Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Terry Mester on May 27, 2006, 03:25:51 am

Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Terry Mester on May 27, 2006, 03:25:51 am
I reviewed the Web Article from the four Photographers regarding their experiments with different Digital Cameras / Lenses and 4x5 Inch Film Sheet.  Their undertaking had a major fatal flaw.  They didn't produce Optical Prints from the Film.  Instead, they just scanned the Film Sheet into their Computer which means that the original Resolution (86 Trillion) and Colour of the Film is lost.  Film has a Resolution of 6.9 Billion  Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre, but this is only retained if the Picture Print is made using real Light -- not a Computer Scan.  The Attached File explains the inferiorities of Digital Photography.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 27, 2006, 07:31:17 am
Well, now we know. Don't we?

I normally am polite and try and explain when someone is so off-the-wall as you are with this position. But, this is beyond the pale.

In a word – RUBBISH.

I won't delete this because even though it's total nonsense, I'm sure the discussion will be fun.  

I'm amazed that you actually have the temerity to post this unscientific drivil on a board where there are people who know what they're actually talking about.

Michael

PS: Have you ever compared a traditional enlarger made print with a good scanned inkjet of the same image? Have you even seen a Lightjet or Durst Lamba print from a good scan?

Likely not, or you wouldn't spout such indefensable nonsense.

PPS. The Flat Earth Society web site is over that way.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Kenneth Sky on May 27, 2006, 07:58:21 am
Michael
I suspect this thread is a practical joke and you've bitten. At the least it's psudo-science and misses the point of all the discussions on this website. You put enough disclaimers at the front of the test for most people to realize the limitations of it. Still it's the best test out there for all to use and criticize. You predicted the critics but said your skin was thick enough to take it. Believe me, when I speak for the thousands of "voyeurs" who come to this sight daily, we thank you for what was as scientific a test as was possible given the limitation of four independant professionals having to fund it by themselves.
Ken
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 27, 2006, 08:09:55 am
I wish it were a practical joke.

This has been a heated topic of discussion on another board for the past few days. Someone brought it to my attention yesterday (Sorry, I don't have the link handy at the moment).

It is so outrageosly dumb that it would appear to someone knowledable as a joke, but regretably I believe that this person actually believes what he writes.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Kenneth Sky on May 27, 2006, 08:44:20 am
It's impossible to deny a negative. Let's move on to some practical discussion on how to get the best possible pictures with the tools at hand.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 27, 2006, 09:19:10 am
Quote
Well, now we know. Don't we?

I normally am polite and try and explain when someone is so off-the-wall as you are with this position. But, this is beyond the pale.

In a word – RUBBISH.

I won't delete this because even though it's total nonsense, I'm sure the discussion will be fun.   ........................


Michael...............................

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If we don't make time for a bit of clowning around now and then, what is life? But this stuff is so obviously and outrageously foolish from the get-go it's best ignored.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Graeme Nattress on May 27, 2006, 09:21:36 am
Sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time and equating dye molecules to resolution really means that you've lost the picture! For starters, we all know the limits of resolution of what you record are down to the lens, and every time you make a film print (as you can see in any cinema) you throw resolution away.

What a wonderfully humourous way to start the morning! I Thank you!

Graeme
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: digitaldog on May 27, 2006, 12:28:10 pm
I have to agree with Michael. While it would be "nice" to have output, to what device? Optical printer? Get a room full of Lightjet and Lambda owners together and they will yell about which is better as quickly as a Mac versus PC or Canon versus Nikon group. Then the question could be "well what about Ink Jet" or "what about ink on paper". This could end up being another never ending cluster F%#K that diminishes from the initial work done. Buy the DVD, output the files as you like. End of story.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Jack Flesher on May 27, 2006, 05:39:10 pm
Quote
Film has a Resolution of 6.9 Billion  Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre,

Nice stat -- but I note you carefully avoid discussion of how many individual dye molecules it takes to make the actual dye cloud that forms the grain dot in the image?  It takes 1,000 of them to make that cloud!

Let's do a little aritmetic... 6.9ee9 / 1ee3 = 6.9ee6 or 6900000.  But you still have three individual dye colors, so we need to divide that 6900000 by 3^2 or 9, which = 76667 color dots per sq mm.  Now we take the sqrt of 76667 to arrive at the linear resolution of film: 276 color dots per mm. 276 dots per mm means that your film can resolve about 276/2 or 138 lpmm maximum.   (Which BTW helps explain why even the best color film tapped out at around 140 lpmm for resolution...)

~~~

My stat: Kodak themselves claim most consumer color films can only resolve between 40 and 65 lpmm.  Even if you use the best figure, 65 lpmm = 130 dots per mm.  1mm/130 = .007mm or 7u. Hence, any digital sensor with a pixel pitch at 7u is essentially equal to the best color film in terms of resolution.  

Someone remind me, what is the pixel pitch of the P45 again?

Cheers,
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 27, 2006, 06:54:16 pm
The P45 pixel pitch is 6.8 microns.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on May 27, 2006, 07:05:11 pm
Quote
My stat: Kodak themselves claim most consumer color films can only resolve between 40 and 65 lpmm. Even if you use the best figure, 65 lpmm = 130 dots per mm. 1mm/130 = .007mm or 7u. Hence, any digital sensor with a pixel pitch at 7u is essentially equal to the best color film in terms of resolution.

Technically that would work but only for the same size of sensor/film. In real terms however I'm sure few would argue that a 39 megapixel back can outresolve 645 film eventhough they are the same size. Why is that given the same lens? Is it a grain thing?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 27, 2006, 09:28:39 pm
Our recent Measuring Megabytes [/b]comparison answers the question very nicely, I think. Even though we didn't do a 6.9 billion molecule optical / chemical print.

God – don't you wish we actually did have molecular level imaging? (Just kidding folks; at the expense of our scientifcally challenged thread originator, whom I've notice hasn't returned for his spanking.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Jack Flesher on May 27, 2006, 09:48:44 pm
Quote
Our recent Measuring Megabytes [/b]comparison answers the question very nicely, I think. Even though we didn't do a 6.9 billion molecule optical / chemical print.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes it did and pretty conclusively IMO  

But even if you had done a 6.9 billion molecule optical/chemical print, you still would have received complaints --
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Terry Mester on May 27, 2006, 10:57:54 pm
Dear Micheal,

I'm assuming that you're the Photographer Michael Reichmann from the Article.  It certainly was not my intention to insult you or the others with my comments, and I do apologize if you were insulted.  Being a perfectionist, perhaps I'm a bit too over-scrupulous in how I like things to be done.  Now you referenced an Optical Photographic Print (made with the Enlarger) being of lower quality than a Digital Printer Print.  What SIZE were the Prints you referred to, and what was the Size and Speed of the Film used to make the Optical Print?


Quote
Well, now we know. Don't we?

I normally am polite and try and explain when someone is so off-the-wall as you are with this position. But, this is beyond the pale.

In a word – RUBBISH.

I won't delete this because even though it's total nonsense, I'm sure the discussion will be fun.   

I'm amazed that you actually have the temerity to post this unscientific drivil on a board where there are people who know what they're actually talking about.

Michael

PS: Have you ever compared a traditional enlarger made print with a good scanned inkjet of the same image? Have you even seen a Lightjet or Durst Lamba print from a good scan?

Likely not, or you wouldn't spout such indefensable nonsense.

PPS. The Flat Earth Society web site is over that way.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 28, 2006, 01:02:06 am
An interesting question under the circumstances.

I've done both B&W and colour printing in the chemical darkroom for about 30 years, finally closing my last darkroom in about 1998.

The answer to your question depends on the film format, though I've had literally billboard-sized blowups from medium format for advertising clients.

Assuming a high quality neg or transparency in all cases, and a fine-art application, I was never happy with larger than an 11X14" print from 35mm, or a 20X24" print from 6X6cm film. After that it seems that you're just enlarging grain, not displaying any additional real information.

Film speeds? Everything from ASA 2 (High Contast Copy film developed to continious tone back in the 1960's) to ISO 3200.

Why?

Michael

Ps: If you've never done any extensive darkroom work yourself, be aware of the potential pitfalls preventing achieving optimum image quality. These include...

- paralellism (or its lack) of the enlarger's head and base
- enlarging lens quality and allignment
- film flatness with glassless carriers.
- Newton rings with glass carriers
- paper flatness
- criticality of enlarger focus
- negative buckling from bulb heat
- use of the enlarging lens' optimium aperture (which may be at odds with having enough light to make a large print)
- eveness of illumination of the enlarging head
- resolution characteristics of the enlarging paper (and related limitations)
- loss of contrast when large prints are made, including reciprocity effects with related long exposures.

And, oh yes, did I mention film buckling? Speaking of which, medium format suffers from film flatness problems – big time, especially on the first shot after the roll has sat in the camera for more than 24 hours with a reverse curl.

And sheet film, well, did you remember to tap the holder to ensure that the film isn't buckeled in the holder? Nothing can screw up large format faster than buckled film, which happens more often than most LF photographers care to admit.

Digital prints on the other hand. Humm. Let's see. No film flatness problems, no buckling, no secondary optical path during the enlarging process, no focusing issues when enlarging, no Newton rings, no paralellism issues, no paper flatness issues.

Oh yes. Add to that an almost total lack of grain (noise) at all reasonable ISOs, no processing variability, no reciprocity failure, etc, etc.

I could go on. But, it's late, and I think (hope) I've made my point.

The good old days of film with it's superior quality? Uhh... No thanks. No way. No how.

PPs. Yes, I do still have a Canon 1V, as well as a film back for my Hasselblad. I do even occasionally shoot film, when its attributes are appropriate for a particular project. But, I would never go back to optical / printing in the chemical darkroom. Never.

Why? Image quality above all. Plus greater convenience, perfect repeatability, faster turn-around and lower cost. And finally, not having to work in the dark for hours (days) at a time breathing toxic chemical fumes. Give me a glass of Merlot in front of the computer screen any day.

M
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Terry Mester on May 28, 2006, 01:11:29 am
I'm afraid that you don't possess knowledge of Molecular Chemistry or the Physics of Light.  The numbers you suggested are impossible.  The Article Attached to my original posting explains in detail the matter of Resolution, and so I'm not going to reiterate those facts in this Reply.  You can download the Article to read.
It is not possible for there to be 1000 Molecules per Dye Cloud on lower Speed Films.  Kodak for their part hasn't even bothered to calculate the Resolutions of their Films.  In addition to that, Kodak and Fuji don't provide any information which they consider "proprietary".  As well, the question of Dye Clouds is a complete variable depending upon the Film's ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture, the amount of light on the Subject and the number of Light Waves affecting given Molecules of Dye.  It is probably impossible to have 1000 Molecules forming a Dye Cloud even with a Film of 1000 ISO Speed.



Quote
Nice stat -- but I note you carefully avoid discussion of how many individual dye molecules it takes to make the actual dye cloud that forms the grain dot in the image?  It takes 1,000 of them to make that cloud!

Let's do a little aritmetic... 6.9ee9 / 1ee3 = 6.9ee6 or 6900000.  But you still have three individual dye colors, so we need to divide that 6900000 by 3^2 or 9, which = 76667 color dots per sq mm.  Now we take the sqrt of 76667 to arrive at the linear resolution of film: 276 color dots per mm. 276 dots per mm means that your film can resolve about 276/2 or 138 lpmm maximum.   (Which BTW helps explain why even the best color film tapped out at around 140 lpmm for resolution...)

