nikon
had a zoom lens and I had an extra wide angle adapter.  The equivalent
lenses and my D1x and the battery charger...and the laptop...take up the
back seat of the car.  Try to take that on a day hike!...or for that matter
on a shoot chasing a model around an abandoned building. In addition, two
$150 batteries last a day until they need to be charged.  My Bessa will
shoot on two cheap batteries for a year...and in fact will shoot without any
battery if you don't need metering.  Energy consumption, for me, is a huge
limiting factor for digital in terms of practical use.  I can't tell you how
many times I grabbed the D1x and I had lost battery power, and missed the
shot.

Another aspect.

Robert

On 9/5/02 11:16 AM, "shileshcjani" <shilesh.jani@...> wrote:

> For now, and perhaps long-term, we will just have to accept
> differences between digital capture and scanned film. In my
> experience as a first time digital camera user (D100), the results up
> to 12 x 18 print size are at least acceptable from my D-SLR. The
> look, however, is different from film captured images. To me, the
> differences are akin (but not identical) to the differences between
> 35 mm and LF systems. Each is capable of compelling photographs, yet
> produce aesthetically different prints. Add to that the
> practicalities, such as portability, ability to be spontaneous (hand-
> held), degree of enlargement, depth of focus, on, and on.  So, I do
> not expect my D100 to produce results identical to my film based 35
> mm system. I am hoping it is capable of producing compelling prints;
> and if it has this potential, whether or not I get compelling prints,
> is all up to me - the guy behind the viewfinder.
> 
> Best wishes.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "charles_bandes"
> <byronbulb@y...> wrote:
>> Yeah, it's all a question of your standards and expectations.
>> 
>> I must say though that the relative lack of noise and grain from the
>> digital cameras goes a long way to increasing the final detail level
>> compared to film. Even 4000 dpi scans from hasselblad negs done at
> my
>> portrait lab have _tons_ more noise/grain than I get with the S2.
> Mind
>> you, they have a lot more resolution, but a lot of that resolution
> is
>> being used to resolve grain patterns, which isn't helpful (imho) in
> a
>> final print. 
>> 
>> I'm of the opinion that one can make great 20x24" prints in-darkroom
>> from 35mm negs - other people tell me that 35mm is not useful past
>> 11x14" - we probably have different standards. The same is probably
>> true here. I am delighted with the 12x18" prints I have been making
>> from the S2. I probably wouldn't be happy with them at 30x40" - it's
>> possible that you would think that my prints are soft or lacking in
>> detail, but my clients and viewers have been happy, and that's what
>> matters to me :)
>> 
>> I won't be badmouthing film anytime soon, I really really really
> miss
>> doing darkroom work, but the digital stuff just makes more sense for
>> the moment.
>> 
>>> I agree with very sharp, any image can be made to be very sharp,
> film or
>>> digital, but I question "highly" detailed at 13x19.  "Quite"
> detailed,
>>> yes...and I'm sure they look pretty good, but I think you
> oversell the
>>> ability of these digital cameras to capture "real" image detail.
>>> 
>>> The D60 has a 3152 x 2068 sensor, and it's an interpolated Bayer
> pattern
>>> sensor.  Anyway, 2068 along a 13" side gives you only ~160 PPI to
> the
>>> printer, which is somewhat marginally sufficient.  Whether
> you "rez"
>> up or
>>> not, rezzing up can't create detail that was not captured by the
> imaging
>>> device in the first place.
>>> 
>>> One or two more generations of digicams (probably 16M pixels) and
>> I'll buy
>>> "highly" for a 35mm size digicam on a 13 x 19 ;-)
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

>  is the big reason that I'm
> still using film...portability.

Other than the look of scanned film, I heartily agree with this 
argument. Film is an extremely dense storage medium, though not 
without its particular vunerabilities.

Tim


-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

>
>
>Possibly, but I'm holding out for 16 ;-)  But...I shoot mostly B&W and every
>35mm digicam is "that" Bayer pattern color CCD (or the Foveon...anyone
>really ever see one yet???), which isn't near as good for B&W as
>film...perhaps someone will come up with a straight B&W 35mm body at some
>point in time...but I'm not holding my breath.  It's a pretty niche market.
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin
>

Austin, there is a straight B&W digital body from Kodak, called the 
DCS 760M. 6 megapixel, 12 bit, single channel monochrome data 
capture. Claimed to produce the sharpest images from a handheld 
digital camera. About 11K though, more then the DCS 760 which has a 
color sensor and way out of my price range. It IS a niche camera.

mike

On 9/5/02 11:23 AM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> PS. I'm sure the next generations with 12 Megapixels will satisfy even
> you.  Can hardly wait for the D120.

Particularly when it comes with an onboard nuclear reactor to power it, has
dual 100gb microdrives to store the images, takes my tiny M-mount lenses and
only costs the $450 that my Bessa did...wow...then it would be just as good
as my current rig with Neopan 100...hee hee...but not my Mamiya 7II.


:-)

Robert

A Sinar back that fits the 6x4.5 MF cameras is announced at DPreview,
22 million pixels, 1.5 x 2 inch CCD:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp

Ernst

Jerry writes:

> I'm simply delighted with the quality of my
> D60, and lets just leave it there.  I use Fred
> Miranda's stair step action to get the image
> up to 13 inches wide at 300 DPI. I do NOT notice
> any lack of quality whatever when re sizing using
> this plug in.

That explains why you are delighted with the D60.  Some people don't care
much about resolution, and if one isn't concerned with resolution, then
digital is just fine.  The widespread success of digital implies that a lot
of people don't care about resolution.

> I've compared many a photo print to an epson print
> and always prefer the epson print.

Photo prints vs. Epson prints has absolutely nothing to do with film vs.
digital.  You can print film via any one of a number of means, including
photo and Epson prints; and you can do the same with images from a digital
camera.  And there is no such thing as a "digital print"; all prints are
analog prints, because all printing methods are analog (and always will be).

> In fact I'm selling all my other cameras now.

Your loss will be someone else's gain.

> for 13x19 prints, none of them produce better
> prints than the D60.

Again, if resolution doesn't matter to you, you don't need film.

> PS. I'm sure the next generations with 12
> Megapixels will satisfy even you.

I sometimes fret over the detail I am losing in 80 megapixel scans.

Charles writes:

> I must say though that the relative lack of
> noise and grain from the digital cameras goes
> a long way to increasing the final detail level
> compared to film.

Resolution isn't quite the same as grain or noise.  Film provides more
detail, even though the noise level is higher.  The fact that a sky looks
glassy smooth in digital doesn't mean that it has more detail; indeed, the
lack of noise makes individual pixels less obvious, and so you don't notice
that there are considerably fewer pixels.

> Even 4000 dpi scans from hasselblad negs done at my
> portrait lab have _tons_ more noise/grain than I
> get with the S2.

Stop shooting Tri-X.  I get great scans on MF with films like Provia, and
there is no grain.

In fact, when directly comparing MF film scans even to a Kodak ProBack or
PhaseOne back, film wins for detail.

Additionally, if you look closely at digital shots, the colors are smeared.
This is a consequence of using just one CCD and there is no way to prevent
or correct it as long as a mosaic filter is being used over the sensor.
Film has about three times the color resolution of digital, all else being
equal.

> Mind you, they have a lot more resolution, but
> a lot of that resolution is being used to resolve
> grain patterns, which isn't helpful (imho) in a
> final print.

Only a small portion of resolution goes to resolving grain.  There is more
detail as well.

> I'm of the opinion that one can make great 20x24"
> prints in-darkroom from 35mm negs - other people
> tell me that 35mm is not useful past 11x14" - we
> probably have different standards.

It's pointless to discuss print sizes without specifying viewing distances.

For any print viewed from the "standard" viewing distance (equal to the
diagonal of the print), 35mm film has several times more detail than is
really necessary, and any 6-megapixel digicam has just about all the detail
that the human eye can distinguish.  Obviously, MF and LF are many times
beyond both of these.

> I won't be badmouthing film anytime soon, I really
> really really miss doing darkroom work, but the
> digital stuff just makes more sense for the moment.

The best results quality-wise come from scanned film, particularly scanned
MF or LF film.

Bob writes:

> That's halfway now to my LS4000 scanner which
> outputs 24 million, so the Fuji is getting there!

No, the LS4000 produces about four times more resolution than the Fuji for
luminance, and about twelve times more resolution for color.

> The CCD-RAW Fuji files are 12 MB and the Tiffs
> 35 MB at 12 million pixel resolution.

There's an awful lot missing, then, since an LS4000 will produce 112 MB
scans, and the equivalent at the Fuji resolution of 6.49 mp should be at
least 35 MB (and 70 MB at 12 mp resolution).

Charles writes:

> It has a 6.1 megapixel superCCD, which interpolates
> in-camera RAW files to 12 megapixel output.

In other words, it produces 6.1-megapixel output, and 5.9 megapixels of
marketing propaganda.

Ah Yes, the Mamiya 7 II. Probably has the sharpest lenses you can buy in
medium format.  Too bad they're priced only for the yachting set.

Jerry

> Particularly when it comes with an onboard nuclear reactor to power it, has
> dual 100gb microdrives to store the images, takes my tiny M-mount lenses and
> only costs the $450 that my Bessa did...wow...then it would be just as good
> as my current rig with Neopan 100...hee hee...but not my Mamiya 7II.
>

Anthony, I don't know how else to say it. My 13x19 inch epson prints are
sharper than you could get in the darkroom with Provia film. I've made
direct comparisons. The epson print is simply sharper. I see no lack of
detail in the prints. I don't know what else to say. They are SHARP! !!!

And I certainly DO care about resolution. It is my number one thing to care
about.


Jerry

>> I'm simply delighted with the quality of my
>> D60, and lets just leave it there.  I use Fred
>> Miranda's stair step action to get the image
>> up to 13 inches wide at 300 DPI. I do NOT notice
>> any lack of quality whatever when re sizing using
>> this plug in.
> 
> That explains why you are delighted with the D60.  Some people don't care
> much about resolution, and if one isn't concerned with resolution, then
> digital is just fine.  The widespread success of digital implies that a lot
> of people don't care about resolution.
> 
>> I've compared many a photo print to an epson print
>> and always prefer the epson print.
> 
> Photo prints vs. Epson prints has absolutely nothing to do with film vs.
> digital.  You can print film via any one of a number of means, including
> photo and Epson prints; and you can do the same with images from a digital
> camera.  And there is no such thing as a "digital print"; all prints are
> analog prints, because all printing methods are analog (and always will be).
> 
>> In fact I'm selling all my other cameras now.
> 
> Your loss will be someone else's gain.
> 
>> for 13x19 prints, none of them produce better
>> prints than the D60.
> 
> Again, if resolution doesn't matter to you, you don't need film.
> 
>> PS. I'm sure the next generations with 12
>> Megapixels will satisfy even you.
> 
> I sometimes fret over the detail I am losing in 80 megapixel scans.
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

> Anthony, I don't know how else to say it. My 13x19 inch epson prints are
> sharper than you could get in the darkroom with Provia film. I've made
> direct comparisons. The epson print is simply sharper. I see no lack of
> detail in the prints. I don't know what else to say. They are SHARP! !!!
>
> And I certainly DO care about resolution. It is my number one
> thing to care
> about.

Jerry,

Sharp and resolution are two entirely different things.  I really think you
don't understand that.  A two pixel camera with only black or white for each
of the two pixels could be the sharpest camera you could possibly get, but
it has absolutely no resolution at all.

Austin

> > Even 4000 dpi scans from hasselblad negs done at my
> > portrait lab have _tons_ more noise/grain than I
> > get with the S2.
>
> Stop shooting Tri-X.

Hi Anthony,

Tri-X is not the problem.  Yes, it has more grain than a 100 speed film, but
people who shoot Tri-X do so FOR the look of THAT film.

Austin

I know, Austin.



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > Anthony, I don't know how else to say it. My 13x19 inch epson prints are
> > sharper than you could get in the darkroom with Provia film. I've made
> > direct comparisons. The epson print is simply sharper. I see no lack of
> > detail in the prints. I don't know what else to say. They are SHARP! !!!
>

Robert writes:

> Energy consumption, for me, is a huge limiting
> factor for digital in terms of practical use.
> I can't tell you how many times I grabbed the D1x
> and I had lost battery power, and missed the
> shot.

At least for the foreseeable future, it will only get worse.  Batteries are
an extremely serious problem for all sorts of portable devices, but
especially digital cameras, which consume enormous amounts of power.  And
they will consume even more as they increase in resolution.  And currently
there are no promising new technologies on the horizon for packing more
power into batteries.  It's probably good that there are not, in a sense,
because batteries already contain enough juice to serve as very effective
bombs--only internal resistance prevents them from being much more dangerous
(and lithium single-use batteries and some others have low internal
resistance, which means they require built-in overcurrent protection so that
they do not explode when short-circuited or too deeply discharged ... yes,
it has happened).

Jerry writes:

> Anthony, I don't know how else to say it. My 13x19
> inch epson prints are sharper than you could get
> in the darkroom with Provia film. I've made
> direct comparisons.

Because you say so?

I've made direct comparisons, too.  Digital loses.  I compare them at 600%
magnification on a large screen, and the differences become obvious.  If
they look better to you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that they are
actually sharper; it is a mathematical inevitability that they will be less
sharp.

> The epson print is simply sharper. I see no lack of
> detail in the prints. I don't know what else to say.
> They are SHARP! !!!

Yelling it doesn't make it any more true.

> And I certainly DO care about resolution. It is my
> number one thing to care about.

There there is some sort of conflict here.  Either you do not care about
resolution, or you have not examined the difference between digital and film
carefully enough to see that film has better resolution.

Austin writes:

> Tri-X is not the problem.  Yes, it has more
> grain than a 100 speed film, but people who
> shoot Tri-X do so FOR the look of THAT film.

Obviously, but anyone complaining about grain in scans from a Hasselblad
must be using grainy film, because it disappears with fine-grained films.

On 9/6/02 1:19 AM, "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...> wrote:

> Austin writes:
> 
>> Tri-X is not the problem.  Yes, it has more
>> grain than a 100 speed film, but people who
>> shoot Tri-X do so FOR the look of THAT film.
> 
> Obviously, but anyone complaining about grain in scans from a Hasselblad
> must be using grainy film, because it disappears with fine-grained films.
> 
Or the wrong developer.