~~~

My stat: Kodak themselves claim most consumer color films can only resolve between 40 and 65 lpmm.  Even if you use the best figure, 65 lpmm = 130 dots per mm.  1mm/130 = .007mm or 7u. Hence, any digital sensor with a pixel pitch at 7u is essentially equal to the best color film in terms of resolution. 

Someone remind me, what is the pixel pitch of the P45 again?

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Terry Mester on May 28, 2006, 01:26:08 am
Thanks for the info.  Those top sizes for 35mm Prints sound correct from a Physics / Light perspective.  From your original comment it sounded like you were talking about a 4x5 Sheet.  I just wanted to verify what Film Size you were referring to.  I don't question for a second that it's more convenient to use Digital processing.  Commercial clients are also completely satisfied with Digital prints.  From a Personal Photography perspective -- i. e. people taking their important family memories -- Film Photography is the only smart route to take if you wish to ensure that you preserve your important Pictures for the future.  Computer Picture Files don't come with long-term guarantees.  Best regards.

Terry


Quote
An interesting question under the circumstances.

I've done both B&W and colour printing in the chemical darkroom for about 30 years, finally closing my last darkroom in about 1998.

The answer to your question depends on the film format, though I've had literally billboard-sized blowups from medium format for advertising clients.

Assuming a high quality neg or transparency in all cases, and a fine-art application, I was never happy with larger than an 11X14" print from 35mm, or a 20X24" print from 6X6cm film. After that it seems that you're just enlarging grain, not displaying any additional real information.

Film speeds? Everything from ASA 2 (High Contast Copy film developed to continious tone back in the 1960's) to ISO 3200.

Why?

Michael

Ps: If you've never done any extensive darkroom work yourself, be aware of the potential pitfalls preventing achieving optimum image quality. These include...

- paralellism (or its lack) of the enlarger's head and base
- enlarging lens quality and allignment
- film flatness with glassless carriers.
- Newton rings with glass carriers
- paper flatness
- criticality of enlarger focus
- negative buckling from bulb heat
- use of the enlarging lens' optimium aperture (which may be at odds with having enough light to make a large print)
- eveness of illumination of the enlarging head
- resolution characteristics of the enlarging paper (and related limitations)
- loss of contrast when large prints are made, including reciprocity effects with related long exposures.

And, oh yes, did I mention film buckling? Speaking of which, medium format suffers from film flatness problems – big time, especially on the first shot after the roll has sat in the camera for more than 24 hours with a reverse curl.

And sheet film, well, did you remember to tap the holder to ensure that the film isn't buckeled in the holder? Nothing can screw up large format faster than buckled film, which happens more often than most LF photographers care to admit.

Digital prints on the other hand. Humm. Let's see. No film flatness problems, no buckling, no secondary optical path during the enlarging process, no focusing issues when enlarging, no Newton rings, no paralellism issues, no paper flatness issues.

Oh yes. Add to that an almost total lack of grain (noise) at all reasonable ISOs, no processing variability, no reciprocity failure, etc, etc.

I could go on. But, it's late, and I think (hope) I've made my point.

The good old days of film with it's superior quality? Uhh... No thanks. No way. No how.

PPs. Yes, I do still have a Canon 1V, as well as a film back for my Hasselblad. I do even occasionally shoot film, when its attributes are appropriate for a particular project. But, I would never go back to optical / printing in the chemical darkroom. Never.

Why? Image quality above all. Plus greater convenience, perfect repeatability, faster turn-around and lower cost. And finally, not having to work in the dark for hours (days) at a time breathing toxic chemical fumes. Give me a glass of Merlot in front of the computer screen any day.

M
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: DarkPenguin on May 28, 2006, 02:00:19 am
Quote
*chomp*
From a Personal Photography perspective -- i. e. people taking their important family memories -- Film Photography is the only smart route to take if you wish to ensure that you preserve your important Pictures for the future.  Computer Picture Files don't come with long-term guarantees.  Best regards.

Terry
*chomp*

Film does?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 28, 2006, 07:59:57 am
Quote
Film does?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly.

First of all, I'm glad that the preposterous premise of billions of molecules is now behind us, or are you still riding that particular hobby horse?.

Colour transparency film as well as colour negatives have a very short life span. Most will fade to the point of unusability in a couple of decades at best. The only one with staying power is Kodachrome, which is regretably fast on its way to oblivion. (How many Kodachrome labs are left in the world? A half dozen?)

B&W film is better, maybe 100+ years, but only assuming that it's been archivally processed. Otherwise, again, just decades.

The real Achilles heel of film is that it is a single physical object, subject to loss and damage. A digital file though can exists in multiple copies. Lose or destroy one, and the others are unaffected.

Yes, data storage media are subject to deterioration and obsolecense, but by making new copies from time to time they can be made to literally last forever.

As for prints, well again you're wrong. Colour prints using chemistry are fugative. A typical C print will start to seriously fade after just a few decades. Cibachrome prints after about 50-70 years. Even Dye Transfers not much more.

On the other hand Epson inkjet prints using K3 pigment inks are rated by Henry Wilhelm (the industry standard) as 100 years+ on display, and much longer in dark storage. In fact an inkjet print made on cotton rag paper with K3 inks is the longest lived colour photographic reproducttion media ever! (Carbro prints are another story, but one that's only relevent to the 4 people left in the world who know how to make them).

B&W, is also another story. An archivally processed, selenium or gold toned B&W print made on silver gelatin paper (not RC) will last for hundreds of years. But (and it's a big but), with the exception of a limited number of very skilled darkroom workers who still make such prints, you're likely to never see them outside of galleries and museums, and certainly not with your family photographs.

So. We've debunked your mythology about the superiority of optical enlargements. Now we see clearly that chemical prints in fact don't last as long as inkjets, to "ensure that you preserve your important Pictures for the future".

Any more misinformation you'd like to share with us?

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 28, 2006, 08:05:14 am
Quote
Thanks for the info.  Those top sizes for 35mm Prints sound correct from a Physics / Light perspective.  From your original comment it sounded like you were talking about a 4x5 Sheet.  I just wanted to verify what Film Size you were referring to.  I don't question for a second that it's more convenient to use Digital processing.  Commercial clients are also completely satisfied with Digital prints.  From a Personal Photography perspective -- i. e. people taking their important family memories -- Film Photography is the only smart route to take if you wish to ensure that you preserve your important Pictures for the future.  Computer Picture Files don't come with long-term guarantees.  Best regards.

Terry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Terry, this got me piqued enough to ignore my own previous advice that this foolishness is best ignored. My photographic life is "personal photography" - and I have left film behind for good, except for about a thousand or so legacy images from my film days that I'm scanning so I can make prints from my Epson that are noticeably superior in every reespect to just about anything from a wet-lab. As for print permanence, you obviously haven't done your homework on this subject. Go to www.wilhelm-research.com and start reading, because you have a lot to learn.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Jack Flesher on May 28, 2006, 10:06:03 am
Re print performance:  Just for the record, I recently salvaged a frame from a Cibachrome that I had made perhaps 15 years ago.  The print had been mounted with archival materials and displayed in typical room light with no direct sun for approximately 10 years, then pulled down and stowed for eventual recycling of the frame.  It looked fine after those 15 years -- until I removed it from the frame and matte.  I could very clearly see where the portion under the matte retained deeper, more accurate color.  

So in at least one example, the 50-year life of Cibachrome is a myth...
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: neal shields on May 29, 2006, 10:53:58 am
No one seemed much impressed with my FBI.gov link:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/apr...swgitfield1.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm)

So how about Zeiss.com?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...1256F2C002B7DBB (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/9B38941E0C36CF0DC1256F2C002B7DBB)

They are resolving 170 lp/mm with Velva, and up to 400 with specialized B&W film.

Logicaly it takes at least two rows of pixels to resolve a line pair. (most people say three)  One for the black line and one for the white space.

That means that it takes an inch tall piece of film would need at least a scan of 340 times 24 to resolve all the detail, or about at least 8000 dpi.  That just happens to be the number other testers have found empirically.  So why would anyone "test" film by scanning it at 3200 dpi?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: collum on May 29, 2006, 11:39:13 am
Quote
No one seemed much impressed with my FBI.gov link:


They are resolving 170 lp/mm with Velva, and up to 400 with specialized B&W film.

Logicaly it takes at least two rows of pixels to resolve a line pair. (most people say three)  One for the black line and one for the white space.

That means that it takes an inch tall piece of film would need at least a scan of 340 times 24 to resolve all the detail, or about at least 8000 dpi.  That just happens to be the number other testers have found empirically.  So why would anyone "test" film by scanning it at 3200 dpi?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i am impressed that you've beeen able to test film/lens combinations and demonstrate a 170 lp/mm with Velvia. Which lens  did you use (4x5 specific, since that's the film we're talking about)?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BJL on May 29, 2006, 03:08:18 pm
Quote
No one seemed much impressed with my FBI.gov link:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/apr...swgitfield1.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm)

So how about Zeiss.com?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...1256F2C002B7DBB (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/9B38941E0C36CF0DC1256F2C002B7DBB)

They are resolving 170 lp/mm with Velva, and up to 400 with specialized B&W film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
These sources, Zeiss at least, seem to be about "extinction resolution" with extreme high contrast subject matter like resolution test charts. This might be relvant to th FBI when reproducing high contrast black and white text documents, but it is is all in the realm of MTF levels below 10%, which is of no relevance to normal photographic needs. Instead for most photography it is more interesting to look at how fine the details can be and still be resolved with about 50% MTF or better.