Robert

Robert writes:

> Or the wrong developer.

Quite so.  But even Tri-X (actually TXP, which isn't quite the same thing)
has very unobtrusive grain at MF sizes.  No need to mention Technical Pan.
Velvia is impressive and Provia even more so.  Portra 400BW is also
virtually grain free--a kind of inexpensive and convenient substitute for
Tech Pan, if you don't need the absolute ultimate of the latter.  Portra
400BW and Tech Pan are pretty much grain free even in 35mm; Provia 100F is
nearly so.

> > Tri-X is not the problem.  Yes, it has more
> > grain than a 100 speed film, but people who
> > shoot Tri-X do so FOR the look of THAT film.
>
> Obviously, but anyone complaining about grain in scans from a Hasselblad
> must be using grainy film, because it disappears with fine-grained films.

Hi Anthony,

As has been said, the wrong developer.  Development with Tri-X is critical,
and the range of results one can get with different developers/techniques is
quite substantial.

Austin

> Obviously, but anyone complaining about grain in scans from a Hasselblad
> must be using grainy film, because it disappears with fine-grained
films.

I shoot color mostly.

I see lots and lots of grain in 4000dpi scans of both Portra 400 and
160. I'm definitely willing to believe that there are films out there
with less grain - but for the film I use it seems that 2700 dpi scans
are preferable, since the grain doesn't present itself nearly as badly
at lower resolutions.

You bought a Mamiya 7II AND a 65mm lens for a thousand dollars?  In
decent condition? That's a fantastic price. Some people have all the
luck...  Wonder why it was so inexpensive!

Jerry

Robert Morrison wrote:

> 
> I bought my Mamiya 7II and 65mm f4 for about $1000 US less than your
> D60...ebay...another problem with digital...if you want the best and the
> latest you end up buying new and paying list price...
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 9/5/02 3:05 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> 
> > Ah Yes, the Mamiya 7 II. Probably has the sharpest lenses you can buy in
> > medium format.  Too bad they're priced only for the yachting set.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >> Particularly when it comes with an onboard nuclear reactor to power it, has
> >> dual 100gb microdrives to store the images, takes my tiny M-mount lenses and
> >> only costs the $450 that my Bessa did...wow...then it would be just as good
> >> as my current rig with Neopan 100...hee hee...but not my Mamiya 7II.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> > page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> I see lots and lots of grain in 4000dpi scans of both Portra 400 and
> 160. I'm definitely willing to believe that there are films out there
> with less grain - but for the film I use it seems that 2700 dpi scans
> are preferable, since the grain doesn't present itself nearly as badly
> at lower resolutions.

Charles?

What scanner are you using?

Austin

Anthony, a LOT of people say so.

> > Anthony, I don't know how else to say it. My 13x19
> > inch epson prints are sharper than you could get
> > in the darkroom with Provia film. I've made
> > direct comparisons.
> 
> Because you say so?

Of course I say so. That's what I see.  Lots of people think Digital is
sharper than darkroom prints.  I couldn't tell you how many times I've
read this in articles on digital photography. It certainly is not just
me that thinks so!
> 
> I've made direct comparisons, too.  Digital loses.  I compare them at 600%
> magnification on a large screen, and the differences become obvious.  If
> they look better to you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that they are
> actually sharper; it is a mathematical inevitability that they will be less
> sharp.

Who cares at 600%? I'm talking side by side comparison. in person. right
in front of you. Not magnified 600 percent!

> > And I certainly DO care about resolution. It is my
> > number one thing to care about.
> 
> There there is some sort of conflict here.  Either you do not care about
> resolution, or you have not examined the difference between digital and film
> carefully enough to see that film has better resolution.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Jerry

$1500...mint...I'm a good bidder...and there were several up at the same
time.

Robert

On 9/6/02 9:24 AM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> You bought a Mamiya 7II AND a 65mm lens for a thousand dollars?  In
> decent condition? That's a fantastic price. Some people have all the
> luck...  Wonder why it was so inexpensive!
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Robert Morrison wrote:
>> 
>> I bought my Mamiya 7II and 65mm f4 for about $1000 US less than your
>> D60...ebay...another problem with digital...if you want the best and the
>> latest you end up buying new and paying list price...
>> 
>> Robert
>> 
>> On 9/5/02 3:05 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ah Yes, the Mamiya 7 II. Probably has the sharpest lenses you can buy in
>>> medium format.  Too bad they're priced only for the yachting set.
>>> 
>>> Jerry
>>> 
>>>> Particularly when it comes with an onboard nuclear reactor to power it, has
>>>> dual 100gb microdrives to store the images, takes my tiny M-mount lenses
>>>> and
>>>> only costs the $450 that my Bessa did...wow...then it would be just as good
>>>> as my current rig with Neopan 100...hee hee...but not my Mamiya 7II.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>>> other
>>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>> 
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>> 
>>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>>> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>>> page.
>>> 
>>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>> - Include your full name with your message.
>>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>>> them short.
>>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>>> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>>> resources on the homepage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>> page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

On 9/6/02 9:30 AM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

>> I've made direct comparisons, too.  Digital loses.  I compare them at 600%
>> magnification on a large screen, and the differences become obvious.  If
>> they look better to you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that they are
>> actually sharper; it is a mathematical inevitability that they will be less
>> sharp.
> 
> Who cares at 600%? I'm talking side by side comparison. in person. right
> in front of you. Not magnified 600 percent!

The problem is, Jerry, you are then letting output get in the way of judging
the actual file.  Also, depending on your output size 600 percent (6x loupe)
may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only 72dpi.
Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who thinks
digital shooting is better than film...with respect to detail/resolution.  I
know people who definitely like to shoot digital better because of the
convenience (this is sometimes me depending on the application)...but we
know that we aren't getting the same amount of information and that our
options will be limited.  Now, as Austin has said, digital output is another
story...particularly when you get larger than about 11x14...I agree the
prints are sharper.

Robert

Honestly I don't know what scanner is being used for the MF stuff -
that is done at my lab. I think they use a Nikon 8000, but I may be
mistaken.

I have never been so happy with their results, the grain issue is
hideous at 4000dpi. (Mind you, that's at 100 percent magnification,
which means I am seeing things that wouldn't have even been resolved
at all if scanned at 2700dpi)

At home for 35mm I use a canon 2710, which has much more satisfactory
results grain-wise imho - tho it is still _way_ noisier (also sharper)
than my digital shots. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> > I see lots and lots of grain in 4000dpi scans of both Portra 400 and
> > 160. I'm definitely willing to believe that there are films out there
> > with less grain - but for the film I use it seems that 2700 dpi scans
> > are preferable, since the grain doesn't present itself nearly as badly
> > at lower resolutions.
> 
> Charles?
> 
> What scanner are you using?
> 
> Austin

> > Who cares at 600%? I'm talking side by side comparison. in 
person. right
> > in front of you. Not magnified 600 percent!

It does matter to be honest. If you're shooting Leica or Contax, that 
600% resolution adds a lot to the snap and shadow detail in a 
photograph particularly B and W. If you're shooting Nikon or Canon, 
the lens resolution isn't as good as that of Leica or Contax (with 
the exception of a few Canon lenses such as the 50mm f1.4) so it 
isn't going to show up the final print. I had some Portra film put 
into my R4 and blown up 8 by 10 inches and I am happy with it. Of 
course I'm also happy with my 1 megapixel 8 by 10 inch prints which 
are improved up in Photoshop and the Epson printer too but for 
different reasons.

Perhaps a Minilux would do the trick? (thoughts of a 6 MP Minilux 
dancing around)...
> 
> The problem is, Jerry, you are then letting output get in the way 
of judging
> the actual file. 

Actually that's the only thing that counts. I've been lousy prints 
done from Leica/Contax shots. People in a gallery are going to judge 
you on whether you walk the walk but not talk the talk.

 Also, depending on your output size 600 percent (6x loupe)
> may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only 
72dpi.

The monitor is the lousiest way to judge your final print. You have 
to print it out on a real printer to judge whether you did a good job 
or not.

> Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who 
thinks
> digital shooting is better than film...with respect to 
detail/resolution.  

Actually I know a lot of people who do BW work that like digital 
shooting better. Some of them are PJ's as well but it's the perceived 
detail/resolution and not the actual detail/resolution which the 
average viewer is going to look for.

application)...but we
> know that we aren't getting the same amount of information and that 
our
> options will be limited.  

Agreed. Scanning film is still superior to shooting digital. However, 
digital shooting in street photography is glorious experience by far 
but it doesn't beat a Leica M6/M7 yet :) IMHO!

> story...particularly when you get larger than about 11x14...I agree 
the
> prints are sharper.
> 
And also when you're shooting Leica or Contax equipment. Using Nikon 
or Canon zoom lenses isn't going to be mean too much relative to 
primes. What equipment you use does matter there in terms of final 
resolution. Those lenses approach MF quality especially when you're 
getting up to 11 by 14 and beyond. I'm willing to bet that a Leica M6 
plus Hexanon-M will win over the Canon EOS D-60 plus 28-135 zoom any 
day :> even at smaller sizes like 8 by 10's.

Alf

Hi Charles,

It probably is a Nikon, as I believe they are known for revealing grain from
B&W more so than other scanners, because of the point light sources they use
(LEDs).

Austin

> Honestly I don't know what scanner is being used for the MF stuff -
> that is done at my lab. I think they use a Nikon 8000, but I may be
> mistaken.
>
> I have never been so happy with their results, the grain issue is
> hideous at 4000dpi. (Mind you, that's at 100 percent magnification,
> which means I am seeing things that wouldn't have even been resolved
> at all if scanned at 2700dpi)
>
> At home for 35mm I use a canon 2710, which has much more satisfactory
> results grain-wise imho - tho it is still _way_ noisier (also sharper)
> than my digital shots.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > I see lots and lots of grain in 4000dpi scans of both Portra 400 and
> > > 160. I'm definitely willing to believe that there are films out there
> > > with less grain - but for the film I use it seems that 2700 dpi scans
> > > are preferable, since the grain doesn't present itself nearly as badly
> > > at lower resolutions.
> >
> > Charles?
> >
> > What scanner are you using?
> >
> > Austin

> It probably is a Nikon, as I believe they are known for revealing grain
from
> B&W more so than other scanners, because of the point light sources they
use
> (LEDs).

Hate to blow a hole in your theory, but even though the 8000 uses LED's, the
light source is diffuse. The grain is comparable to the Polaroid scanner,
which also has a diffuse light source.

The Minolta, on the other hand, also has a diffuse light source, but has a
severe grain problem on neg scans, while slide scans are quite decent.

Hi Moreno,

> > It probably is a Nikon, as I believe they are known for revealing grain
> from
> > B&W more so than other scanners, because of the point light sources they
> use
> > (LEDs).
>
> Hate to blow

Ah, blow all you like ;-)

> ...a hole in your theory, but even though the 8000 uses
> LED's, the
> light source is diffuse.

Well, I'd argue that it's really diffuse...it's still point light...simply
putting a diffuser over a point light source doesn't make it a diffuse light
source in the traditional sense, like a cold light...does it?

> The grain is comparable to the Polaroid scanner,
> which also has a diffuse light source.
>
> The Minolta, on the other hand, also has a diffuse light source, but has a
> severe grain problem on neg scans, while slide scans are quite decent.

How do you explain that?

Regards,

Austin

On 9/6/02 11:20 AM, "wangalb" <leica_phile@...> wrote:

>> The problem is, Jerry, you are then letting output get in the way
>> of judging
>> the actual file.
> 
> Actually that's the only thing that counts. I've been lousy prints
> done from Leica/Contax shots. People in a gallery are going to judge
> you on whether you walk the walk but not talk the talk.

Both things count...if you want flexibility.  I find it easier to judge 8x10
proofs and hi rez monitor views...together this gives me a good idea of what
prints are going to look like large.  Judging just a small proof alone
doesn't give me the whole story.

> Also, depending on your output size 600 percent (6x loupe)
>> may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only
> 72dpi.
> 
> The monitor is the lousiest way to judge your final print. You have
> to print it out on a real printer to judge whether you did a good job
> or not.

I disagree...as stated above.

>> Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who
>>  thinks
>> digital shooting is better than film...with respect to
>> detail/resolution.


> Actually I know a lot of people who do BW work that like digital
> shooting better. 

Yeah, but they are wrong, ha ha.

> Some of them are PJ's as well but it's the perceived
> detail/resolution and not the actual detail/resolution which the
> average viewer is going to look for.
> 
> application)...but we


For PJ digital rocks...no contest...but its about making sure you have the
shot and getting it out fast...that's why it wins...not image quality.  I'm
not sure what perceived detail/resolution means.  All I know is that when I
look at a 35mm 6mp digital file blown up to 24x36 it is no contest in any
respect to a 35mm neg.  Personally I find the same thing for anything 16x20
or above.  Depends on the image for 11x14...sometimes the digital files are
equal.  For 8x10 it is often a tie.

>> know that we aren't getting the same amount of information and that
> our
>> options will be limited.
> 
> Agreed. Scanning film is still superior to shooting digital. However,
> digital shooting in street photography is glorious experience by far
> but it doesn't beat a Leica M6/M7 yet :) IMHO!

The biggest problem for digital in street photography is the clunky, loud,
and power hungry SLR's and the lack of good lens options and pixels for the
small cameras.

>> story...particularly when you get larger than about 11x14...I agree
> the
>> prints are sharper.
>> 
> And also when you're shooting Leica or Contax equipment. Using Nikon
> or Canon zoom lenses isn't going to be mean too much relative to
> primes. 

It does for me...speed of lenses.

> What equipment you use does matter there in terms of final
> resolution. Those lenses approach MF quality especially when you're
> getting up to 11 by 14 and beyond.

A 6x7 neg with a decent camera blows away 35mm even with good lenses...when
you are going large...its simply a 4 times larger neg.

> I'm willing to bet that a Leica M6
> plus Hexanon-M will win over the Canon EOS D-60 plus 28-135 zoom any
> day :> even at smaller sizes like 8 by 10's.

Absolutely!

Robert

At 02:10 PM 9/6/2002, Robert wrote:
>The biggest problem for digital in street photography is the clunky, loud,
>and power hungry SLR's and the lack of good lens options and pixels for the
>small cameras.