When you change to more relevant standards like 50% MTF, film resolution numbers fall much lower, as film has a long slow decline of MTF as lp/mm increases, whereas digital sensors can hold 50% MTF or better almost up to the limit where resolution fails entirely. (The spec sheet for one of the the new 30MP plus higher Dalsa sensors reports an excellent MTF of 70% all the way to the Nyquist limit on one line pair for each two pixels, but than is for a monochrome sensor without Bayer color filter array.)

An example: that Zeiss link reports Velvia resolution of 170lp/mm, and Fuji reports 160lp/mm with an exteme high contrast 1000:1 test pattern. But Fuji also publishes MTF curves for Velvia which show that MTF is already below 50% by 50lp/mm, and those curves for Velvia do not even go beyond about 60lp/mm.

The drop from 160 or 170 lp/mm to below 50 lp/mm reduces the "pixel count equivalent" by a factor of about (170/50)^2 =11.6. That is, knock one zero of some of those those wildly optimistic pixel count equivalents.


P. S. The FBI source merely asserts a range of 40-160 lp/mm wit no details on measuremtn procedre of definitions. It then states that
"Color films used at crime scenes have resolutions at the lower end of this range"
and that
"A single frame of 35 mm ISO 200 color film is 36 mm wide by 24 mm high. With a resolution of 50 line pairs per millimeter, such a frame can resolve ... 8,640,000 pixels."

This fits fairly well with other sources sugesting that Velvia in 35mm format matches about the 8MP of an Olympus E-500 or Canon 350D and probably falls a bit short of the Sony R1 as a choice for high resolution in crime sceme photography.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Gary Ferguson on May 29, 2006, 07:27:24 pm
Quote
No one seemed much impressed with my FBI.gov link:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/apr...swgitfield1.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/apr...swgitfield1.htm)
So how about Zeiss.com?
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...1256F2C002B7DBB (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Cont...1256F2C002B7DBB)
They are resolving 170 lp/mm with Velva, and up to 400 with specialized B&W film.

I'm intrigued by this one, and as a long standing Zeiss/Hasselblad user I'd love for it to be true! Especially as Zeiss also claim their medium format lenses are every bit as good as their 35mm lenses. Unfortunately I have to put sentiment on one side and be a bit more realistic.

First, Zeiss of late seem to be stretching the credibility envelope. I'll give you just one example. A year or so ago one of Zeiss's suplliers of optical glass announced they'd no longer produce a particular glass containing arsenic and lead. This formulation was only available from them and was critical for the 903 38mm Biogon, which is one of the unique, bedrock products in the Zeiss/Hasselblad range. So they produced a new design, the 905, and trumpeted it as a wonderful advance that, by the way, will also save the planet as well as taking your photography to the next level. Problem is, when you look at the MTF charts for the 903 and 905 side by side you soon reach the conclusion that all that lead and arsenic was in there for a good reason! The moral of the story is to treat Zeiss's pronouncements with a king-sized grain of salt.

Next, these 400 lppm claims met a scathing response from Erwin Puts, the Leica guru. He basically agreed with BJL's conclusions that in real world photography such extreme claims are disingenuous, and for practical purposes photography pretty much hits a wall at about 80-100 lppm. Furthermore, he said even this is only achievable with the most stringent technique and with a few exceptional lenses, for the most part 60-80 lppm is a demanding enough limit.

This sounds like realistic advice born from genuine experience.

I look for medium format lenses that give 40 lppm at 40% MTF out to about 31mm from the centre (appropriate for the 37mm x 49mm digital sensor I use), by choosing selectively I've assembled a reasonable selection of Hasselblad lenses that deliver against this objective. And I've always found this more than adequate for my own photography, allowing crisp enlargements of x10 or occasionally even larger. What is the current insanity that drives photographers to expect anything more?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 29, 2006, 08:15:30 pm
Quote
What is the current insanity that drives photographers to expect anything more?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A cynic would say, because...

A: They don't understand the science.

or

B: They don't have much real-world experience with these tools.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Dave Millier on May 30, 2006, 05:40:20 am
Quote
I reviewed the Web Article from the four Photographers regarding their experiments with different Digital Cameras / Lenses and 4x5 Inch Film Sheet.  Their undertaking had a major fatal flaw.  They didn't produce Optical Prints from the Film.  Instead, they just scanned the Film Sheet into their Computer which means that the original Resolution (86 Trillion) and Colour of the Film is lost.  Film has a Resolution of 6.9 Billion  Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre, but this is only retained if the Picture Print is made using real Light -- not a Computer Scan.  The Attached File explains the inferiorities of Digital Photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I note the self-published "theory" and the heavy use of capitialisation in the poster's  writing. Add in the determined iconoclasm, the superior position of knowledge, the apparent learnedness and the resoluteness....

These are often classic symptoms of the species well known as "The Crank".  

I may be completely wrong in which case I apologise but I wouldn't be surprised if he also has unusual opinions on zero-point energy and why Einstein was wrong....

The best example I have of this kind of thing is a massive publication by Michael Pinder called "Time on our Hands - Global Philosophy for the New Age".  This is a splendid self published tome, many copies of which have been sent unsolicited to UK Civil Servants, which espouses the case for the adoption of a decimalised time system.

Not necesarily a crazy idea - afterall in Europe at least we are embracing the decimalisation of most measuring systems - but what really sets it apart is how it claims decimal time will prove to be the cure for just about all economic, political, medical and scientific problems.

The publication is highly literate, thoroughly researched and quite entertaining. Quite  barking, of course.  

There seem to be quite a lot of these sorts of people about - well meaning, determined, obessive. The more intelligent and/or better educated they are the more trouble they cause because it takes a bit more effort to counter their arguments.

The recent introduction of FOI legislation in the UK has given these people a field day as they can demand their legal rights to endless replies to requests for information.

My office recently spent over £50,000 of tax payers' money responding to one crank's demands for information and a public enquiry into a supposed political cover up...
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Dennis on May 30, 2006, 08:07:47 am
Quote
They are resolving 170 lp/mm with Velva, and up to 400 with specialized B&W film.
Don't confuse film resolution with resolution in a photograph. Be aware, that there is an diffraction limit to resolution, as well. E.g. at f/5.6, this limit is at 246 lp/mm. If you want to resolve 400 lp/mm, you'd need using a f-stop around 1:3. But there, you'll get some trouble with the optical performance of the lens (there's some glass inside, you remeber?). BTW: Film resolution is not determind by photographing some test patterns with a camera and a lens, it's more a process of a contact copy.

Quote
Logicaly it takes at least two rows of pixels to resolve a line pair. (most people say three)  One for the black line and one for the white space.
No, you need four rows of pixel to resolve one pair of lines. Ever heard of Nyquist theorem?

Quote
I note the self-published "theory" and the heavy use of capitialisation in the poster's  writing. Add in the determined iconoclasm, the superior position of knowledge, the apparent learnedness and the resoluteness....

These are often classic symptoms of the species well known as "The Crank".
 No comment on this.

But Michael, you should consider going back to film. As we now know:

In truth, the only type of person who actually needs a Digital Camera is someone who needs to be able to instantly E-Mail a picture (such as a newspaper journalist) or someone taking temporary pictures they don't wish to keep or print out.
(see Terry's linked article)

 

Quote
It is so outrageosly dumb that it would appear to someone knowledable as a joke, but regretably I believe that this person actually believes what he writes.
You just knew it, hm?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BJL on May 30, 2006, 10:21:29 am
Quote
No, you need four rows of pixel to resolve one pair of lines. Ever heard of Nyquist theorem?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dennis, I agree with most of your post, but as the resident professional mathematician here (who actually knows the proof the Nyquist's theorem, not just its statement) I have to disagree on this one.

Nyquists's theorem says that it takes at least two samples (two pixels) to resolve one cycle, meaning one period of variation. A "dark/light" line pair is a cycle, which is why line pairs rather than lines are traditionally used in describing resolution. Some MTF graphs are labelled in "cycles per mm" instead of lp/mm.

So, Nyquist demands at least two pixels per line pair, or one pixels per line.

For example, the 7.2 micron pixel spacing of Dalsa's new medium format FF CCD sensors, two pixels span 14.4 microns, and lie pairs 14.4 microns wide give a Nyquist frequency of gives 1000/14.4lp/mm, about 70lp/mm. Indeed Dalsa's data sheet for the 33MP monochrome FTF5066M uses this in the resolution specification:
"Resolution (MTF) @ 70lp/mm: minimum 65%".
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Graeme Nattress on May 30, 2006, 11:36:29 am
Yes, only a single pair of pixels needed to resolve one line pair. You generally need steeper anti-alias filtering for bayer pattern sensors though, and with a good demosaicing algorithm reckon on about >70% of the actual pixel resolution as RGB equivalent.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: barryfitzgerald on May 30, 2006, 11:40:04 am
The argument in itself is pointless anyway. Why do people need to measure things all the time? It never ceases to amaze me...

Did you hear bresson moaning about film quality?

I cannot agree with all the original poster says, but I will say I think the scanning of film for the test makes it somewhat flawed. Scanning adds noise to the image. I dont know anyone who scans film and then prints it at huge sizes.

I use, and will continue to use film and digital. Nobody denies how handy digital is, but neither can you say that film has no use either. I have yet to see digital match the lattitude and character of b&w film, one reason its still popular.

Those who moan about "grain or Noise" would do well to see that certain styles of photography are enhanced with grain...A large number of b&w photographers use high grain films, they like it. So do I sometimes, and sometimes I like low grain. Its a personal choice.

The real issue is that people in general would do far better to worry about their skills behind the camera, than if the "quality" is good enough, and conduct a series of mildly interesting, but ultimately unimportant tests...so as to "hang out to dry" the loser as such. Technology always moves on, and will continue to do so..but that doesnt stop you taking great shots either.

I know of a keen pinhole camera photographer, and he is one of the most gifted people I know of...he knows his shots are not as sharp, or wont print as big..but it doesnt matter. The real meat is the image itself, it matters not how you got there, film or digital..

Regards
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: bjanes on May 30, 2006, 01:01:59 pm
Quote
Dennis, I agree with most of your post, but as the resident professional mathematician here (who actually knows the proof the Nyquist's theorem, not just its statement) I have to disagree on this one.

Nyquists's theorem says that it takes at least two samples (two pixels) to resolve one cycle, meaning one period of variation. A "dark/light" line pair is a cycle, which is why line pairs rather than lines are traditionally used in describing resolution. Some MTF graphs are labelled in "cycles per mm" instead of lp/mm.

So, Nyquist demands at least two pixels per line pair, or one pixels per line.

For example, the 7.2 micron pixel spacing of Dalsa's new medium format FF CCD sensors, two pixels span 14.4 microns, and lie pairs 14.4 microns wide give a Nyquist frequency of gives 1000/14.4lp/mm, about 70lp/mm. Indeed Dalsa's data sheet for the 33MP monochrome FTF5066M uses this in the resolution specification:
"Resolution (MTF) @ 70lp/mm: minimum 65%".
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=66901\")

Four pixels per LP may be a but much, but 2 pixels per cycle will work only if the sampling is done in phase: i.e. the lines on the chart must line up with the rows of pixels. On his web site Roger Clark recommends 3 pixels per cycle. This is consistent  with your statement of at least 2 pixels per cycle.


[a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html]http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html[/url]
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Graeme Nattress on May 30, 2006, 01:47:01 pm
The Clark link doesn't look correct to me at all.

He's using a square wave input, the lines are effectively a square wave, hence have practically infinite frequency response way up and above nyquist. For you to see no reconstruction errors on the output, there must be no frequencies > nyquist on the input. The input has not been adequately filtered, hence you see errors on the output.

Isn't sampling theory wonderful?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BJL on May 30, 2006, 02:00:06 pm
Quote
Four pixels per LP may be a but much, but 2 pixels per cycle will work only if the sampling is done in phase ...Roger Clark recommends 3 pixels per cycle. This is consistent  with your statement of at least 2 pixels per cycle.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed: I was only sayng that two pixels per cycle is the theoretical minimum needed according to Nyquists' theorem. And in fact, that theorem says that the sampling rate must be slightly more than two per cycle to avoid aliasing, so a little safety margin is needed even before effects like low-pass (AA) filters and deBayerising inerpolation algorithms come into play.

From various sources, the practical figure seems to be something between 2.5 and 3 pixels per line pair. Norm Koren takes a shot at this question too, and I usually find him more reliable than Roger Clark.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Dennis on May 30, 2006, 06:14:15 pm
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']In signal processing, the Nyquist rate is the minimum sampling rate required to avoid aliasing when sampling a continuous signal.[/span]
(Nyquist rate at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate))

If you record one cycle or pair of lines with two pixel, you'll end up with aliasing. Or am I wrong here? Sure, if the recording pixel are perfectly aligned with the signal cycles, there is no aliasing, but that would be pure coincidence in a real world situation. Recording a spatial frequency with two pixel, you'll have an aliased signal or no signal. To record one cycle reliably, you need 4 pixel. So, if you complete the above with avoid aliasing reliably, you need 4 pixel, if you read it as avoid aliasing accidentially, it may be 2 pixel.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Graeme Nattress on May 30, 2006, 07:57:01 pm
Denis, a two pixels to record a line pair. The problem is that a pair of lines looks like a square wave. A square wave needs an infinite frequency to describe it, and hence has many frequencies > the nyquist limit. That's why you see aliassing because the input has not been adequately filtered. If you'd put in a pure sine wave of the same wavelength of your square wave, those two pixels would reconstruct it perfectly, no matter what the phase.

Graeme
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ray on May 30, 2006, 08:53:32 pm
Whilst I confess to not understanding the higher mathematics of this issue, it would seem logical, in a situation where the number of lines on the target corresponds to the number of pixels on the sensor, along the same dimension, that there will be just 2 positions where the lines and pixels are either in complete registration or complete disregistration. One position will have a pixel completely illuminated by a white line with the adjacent pixel not illuminated by a black line (the best case). At the other extreme we will have a situation where all pixels are half illuminated by a white line and half not illuminated by a black line. That is, all pixels will receive the same amount of light and will produce a continuous tone of grey.

However, the vast majority of positions will be somewhere in between those 2 extremes, so results should be variable. Factor in the unavoidable distortion of all lenses and the lack of perfect uniformity of evenly spaced lines in real world scenes, then 2 pixels per line pair seems about right...... for a Foveon type sensor.

The Bayer type sensor seems to be disadvantaged by other factors such as interpolation and demosaicing, so in practice it seems like closer to 3 pixels per line pair are required for Bayer type sensors.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Graeme Nattress on May 30, 2006, 09:00:32 pm
Ah, but a line has sharp edges, sharp edges have high frequencies, and hence the nyquist limit much greater than you'd expect.... The figures of >2 pixels make sense for lines with finite precision on their edges, but you can't think of them as a signal to a sensor where you can easily calculate a nyquist value. In a real sensor, with real lines, you should never see any aliassing because the sensor is fitted with an anti-alias filter.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ray on May 30, 2006, 09:28:38 pm
Another limiting factor in the process of transferring high resolution detail from film to print is due to the fact that the detail always has to pass through another lens with its own MTF response (except in the case of a contact print).

However good the enlarger lens or the scanner lens, it will unavoidably degrade the detail on the negative, just as the camera lens has already degraded detail captured on film in the original shot. In both cases (scanning and 'wet darkroom') we are effectively taking a photograph of a photograph.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Terry Mester on May 31, 2006, 02:50:52 am
I have Triacetate Negatives and Slides that are 45 -47 Years old, and they are in fantastic condition!  I have Nitrate Negatives that are 60 Years old, and Hollywood has its Nitrate Films from 80 Years ago.  Modern ESTAR Base Film possesses very high durability, and Kodak has stated that Films can last for centuries in storage if kept properly Frozen.  No hi-tech record can enjoy the longevity of a low-technology medium such as Film which never changes.  Having a computer programming background, I know the capricious nature of Software Applications and Files.  Most working people don't have the time to keep updating Computer Picture Files.  As for misinformation, I never stated anything about Optical Photographs not fading away.  That's why you preserve your Negatives.

  The figure of 6.9 Billion Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre was scrupulously calculated, and can be affirmed by any Physicist or Chemist who understands this science.  That figure is two-dimensional, and doesn't include the actual thickness to the Dye Layers which would amount to about 100 Billion Molecules for each of the Three Dyes.  The matter of Dye Clouds, which varies based upon the amount of Light exposing the Film, is what determines the ultimate Resolution of the specific Picture.  However, the Resolution Quality provided by Molecules and Light far exceeds the ability of any electronic sensors.  When compared to an original Film Photo, I could see the smudging of finite details on a small 4x6 Digital Print made from a scanned Picture File with a Resolution of about 300 MegaPixels -- much larger than 39 MegaPixel Cameras!  Needless to say, such smudging would be more visible on larger size Digital Prints.  When enlarging Film Photographs, extending the exposure time for the Paper does not equate to having bright enough lights for a large blow up.  Extending this time will lead to a grainy Photo.  I have seen very large high quality Photographs -- so it can be done.

Quote
Exactly.

First of all, I'm glad that the preposterous premise of billions of molecules is now behind us, or are you still riding that particular hobby horse?.

Colour transparency film as well as colour negatives have a very short life span. Most will fade to the point of unusability in a couple of decades at best. The only one with staying power is Kodachrome, which is regretably fast on its way to oblivion. (How many Kodachrome labs are left in the world? A half dozen?)

B&W film is better, maybe 100+ years, but only assuming that it's been archivally processed. Otherwise, again, just decades.

The real Achilles heel of film is that it is a single physical object, subject to loss and damage. A digital file though can exists in multiple copies. Lose or destroy one, and the others are unaffected.

Yes, data storage media are subject to deterioration and obsolecense, but by making new copies from time to time they can be made to literally last forever.

As for prints, well again you're wrong. Colour prints using chemistry are fugative. A typical C print will start to seriously fade after just a few decades. Cibachrome prints after about 50-70 years. Even Dye Transfers not much more.

On the other hand Epson inkjet prints using K3 pigment inks are rated by Henry Wilhelm (the industry standard) as 100 years+ on display, and much longer in dark storage. In fact an inkjet print made on cotton rag paper with K3 inks is the longest lived colour photographic reproducttion media ever! (Carbro prints are another story, but one that's only relevent to the 4 people left in the world who know how to make them).

B&W, is also another story. An archivally processed, selenium or gold toned B&W print made on silver gelatin paper (not RC) will last for hundreds of years. But (and it's a big but), with the exception of a limited number of very skilled darkroom workers who still make such prints, you're likely to never see them outside of galleries and museums, and certainly not with your family photographs.

So. We've debunked your mythology about the superiority of optical enlargements. Now we see clearly that chemical prints in fact don't last as long as inkjets, to "ensure that you preserve your important Pictures for the future".

Any more misinformation you'd like to share with us?

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: piksi on May 31, 2006, 04:32:45 am
Quote
I've done both B&W and colour printing in the chemical darkroom for about 30 years, finally closing my last darkroom in about 1998.

Digital prints on the other hand. Humm. Let's see. No film flatness problems, no buckling, no secondary optical path during the enlarging process, no focusing issues when enlarging, no Newton rings, no paralellism issues, no paper flatness issues.

Oh yes. Add to that an almost total lack of grain (noise) at all reasonable ISOs, no processing variability, no reciprocity failure, etc, etc.

Why? Image quality above all. Plus greater convenience, perfect repeatability, faster turn-around and lower cost. And finally, not having to work in the dark for hours (days) at a time breathing toxic chemical fumes. Give me a glass of Merlot in front of the computer screen any day.

Michael, I think understand Your point of view about film. Heck, I might be thinking the same way myself too in my fifties when I've been inhaling those fumes for 30 years   )

But,

As I totally agree with you in many points I also disagree in some others. I shoot and postprocess my photos for clients in my own small company, using canons DSLRs and L glass. Why? Because neither I nor my clients like noise, chromatic aberrations or blur in the final pictures. I totally understand that, it's the way commercial photography is and wants to head to: clean pictures which resemble more like looking through an open window (there is nothing in between the photographer and the scene giving its characteristics to the final photo). If I were a landscape photographer too, I wouldn't mind to get as crisp and clear enlargements as possible.

But, there is another side of photography for which you can blame me for romanticizing. I personally don't think it should be underrated or overlooked. I'm talking about artistic photography where it's even *favorable* for the camera to show some of its characteristics in the photo. I'm talking about Lomo and Holga shots, Funkycam shots (ok ok it's digital but the results are a bit Holga'ish ), pinhole can cameras, pushing film for grain, crossing film, doing ferrotypes, daguerrotypes et cetera.I think some photos need the uncertainty and randomness of analogue processing, and in some cases it's not bad at all for the camera to bring something "more" to the picture.