Not to mention the unpredictability of the actual shutter release. My Nikon 
Coolpix 800 takes a picture whenever it feels like it after you press the 
shutter. Do the digital SLRs have more immediate shutter response? For 
street photography I use an old, unpretentious looking Yashica rangefinder.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

> > ...a hole in your theory, but even though the 8000 uses
> > LED's, the
> > light source is diffuse.
>
> Well, I'd argue that it's really diffuse...

Well, I'd argue that once you diffuse a light source, you have a diffused
light source.

> it's still point light...simply
> putting a diffuser over a point light source doesn't make it a diffuse
light
> source in the traditional sense, like a cold light...does it?

If you're talking about enlarger light sources, most of the diffuse light
sources use tungsten, not fluorescent illumination. I'd consider a cold
light more esoteric than traditional.

> > The grain is comparable to the Polaroid scanner,
> > which also has a diffuse light source.
> >
> > The Minolta, on the other hand, also has a diffuse light source, but has
a
> > severe grain problem on neg scans, while slide scans are quite decent.
>
> How do you explain that?

I don't, although I'd guess it's an aliasing issue. Perhaps only Minolta
knows what's going on (but then again, maybe not).

Robert,

> The biggest problem for digital in street photography is the
> ... loud ... SLR's...

LOUD?  How is a digital camera LOUD?  What do you do to your poor digital
camera to make it LOUD ;-)

Austin

Mine makes a fake shutter sound to let me know it's working. :-)

-Jason

> LOUD?  How is a digital camera LOUD?  What do you do to your poor digital
> camera to make it LOUD ;-)
> 
> Austin

Stan McQueen wrote:

>At 02:10 PM 9/6/2002, Robert wrote:
>  
>
>>The biggest problem for digital in street photography is the clunky, loud,
>>and power hungry SLR's and the lack of good lens options and pixels for the
>>small cameras.
>>    
>>
>
>Not to mention the unpredictability of the actual shutter release. My Nikon 
>Coolpix 800 takes a picture whenever it feels like it after you press the 
>shutter. Do the digital SLRs have more immediate shutter response? 
>

Simple answer is yes...

The Olympus E10, E20, and E100RS; the Nikon Ds and D100; the Canon 1D,  
D30 and D60; and the current Kodak DCS series   all have much quicker 
shutter releases..  That said, "quicker" is NOT as fast as comparable 
film  cameras..  Quicker means that they are now in the range of an old 
Nikon F4  (if I recall the numbers they were in the 40 to 75 
milliseconds range).. That's MUCH better, and sufficient for general 
photography, BUT, still not great for sports work..



Keith



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yeah, and I bet it makes a fake motor drive wind sound too, right?

Austin

> Mine makes a fake shutter sound to let me know it's working. :-)
> 
> -Jason
> 
> > LOUD?  How is a digital camera LOUD?  What do you do to your 
> poor digital
> > camera to make it LOUD ;-)
> > 
> > Austin

I couldn't afford that model.

-Jason

> Yeah, and I bet it makes a fake motor drive wind sound too, right?
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
>>Mine makes a fake shutter sound to let me know it's working. :-)
>>
>>-Jason
>>
>>
>>>LOUD?  How is a digital camera LOUD?  What do you do to your 
>>
>>poor digital
>>
>>>camera to make it LOUD ;-)
>>>
>>>Austin

On 9/6/02 2:08 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> How is a digital camera LOUD?

Mirror flip up. Digital SLR, Austin.  Sound is one of the best things about
the consumer digitals...but they don't cut it on image quality and lens
flexibility/speed.

Robert

Jerry writes:

> Of course I say so. That's what I see.  Lots of
> people think Digital is sharper than darkroom
> prints.  I couldn't tell you how many times I've
> read this in articles on digital photography. It
> certainly is not just me that thinks so!

It's important not to mistake subjective impressions for objective
realities.  Digital photographs often create the impression of better
sharpness, but in fact they have lower resolution than film.

> Who cares at 600%? I'm talking side by side
> comparison. in person. right in front of you.
> Not magnified 600 percent!

The magnification aids in overcoming flaws in subjective perception.

Charles writes:

> I have never been so happy with their results,
> the grain issue is hideous at 4000dpi.

I can barely see grain at all in the 4000 dpi scan of Portra 160 that I have
in front of me right now.

> Mind you, that's at 100 percent magnification,
> which means I am seeing things that wouldn't
> have even been resolved at all if scanned at 2700dpi

Try downsampling the scan so that it has the same resolution as a digital
photo, and see how much grain you notice then.

> > How is a digital camera LOUD?
>
> Mirror flip up. Digital SLR, Austin.  Sound is one of the best
> things about
> the consumer digitals...but they don't cut it on image quality and lens
> flexibility/speed.
>
> Robert


Robert,

Why is the mirror "flip up" on a digital SLR any more loud than on a film
SLR???

Austin

Austin writes:

> ...simply putting a diffuser over a point light
> source doesn't make it a diffuse light source
> in the traditional sense, like a cold light...
> does it?

Yes, it does.  Why wouldn't it?

On 9/6/02 3:06 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

>>> How is a digital camera LOUD?
>> 
>> Mirror flip up. Digital SLR, Austin.  Sound is one of the best
>> things about
>> the consumer digitals...but they don't cut it on image quality and lens
>> flexibility/speed.
>> 
>> Robert
> 
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Why is the mirror "flip up" on a digital SLR any more loud than on a film
> SLR???
> 
> Austin

Its not...my D1x sounds just like my F100...but I would never use my F100
for street photography...I'd use one of my Rangefinders with no mirror and
almost silent shutter...and much smaller less obtrusive size.  If someone
made a six megapixel camera the size of a Leica, that took microdrives,  and
M-mount lenses ...I bet they would get some street
photographers...alas...some day.

Robert

> If someone made a six megapixel camera the size 
> of a Leica, that took microdrives,  and
> M-mount lenses ...I bet they would get some street
> photographers...alas...some day.

Oh, man, my dream camera.  I'd love to be able to get direct digital 
capture through my summiluxes.  I'm sick of scanning!

Alas, Erwin Puts has offered some pretty compelling reasons why we'll 
never see a digital Leica M.  It's all too technical for my feeble 
mind to comprehend, but I trust he knows what he's talking about.  
We're much more likely to see a digital R from Leica--if we ever see 
a digital body at all.

Dan

Humbug!  Bah!
Digital Rules!  .

Jer


> The problem is, Jerry, you are then letting output get in the way of judging
> the actual file.  

Well, of course, the output is what I'm talking about. I'm NOT talking
about huge prints here, just 13x19 Max.

Also, depending on your output size 600 percent (6x loupe)
> may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only 72dpi.
> Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who thinks
> digital shooting is better than film...with respect to detail/resolution.  

You've GOT to be kidding!

Me

Wangalb,

Leica and Contax lenses once were the best in the world. That's no
longer true. Today, several lenses can and do produce sharper images
than Leitz. The Canon 3.5 Macro lens was judged by popular photography
to be the sharpest lens they ever tested. It recieved their A+ rating at
16x24 inches. I own the lens, and I have had many leica and contax
lenses in my photo career. This Canon macro lens is indeed the sharpest
lens I have ever owned for 35mm Photography. The second best was the
Leitz Elmarit 90mm. It beat out the 90mm Summicron, and I was very
surprised at that! Today, most pro lenses are so close to each other in
quality, that for all practical purposes I don't think it really makes
much of a difference which brand you own.  But 30 years ago, it was
Leica and Contax, no doubt. I cannot imagine any current pro lens that
couldn't make an incredibly sharp 11x14" print. And my D60 can certainly
equal any of these cameras at 11x14 inches.

Jerry

wangalb wrote:

> 
> > > Who cares at 600%? I'm talking side by side comparison. in
> person. right
> > > in front of you. Not magnified 600 percent!
> 
> It does matter to be honest. If you're shooting Leica or Contax, that
> 600% resolution adds a lot to the snap and shadow detail in a
> photograph particularly B and W. If you're shooting Nikon or Canon,
> the lens resolution isn't as good as that of Leica or Contax (with
> the exception of a few Canon lenses such as the 50mm f1.4) so it
> isn't going to show up the final print. I had some Portra film put
> into my R4 and blown up 8 by 10 inches and I am happy with it. Of
> course I'm also happy with my 1 megapixel 8 by 10 inch prints which
> are improved up in Photoshop and the Epson printer too but for
> different reasons.
> 
> Perhaps a Minilux would do the trick? (thoughts of a 6 MP Minilux
> dancing around)...
> >
> > The problem is, Jerry, you are then letting output get in the way
> of judging
> > the actual file.
> 
> Actually that's the only thing that counts. I've been lousy prints
> done from Leica/Contax shots. People in a gallery are going to judge
> you on whether you walk the walk but not talk the talk.
> 
>  Also, depending on your output size 600 percent (6x loupe)
> > may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only
> 72dpi.
> 
> The monitor is the lousiest way to judge your final print. You have
> to print it out on a real printer to judge whether you did a good job
> or not.
> 
> > Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who
> thinks
> > digital shooting is better than film...with respect to
> detail/resolution.
> 
> Actually I know a lot of people who do BW work that like digital
> shooting better. Some of them are PJ's as well but it's the perceived
> detail/resolution and not the actual detail/resolution which the
> average viewer is going to look for.
> 
> application)...but we
> > know that we aren't getting the same amount of information and that
> our
> > options will be limited.
> 
> Agreed. Scanning film is still superior to shooting digital. However,
> digital shooting in street photography is glorious experience by far
> but it doesn't beat a Leica M6/M7 yet :) IMHO!
> 
> > story...particularly when you get larger than about 11x14...I agree
> the
> > prints are sharper.
> >
> And also when you're shooting Leica or Contax equipment. Using Nikon
> or Canon zoom lenses isn't going to be mean too much relative to
> primes. What equipment you use does matter there in terms of final
> resolution. Those lenses approach MF quality especially when you're
> getting up to 11 by 14 and beyond. I'm willing to bet that a Leica M6
> plus Hexanon-M will win over the Canon EOS D-60 plus 28-135 zoom any
> day :> even at smaller sizes like 8 by 10's.
> 
> Alf
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

on 9/6/2002 2:13 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 18
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:00:45 -0700
> From: "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Shooting digital vs. film
> 
>> It probably is a Nikon, as I believe they are known for revealing grain
> from
>> B&W more so than other scanners, because of the point light sources they
> use
>> (LEDs).
> 
> Hate to blow a hole in your theory, but even though the 8000 uses LED's, the
> light source is diffuse. The grain is comparable to the Polaroid scanner,
> which also has a diffuse light source.
> 
> The Minolta, on the other hand, also has a diffuse light source, but has a
> severe grain problem on neg scans, while slide scans are quite decent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Message: 19
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:04:25 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: Shooting digital vs. film
> 
> Hi Moreno,
> 
>>> It probably is a Nikon, as I believe they are known for revealing grain
>> from
>>> B&W more so than other scanners, because of the point light sources they
>> use
>>> (LEDs).
>> 
>> Hate to blow
> 
> Ah, blow all you like ;-)
> 
>> ...a hole in your theory, but even though the 8000 uses
>> LED's, the
>> light source is diffuse.
> 
> Well, I'd argue that it's really diffuse...it's still point light...simply
> putting a diffuser over a point light source doesn't make it a diffuse light
> source in the traditional sense, like a cold light...does it?

diffuse is diffuse. That said the size of the light source will make a large
difference.  If you make a very small diffuse source, it will act almost
like a point source or lens focused lamp.
> 
>> The grain is comparable to the Polaroid scanner,
>> which also has a diffuse light source.
>> 
>> The Minolta, on the other hand, also has a diffuse light source, but has a
>> severe grain problem on neg scans, while slide scans are quite decent.

I checked out the minolta scanner at calumet and found the grain in color
negs makes the scanner un-usable.  From my testing and comparison to scans
from my nikon ls2000 of the same image, it seemed that the problem was due
to sharpening in the minolta software that could not be turned off---and to
the gamma curve applied to the scan that added a lot of contrast in the ends
of the curves.  Applying a reverse curve in photoshop helped make the
minolta scans look a lot more like the nikon scans.  The sharpening could
not be removed of course.

My guess is that software writers and engineers wanted to make "high impact"
images from scans so that customers did not complain that scans looked flat,
soft, and needed further adjusting in photoshop. Big mistake.

It's kind of like this with TV's: They are set up with high contrast, high
detailing(sharpening) and VSM (like sharpening, but plays with black levels
as well). With inexpensive tv's, you can't turn this stuff off.  With the
more expensive models, there is usually a way buried in the menu.
> 
> How do you explain that?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 

 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

> > Well, I'd argue that it's really diffuse...it's still point
> light...simply
> > putting a diffuser over a point light source doesn't make it a
> diffuse light
> > source in the traditional sense, like a cold light...does it?
>
> diffuse is diffuse. That said the size of the light source will
> make a large
> difference.  If you make a very small diffuse source, it will act almost
> like a point source or lens focused lamp.

Well, I still say diffuse isn't necessarily diffuse.  Diffuse, as far as a
light source for film projection goes, MUST give a completely even field
over the entire field, and I do not believe the LEDs of the Nikon scanner do
such.  I do know that my cold light heads do, and that the light source on
my Leafscan does too.

If diffuse was diffuse, with respect to this subject, then a single
incandescent light bulb would be diffuse by your definition.

Austin

> Leica and Contax lenses once were the best in the world. That's no
> longer true. Today, several lenses can and do produce sharper images
> than Leitz.

Sigh, Jerry.  Sharpness isn't everything to everyone, like it is to you.
Fuji MF lenses are amongst the sharpest lenses available, but the out of
focus rendering of these lenses is miserable.  It makes the images difficult
to look at, and IMO, makes the lenses unusable for anything you want decent
"bokeh" with.

The fact is, most Leitz and Zeiss lenses DO have better "bokeh" than most
any other manufacturers lenses.  They design them that way intentionally.

Austin

> >>> How is a digital camera LOUD?
> >>
> >> Mirror flip up. Digital SLR, Austin.  Sound is one of the best
> >> things about
> >> the consumer digitals...but they don't cut it on image quality and lens
> >> flexibility/speed.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > Why is the mirror "flip up" on a digital SLR any more loud than
> on a film
> > SLR???
> >
> > Austin
>
> Its not...my D1x sounds just like my F100...but I would never use my F100
> for street photography...

Robert,

I'm not quite sure what street you live on, but up here in Boston, no one
would ever hear the mirror sound your SLR makes...I assure you.