Sure, *no one* can claim that digital isn't progress from the film times, of course it is! But the important point is that while it removes some of the restrictions of film, it at the same time is a restricted format itself too. Digital offers calculated precision and very few surprise factors, nearly everything can be controlled, but at the same time it loses the possibilities of analogue processing. I would never do my job prints with film, it costs too much, it's too unefficent, i hate cleaning the dust with dust blower and then in photoshop, it's too slow and I have to be a lot more precise with everything to produce good results. In my last shootings I was able to conquer the market from 3 competitors with just 10D, 2Gb cf, 16-35 2.8 and my portable elinchrom flash set. I shot 400 people, processed the files quickly on my laptop and produced photos of which people said they were very pleased with. There are other numerous examples of when I've benefited from using digital.

When I started learning B&W film photography by heart 3 years ago, I had grown anxious expecting immediate and controllable results. Now after those 3 years, I've grown into a more relaxed, precise and patient person. With just a roll of ilford delta400 in Canon FTb + 50mm 1,4 in my pocket, I really had to consider more carefully what i was shooting every day. I developed the films myself and did the enlargements on Brovira RC. Getting consistent and good results was sometimes a pain in the ass, but after inhaling those fumes for some time I started appreciating the efforts photographers have gone through in the past for achieving good results.
I started reading about the first actual photographs, daguerrotypes and the latter ferrotypes, the hardness of getting a good photo and the fragility of the resulted images. All of the analogue photographing processes seemed to have very much of a japanese zen in them: Concentrate and focus and you'll be rewarded with good results, if you fail, start all over again. Especially working in the darkroom proved to be very therapeutic for me.

I did some pinhole photographs, crossings and experimented with chemistry. The results felt more "real" than doing the same in photoshop, mainly because the photos were "too clear" to start with, any film like modifying felt like photomanipulation whereas light leaks, reciprocity errors, strange chemical reactions etc were just a natural part of the physical film and paper process.

I totally understand michaels point of view, when one is trying to achieve a good representational quality for prints, all sort of physical errors (residue, particles, optical anomalies etc) are simply things to dodge while heading for the perfect enlargement. This is what I try to do myself too when having a commercial photo shoot (people, products, architecture).

But I ask you people to remember - film and digital aren't things with a boolean OR, they dont exclude each other. Now that digital has taken over part of the original field where film was used, film has even more promise in the artistic photography area. It can achieve results which are nearly impossible to do with digital (without excessive effort). Most people have said that the "mutated" or "imperfect" pictures i've taken on film have been much better than the ones taken in digital.

At the same time I call for responsibility in your behalf, michael. Your word has a strong effect on many photographers opinions. I appreciate the great articles here in LL, but I hope you don't simply "bash" film because it's inferior compared to digital. It doesn't need the bashing because digital has already won the competition. Instead, I would hope to hear some more encouraging words from photographers saying: "Hey, film and darkroom work - if nothing more - is at least a great way to learn the basics and respect the roots of photography". I've seen many children jump from joy when they see their first photographs appear on the paper in darkroom. I haven't seen same kind of joy when they sit in front of a computer watching the photos. Perhaps this is the coolness of digital versus warmth of analogue film then .

I continue to enjoy my photographic work both in the darkroom and in photoshop, experimenting new ways of casting light on surfaces to produce pictures  Peace!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BlasR on May 31, 2006, 05:32:09 am
So I need to buy a freezer, to keep those film?


BlasR
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: RGK on May 31, 2006, 06:53:28 am
Talking about resolution, feast your eyes and mind by watching this site. Maybe peace will then return to the board! http://www.gigapxl.org/ (http://www.gigapxl.org/)
Regards to all
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Graeme Nattress on May 31, 2006, 08:10:40 am
I hope you have an explosives licence for all that Nitrate film you've got. Just light the blue touch-paper....
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on May 31, 2006, 08:29:45 am
Piksi,

I completely appreciate your point of view. And, though I know people read it that way, I never bash film. I still shoot it from time to time in situations where it has advantages, (few, but they're there).

But, as you point out, there is no denying that film has had its day, for all except speciality situations and unrepentant hobbiests, (among whom I sometimes count myself).

I just take umbridge when someone comes on this forum and spouts complete nonsense, such as individual dye (or silver) molecules contributing to resolution. It simply feeds the uninformed more of what they're looking for, and obscures any useful dialog which could otherwise be taking place.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: piksi on May 31, 2006, 08:45:03 am
Quote
I completely appreciate your point of view. And, though I know people read it that way, I never bash film. I still shoot it from time to time in situations where it has advantages, (few, but they're there).

I'm very glad to hear that, because I'm afraid I was one of those who have in the past misinterpreted your words about film. Sorry

Quote
I just take umbridge when someone comes on this forum and spouts complete nonsense, such as individual dye (or silver) molecules contributing to resolution. It simply feeds the uninformed more of what they're looking for, and obscures any useful dialog which could otherwise be taking place.

I totally agree with that, purists of any kind are often the most dangerous people, especially those that use disinformation and deny that things always have at least "two sides".
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: QuantumRose on May 31, 2006, 11:00:37 am
Quote
I reviewed the Web Article from the four Photographers regarding their experiments with different Digital Cameras / Lenses and 4x5 Inch Film Sheet.  Their undertaking had a major fatal flaw.  They didn't produce Optical Prints from the Film.  Instead, they just scanned the Film Sheet into their Computer which means that the original Resolution (86 Trillion) and Colour of the Film is lost.  Film has a Resolution of 6.9 Billion  Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre, but this is only retained if the Picture Print is made using real Light -- not a Computer Scan.  The Attached File explains the inferiorities of Digital Photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Question for ya: What do you shoot?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BJL on May 31, 2006, 02:27:30 pm
Quote
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']In signal processing, the Nyquist rate is the minimum sampling rate required to avoid aliasing when sampling a continuous signal.[/span]
(Nyquist rate at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate))

If you record one cycle or pair of lines with two pixel, you'll end up with aliasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right, that is exactly at the threshold where aliasing is still possible, while with anything more than two samples per cycle (and interpolation using data over a sufficiently large number of cycles and band-width limited data), aliasing can in theory be avoided.

This is the case where there is exactly one pixel for each dark and each light line. If you are very unlucky, the samples could each fall at the midpoints between dark and light, and so see an average of equal amounts of dark and light, so that the samples all come out at a uniform middle gray: all spatial detail lost. In signal processing jargon, the high spatial frequency of the input has been aliased to zero spatial frequency in th output. (With any other positoining of the samples, you get a dark light variation of the correct spatial frequency, but typically with lower contast that the original subject matter.)


By the way, there is no point worrying about the infinite bandwidth of square wave data, at least when low pass filters ("anti-aliasing filters") are used.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Dennis on May 31, 2006, 07:05:59 pm
Quote
Right, that is exactly at the threshold where aliasing is still possible, while with anything more than two samples per cycle (and interpolation using data over a sufficiently large number of cycles and band-width limited data), aliasing can in theory be avoided.
Okay, thanks for the explanation.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: WilliamPatrickMoore on June 01, 2006, 02:15:31 pm
Although I find this discussion interesting it is exhausting to listen to endless arguments from people entrenched in defending their positions or decisions regarding equipment or processes. Every piece of equipment or process has both positive and negative aspects. Proving that a particular thing (say digital cameras) is superior in some parameters does not mean it is the best or most proper thing to use in all circumstances.
   This subject is so large it is hard to find a place to begin. Photography is about images. Some people want to make it about equipment or technical matters but in the end it comes down to images and the use of the images. Ease of use, availability, cost and many other factors play into what is used to make images. In my work I obtain half my income using a digital camera (Nikon D70) to obtain images for a clients web site. Way cheaper and quicker than trying to do the same with film. The other half of my income is from selling landscape prints. I used to produce these prints in a darkroom, now I use an Epson 7600. Almost all my prints are from scanned medium format slide film with a few taken with the D70.
   I am very happy with the prints I obtain from the Epson 7600 and find them to be as good as or superior in many ways (though not all) to darkroom prints. It is my belief that in both the darkroom and digital process (and assuming a good image to begin with) the skill of the printmaker is a more important factor than the differences in professional level equipment used to produce the image. What I like most about digital prints is not having to do test strips but instead having exact reproductions each time.
   Michael seems to want to claim that it is proven that digital is now superior to medium format film but I would certainly question that. Both can produce very nice prints and for my purposes that is what it is about.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Digiteyesed on June 01, 2006, 11:39:27 pm
Quote
So I need to buy a freezer, to keep those film?

It gets worse -- your perfectly frozen and archived family memories need to compete with the Christmas turkey for space. I'm sorry, but burning to DVD is easier than fighting over freezer space with my wife.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: piksi on June 02, 2006, 04:36:11 am
Quote
It gets worse -- your perfectly frozen and archived family memories need to compete with the Christmas turkey for space. I'm sorry, but burning to DVD is easier than fighting over freezer space with my wife.

I never had such problem, used but modern freezers and refrigerators are easy and cheap to obtain at least here in northern eu. one freezer with safelight in the darkroom (cost less than 200€), another one for the foods. I store my films in two forms, the originals and scanned versions on dvd. for my digital images I use double backup on dvds. i don't see any problems, what could be easier?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Digiteyesed on June 02, 2006, 11:45:11 pm
Quote
I never had such problem, used but modern freezers and refrigerators are easy and cheap to obtain at least here in northern eu. one freezer with safelight in the darkroom (cost less than 200€), another one for the foods. I store my films in two forms, the originals and scanned versions on dvd. for my digital images I use double backup on dvds. i don't see any problems, what could be easier?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It must be nice to have unlimited funds for freezers and electricity bills and the space to accomodate them all. I have three full-size freezers and they are all full of frozen food stuffs with one tiny corner given over to several hundred rolls of MF film that I buy in bulk. You wouldn't believe how hard I had to fight to displace a half dozen frozen hams that were encroaching on that space.

I'm afraid that even if I could afford more freezers or the power for them, my wife would commandeer them anyhow. Part of living in the country where you're at least an hour and a half away from decent shopping.  

My negs will have to continue to live in the old metal filing cabinets that I've been picking up at government auctions for $5 apiece, and on DVD.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: macgyver on June 03, 2006, 02:04:50 am
So...uh....if I don't understand the lion's share of what is being discussed am I a poor photographer or what?