The original comment was that digital SLRs were LOUD, not that SLRs were
loud...that was what I didn't believe was a valid point.

Austin

> > ...simply putting a diffuser over a point light
> > source doesn't make it a diffuse light source
> > in the traditional sense, like a cold light...
> > does it?
>
> Yes, it does.  Why wouldn't it?

Anthony,

Because, as I said in another post, diffuse light sources mean diffuse over
the entire light source...completely even (to a degree, of course) over the
entire field, just like a cold light head does, as well as the light sources
on "other" scanners do.

Do you understand what a cold light head is, and how it works?  How it's
different than a condenser light source?

Austin

Good God Austin, who cares what an out of focus area looks like? I only learned
there actually was such a thing as bokeh about a year ago. Imagine!!! 45
years as 
a professional photographer and I'd never heard about it. Ever. Never
read a single
word about it, ever. I guarantee you that 99 percent of the people who
look at pictures wouldn't know bokeh from a speed bump.  I will
certainly agree that if your'e obsessed with it, it would be important
to you. I know, after finally reading that it existed, that a few
japanese photgraphers really think its very important. But it isn't to me.

Jerry

> Sigh, Jerry.  Sharpness isn't everything to everyone, like it is to you.
> Fuji MF lenses are amongst the sharpest lenses available, but the out of
> focus rendering of these lenses is miserable.  It makes the images difficult
> to look at, and IMO, makes the lenses unusable for anything you want decent
> "bokeh" with.

Who cares about bokeh? Not I.
 
> The fact is, most Leitz and Zeiss lenses DO have better "bokeh" than most
> any other manufacturers lenses.  They design them that way intentionally.

I bet they do! How is it that no one ever wrote about it for the last 45
years or so?
How come you've never seen an ad for a camera lens bragging about it's
great bokeh?

Egad, enough already!

Jerry,

> Good God Austin, who cares what an out of focus area looks like?

Er, MOST if not ALL fine art photographers, and portrait photographers, and
probably most any decent photographer...except photo journalists, it really
doesn't matter for their type of work.  Some people simply use it, and don't
know that it has a name.

> I only learned
> there actually was such a thing as bokeh about a year ago. Imagine!!! 45
> years as
> a professional photographer and I'd never heard about it.

Well...I don't need to really comment on that, but I'm glad you now at least
know that there is an out of focus area, and it can be rendered differently
given different lenses/designs.

> Ever. Never
> read a single
> word about it, ever.

Well, 30+ years as a photographer, and I've been using it to my advantage,
well, for probably 30 years.

> I guarantee you that 99 percent of the people who
> look at pictures wouldn't know bokeh from a speed bump.

I'll take that bet.  I'm on a Rollei list, Hasselblad list, Contax list and
Leica list...and most of the people on those lists know EXACTLY what it is,
and use it to their advantage.

> I will
> certainly agree that if your'e obsessed with it, it would be important
> to you.

Why does one have to be obsessed with it for it to be important?  I'm not
obsessed with proper framing and exposure, but I get those right most all
the time...and being conscious of bokeh simply gives me more control over my
images, and therefore the quality of my images.

> I know, after finally reading that it existed, that a few
> japanese photgraphers really think its very important. But it isn't to me.

Again, not to sound insulting...but your images probably show that.  Bad
bokeh can certainly ruin an otherwise perfect image, it can also completely
make an image.

> How is it that no one ever wrote about it for the last 45
> years or so?
> How come you've never seen an ad for a camera lens bragging about it's
> great bokeh?

Who said no one ever wrote about it?  The cameras manufacturers simply don't
brag that their exposure metering "works"....it's simply something that is
part and parcel of the "box of tools" of image composition...just like
framing, prospective, etc.

Austin

Ah, now I understand this tempest in a tea pot.
Jerry, you've made a big mistake.
You need to realize that what you see is not what you
get. Geez man, do the math, why are you wasting your
time looking at prints?
-JimD


At 12:03 AM 9/7/2002 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Jerry writes:
>
> > Of course I say so. That's what I see.  Lots of
> > people think Digital is sharper than darkroom
> > prints.  I couldn't tell you how many times I've
> > read this in articles on digital photography. It
> > certainly is not just me that thinks so!
>
>It's important not to mistake subjective impressions for objective
>realities.  Digital photographs often create the impression of better
>sharpness, but in fact they have lower resolution than film.
>
> > Who cares at 600%? I'm talking side by side
> > comparison. in person. right in front of you.
> > Not magnified 600 percent!
>
>The magnification aids in overcoming flaws in subjective perception.
>

on 9/6/2002 9:45 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:46:07 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Subject: RE: Shooting digital vs. film
> 
> 
>> Leica and Contax lenses once were the best in the world. That's no
>> longer true. Today, several lenses can and do produce sharper images
>> than Leitz.
> 
> Sigh, Jerry.  Sharpness isn't everything to everyone, like it is to you.
> Fuji MF lenses are amongst the sharpest lenses available, but the out of
> focus rendering of these lenses is miserable.  It makes the images difficult
> to look at, and IMO, makes the lenses unusable for anything you want decent
> "bokeh" with.
> 
> The fact is, most Leitz and Zeiss lenses DO have better "bokeh" than most
> any other manufacturers lenses.  They design them that way intentionally.
> 
> Austin

My gut reaction to this is that it is BS. (the bokeh).

A few months ago I attended a local B&W digital meeting and showed some
prints.  Without mentioning what camera was used, Antonis picked out some of
my  photos  and said they weren't taken with an SLR. He was right on each
one. They were taken with a Kodak Retina IIIc.

About the Fuji lenses--they don't look so bad to me, but I get the point.


-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

On 9/6/02 6:45 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

>> may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only 72dpi.
>> Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who thinks
>> digital shooting is better than film...with respect to detail/resolution.
> 
> You've GOT to be kidding!

Nope, not kidding.  I don't know anyone else who thinks the image quality is
better in digital...just the convenience.

Robert

On 9/6/02 6:56 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> Leica and Contax lenses once were the best in the world. That's no
> longer true. Today, several lenses can and do produce sharper images
> than Leitz. The Canon 3.5 Macro lens was judged by popular photography
> to be the sharpest lens they ever tested. It recieved their A+ rating at
> 16x24 inches. I own the lens, and I have had many leica and contax
> lenses in my photo career. This Canon macro lens is indeed the sharpest
> lens I have ever owned for 35mm Photography. The second best was the
> Leitz Elmarit 90mm. It beat out the 90mm Summicron, and I was very
> surprised at that! Today, most pro lenses are so close to each other in
> quality, that for all practical purposes I don't think it really makes
> much of a difference which brand you own.  But 30 years ago, it was
> Leica and Contax, no doubt. I cannot imagine any current pro lens that
> couldn't make an incredibly sharp 11x14" print. And my D60 can certainly
> equal any of these cameras at 11x14 inches.

My main preference for M series is size...they are tiny in comparison to SLR
lenses.  Four lenses  (15mm, 28mm, 50mm, 75mm) a camera and a light meter in
a pack smaller than a lunch box.  My digital SLR and my 14mm wide angle
won't fit in the same bag.  I agree that with the evolving lens market there
is less difference than there used to be.

Robert

On 9/6/02 7:49 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> I'm not quite sure what street you live on, but up here in Boston, no one
> would ever hear the mirror sound your SLR makes...I assure you.
> 
> The original comment was that digital SLRs were LOUD, not that SLRs were
> loud...that was what I didn't believe was a valid point.
> 
> Austin

Well there are streets and there are streets...its just an expression after
all.  Ever take pictures on a quite park bench...what about in a
church...maybe a museum...that you were quite allowed to shoot in...I
certainly wouldn't dare with my D1x...

Robert

On 9/6/02 8:06 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Jerry,
> 
>> Good God Austin, who cares what an out of focus area looks like?

Oh my God, Jerry, you have committed the unthinkable utterance...bokeh
rules!  If you still have any leica or contax lenses you should give them to
charity (me) to do penitence!

:-)

Robert

> Because, as I said in another post, diffuse light
> sources mean diffuse over the entire light source...
> completely even (to a degree, of course) over the
> entire field, just like a cold light head does,
> as well as the light sources on "other" scanners do.

Nothing is completely diffuse.  Conversely, a diffuser can make anything as
diffuse as a cold head.

> Do you understand what a cold light head is, and
> how it works?

A "cold light" head is one that uses a discharge lamp as the light source
instead of an incandescent lamp.

> How it's different than a condenser light source?

A condenser head focuses light and thus behaves much more as a point source.

However, I haven't used an enlarger in some 25 years.  I scan everything
today, and I print from scans, which gives better results than any enlarger.

Jerry writes:

> Good God Austin, who cares what an out of focus
> area looks like?

If large areas of the image are significantly out of focus, as they might be
for the background of a portrait shot with a long lens, a pleasing character
in the out of focus areas is important in order to avoid distracting the
viewer.

> I only learned there actually was such a thing
> as bokeh about a year ago. Imagine!!! 45 years as
> a professional photographer and I'd never heard
> about it. Ever.

I'll keep this in mind when reading your praise of digital, then.

> I bet they do! How is it that no one ever wrote
> about it for the last 45 years or so?

It depends on what you read, I guess.

> How come you've never seen an ad for a camera
> lens bragging about it's great bokeh?

I don't recall ever seeing advertisements for camera lenses, except the
cheapos.  I suppose the best lenses are occasionally advertised, but it
seems to be much more discreet.  If a photographer is really interested in
the best lenses, I doubt that he picks them based on the best magazine
advertisement he can find.

Jerry and Anthony,

Since everyone's eyes differ - their lenses will vary in many parameters
(just as our camera lenses do), their retinas will differ in the number of
color sensor cells, their proportion, their connections to the optic nerves,
and then the brain circuitry that receives the signals from the retina will
also vary from person to person - it is not suprising that you differ in
opinion. I'm only amazed that anyone ever agrees over what they see.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>


>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Bob writes:

> Since everyone's eyes differ - their lenses will
> vary in many parameters (just as our camera lenses do),
> their retinas will differ in the number of color sensor
> cells, their proportion, their connections to the
> optic nerves, and then the brain circuitry that receives
> the signals from the retina will also vary from
> person to person ...

The physiology of human vision is extraordinarily consistent.  That's how we
know that 6-8 megapixels is all that anyone ever needs for a full-frame
image (even with perfect vision, it's not possible to see much more than
that).  That's also how we are able to develop accurate color models and
color reproduction.  If there were even slight variations among individuals,
no two people would ever see anything in the same way by even a wide margin,
and many visual technologies we have today would be useless.

Indeed, the limits of visual acuity are some of the best established data we
have in the visual domain right now, and they are not changing.

Probably something to do with it's dynamic range?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>

> 
> Why is the mirror "flip up" on a digital SLR any more loud than on a film
> SLR???

> That's how we
> know that 6-8 megapixels is all that anyone ever needs for a full-frame
> image

Anthony,

What's your source for that claim?  What humans "need" for a "full-frame
image" is entirely different than what is needed for photographic imaging.
Also, humans have variable resolution in their sight...so how is that taken
account with your claim?

Austin

> My gut reaction to this is that it is BS. (the bokeh).

Bruce,

What's there to be BS about?  It's a fact that bokeh exists, and it's a fact
that different lenses render the bokeh differently...it's just simple fact.
Now, whether that aspect of the image is important to you or not is another
issue, but bokeh it self is hardly BS.

Austin

Jerry Olson wrote:

>Good God Austin, who cares what an out of focus area looks like? I only learned
>there actually was such a thing as bokeh about a year ago. 
>


oooooh!   One of the neat uses for mirror lenses is those wild Bokeh 
ring backgrounds in out-of-focus regions..
Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robert Morrison wrote:

>  
>
>remember 1x on a monitor is only 72dpi.
>

BOB!

I never expected such a  basic error from you..

That 72 ppi figure may have been acceptable as THE rule 10 years ago  on 
Macs..  But, even Macs have 96 ppi monitors now... and PC monitors range 
wildly depending upon resolution and screen size..

I would suggest anyone who wises to KNOW their ACTUAL resolution 
download a copy of  the GIMP for windows and run the calibration utility..

On my 26" screen, at 1280 x1024, my actual resolution is 89.899 x 82.89 
ppi... 

I'm just wondering WHEN Photoshop will include a utility/preference that 
allows me to set PhotoShop to my ACTUAL screen resolution.. It would be 
nice for my rulers to meet reality..

Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Austin, Don't tell Mike Kravitt he gets useless pictures with his mamiya
because the lenses don't have Bokeh!  

What a nitpicking subject. I bet most Landscape photographers couldn't
care less about bokeh. Show me some evidence where leica and zeiss
intentionally design their lenses to have great bokeh!!!

J

Bruce wrote:

> 
> on 9/6/2002 9:45 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> 
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:46:07 -0400
> > From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> > Subject: RE: Shooting digital vs. film
> >
> >
> >> Leica and Contax lenses once were the best in the world. That's no
> >> longer true. Today, several lenses can and do produce sharper images
> >> than Leitz.
> >
> > Sigh, Jerry.  Sharpness isn't everything to everyone, like it is to you.
> > Fuji MF lenses are amongst the sharpest lenses available, but the out of
> > focus rendering of these lenses is miserable.  It makes the images difficult
> > to look at, and IMO, makes the lenses unusable for anything you want decent
> > "bokeh" with.
> >
> > The fact is, most Leitz and Zeiss lenses DO have better "bokeh" than most
> > any other manufacturers lenses.  They design them that way intentionally.
> >
> > Austin
> 
> My gut reaction to this is that it is BS. (the bokeh).
> 
> A few months ago I attended a local B&W digital meeting and showed some
> prints.  Without mentioning what camera was used, Antonis picked out some of
> my  photos  and said they weren't taken with an SLR. He was right on each
> one. They were taken with a Kodak Retina IIIc.
> 
> About the Fuji lenses--they don't look so bad to me, but I get the point.
> 
> -Bruce
>

Jerry,

> Austin, Don't tell Mike Kravitt he gets useless pictures with his mamiya
> because the lenses don't have Bokeh!

I don't understand that comment at all.

> What a nitpicking subject.

Not at all, in fact, it's a very important subject to many photographers.
Because you never heard of it, or it's not important to you, doesn't mean it
isn't important.

> I bet most Landscape photographers couldn't
> care less about bokeh.