(1/2 serious question)

Oh, screw it, whered I put the rebel....
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 03, 2006, 07:00:11 am
I'm not a moderator, but I believe this discussion thread has outlived its usefulness, which was anyhow heavily compromised from the start by the absence of the real supporting evidence - yet to be pubished in the DVD disc that Michael et Co are producing.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on June 03, 2006, 07:55:25 am
Actually, I was about to start another digression about the relative merits of Kelvinator vs. Frigidair products.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Paul Sumi on June 03, 2006, 10:37:27 am
Quote
Actually, I was about to start another digression about the relative merits of Kelvinator vs. Frigidair products.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67264\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This would be a completely flawed comparison without including Whirlpool or Kenmore  

Paul
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 03, 2006, 06:21:41 pm
Actually, we have an LG. In this day and age if you don't include comparisons with the new entrants from the Far East you are just behind the 8-ball.  
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Richowens on June 03, 2006, 07:18:03 pm
And what about the European contingent?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 03, 2006, 07:39:20 pm
Given how the market is moving with Ilford hanging on by its teeth, kodak out of B&W, agfa dead, kodak closing its factories by the month and desperately trying to consolidate huge losses for the 6th year running..... As a matter of interest, what chemical B&W paper are you going to print onto in 30 years time and with what chemicals?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 03, 2006, 07:56:09 pm
Quote
Given how the market is moving with Ilford hanging on by its teeth, kodak out of B&W, agfa dead, kodak closing its factories by the month and desperately trying to consolidate huge losses for the 6th year running..... As a matter of interest, what chemical B&W paper are you going to print onto in 30 years time and with what chemicals?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Interesting!

Well as a b&w photographer, you would be amazed at how many of us still use film. I use digital too, but it cannot match film...yet...

Its simple economics...if there is demand, there will be supply...

And there is demand....I often wonder why people desire the death of film, nobody makes you use it you know! Kodak stopped b&w paper..not film
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 03, 2006, 08:37:13 pm
You'd be surprised, but the economics is not that simple. There is something called overhead and scale economies. Below a certain break-even volume of production manufacfturers either lose money or they find more money is to be made shifting their resources into something else. Money and alternative earning opportunities are fungible. That's why the factories are closing even though a shrunken volume of demand remains. As the demand keeps shrinking so will the factories. It will reach a point when film and darkroom materials become quite costly niche products serving a very small fraction of the total photography market. I don't know the time path to near-extinction, but it's obviously quite steep.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 03, 2006, 09:21:51 pm
Barry, it's not a matter of wanting or not wanting something to happen, when Ilford died I was still shooting med format Ilford in various speeds. I do not think at this point in time that inkjet printing is of any use except to fine art photographers with a lot of time and patience. Inkjet is certainly not a solution for a busy wedding/event photographer like myself printing hundreds of 7X5" proofs a week sometimes thousands. For the little landscape work I do inkjet is certainly not an affordable or viable solution. I read with dismay recently that Kodak are hiking up their colour chemical paper prices and given that almost all labs here in the UK are Fuji and Agfa is dead I am rather worried for a future where the economics will pull chemical printings carpet from under out feet before inkjet has matured to the point of easy accessability or affordability. Just looking at any digital printing forum is enough to scare me away from it!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 03, 2006, 09:33:35 pm
Ben, well you are confirming what I said just above about the behaviour of the economics. As for the comparative efficiency of inkjet printing, I believe that a large percentage of wedding and event photographers are fully converted to a highly efficient digital+inkjet workflow that saves them huge amounts of time and money for numerous reasons. Just on a personal note, I attended a Bat Mitzvah in the US last week and had a chat with the photographer they hired for the event. She uses a Canon 5D with a flash, and a slave unit, her workflow from capture through printing is standardized; she processes all the images through Adobe Bridge, Photoshop and a printer RIP using automated procedures. She told me there is no other way she could work given the high volume she does and the quality that is expected.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: ddolde on June 03, 2006, 11:28:15 pm
We're all gonna die !
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: collum on June 04, 2006, 03:21:10 am
Quote
As a matter of interest, what chemical B&W paper are you going to print onto in 30 years time and with what chemicals?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the chemicals aren't really going anywhere... i regularly coat platinum, which hasn't been a major commercial product since the beginning of the last century. Hand coating silver is pretty easy, and the raw chemicals to do so are readily availaable.

coating film, though, is a bit more difficult

       jim
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: RobertJ on June 04, 2006, 03:35:42 am
Quote
We're all gonna die !
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 04, 2006, 07:18:50 am
Mark, economically and time wise it still doesn't make sense for me - for proof printing. There are no printers that can print and cut hundreds of 7X5" prints without any worry about ink etc, for the price I get from my lab where I drop off the CD and pick up the prints the next day.  If there is then I'm very interested to hear about it. Dye Sub is expensive and unarchieval. To put it into perspective I'm paying 10.9 pence per 7X5" cropped cut print on Fuji Crystal Archeive with perfect screen to print colour. If you can beat that and I include set up costs (printer/rip/time) then I'll switch if shown to me that an inkjet printer is an investment and not something that will be hard to find ther consumables for 3 years from now, or if it goes down, necessitate expensive and time consuming repairs. I'm a pro and I need backup but certainly cannot afford backup of a quality printer, or at least I don't think I can!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BlasR on June 04, 2006, 08:04:37 am
Quote
We're all gonna die !
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I climbed mount sanai,(1999) & I ask God when I'm going to die. He tell me ask him again in  three thousand three hundred thirty three years with therty three days.
So I don't know if I'm going to die at all.  Amen to me

BlasR
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: piksi on June 04, 2006, 08:43:32 am
Quote
It must be nice to have unlimited funds for freezers and electricity bills and the space to accomodate them all. I have three full-size freezers and they are all full of frozen food stuffs with one tiny corner given over to several hundred rolls of MF film that I buy in bulk. You wouldn't believe how hard I had to fight to displace a half dozen frozen hams that were encroaching on that space.

I'm afraid that even if I could afford more freezers or the power for them, my wife would commandeer them anyhow. Part of living in the country where you're at least an hour and a half away from decent shopping.   

My negs will have to continue to live in the old metal filing cabinets that I've been picking up at government auctions for $5 apiece, and on DVD.

Sorry, I didn't mean to boast.  I have quite many restrictions too, here in downtown helsinki majority of people live in appartment house flats which aren't really that great in size (except for the ones that cost incredibly much). I currently live in a 59m^2 flat with my wife and I've really had to struggle making enough space even for my needed working space for architecture stuff. I share my light table between the negs and drawings and my displays, computers etc are shoved inside a bookshelf to save space  I can't afford nor have space for my own dark room - luckily I have access to a large darkroom, 2 studios and a couple of sinars at the helsinki dept. of architecture thanks to my studies, otherwise my photographing would be severly limited compared to what it is now..

Imho it's fair to say that actually the photopapers and films in our refrigerator take less space than the digital backups and storage for my photos, because I scan backups of my films too.  So I'm struggling with storing heaps and piles of dvd's
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 04, 2006, 09:09:01 am
Quote
Mark, economically and time wise it still doesn't make sense for me - for proof printing. There are no printers that can print and cut hundreds of 7X5" prints without any worry about ink etc, for the price I get from my lab where I drop off the CD and pick up the prints the next day.  If there is then I'm very interested to hear about it. Dye Sub is expensive and unarchieval. To put it into perspective I'm paying 10.9 pence per 7X5" cropped cut print on Fuji Crystal Archeive with perfect screen to print colour. If you can beat that and I include set up costs (printer/rip/time) then I'll switch if shown to me that an inkjet printer is an investment and not something that will be hard to find ther consumables for 3 years from now, or if it goes down, necessitate expensive and time consuming repairs. I'm a pro and I need backup but certainly cannot afford backup of a quality printer, or at least I don't think I can!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ben, we all need to do what makes the most sense in our circumstances. I was only drawing  attention to one example of many working profesionals who operate a totally integrated digital workflow, but what works for some will not necessarily be optimal for others. If you and your lab are well colour-managed between yourselves and the lab produces what your clients are willing to pay for, you have accomplished something that isn't usually easy to achieve, so it sounds as if you should cherish it. Also the cost seems eminently reasonable. I can't produce a 5*7 out of my Epson 4800 for 11 pence - (assume we are talking UK, which in CAD would be about 22 cents).

That much said, I believe according to Henry Wilhelm's testing, Fuji Crystal Archive properly handled will not begin to deteriorate for about 65 years, which is conisderably shorter than said to be achievable with Epson K3 inks and media. This could be a problem for BlasR because the guy on top of Mt. Sinai told him he has 3333 years and 33 days to live - so he really needs thosse inkjet prints and a very long memory - but for the rest of us mere mortals 65 years would outlive the longevity of the average marriage by many years, and who knows whether the grand-children would really be interested in all those wedding photos anyhow! I keep getting asked what I'm going to do with all these photographs from my 4800 I'm "archiving", and all I can respond is "enjoy them" and hope that some time in the future my descendants will enjoy them too. What to say.  
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 04, 2006, 09:20:58 am
Hey I'm open minded (ish), if there is an inkjet solution that is more economical then I will use it, my decision to go digital has been an economical one from day one though the other perks are nice.

As for the archival properties of the paper, heck it's as good as anyone has been getting until now save B&W silver prints, customers cannot complain that I'm not giving them at least the industry standard.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 04, 2006, 09:52:07 am
Ben, if your customers are happy and that is the objective, fine. It's when you need more on-the-spot custom control over the printing, more longevity, and more flexibility with media and subject matter that the inket solution becomes rather inescapable.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ray on June 04, 2006, 12:35:49 pm
Quote
To put it into perspective I'm paying 10.9 pence per 7X5" cropped cut print on Fuji Crystal Archeive with perfect screen to print colour. If you can beat that and I include set up costs (printer/rip/time) then I'll switch if shown to me that an inkjet printer is an investment.... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Geez! Ben, and I thought the U.K is an expensive place compared with Australia. I pay around A$290 for a 30M roll of 600mm wide Epson Premium Lustre.

If my maths is right, 5x7 is 125x175mm = 0.021875 M^. 30M x0.6M = 18M^. Allowing for a small amount of wastage, I would expect to get about 800x5"x7" prints from the roll. $290/800 = 36 cents = 14.5p per print. I don't know exactly what the ink costs would be, but the impression I get is they are about equal to the cost of premium paper, so I reckon just the cost of consumables would be around 29p per print for me, using the Epson 7600. Factor in depreciation on the printer, general overheads and my time, and the final cost would be at least double.

11p per print?? You're kidding!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 04, 2006, 12:51:48 pm
Gosh and how did we manage before Inkjets matured to that point (a year ago?)    

I print on Fuji Crystal Achive, Fuji (wedding) pro paper, Kodak Pro Endura, Ilford Hi Gloss, Kodak Mettallic and canvas from an Epson depending on what lab I use for which purpose. I can email the pictures to all 5 labs and because they are all pro labs with well calibrated machines, the colour differences are so slight as to be easily ignored.
I did a test actually recently between my Fuji CA and Kodak Endura, one from a lab in the US one from a lab here, same 3 files. Little to no colour difference at all, infact far less difference than printing the same neg on those papers would give as the calibration of the machine/paper cancels out 98% of the papers colour attributes to neutral.
One thing I will say is that the Kodak makes far more neutral B&W's than the Fuji which have a green tinge (this is from 3 seperate labs, it's a machine/paper problem not operator I think) but I've never seen a B&W printed on colour chemical paper to come anywhere near a silver print.

For me, and  feel free to put me straight on this, this is only coming from my own preconceptions:
Inkjet printing is expensive relative to chemical printing from a regular lab;
Calibrating the printer is both expensive and time consuming involving RIP's, colour checkers, seperate profiles for each paper, etc;
Trimming the prints to size is time consuming and wasteful economically even when using a program to utilize the maximum amount of space;
Ink is expensive and extremely expensive when having to run wasteful cleaning cycles on a regular basis;
An inkjet printer has a limited life, I should not count on it as a 5 year plus investment;
Even were it to last that long the ink might be unavailible or difficult to find and expensive;
The industry is yet to mature to the point where it can overtake chemical printing in every way. What I mean is that B&W is still not there yet (has metamirism vanished as a problem yet? why are new papers still being released to solve problems etc?). Just recently it was pointed out that the Epson Matt papers are not there yet with the Matte ink.

Don't kill me for these points, they are what I think through what I've picked up over the web but I have no direct experience at all with inkjet printing of a professional standard. What it seems to me is that as yet it is not mature, just as digital photography has not yet matured. It also seems to be extremely expensive by the time you get it all right. I think I'll wait it out until it does mature and then if it is wise economically then I'll happily go for it.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 04, 2006, 01:43:34 pm
Ben, a fair amount of what you are saying above is incorrect from my experience.

Whether or not inkjet printing is expensive compared with a lab depends on what size you are printing, how much customization you need, which inkjet printing system you are using and what kind of paper you need. One cannot generalize about this. Maybe you have one specific set of needs that come cheaper from your labs, but that is not the universe of situations.

Calibrating the printer takes about 2 minutes to print a target, and if you do your own profiling about 10 minutes to create the profile. If you send the target to a professional profiling service, the time it takes to mail the target, and about 50 dollars more or less. If you have a friend with a profiling kit, the friend can make it for you free - if a good friend! If you plan to use alot of different papers it may pay to buy a profiling system for about 1000 dollars, otherwise, you get a few profiles made and use them repeatedly. If you buy a RIP say from Colorbyte the profiles are included and any other profile you need is made free on request. ImagePrint RIP does all your layouts and is programmed to minimize wastage of paper relative to the layout parameters you give it. Many professionals swear by it for this purpose.

You can read my articles on this website about the cost of using an Epson 4800. But Epson is not the only show in town any longer and I understand other makes are less prone to clogging. The Epson 4800 is a substantial improvement over the Epson 4000 in this respect.

Inkjet printers - especially Epson's professional machines are built like tanks and physically they will far outlive their economic life, which is determined by technological obsolescence, not by wearing-out. You can keep it as long as you are happy not up-grading to newer technologies. That is a matter of personal choice.

Inkjet inks for whatever prevalent model you buy will most likely be available for years after most of these machines have been re-cycled out of use. We can't make iron-clad forward-looking statements about long-term availability of ink cartridges, but I've seen ZERO complaints anywhere on the internet about people not being able to get the supplies they need for their printers.

The general professional consensus is that this technology is mature and the highest quality black and white printing is now possible from the latest model inkjet printers being produced certainly by Epson and most likely by the new Canon offerings. You will find material on this website and in the L-L Video Journal attesting to this. There will always be people who refuse to believe this, but that is their problem, not an objective reality.

I have been doing inkjet printing for the past six years, starting with the Epson 2000P, graduating to the 4000 and since last November a 4800. I am doing work I never thought possible in both colour and B&W and there is no way I would even dream of getting into a wet-lab environment again, whether for colour or B&W - it is for most intents and purposes so surpassed that it's not worth talking about.

Considering what you get and the flexibility and possibilities it offers, and by the time you amortize the initial investments over a reasonable volume of output, this is a bargain and it will most likely keep becoming cheaper in real terms.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 04, 2006, 02:16:16 pm
We live to learn!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 04, 2006, 04:00:09 pm
Well I am not printing in anywhere near the volume some people here are. And I wont go in depth into the overpriced inkjet cartridges debate...thats a clear one..

I have never found 35mm film (b&w) to be so cheap...processing I wont do myself...I have little interest in that area anymore. But I will carry on using film for as long as possible..though I shoot more digital.

I think the cost of processing film is cheaper than volume printing from an inkjet..and for most consumers, its really been false economy in a sense going digital for them. I dont blame the technology...but rather the manufacturers..

Ink costs more per ml than the finest champagne, and russian imported caviar. I find that somewhat shocking.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 04, 2006, 09:59:53 pm
Quote
Ink costs more per ml than the finest champagne, and russian imported caviar. I find that somewhat shocking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's also way more expensive than gasoline for your car, but the comparison is devoid of any signifigance unless you happen to know a great deal about the technology and manufacturing costs that go into the formulation and production of these inks compared with champagne, Russian caviar or gasoline.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: alainbriot on June 04, 2006, 10:29:18 pm
"Ink costs more per ml than the finest champagne. I find that somewhat shocking."

Indeed, but that's not the worse part.  Have you tried drinding it?  Tastes like ****!

Note that K3 ink costs slightly less per ml than Channel #5.  And, compared to Scorpion venom, K3 is a real bargain!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 04, 2006, 10:49:02 pm
Alain, do you think a blend of trace amounts of scorpion venom with K3 would help reduce nozzle clogs? (The alcohol content of the Chanel could be harmful.)
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: alainbriot on June 05, 2006, 01:07:38 am
Quote
Alain, do you think a blend of trace amounts of scorpion venom with K3 would help reduce nozzle clogs? (The alcohol content of the Chanel could be harmful.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It might but it can be risky.  Being from France I'd prefer trying Channel #5 personally ;- )  At any rate it would exceed the cost of K3 ink alone.  And I am not kidding.  I did a search for "expensive liquids" and apparently Scorpion venom tops the list and Channel #5 is more expensive per ml than K3 inks.

At any rate knowing that Dom Perignon is cheaper than K3 inks makes it easier to legitimize high end champagne consumption.  If someone says I indulge myself,  I simply mention that it is cheaper than the ink I use to make my prints.  See, expensive inks can be a benefit at times.

Cheers!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ray on June 05, 2006, 01:36:58 am
Such comparisons can get quite bizarre. In many coutries a litre of milk can cost less than a litre of petrol,

In any case, it's well known that profits on ink and paper support the Epson research effort towards providing us with better printers, as well as providing dividends to shareholders and multi-million dollar bonuses to executives.

Now we're completely off topic, I might as well speculate that it must be a terrible burden to be in control of such wealth that can do harm or good depending on how it's invested.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 05, 2006, 03:21:15 am
Quote
It's also way more expensive than gasoline for your car, but the comparison is devoid of any signifigance unless you happen to know a great deal about the technology and manufacturing costs that go into the formulation and production of these inks compared with champagne, Russian caviar or gasoline.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hmmm I always thought a consumer rip off was something to be concerned about..seems I was wrong!

Honestly guys....the printer manufacturers have a lot to answer  for..some are worse than others...

This isnt something to be taken lightly...its ink not some rare substance.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 05, 2006, 08:10:56 am
Quote
Hmmm I always thought a consumer rip off was something to be concerned about..seems I was wrong!

Honestly guys....the printer manufacturers have a lot to answer  for..some are worse than others...

This isnt something to be taken lightly...its ink not some rare substance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry, you tell me factually what they have to answer for? Where's your inside source of reliable data on how much operating income they make, how much of the operating income gets ploughed back into R&D and manufacturing expansion, what is their annual rate of return on net revalued assets in operation, what is the track record on their cost of capital and rates of return to shareholder equity? Once you have a good grip on all of that, you can start talking about whether the pricing is "right" or "wrong" - and Alain - I think you have it exactly right - all things in perspective - but you know it's a slippery slope when you extend the logic, because if I can buy A because it is cheaper than B, but than I can buy B because it is cheaper than C, and I can buy C because it is cheaper than D..........well you see what I mean. And then extend this game over two people in a household with competing interests for the same cash-flow and see where it takes you...............................

Oh - and Alain, I forgot to mention - once we're talking about venom - in the old days on this continent we had the proverbial snake-oil salesmen - seems that alot of folks think they are alive and well in the printer industry. On that I reserve my judgement in light of the foregoing.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 05, 2006, 09:46:55 am
Quote
At any rate knowing that Dom Perignon is cheaper than K3 inks makes it easier to legitimize high end champagne consumption.  If someone says I indulge myself,  I simply mention that it is cheaper than the ink I use to make my prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I expect that Dom Perignon results in fewer clogged nozzles, but I don't expect it can achieve the same density of blacks that you can get with K3 inks, or even the lowly K2 inks.  

Alain, are you sure your recent printing problems didn't have something to do with excessive D P in the system? (Sorry! I couldn't resist. I am glad the printer woes are solved.)

Eric
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: DarkPenguin on June 05, 2006, 11:06:19 am
I can think of at least 10 people off the top of my head (who are not into printing photos) that get new ink cartridges by buying new printers.  The old printer goes into the trash.  As this is actually cheaper than buying new ink cartridges one has to wonder about the pricing structure.

Quote
Barry, you tell me factually what they have to answer for? Where's your inside source of reliable data on how much operating income they make, how much of the operating income gets ploughed back into R&D and manufacturing expansion, what is their annual rate of return on net revalued assets in operation, what is the track record on their cost of capital and rates of return to shareholder equity? Once you have a good grip on all of that, you can start talking about whether the pricing is "right" or "wrong" - and Alain - I think you have it exactly right - all things in perspective - but you know it's a slippery slope when you extend the logic, because if I can buy A because it is cheaper than B, but than I can buy B because it is cheaper than C, and I can buy C because it is cheaper than D..........well you see what I mean. And then extend this game over two people in a household with competing interests for the same cash-flow and see where it takes you...............................