Landscape photographs would not have anything to do with bokeh, as they
intentionally get ALL the image in focus.  That's a silly example.

> Show me some evidence where leica and zeiss
> intentionally design their lenses to have great bokeh!!!

Er, the fact that they have the best bokeh...and it's talked about in most
Leica books and Erwin Putz talks about it a lot, and it's well documented in
periodicals and magazines etc.

Austin

Austin writes:

> What's your source for that claim?

It's human physiology.

The dimensions of the cone cells in the most densely-packed areas of the
retina are about 30 seconds of arc in size.  Resolution is thus limited to
30 seconds of arc under IDEAL conditions.  Typically working figures are 2-4
times lower (1-2 minutes of arc), given that conditions are so rarely ideal.

An 1:1.5 image held at a distance equal to the diagonal of the image
(standard viewing distance) subtends an area of about 6-8 million cones on
the retina (allowing for scanning operations of the eye).  Therefore that is
all that is needed to satisfy human visual acuity in an image at that
distance.

> What humans "need" for a "full-frame image" is entirely
> different than what is needed for photographic imaging.

Not if the photographs are intended for human viewing, which they almost
invariably are.

> Also, humans have variable resolution in their
> sight...

No, they do not.  The maximum resolution is set by physiology, as described
above.  Some people have less; but nobody has more.

> so how is that taken account with your claim?

It's not a claim, it's a very well established fact.  This being so, I
suggest that anyone who has a problem with it study the physiology in
question, and he'll be able to verify it for himself.  He need not (and
should not) believe me ... or you.

In case you haven't noticed, this is why the market always tends to converge
on whatever technology provides the requisite number of pixels as described
above.  Once 120 could do this, LF fell by the wayside; and once 35mm could
do it, 120 was no longer needed.  And now that digital can do it (barely),
35mm is gradually receding as well.  It's no coincidence.  People won't buy
a system that provides more resolution than they can see.

Anthony,

> > What's your source for that claim?
>
> It's human physiology.

What is the source of the claim?

> The dimensions of the cone cells in the most densely-packed areas of the
> retina are about 30 seconds of arc in size.  Resolution is thus limited to
> 30 seconds of arc under IDEAL conditions.  Typically working
> figures are 2-4
> times lower (1-2 minutes of arc), given that conditions are so
> rarely ideal.

It's physiology that the human eye has variable resolution, with the highest
area being in the very center, so you can't extrapolate the real
"resolution" of the human field of view as you have.

> > What humans "need" for a "full-frame image" is entirely
> > different than what is needed for photographic imaging.
>
> Not if the photographs are intended for human viewing, which they almost
> invariably are.

That's not relevant to your comment.

> > Also, humans have variable resolution in their
> > sight...
>
> No, they do not.  The maximum resolution is set by physiology, as
> described
> above.  Some people have less; but nobody has more.

They do not what?  It's a physical fact that your eye has higher resolution
in the center, and decreased resolution around the periphery.

> > so how is that taken account with your claim?
>
> It's not a claim, it's a very well established fact.

Then, of course, you can point me to an established resource that supports
your claim?

> In case you haven't noticed, this is why the market always tends
> to converge
> on whatever technology provides the requisite number of pixels as
> described
> above.

That's simply foolish.  The number of pixels for a camera is ENTIRELY
UNRELATED to what the resolution of the human eye is.  It depends on what
size the resultant image is!

Austin

> Austin, Don't tell Mike Kravitt he gets useless pictures with his mamiya
> because the lenses don't have Bokeh!
>
> What a nitpicking subject. I bet most Landscape photographers couldn't
> care less about bokeh. Show me some evidence where leica and zeiss
> intentionally design their lenses to have great bokeh!!!

If you shoot mostly landscapes with infinity focus and small apertures, then
yes, the bokeh of a lens has little bearing on your image, and yes, it'd
probably be a "nitpicking subject".

However, if you like to shoot people or objects and incorporate large
out-of-focus portions in your images, or if you use telephoto lenses, then
the bokeh of a particular lens is a very obvious and major part of the
aesthetic of your images. Many photographers are concerned about every
square inch of their images, whether in focus or not.

I don't know about Leica and Ziess, but I can tell you Nikon and Canon's
newer lenses are being designed to provide smoother rendition of
out-of-focus areas. Some of Nikon's newer telephoto lenses, for instance,
incorporate a larger number of diaphragm blades, creating an rounder
aperture, which in turn provides a softer, smoother look to out-of-focus
areas, especially highlights.

Austin writes:

> What is the source of the claim?

As I've explained, it's not a claim, it's a fact.  I don't need a source.
Anyone can research this for himself; he doesn't have to believe me.
Eventually he'll find a source reliable enough to satisfy him that will
confirm what I am saying.  Just as most people don't need a source to
believe that the sun rises in the east, since that fact is so widely known,
it is not necessary for me to provide a source for this information, as
anyone familiar with the field already knows all of this, even if you do
not.

> It's physiology that the human eye has
> variable resolution, with the highest
> area being in the very center ...

That's what I mean by the "scanning action of the eye."  These figures
correspond to the region of greatest acuity in the retina, the fovea
centralis; this zone is scanned over an image by the eye in order to provide
detailed vision over a larger area.

The resolution outside the fovea is so low that it makes virtually no
contribution to the type of eyesight required to view photographs.

The figure of 6-8 megapixels, then, is the figure obtained by the scanning
of the fovea over the entire print or image.  If one stares at one point on
the image without scanning, the required resolution on the print is orders
of magnitude lower.  But nobody ever does that, so it is a moot point.

> ... so you can't extrapolate the real
> "resolution" of the human field of view as you have.

Yes, I can, and I have, and I'm not the first or only person to do so.  This
is how depth-of-field markings were calculated on camera lenses decades
before my birth.  The circles of confusion used to calculate DOF are in the
region of 30 micrometres on the film surface, which corresponds to an image
of only two megapixels.  The figure of 6-8 megapixels for optimal viewing is
thus very conservative in comparison to the assumptions for visual acuity
made for DOF calculations.

> It's a physical fact that your eye has higher
> resolution in the center, and decreased resolution
> around the periphery.

I'm aware of this, and the figures I give are for the fovea.  Since the
fovea is scanned over the entire image, its resolution applies to the entire
image.  Even so, the total figure is 6-8 megapixels.  That's all you need.

> Then, of course, you can point me to an established
> resource that supports your claim?

No, you must do your own research, and your posts will be much more cogent
if you undertake this before preparing any further replies to my posts.

> The number of pixels for a camera is ENTIRELY
> UNRELATED to what the resolution of the human
> eye is.  It depends on what size the resultant
> image is!

Images are typically viewed from distances that fall within a fairly narrow
range in proportion to the print.  That's why everyone does not insist on
shooting Tech Pan in 8x10 sheets, and it's also why virtually nobody is
happy with prints made from aging digicams with 320x200-pixel sensors.

Anthony,

> > What is the source of the claim?
>
> As I've explained, it's not a claim, it's a fact.  I don't need a source.

Well, if it's just such a fact, then, surely, there are many sources you can
provide.  Without proper corroboration to your claim, your claim has no
basis in reality, at least as you have stated it.  I believe you are
misinterpreting the actual meaning of what you may have heard/read.

> Just as most people don't need a source to
> believe that the sun rises in the east...

One can use one's own observation to corroborate that fact, so your example
does not apply.

> > It's physiology that the human eye has
> > variable resolution, with the highest
> > area being in the very center ...
>
> That's what I mean by the "scanning action of the eye."  These figures
> correspond to the region of greatest acuity in the retina, the fovea
> centralis; this zone is scanned over an image by the eye in order
> to provide
> detailed vision over a larger area.

That clarifies your statement, and as I said, you can not extrapolate 6M
pixels based on that.  It's simply so easy to refute your claim based on a
simple inkjet print.  A 13 x 19 inkjet print at 720 DPI has 128,044,800
dots...what ever you want to call them.  I know that they are dithered, but
the resolution of they eye can still pick up very small detail in such a
print, so let's even say that 300 PPI for a non-dithered image, at 13 x 19
is 22,230,000...and I don't now about you, but I have an entire wall of 13 x
19 images that I can scan across and not move from my spot.

Additionally, it's required to have MORE resolution than the human eye can
discretely discern in order to have smooth transitions between changes in
tones.  Same issue with number of tones that an inkjet prints...vs...what we
can physically discern.  You actually don't want to discern tones!

You simply can not claim that the eye only has 6M equivalent, since you
don't know over how large an area.  For a 5x7 print, possibly...but for
something larger than an 8x10 or 11x14, that's simply not true.

> The resolution outside the fovea is so low that it makes virtually no
> contribution to the type of eyesight required to view photographs.

I disagree with that.  Have you ever looked at a mural?

> The figure of 6-8 megapixels, then, is the figure obtained by the scanning
> of the fovea over the entire print or image.

Oh?  How big is the image?

> > ... so you can't extrapolate the real
> > "resolution" of the human field of view as you have.
>
> Yes, I can, and I have,

Of course you can, but your initial premise is simply mistaken, and because
of that, you simply at the incorrect conclusion.

> This
> is how depth-of-field markings were calculated on camera lenses decades
> before my birth.

Er, no, that's really a different issue.

> The circles of confusion...

I know precisely how COC and DOF are calculated, thanks...and as I've said,
it's simply not enough information to draw the conclusions you have drawn.

> > It's a physical fact that your eye has higher
> > resolution in the center, and decreased resolution
> > around the periphery.
>
> I'm aware of this, and the figures I give are for the fovea.  Since the
> fovea is scanned over the entire image, its resolution applies to
> the entire
> image.  Even so, the total figure is 6-8 megapixels.  That's all you need.

Well, I simply know that to not be true, again, it depends on what size the
image is.

> > Then, of course, you can point me to an established
> > resource that supports your claim?
>
> No, you must do your own research, and your posts will be much more cogent
> if you undertake this before preparing any further replies to my posts.

No, Anthony, you're trying to wiggle off the hook.  It's an old tactic of
yours when cornered...YOU made the claim, so YOU must provide substantiation
to it.  Obviously, you can't, so I must dismiss your claim as simply
something you've concocted in your mind.

> > The number of pixels for a camera is ENTIRELY
> > UNRELATED to what the resolution of the human
> > eye is.  It depends on what size the resultant
> > image is!
>
> Images are typically viewed from distances that fall within a
> fairly narrow
> range in proportion to the print.  That's why everyone does not insist on
> shooting Tech Pan in 8x10 sheets, and it's also why virtually nobody is
> happy with prints made from aging digicams with 320x200-pixel sensors.

You're missing the point.

Austin

Moreno Polloni wrote:

>>Austin, Don't tell Mike Kravitt he gets useless pictures with his mamiya
>>because the lenses don't have Bokeh!
>>
>>What a nitpicking subject. I bet most Landscape photographers couldn't
>>care less about bokeh. Show me some evidence where leica and zeiss
>>intentionally design their lenses to have great bokeh!!!
>>    
>>
>
>If you shoot mostly landscapes with infinity focus and small apertures, then
>yes, the bokeh of a lens has little bearing on your image, and yes, it'd
>probably be a "nitpicking subject".
>
>  
>
Like those of us who do sports or serious portraiture work...

For us, BOKEH, is a big factor...

Imagine shooting a football game with a 400/2.8 or 600/4... You open up 
all the way to blur the background and put the focus on the subject... 
 Instead, the background becomes distracting..  UGH!

If you intend to depend on your lenses at more than minimum apertures, 
it pays to know your Bokeh..

Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike just got a Mamiya 7II camera and loves it!  I would have one if I
could afford it and about 3 lenses. Great camera !

(You had made the comment that the Mamiya lenses have horrible bokeh
which make them practically useless.) Mike is on several of these lists.

> > Austin, Don't tell Mike Kravitt he gets useless pictures with his mamiya
> > because the lenses don't have Bokeh!
> 
> I don't understand that comment at all.

(Bokeh is) a very important subject to many photographers.
> Because you never heard of it, or it's not important to you, doesn't mean it
> isn't important.

For some photographers, I'm sure it is important, but I've been talking
about landscape photography, where there are precious few areas that are
out of focus.

> > Show me some evidence where leica and zeiss
> > intentionally design their lenses to have great bokeh!!!
> 
> Er, the fact that they have the best bokeh...and it's talked about in most
> Leica books and Erwin Putz talks about it a lot, and it's well documented in
> periodicals and magazines etc.

Where could I find one of these articles that says Leitz designs their
lenses to have Great bokeh? I really do want to see this in print.

Also, could you post an example (Same image) shot with a lens that does
have great bokeh and one that has really poor bokeh so we can see the
difference you are talking about?

Thanks.

Jerry
>

Moreno, Austin,

Ah, I now know what you mean. The older 5 bladed lenses that had
pentagon shaped highlights were indeed horrible. Now I understand
exactly what Austin is talking about. I agree, Austin.

I just never heard it called Bokeh until the major article I read about
about a year or so ago. I was well aware of the dreaded 5 bladed
highlights, however.

Jerry

I loved the Leica M5,6, etc, but I have thick glasses and could never
see the image and rangefinder very well. Especially with anything wider
than a 35mm. I've had a couple of Leica slrs, which were wonderful. 
I've had just too many cameras. Only have 3 now, and am selling off
anything that isn't digital.

jer

Robert Morrison wrote:

> 
> On 9/6/02 6:56 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> 
> > Leica and Contax lenses once were the best in the world. That's no
> > longer true. Today, several lenses can and do produce sharper images
> > than Leitz. The Canon 3.5 Macro lens was judged by popular photography
> > to be the sharpest lens they ever tested. It recieved their A+ rating at
> > 16x24 inches. I own the lens, and I have had many leica and contax
> > lenses in my photo career. This Canon macro lens is indeed the sharpest
> > lens I have ever owned for 35mm Photography. The second best was the
> > Leitz Elmarit 90mm. It beat out the 90mm Summicron, and I was very
> > surprised at that! Today, most pro lenses are so close to each other in
> > quality, that for all practical purposes I don't think it really makes
> > much of a difference which brand you own.  But 30 years ago, it was
> > Leica and Contax, no doubt. I cannot imagine any current pro lens that
> > couldn't make an incredibly sharp 11x14" print. And my D60 can certainly
> > equal any of these cameras at 11x14 inches.
> 
> My main preference for M series is size...they are tiny in comparison to SLR
> lenses.  Four lenses  (15mm, 28mm, 50mm, 75mm) a camera and a light meter in
> a pack smaller than a lunch box.  My digital SLR and my 14mm wide angle
> won't fit in the same bag.  I agree that with the evolving lens market there
> is less difference than there used to be.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hmmm. I actually like those.

Jerry

> oooooh!   One of the neat uses for mirror lenses is those wild Bokeh
> ring backgrounds in out-of-focus regions..
> Keith
> 
>

And I've heard the Pearl industry only hires Japanese women to sort
their pearls, as they can see better than any other eyes, or at least
see what the pearl buyers need to be seen. 

Jerry




Bob Frost wrote:

> 
> Jerry and Anthony,
> 
> Since everyone's eyes differ - their lenses will vary in many parameters
> (just as our camera lenses do), their retinas will differ in the number of
> color sensor cells, their proportion, their connections to the optic nerves,
> and then the brain circuitry that receives the signals from the retina will
> also vary from person to person - it is not suprising that you differ in
> opinion. I'm only amazed that anyone ever agrees over what they see.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
> 
> >
> > We'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

warning! Warning! do not begin a new argument with Austin. You cannot
possibly hope to win. :+).

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > That's how we
> > know that 6-8 megapixels is all that anyone ever needs for a full-frame
> > image
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> What's your source for that claim?  What humans "need" for a "full-frame
> image" is entirely different than what is needed for photographic imaging.
> Also, humans have variable resolution in their sight...so how is that taken
> account with your claim?
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Yeah, but they're  so much fun to read. Hours of entertainment (with
some actual info thrown in)
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...] 
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 6:55 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Shooting digital vs. film
 
warning! Warning! do not begin a new argument with Austin. You cannot
possibly hope to win. :+).

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> > That's how we
> > know that 6-8 megapixels is all that anyone ever needs for a
full-frame
> > image
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> What's your source for that claim?  What humans "need" for a
"full-frame
> image" is entirely different than what is needed for photographic
imaging.
> Also, humans have variable resolution in their sight...so how is that
taken
> account with your claim?
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233351.2287381.3722242.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1213956/R=0/*http:/www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/grp/300_Cquo1/g2
2lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl> 

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

AAAAaargh! I give up. Digital prints are crud. Long live film. It's SO
much better than digital.  Satisfied Austin? :+).


JimD wrote:
> 
> Ah, now I understand this tempest in a tea pot.
> Jerry, you've made a big mistake.

No point in making a little one. 

> You need to realize that what you see is not what you
> get. Geez man, do the math, 

I can't do the math. I never took it in school. Way back then you didn't
have to.
I stopped at arithmetic.  Later, I had to take remedial algebra to get
into photo school. Don't know why the teacher passed me. I still
couldn't do math.

But I know what my eyebulbs see, and that is that digital printing is
better for me!

JER

Austin writes:

> Well, if it's just such a fact, then, surely,
> there are many sources you can provide.

Yes, there are.

> Without proper corroboration to your claim,
> your claim has no basis in reality, at least
> as you have stated it.

Your logic is flawed.  The availability or unavailability of corroboration
for an assertion is independent of its objective validity; you cannot assume
that an assertion is without basis in reality in the absence of
corroboration, just as you cannot assume that it is based upon reality with
corroboration.

> I believe you are misinterpreting the actual
> meaning of what you may have heard/read.

I know.  You're entitled to believe whatever you wish.

> One can use one's own observation to corroborate
> that fact, so your example does not apply.

Really?  How does one determine the direction east through one's own
observation?

> That clarifies your statement, and as I said,
> you can not extrapolate 6M pixels based on that.

Because you say so?

> It's simply so easy to refute your claim based on a
> simple inkjet print.  A 13 x 19 inkjet print at 720
> DPI has 128,044,800 dots...what ever you want to call
> them.  I know that they are dithered, but the resolution
> of they eye can still pick up very small detail in such a
> print, so let's even say that 300 PPI for a
> non-dithered image, at 13 x 19 is 22,230,000...and
> I don't now about you, but I have an entire wall of 13 x
> 19 images that I can scan across and not move from my
> spot.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The resolving power of the human eye is limited to 30 seconds of arc, under
the best conditions conceivable.  Details of this size cover just one cone
cell in the retina.  Details smaller than this cannot be distinguished from
one another, and so any level of detail exceeding this level is unnecessary
for visual presentation.

> Additionally, it's required to have MORE resolution
> than the human eye can discretely discern in order
> to have smooth transitions between changes in
> tones.

No, it is not.

> You simply can not claim that the eye only has
> 6M equivalent, since you don't know over how
> large an area.

But I do, and I've explained that several times.  The area is that of an
image viewed from a distance roughly equal to its diagonal, e.g., a
10x10-inch image viewed from 14 inches.

> For a 5x7 print, possibly...but for something
> larger than an 8x10 or 11x14, that's simply not true.

For constant proportional viewing distance, it is always true, no matter how
large the print.

> I disagree with that.  Have you ever looked at a mural?

I've done better.  I've read the physiology texts.  Dissection of the retina
is a pretty good way to determine absolute limits on resolution.

> Oh?  How big is the image?

I'll repeat this again:  The image is viewed from a distance roughly equal
to its diagonal.  In that position, the angular area it subtends needs to
contain 6-8 million pixels in order to match the visual acuity of human
vision.  Just about anything beyond that is wasted; anything below that may
show a lack of detail to those with reasonably keen vision.

> Er, no, that's really a different issue.

No, it's not.  Depth of field exists only because human visual acuity is
finite.  There is no such thing as DOF independent of human vision; in the
objective world outside of humanity, the only part of an image that is
actually in focus is the part falling on the plane of focus for a given lens
setting.  Furthermore, DOF is calculated based on accumulated knowledge
concerning maximal human visual acuity; the existence of DOF tables and
markings demonstrates that this knowledge has been stable and available for
many decades.

> Well, I simply know that to not be true, again,
> it depends on what size the image is.

I've already explained image size often enough.  Please refer to any one of
my previous explanations.

> No, Anthony, you're trying to wiggle off the hook.

What hook?

> It's an old tactic of yours when cornered...YOU made
> the claim, so YOU must provide substantiation
> to it.

I'm under no obligation to substantiate anything.  If you don't wish to
believe me, you don't have to.  The same is true for anyone else reading my
posts.  And anyone who wishes to find out for himself can do the research.
I know what he will find, but it will be much more persuasive to him if he
finds out for himself, especially if he has a personality like yours.

> Obviously, you can't, so I must dismiss your claim
> as simply something you've concocted in your mind.

Okay.  I only reply to you to help clarify things for others; what you
accept or dismiss personally is of no importance to me.

> You're missing the point.

You're not making a point.

Anthony, Anthony, you cannot come out ahead in an argument with austin.
It simply cannot be done. The first person to win one gets an 8x10 photo
of my incredibly beautiful cat. Printed at 1440 DPI. on an Epson
Printer. VM inks, with Enhanced Generations blacks. Printed with Paul's
curve of your choice. On really nice paper. Ready for matting and
framing. Goes great on the walls of your root cellar or nursery.
Sent Priority Mail. In plain brown Envelope.
Jerry 

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Anthony,
> 
> > > What's your source for that claim?
> >
> > It's human physiology.
> 
> What is the source of the claim?
> 
> > The dimensions of the cone cells in the most densely-packed areas of the
> > retina are about 30 seconds of arc in size.  Resolution is thus limited to
> > 30 seconds of arc under IDEAL conditions.  Typically working
> > figures are 2-4
> > times lower (1-2 minutes of arc), given that conditions are so
> > rarely ideal.
> 
> It's physiology that the human eye has variable resolution, with the highest
> area being in the very center, so you can't extrapolate the real
> "resolution" of the human field of view as you have.
> 
> > > What humans "need" for a "full-frame image" is entirely
> > > different than what is needed for photographic imaging.
> >
> > Not if the photographs are intended for human viewing, which they almost
> > invariably are.
> 
> That's not relevant to your comment.
> 
> > > Also, humans have variable resolution in their
> > > sight...
> >
> > No, they do not.  The maximum resolution is set by physiology, as
> > described
> > above.  Some people have less; but nobody has more.
> 
> They do not what?  It's a physical fact that your eye has higher resolution
> in the center, and decreased resolution around the periphery.
> 
> > > so how is that taken account with your claim?
> >
> > It's not a claim, it's a very well established fact.
> 
> Then, of course, you can point me to an established resource that supports
> your claim?
> 
> > In case you haven't noticed, this is why the market always tends
> > to converge
> > on whatever technology provides the requisite number of pixels as
> > described
> > above.
> 
> That's simply foolish.  The number of pixels for a camera is ENTIRELY
> UNRELATED to what the resolution of the human eye is.  It depends on what
> size the resultant image is!
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Austin, i have a serious question for you, and I feel you can best
explain it. 

What, precisely did the universe look like 5 minutes before the big bang?

Jer

Jerry writes:

> warning! Warning! do not begin a new argument
> with Austin. You cannot possibly hope to win.

I'm not arguing with Austin; I am using replies to his posts as platforms
for further clarification of the concepts under discussion.  I figure that
everyone else reading the posts will have understood and accepted my
detailed explanations long before Austin does, and that will accomplish my
purpose.

Jerry Olson wrote:

>Austin, i have a serious question for you, and I feel you can best
>explain it. 
>
>What, precisely did the universe look like 5 minutes before the big bang?
>
>  
>
Trick question...

There was NO time before the BIG BANG...

Until one has a 3 dimensional  universe, atime, the fourth dimension, 
has no meaning..

The Universe prior to the Big Bang is believed to have been essentially 
a single unit of energy/mass (neither really, and both)...  Accordingly, 
as only a point particle it has only one dimension..
Keith
 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Austin, i have a serious question for you, and I feel you can best
> explain it. 
> 
> What, precisely did the universe look like 5 minutes before the big bang?
> 
> Jer

Jerry,

I have absolutely no idea.  Perhaps you ought to ask Anthony ;-)

Austin

Jerry,

> 	Anthony, Anthony, you cannot come out ahead in an argument
> with austin.
> It simply cannot be done.

I only "argue" about things I have somewhat intimate knowledge of.  I have
"lost" (meaning my speculations were incorrect, and I happened to learn
something from it, so I actually enjoy being wrong, believe it or not) many
a "discussion" though...on topics I don't have such an intimate knowledge
of.

> The first person to win one gets an 8x10 photo
> of my incredibly beautiful cat.

Send one to my wife then ;-)

> Printed at 1440 DPI. on an Epson
> Printer.

Hum.  Does your Epson print in both directions at 1440?  ;-)

> Goes great on the walls of your root cellar or nursery.
> Sent Priority Mail. In plain brown Envelope.

Nursery will work just fine, thanks!

Austin

Anthony,

> > Well, if it's just such a fact, then, surely,
> > there are many sources you can provide.
>
> Yes, there are.

And those sources are....???

> > Without proper corroboration to your claim,
> > your claim has no basis in reality, at least
> > as you have stated it.
>
> Your logic is flawed.  The availability or unavailability of corroboration
> for an assertion is independent of its objective validity; you
> cannot assume
> that an assertion is without basis in reality in the absence of
> corroboration, just as you cannot assume that it is based upon
> reality with
> corroboration.

No, with most people that's true, but I know that you sometimes like to make
claims that simply are not correct, claiming they are, and you've been shown
many times to be simply wrong.  I believe that if you simply can't provide
corroboration, which you claim easily exists, but suspiciously fail to
provide it, you're mistaken in what your espousing.

> > One can use one's own observation to corroborate
> > that fact, so your example does not apply.
>
> Really?  How does one determine the direction east through one's own
> observation?

East is simply a universal standard (well, for most people), and most people
know what direction East is...and when it's morning...  Ever hear of
a....compass???

> > That clarifies your statement, and as I said,
> > you can not extrapolate 6M pixels based on that.
>
> Because you say so?

Because I KNOW so.

> > It's simply so easy to refute your claim based on a
> > simple inkjet print.  A 13 x 19 inkjet print at 720
> > DPI has 128,044,800 dots...what ever you want to call
> > them.  I know that they are dithered, but the resolution
> > of they eye can still pick up very small detail in such a
> > print, so let's even say that 300 PPI for a
> > non-dithered image, at 13 x 19 is 22,230,000...and
> > I don't now about you, but I have an entire wall of 13 x
> > 19 images that I can scan across and not move from my
> > spot.
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Yes, I know...because it shows that your assertion is flawed.

> The resolving power of the human eye is limited to 30 seconds of
> arc, under
> the best conditions conceivable.  Details of this size cover just one cone
> cell in the retina.  Details smaller than this cannot be
> distinguished from
> one another, and so any level of detail exceeding this level is
> unnecessary
> for visual presentation.

I understand that.  That does not make your assertion valid though.

> > Additionally, it's required to have MORE resolution
> > than the human eye can discretely discern in order
> > to have smooth transitions between changes in
> > tones.
>
> No, it is not.

Well, yes it is.  Any transition that appears smooth is simply of higher
resolution (in one or two dimensions) than you can discern.  The fact is,
you CAN discern that smoothness.

> > You simply can not claim that the eye only has
> > 6M equivalent, since you don't know over how
> > large an area.
>
> But I do, and I've explained that several times.  The area is that of an
> image viewed from a distance roughly equal to its diagonal, e.g., a
> 10x10-inch image viewed from 14 inches.

So what?  That doesn't define the field of vision of a human.  As I said,
your premise is simply flawed.  If the eye can only discern, at high
resolution, a 1" circle, then why are you limiting the FOV to 10" x10" ?  I
can scan MUCH more than a space 10" x 10".

> > For a 5x7 print, possibly...but for something
> > larger than an 8x10 or 11x14, that's simply not true.
>
> For constant proportional viewing distance, it is always true, no
> matter how
> large the print.

You obviously don't get it, and are missing why what you say is wrong.  You
are taking the human eye's ability to have a particular resolution over a
VERY small arc, and extrapolating it to 10 x 10, and the problem is, you
have to SCAN over that 10x10 area to even see the entire 10x10 area at the
higher resolution.  Why are you limiting the area and claiming that's the
limit of human vision?  That's completely unscientific and, well, silly.

> > I disagree with that.  Have you ever looked at a mural?
>
> I've done better.  I've read the physiology texts.  Dissection of
> the retina
> is a pretty good way to determine absolute limits on resolution.

Yes, it is...but that has nothing to do with your claim.  The physiology
text gives the resolution for a VERY SMALL area, and you are extrapolating
that out to some arbitrary area.  That's simply bad science, and of course,
causes you to draw a flawed conclusion.

> > Oh?  How big is the image?
>
> I'll repeat this again:  The image is viewed from a distance roughly equal
> to its diagonal.

Why?  Who determined that as the "limit"?

> In that position, the angular area it subtends needs to
> contain 6-8 million pixels in order to match the visual acuity of human
> vision.

That is not what you initially said.  You said that 6M pixels WAS THE limit
of human vision, and I said it is not, and it simply is not.  You didn't
qualify it with a particular area.

Here was your original claim:

"That's how we
know that 6-8 megapixels is all that anyone ever needs for a full-frame
image (even with perfect vision, it's not possible to see much more than
that)."

What defines a "full frame image"?

  Just about anything beyond that is wasted; anything
> below that may
> show a lack of detail to those with reasonably keen vision.

Why?

> > Er, no, that's really a different issue.
>
> No, it's not.  Depth of field exists only because human visual acuity is
> finite.  There is no such thing as DOF independent of human vision; in the
> objective world outside of humanity, the only part of an image that is
> actually in focus is the part falling on the plane of focus for a
> given lens
> setting.

I understand all that, but that doesn't negate my disagreement with your
statements.

> > Well, I simply know that to not be true, again,
> > it depends on what size the image is.
>
> I've already explained image size often enough.  Please refer to
> any one of
> my previous explanations.

But why are you limiting this to "image size", what on earth does that have
to do with how the eye works?  Are we only limited to looking at fixed
"image sizes"?  No, simply not.  We STILL have to scan an image, no matter
what size it is, providing it's larger than the high resolution are of the
eye, that is.

> > It's an old tactic of yours when cornered...YOU made
> > the claim, so YOU must provide substantiation
> > to it.
>
> I'm under no obligation to substantiate anything.

Yes you are.  You made a claim, and it's your obligation to substantiate it.
Obviously, you can't, or you would.

> > You're missing the point.
>
> You're not making a point.

I am, you're just not understanding it.

Austin

> AAAAaargh! I give up. Digital prints are crud. Long live film. It's SO
> much better than digital.  Satisfied Austin? :+).

You're being a bit dramatic, there Jerry.  I never said digital is crud...it
is fantastic in it's application, when it's limits are understood.

Oh, and by the way, I want pictures of you in the darkroom, drowning your
D60 in Dektol ;-)

Austin

Anthony,

> > Er, no, that's really a different issue. [DOF and number of pixels being
discussed]
>
> No, it's not.

Depth of field is not limited by the resolution of the media, that's not
part of the equation.  It is limited by a somewhat arbitrary calculation
based on human visual acuity and some arbitrary viewing distance.  What you
are talking about is limiting the resolution of the MEDIA based on human
visual acuity, not based on DOF.  That is two different things.

You probably believe Nyquist has no role in all this...that in order to
RELIABLY capture something at the limits of human visual acuity, you would
have to sample at ~2x (in both directions) to ALWAYS capture, and then be
able to always display, at that limit of resolution.  Given that, your 6M
pixels would now be 24M pixels...

But again, I think using some arbitrary dimension for your claim is simply
silly, as I've said, the human eye has to scan that 10 x 10 anyway, so why
limit the area?

Austin

Editor writes:

> There was NO time before the BIG BANG...

Then logically the universe has always existed, since "before" has no
meaning.

> The Universe prior to the Big Bang is believed
> to have been essentially a single unit of energy/mass
> ...

How can the universe prior to the Big Bang have been anything?  You just
said that time didn't exist before the Big Bang; therefore there was no
"prior."

This is what happens when physics becomes more of an exercise in mathematics
than a study of reality.

Austin writes:

> No, with most people that's true ...

The truth of the principle does not vary by person, since it is based on
objective logic.

> East is simply a universal standard (well,
> for most people), and most people know what
> direction East is...

Really?  Most people would define east as being ... the part of the sky in
which the sun rises.

But what distinguishes a "universal standard" that apparently doesn't
require corroboration for you from something that does?

> Because I KNOW so.

Because you say so.  I have no way of assessing the state of your occult
knowledge just by reading your posts.

> I understand that.  That does not make your
> assertion valid though.

A fortiori, your simple assertion that I am wrong doesn't make me wrong,
either.

> Any transition that appears smooth is simply
> of higher resolution (in one or two dimensions)
> than you can discern.  The fact is, you CAN
> discern that smoothness.

These two statements contradict each other.  You can see it, but you can't?
Right.

> So what?  That doesn't define the field of
> vision of a human.

I know; that has nothing to do with this discussion.  It does, however,
define the number of pixels required to satisfy human vision in the image,
and that number is 6-8 million.

> If the eye can only discern, at high resolution,
> a 1" circle, then why are you limiting the FOV
> to 10" x10" ?

I have no idea what you mean by a one-inch circle.  Dimensions are measured
in angular measure in the human visual field, i.e., objects are so many
minutes or degrees of arc in diameter, and so on.  A one-inch circle could
be any size at all in the visual field, depending on the distance at which
it is viewed.

> You obviously don't get it, and are missing why
> what you say is wrong.

I'll leave that determination for the reader.  I know that your mind will
not change, so I won't quarrel with you; I'll let my exposition of the facts
speak for itself, and each reader of these posts will be able to decide on
his own who is correct, and who isn't.

> You are taking the human eye's ability to have a
> particular resolution over a VERY small arc, and
> extrapolating it to 10 x 10, and the problem is, you
> have to SCAN over that 10x10 area to even see the
> entire 10x10 area at the higher resolution.

That isn't a problem.  That's how vision works.  My figures assume that a
viewer will scan the entire area of an image in order to view it (because
that's exactly what a human viewer with human eyes will do).  Thus, the
resolution required is many orders of magnitude above what would be required
if he just stared at one point on the image without looking at the rest of
it; in this latter case, only the pointed stared at would be in focus, and
the rest would be a useless blur ... and the resolution required to support
that in a print would of course be extremely low.

> Yes, it is...but that has nothing to do with
> your claim.

It has everything to do with it.  It turns out the limits of acuity
precisely match the limits imposed by the dimensions of cone cells.  That
is, in a good eye with perfect vision, it's the size of these cells that
limits resolving power, not the lens or cornea or anything else.

> The physiology text gives the resolution for a
> VERY SMALL area ...

Yes, the fovea centralis, part of the macula.  That's the only part of the
retina with cones in very high density, and it's the only part of the retina
upon which images can be accurately focused.

> ... and you are extrapolating that out to some
> arbitrary area.

Because all human vision involves scanning with the eyes in order to move
the entire image past the fovea.  That's what allows you to read an entire
page of a book without moving your head; your eyes scan the page, drawing
the fovea past each word in sequence so that you can actually see the word
in focus.  Without this scanning--if you just stared at the center of the
page without moving your eyes--you'd only be able to see a few words on the
page, and the rest would be a blur.  Try it, and you'll see.

When human beings view images, they do so by scanning them, just as they do
for everything else.  Thus, the resolution required in the image is that of
the fovea, multiplied by the area of the image.  This turns out to be 6-8
million pixels.  If you wish to calculate the resolution required for a
non-scanning view of the image, it's only a few thousand pixels.  But nobody
looks at images without scanning them with his eyes, so this latter exercise
serves no purpose.

> Why?  Who determined that as the "limit"?

You have to set some sort of arbitrary distance, or you cannot compute the
amount of resolution required for the print.  To have an image that works at
any distance, you need infinite resolution, but infinite resolution is not
achievable; so you decided on some arbitrary viewing distance, and you
calculate for that.

For most prints, it turns out that a good choice for the arbitrary viewing
distance is equal to the diagonal of the print.  Most people will not view
it more closely than that (indeed, they often can't, since they'd have to
turn their heads to scan it at closer distances), although many might view
it from farther away (but required resolution drops with distance, so that
isn't a problem).  The same calculation is used to prepare DOF tables and
markings.

> That is not what you initially said.

It is what I initially said; it just isn't what you understood.

> You said that 6M pixels WAS THE limit
> of human vision, and I said it is not,
> and it simply is not.  You didn't
> qualify it with a particular area.

I didn't have to, as anyone with a knowledge of the physiology of vision
already knows how I arrived at that figure.

> What defines a "full frame image"?

The entire image seen at any one time with movements of the eyes alone,
without cropping and without turning the head.

> Why?

Because if the resolution is less than the resolving power of the eye, a
lack of detail is discernable.  If the resolution is higher than the
resolving power of the eye, the additional detail beyond that
resolving-power limit is invisible (to human eyes).

> I understand all that, but that doesn't negate
> my disagreement with your statements.

It does, however, make your disagreement moot.

> Yes you are.

Because you say so?  I think not.

Others reading these posts can judge for themselves.  I've explained all
these principles exhaustively; you have explained virtually nothing.  The
weight of facts and reason thus work in my favor.  But the final
determination is made by the reader.

> Obviously, you can't, or you would.

That is flawed logic as well.

Austin writes:

> Depth of field is not limited by the resolution
> of the media, that's not part of the equation.

I didn't say otherwise.  It is limited by the resolving power of the eye.

> It is limited by a somewhat arbitrary calculation
> based on human visual acuity and some arbitrary
> viewing distance.

I know.  Why do you consider things correct when you write them, but
incorrect when I write them?

> You probably believe Nyquist has no role in all
> this ...

You probably should not speculate on what I do or don't believe.  I know why
you are doing it, and it doesn't work with me, so why bother?

> But again, I think using some arbitrary dimension
> for your claim is simply silly ...

You didn't find it silly a few paragraphs ago when you described using
exactly the same thing to calculate DOF.  Hmm.

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Editor writes:
>
>  
>
>>There was NO time before the BIG BANG...
>>    
>>
>
>Then logically the universe has always existed, since "before" has no
>meaning.
>
>  
>
>>The Universe prior to the Big Bang is believed
>>to have been essentially a single unit of energy/mass
>>...
>>    
>>
>
>How can the universe prior to the Big Bang have been anything?  You just
>said that time didn't exist before the Big Bang; therefore there was no
>"prior."
>
>  
>
Actually, you've run smack dab into a problem Douglass Adams speaks of 
in the Hitchiker's Guide series..

When we start dissecting time and separate it from its normal understood 
referents, a few things happen:

1)    There is no reason time is necessarily undirectional..

2)    Ergo, time travel is possible..

3)    Language has a HUGE problem dealing with it... How do you 
effectively convey the thought of doing something fromsome future point 
which takes you back in the past so you can change today?  Verb 
conjugation becomes particularly ludicrous. - phrases get loopy like --  
"I will be having went?"  "Gone until being came again?"  --- 
Accordingly, if I recallcorrectly Adams had College English Professors 
as one of the larger anti-time travel groups, as part of the "Campaign 
for Real Time"..

However, because language does not today have ready ways to describe 
events, does not mean the events are illogical..  Until the Orange Shift 
bit EPSON and Wilhelm on the butt, no-one would have given two pfennigs 
about using the phrase "gasfastness"...  Actually, German, with its 
compund word structure  is much better at dealing with abstract concepts 
than English..   Things like Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft,and the idea of 
a Noumenal realm don't translate neatly into English, and end-up 
sounding like 1960's and 1970's EST babble from the California.

Bokeh and pixelization, both are phrases for which you have to create 
technology and perceive the phenomenae before naming them..  As is 
acutance or metamerism..  They are all abstractions of  phenomenae we 
see, but didn't have simple words to describe neatly..   Each of them 
can probably be better expressed mathematically than by language, but 
how many will be able to comprehend the math?  or more importantly, why 
use equations when one word will suffice as shorthand?


Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Austin writes:
>
>  
>
>>No, with most people that's true ...
>>    
>>
>
>The truth of the principle does not vary by person, since it is based on
>objective logic.
>
>  
>
>>East is simply a universal standard (well,
>>for most people), and most people know what
>>direction East is...
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

Actually it's only relative to any magnetic field.. It shood be 
counterclockwise around the filed lines if you look down from the north 
pole tothe south pole of any field..

With the earth's field flipping every 10,000 years or so... it's even 
relative here..

Keith



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anthony,

> > It is limited by a somewhat arbitrary calculation
> > based on human visual acuity and some arbitrary
> > viewing distance.
>
> I know.  Why do you consider things correct when you write them, but
> incorrect when I write them?

It's the APPLICATION that is correct when I write it, and incorrect when you
write it.

> > You probably believe Nyquist has no role in all
> > this ...
>
> You probably should not speculate on what I do or don't believe.
> I know why
> you are doing it, and it doesn't work with me, so why bother?

I'm speculating based on previous conversations where you didn't understand
the role Nyquist played.

> > But again, I think using some arbitrary dimension
> > for your claim is simply silly ...
>
> You didn't find it silly a few paragraphs ago when you described using
> exactly the same thing to calculate DOF.  Hmm.

Er, where did I calculate DOF?

Anyway, it appears I'm not going to get a straight answer out of you, and
this is now degrading into something that has nothing to do with the topic
at hand.

Austin

Austin - you should no from past experience on the LUG that trying to have a
dialogue with Anthony is crazy. He is the only person ever to have been
chucked off the SP list too - filter filter

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Shooting digital vs. film


> Anthony,
>
> > > It is limited by a somewhat arbitrary calculation
> > > based on human visual acuity and some arbitrary
> > > viewing distance.
> >
> > I know.  Why do you consider things correct when you write them, but
> > incorrect when I write them?
>
> It's the APPLICATION that is correct when I write it, and incorrect when
you
> write it.
>
> > > You probably believe Nyquist has no role in all
> > > this ...
> >
> > You probably should not speculate on what I do or don't believe.
> > I know why
> > you are doing it, and it doesn't work with me, so why bother?
>
> I'm speculating based on previous conversations where you didn't
understand
> the role Nyquist played.
>
> > > But again, I think using some arbitrary dimension
> > > for your claim is simply silly ...
> >
> > You didn't find it silly a few paragraphs ago when you described using
> > exactly the same thing to calculate DOF.  Hmm.
>
> Er, where did I calculate DOF?
>
> Anyway, it appears I'm not going to get a straight answer out of you, and
> this is now degrading into something that has nothing to do with the topic
> at hand.
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Austin writes:

> It's the APPLICATION that is correct when I
> write it, and incorrect when you write it.

Right.

> I'm speculating based on previous conversations
> where you didn't understand the role Nyquist played.

There haven't been any such conversations.

> Er, where did I calculate DOF?

You didn't.

> Anyway, it appears I'm not going to get a straight
> answer out of you, and this is now degrading into
> something that has nothing to do with the topic
> at hand.

It did that long ago, but you are such an entertaining target that I
couldn't resist.

Austin, I have it on good authority that it was even blacker than
enhanced black.

Jerry

> > Austin, i have a serious question for you, and I feel you can best
> > explain it.
> >
> > What, precisely did the universe look like 5 minutes before the big bang?
 
> I have absolutely no idea.  Perhaps you ought to ask Anthony ;-)
> 
> Austin

I know Austin. I can't imagine this list without a daily argument from
you. It's refreshing, and looked forward to. I just can't understand why
you prefer film over digital... Or is it Digital over film? I'm never
quite sure.

Jerry

Austin,

My Darkroom was destroyed in our "Flood of the Century" up here in 1997.
I managed to save the major equipment, but the room was toast, so I no
longer have a darkroom. Actually, I'm quite happy with my D60, and am
anxious for fall to get here so I can get some nice digital pix.  I'm
planning on taking a few panoramas on the North Shore of Lake Superior.

J.

> Oh, and by the way, I want pictures of you in the darkroom, drowning your
> D60 in Dektol ;-)
> 
> Austin
>

Hi Jerry,

> I know Austin. I can't imagine this list without a daily argument from
> you. It's refreshing, and looked forward to.

I hope I'm not disappointing you then!

> I just can't understand why
> you prefer film over digital... Or is it Digital over film? I'm never
> quite sure.

It depends on what I'm trying to do.  For some things, digital works better
(shooting for the web, or catalog work, studio still life etc.), and for
some things (B&W, existing light...and general family shooting, as I find
film easier to catalog and two for one prints are great ;-)

Digital will come "of age" in a few years, at least for 35mmesque cameras, I
have no doubts about that...but until then, I'll still be using mostly film,
and certainly for medium format, film has really is the only way to go at
this point in time.

Regards,

Austin

I am about to put a cat in the pigeon house, I have been shooting 
professionally now for 30 years the last 3 on digital. The results 
that I have with my Leaf Volarie 6 mp 3 shot chip used in a 1 shot 
mode on a Fuji 6x8 i.e. giving me B/W capture only just blow film out 
of the water, I have a tonal range and quality of image that I can 
not even come close to in the wet darkroom. I recently upgraded to a 
Sinar 44 16 mp chip and the results are even better now. I have been 
a strong supporter of the tradition print but now 95% my images are 
done digitally. The best I can get is 8 stops from film I get 11 from 
the chip. If you cant get a good shot from a contrasty subject then 
you are using the wrong curve at capture.

Bruce


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "akivisuals" 
<akivisuals@y...> wrote:

> Does anyone here have input as far as shooting digitally vs. 
> scanning transparencies or negatives?  I have heard that you 
> can get more latitude with digital.  Also, you don't have to worry 
> about the whole scanning process and paying for good drum 
> scans if you shoot digitally if the camera is capable enough.  Do 
> most people in this group scan trannies or shoot digitally?  What 
> level camera do you need to be able to print good 16x20's or 
> bigger?  How big can you print with a 6 megapixel Canon 1D, 
> D60, D30, or Fuji S2?  I'm curious to see what people are using 
> to create their images.  Thanks!
> 
> Andy

> I have been a strong supporter of the tradition
> print but now 95% my images are done digitally.

To each his own.  If you do not have a need for very high resolution, and/or
speed is important, and/or money is no object, and/or you need the "clean"
look of digital, and/or color smearing is not an issue, then digital is
fine.  But it's not for everyone.

> The best I can get is 8 stops from film I get 11 from
> the chip.

You should be able to get 11 stops from film, too.  But you can get 17 stops
from an actively cooled CCD of the right kind.  None of this matters,
though, since you'll be lucky to ever put even seven stops on paper, and
that's under ideal conditions (if you print offset, five stops is a more
realistic figure).

Paulo,

> I have with my Leaf Volarie 6 mp 3 shot chip used in a 1 shot
> mode...giving me B/W capture only just blow film out
> of the water, I have a tonal range and quality of image that I can
> not even come close to in the wet darkroom.

That certainly hasn't been my experience.  I also use a Leaf 6M camera (as
well as a 7k scanning back), and I get better B&W (and color) results using
film with my Hasselblad.  6M only gives you 2000 x 3000, and that, at 200PPI
to the printer gives you a 10 x 15 image without rezzing it up...and that's
quite low PPI to the printer, mind you.  It can make pretty decent 8x10s
though...but the tonality doesn't come near to comparing.

> I recently upgraded to a
> Sinar 44 16 mp chip and the results are even better now. ...The best I can
get is 8 stops from film I get 11 from
> the chip.

Then you are not using your film as well as it can be used.  I routinely get
11 stops from B&W film.  Also, you are tethered as well as require your
images to be still for the MINUTES it takes to make the scan.

Digital certainly has it's place, but for B&W, it certainly doesn't "blow
film out of the water".  It has certain advantages, and film has certain
advantages.  You have to tailor your use to your needs.

Austin

Sorry, that was meant to be addressed to Bruce, not Paulo...

>
> Paulo,
>
> > I have with my Leaf Volarie 6 mp 3 shot chip used in a 1 shot
> > mode...giving me B/W capture only just blow film out
> > of the water, I have a tonal range and quality of image that I can
> > not even come close to in the wet darkroom.
>
> That certainly hasn't been my experience.  I also use a Leaf 6M camera (as
> well as a 7k scanning back), and I get better B&W (and color)
> results using
> film with my Hasselblad.  6M only gives you 2000 x 3000, and
> that, at 200PPI
> to the printer gives you a 10 x 15 image without rezzing it
> up...and that's
> quite low PPI to the printer, mind you.  It can make pretty decent 8x10s
> though...but the tonality doesn't come near to comparing.
>
> > I recently upgraded to a
> > Sinar 44 16 mp chip and the results are even better now. ...The
> best I can
> get is 8 stops from film I get 11 from
> > the chip.
>
> Then you are not using your film as well as it can be used.  I
> routinely get
> 11 stops from B&W film.  Also, you are tethered as well as require your
> images to be still for the MINUTES it takes to make the scan.
>
> Digital certainly has it's place, but for B&W, it certainly doesn't "blow
> film out of the water".  It has certain advantages, and film has certain
> advantages.  You have to tailor your use to your needs.
>
> Austin
>

Austin

You have no concept of what sort of back I am using if your ill 
informed answer is any thing to go by. It is not a scanning back as 
you stated but real time capture, Yes it is tethered to a computer 
but a laptop is not that hard to carry around compared to an 8x10 
field camera. I can assure you that my knowlage of B/W film is very 
extensive as I used to test new films for Ilford. I expected someone 
to bite with what I wrote, and I did not make the statment lightly. I 
stand by what I have said as I have the results to prove it. I guess 
that we will just have to agree to disagree!

Bruce

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> Sorry, that was meant to be addressed to Bruce, not Paulo...
> 
> >
> > Paulo,
> >
> > > I have with my Leaf Volarie 6 mp 3 shot chip used in a 1 shot
> > > mode...giving me B/W capture only just blow film out
> > > of the water, I have a tonal range and quality of image that I 
can
> > > not even come close to in the wet darkroom.
> >
> > That certainly hasn't been my experience.  I also use a Leaf 6M 
camera (as
> > well as a 7k scanning back), and I get better B&W (and color)
> > results using
> > film with my Hasselblad.  6M only gives you 2000 x 3000, and
> > that, at 200PPI
> > to the printer gives you a 10 x 15 image without rezzing it
> > up...and that's
> > quite low PPI to the printer, mind you.  It can make pretty 
decent 8x10s
> > though...but the tonality doesn't come near to comparing.
> >
> > > I recently upgraded to a
> > > Sinar 44 16 mp chip and the results are even better now. ...The
> > best I can
> > get is 8 stops from film I get 11 from
> > > the chip.
> >
> > Then you are not using your film as well as it can be used.  I
> > routinely get
> > 11 stops from B&W film.  Also, you are tethered as well as 
require your
> > images to be still for the MINUTES it takes to make the scan.
> >
> > Digital certainly has it's place, but for B&W, it certainly 
doesn't "blow
> > film out of the water".  It has certain advantages, and film has 
certain

> > advantages.  You have to tailor your use to your needs.
> >
> > Austin
> >

Robert,

If it's not giving away all your secrets - just what makes a good 
bidder?

Thanks,

Richard

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison 
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> $1500...mint...I'm a good bidder...and there were several up at the 
same
> time.
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 9/6/02 9:24 AM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> 
> > You bought a Mamiya 7II AND a 65mm lens for a thousand dollars?  
In
> > decent condition? That's a fantastic price. Some people have all 
the
> > luck...  Wonder why it was so inexpensive!
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > Robert Morrison wrote:
> >> 
> >> I bought my Mamiya 7II and 65mm f4 for about $1000 US less than 
your
> >> D60...ebay...another problem with digital...if you want the best 
and the
> >> latest you end up buying new and paying list price...
> >> 
> >> Robert
> >> 
> >> On 9/5/02 3:05 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Ah Yes, the Mamiya 7 II. Probably has the sharpest lenses you 
can buy in
> >>> medium format.  Too bad they're priced only for the yachting 
set.
> >>> 
> >>> Jerry
> >>> 
> >>>> Particularly when it comes with an onboard nuclear reactor to 
power it, has
> >>>> dual 100gb microdrives to store the images, takes my tiny M-
mount lenses
> >>>> and
> >>>> only costs the $450 that my Bessa did...wow...then it would be 
just as good
> >>>> as my current rig with Neopan 100...hee hee...but not my 
Mamiya 7II.
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and
> >>> other
> >>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >>> 
> >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >>> 
> >>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> >>> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same
> >>> page.
> >>> 
> >>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >>> - Include your full name with your message.
> >>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> >>> them short.
> >>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
subject header.
> >>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> >>> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> >>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
the various
> >>> resources on the homepage.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and
> >> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >> 
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >> 
> >> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> >> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> >> page.
> >> 
> >> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >> - Include your full name with your message.
> >> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> >> them short.
> >> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
subject header.
> >> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> >> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> >> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various
> >> resources on the homepage.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > 
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> > page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various
> > resources on the homepage.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > 
> >

Bruce,

I know what a Leaf VOLARE (no i) is, as I've used one.  I know the Volare is
not a "scanning" back, I was referring to MY scanning camera and scanning
back, as they both do take minutes, of course, my one shot does not.  The
Volare is a "one shot" back for B&W and a three shot back for color, because
it puts a filter in front of the CCD for each of the three colors for an RGB
image capture, or a single ND filter for a B&W image capture.  The Volare
DOES take some time, though it's seconds, to take an image, and the film
speed is very limited...especially for color.  There is quite a shutter lag
compared to a film camera.  You certainly can't carry it around and use it
like you would film.  These are both limitation of it, compared to film
cameras.

The Volare is really great, as it does give true resolution B&W with a
single ND filter.  But, it's still a 2k x 3k sensor though, and simply, from
a resolution standpoint, doesn't come close to comparable ASA MF film.  The
resolution simply is not there to make as large an image with the Volare of
similar quality and size as film can give you.  This is not theory, this is
just fact.  Even if you rez up, the detail does not compare.  You can't make
up detail that simply isn't there in the original data file.

The Volare does make great 8x10s, and IS better than a Bayer pattern camera,
since it is a true resolution camera, and has a native ND scan for B&W, with
no conversion.  It DOES make great B&W images, no doubt.

I'm not in any way, shape or form degrading the Volare, it gives great
images, but it HAS limitations, and your claim that it gives better B&W than
film is simply not my experience, as I said.  The Volare works on MF
cameras, so you must compare the results to MF film.  Perhaps for you it's
true that your Volare gives you better B&W images than film, but I don't
know how good you are with B&W film, what film you are talking about, how it
was exposed and developed etc.  Those are all critical in this comparison.
I know that I get better results from film, plain and simple.  From a
tonality prospective, a latitude prospective and a resolution prospective...

Regards,

Austin

> Austin
>
> You have no concept of what sort of back I am using if your ill
> informed answer is any thing to go by. It is not a scanning back as
> you stated but real time capture, Yes it is tethered to a computer
> but a laptop is not that hard to carry around compared to an 8x10
> field camera. I can assure you that my knowlage of B/W film is very
> extensive as I used to test new films for Ilford. I expected someone
> to bite with what I wrote, and I did not make the statment lightly. I
> stand by what I have said as I have the results to prove it. I guess
> that we will just have to agree to disagree!
>
> Bruce
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, that was meant to be addressed to Bruce, not Paulo...
> >
> > >
> > > Paulo,
> > >
> > > > I have with my Leaf Volarie 6 mp 3 shot chip used in a 1 shot
> > > > mode...giving me B/W capture only just blow film out
> > > > of the water, I have a tonal range and quality of image that I
> can
> > > > not even come close to in the wet darkroom.
> > >
> > > That certainly hasn't been my experience.  I also use a Leaf 6M
> camera (as
> > > well as a 7k scanning back), and I get better B&W (and color)
> > > results using
> > > film with my Hasselblad.  6M only gives you 2000 x 3000, and
> > > that, at 200PPI
> > > to the printer gives you a 10 x 15 image without rezzing it
> > > up...and that's
> > > quite low PPI to the printer, mind you.  It can make pretty
> decent 8x10s
> > > though...but the tonality doesn't come near to comparing.
> > >
> > > > I recently upgraded to a
> > > > Sinar 44 16 mp chip and the results are even better now. ...The
> > > best I can
> > > get is 8 stops from film I get 11 from
> > > > the chip.
> > >
> > > Then you are not using your film as well as it can be used.  I
> > > routinely get
> > > 11 stops from B&W film.  Also, you are tethered as well as
> require your
> > > images to be still for the MINUTES it takes to make the scan.
> > >
> > > Digital certainly has it's place, but for B&W, it certainly
> doesn't "blow
> > > film out of the water".  It has certain advantages, and film has
> certain
> > > advantages.  You have to tailor your use to your needs.
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>