Oh - and Alain, I forgot to mention - once we're talking about venom - in the old days on this continent we had the proverbial snake-oil salesmen - seems that alot of folks think they are alive and well in the printer industry. On that I reserve my judgement in light of the foregoing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 05, 2006, 11:48:48 am
This can happen, depending on the model of printer they are trashing and replacing, and what kind of ink. For Pro printers this will not be the case. It really isn't clear how much of the pricing strategy is related to product-specific costs or cross-subsidies designed to make the bottom-line work one way or another. You may recall that in the early days of roll film photography Kodak actually gave away the cameras to create a market for the film.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: alainbriot on June 05, 2006, 11:59:32 am
Quote
I expect that Dom Perignon results in fewer clogged nozzles, but I don't expect it can achieve the same density of blacks that you can get with K3 inks, or even the lowly K2 inks. 

Alain, are you sure your recent printing problems didn't have something to do with excessive D P in the system? (Sorry! I couldn't resist. I am glad the printer woes are solved.)

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

DP solves certain problems but brings up others.  There's no perfect solution ;-)
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BJL on June 05, 2006, 02:31:15 pm
Quote
And what about the European contingent?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
right: it's a Bosch freezer loaded with Ilford and Agfa for all my Zeiss lenses!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 05, 2006, 02:42:47 pm
Quote
DP solves certain problems but brings up others.  There's no perfect solution ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the hope would be that if we get sozzled enough from drinking the DP, paying the VISA bill for the ink charges will sail through painlessly. So in fact one is an antidote for the other, but it just happens to work in the brain of the user rather than the printhead of the printer.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 05, 2006, 03:01:37 pm
Quote
I think the hope would be that if we get sozzled enough from drinking the DP, paying the VISA bill for the ink charges will sail through painlessly. So in fact one is an antidote for the other, but it just happens to work in the brain of the user rather than the printhead of the printer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,

Maybe you would be willing to do another of your cost analyses for us: How much must I spend on DP in order to feel that my prints really are worth every penny I spend on ink and paper as well as initial printer cost? How much more DP will it take for me to feel justified in junking my lowly 2200 and getting a 7800? I think those are the key economic questions we should be dealing with.

Eric
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 05, 2006, 03:56:48 pm
Quote
Mark,

Maybe you would be willing to do another of your cost analyses for us: How much must I spend on DP in order to feel that my prints really are worth every penny I spend on ink and paper as well as initial printer cost? How much more DP will it take for me to feel justified in junking my lowly 2200 and getting a 7800? I think those are the key economic questions we should be dealing with.

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric, indeed, if possible it could make a significant contribution to the literature; but I fear there are critical data gaps to deal with. You see, it is a dynamic, non-linear problem, because there are discontinuities in cause and effect that are distributed in real time and probably asymetric (e.g. how much antidote for the front end-investment versus how much antidote for the supplies thereafter, at what cyclicality and volumes over what time period, and what discount rate for deriving present values). Unfortunately, we don't have a data base of tested cases from which to draw inferences for other consumers (i.e. Alain already has his x800 printer and consumed the DP, but probably didn't record the existential relationship between the two at the time.) Then to complicate the matter further, borrowing from the field of environmental science, you would probably need a "cumulative impacts analysis" to get it right, because the effect of alcohol on the brain works that way. My goodness, nothing like lawyers, tax accountants and economists to complicate life for us, isn't it? Better to be a humble drunken photographer, charge enough money for the prints to pay for the bl..dy ink and be done with it!

Cheers!
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: alainbriot on June 05, 2006, 04:16:20 pm
Quote
Mark,

Maybe you would be willing to do another of your cost analyses for us: How much must I spend on DP in order to feel that my prints really are worth every penny I spend on ink and paper as well as initial printer cost? How much more DP will it take for me to feel justified in junking my lowly 2200 and getting a 7800? I think those are the key economic questions we should be dealing with.

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you can afford DP on a regular basis then you shouldn't be worried about ink or printer costs ;-)  If you are drinking Prefontaines (unexpensive French wine capped with a beer cap instead of a cork), then you are entitled to being concerned about the cost of ink & printer ;- )
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 05, 2006, 07:48:37 pm
It's actually ironic that this thread has decended to the level that in reality it started out.....  
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on June 05, 2006, 09:03:24 pm
Quote
It's actually ironic that this thread has decended to the level that in reality it started out.....  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry Ben, if I dare say so myself, the quality of the humour is much better at this end - it's pure, unpretentious fun!  
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ray on June 05, 2006, 11:28:29 pm
Getting things into perspective, Channel #5 has a transitory effect, which is no doubt very pleasant for the olfactory system, but soon wears off and needs repeated application.

K3 inks, on the other hand, last a life time with one application. They are thus much better value. There should be no grounds for complaint   .
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: alainbriot on June 06, 2006, 02:23:32 am
Quote
Getting things into perspective, Channel #5 has a transitory effect, which is no doubt very pleasant for the olfactory system, but soon wears off and needs repeated application.

K3 inks, on the other hand, last a life time with one application. They are thus much better value.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67497\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Channel #5 can get you places that no amount of K3 ink ever will...
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ray on June 06, 2006, 03:08:28 am
Quote
Channel #5 can get you places that no amount of K3 ink ever will...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alain,
I hope you are not implying that the opposite sex is not enamoured of my beautiful, handcrafted prints.  
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: alainbriot on June 06, 2006, 11:56:10 am
Quote
Alain,
I hope you are not implying that the opposite sex is not enamoured of my beautiful, handcrafted prints. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not in the least.  Just keep a nostril out for those customers wearing Channel #5 because their perfume being more expensive more than your ink they should be able to afford your prints. ;-)

Notice that this is not part of my regular photography marketing course ;- )
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: WilliamPatrickMoore on June 06, 2006, 12:43:54 pm
"Actually, I was about to start another digression about the relative merits of Kelvinator vs. Frigidair products.

Michael"


I'm holding out for the new digital freezing process to be perfected. So far it does a better job down to -2% F
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mike_Kelly on June 09, 2006, 07:53:56 pm
This thread reminds me of my Audiophile days.  Any Audiophile worth his salt knows that no amount of specsmanship can define or quantify good sound. You have to listen to the gear yourself, pays your money and makes your choices.

This type of discussion falls into that category IMHO. No amount of calculation can substitute for comparing prints in person. Then and only then can you make your choice. Which might not be the same as the person next to you.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: pss on June 21, 2006, 08:34:19 pm
i also don't understand all the technical numbers, this is about what looks better, not what registers better in some lab somewhere...we are talking about photography! as much as you can meter colors, no one sees colors the way YOU do....
i am so sick of analog versus digital...when you get to a certain level of digital capture (MF backs) it is simply impossible to tell the difference when looking at a print..if the negative/chrome is scanned...
i guess the heckler wanted to say that a print from a 4x5 neg looks different then an inkjet print from a scanned 4x5 neg....trying to explain that with numbers is just stupid...and so is bringing this issue up here...the results from this extensive test are published on the web or on DVD, either way digital, so why bring a print from negative into it? to scan the print? i think anyone would agree that a scan from a negative will be better than a scan from a print!
so terry i have an idea: why don't you make prints (real, wet) for all of us so we can make a real comparison...and please attach a technical paper explaining how, when and under which light conditions it should be viewed...
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ogando on June 22, 2006, 08:41:06 am
"
Quote from: pss,Jun 22 2006, 02:34 AM
i also don't understand all the technical numbers, this is about what looks better, not what registers better in some lab somewhere...we are talking about photography!

i am so sick of analog versus digital...when you get to a certain level of digital capture (MF backs) it is simply impossible to tell the difference when looking at a print..if the negative/chrome is scanned..."


I´m with the member "pss" and others regarding pixel debates.

Although it´s nearly off-topic here:

The decisive point for me is, if professional photographers manage to communicate their costs for digital post-production instead of analog photomaterial costs to their clients. For professional preprint companies, who traditionally know how to do their job, there is pracitally spoken no difference preparing scanned files for print-processes or digitally shot files - for a lot of reasons. But instead for photographers and their clients often there is a problem regarding this issue.

Digital technology should be sold with two owner´s manuals. One dealing with the machine and one with negotiating know-how to be able to refinance the stuff within the short time the technology is state of the art. :-)

Og
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: samuel_js on July 10, 2006, 06:20:49 pm
Hi all, this post (or Michael Reichmann's anti-film reaction) made me register actually...

Photography isn't only about selling and customers etc...
For many people (like me) taking photographs is ART. It is not about making comparisons and watching 100% crops of newspaper pictures all day long like there's nothin else.
I take digital too but for me, the artistic, timeless quality of B&W film is unbeatable.
You're very happy with your 39 mp digital back, well, good for you. But please, stop trying to convince us, people who see photography in other (say the old) way, that digital is better because FOR US, it is not !!



PS. I'm surprised none has comments about RGK's post. I supose because it's so obvious... no contest.
Quote
Talking about resolution, feast your eyes and mind by watching this site. Maybe peace will then return to the board! http://www.gigapxl.org/ (http://www.gigapxl.org/)
Regards to all
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Best Regards
Samuel Axelsson
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: barryfitzgerald on July 10, 2006, 06:25:18 pm
Well photography never really was about res tests and charts etc....I point my lens at something interesting, least I try too!

Still I guess someone has to do the testing...but not something I find intresting, unless there is some amazing technology out there. Megapixels just aint interesting!

I agree b&w film still has its place, alongside digital...
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: michael on July 10, 2006, 07:48:08 pm
Quote
But please, stop trying to convince us, people who see photography in other (say the old) way, that digital is better because FOR US, it is not !!

Say what?

I'm not interested on convincing anyone about anything. I am stating my opinions based on my experience. Nothing more, nothing less. If you disagree, fine, just say so. No need to be acusitory.

I still use film when appropriate. In my view it's becoming quite archaic, but it still occasionally has its place.

Michael
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: samuel_js on July 10, 2006, 07:51:56 pm
Quote
quite archaic,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Michael, that's not the way I see film photography.

BR
Samuel Axelsson
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Ogando on July 11, 2006, 06:41:17 pm
Quote
Hi all, this post (or Michael Reichmann's anti-film reaction) made me register actually...


PS. I'm surprised none has comments about RGK's post. I supose because it's so obvious... no contest.
Best Regards
Samuel Axelsson
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=70288\")


Didn´t notice the www.gigapixl.org post

Here´s a similar project from Europe as visual memory of a region that will become cultural capital of Europe in 2010:

[a href=\"http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de]http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de[/url]

pictures directly here (german navigation only I´m sorry) - still analogue the most ones, but they´re still there:-)
http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de/themen/index (http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de/themen/index)


P.S.:
The Kodak sensor of Phase One is known for color-shift in wideangle performance,
the reason for the sometimes two exposures with opal-glass.
A problem Dalsa (built in sinar, eyelike, mamiya) tried to solve.
We´ll see how it goes on, or if Canon wins the race becuase of its effectivity towards market needs. :-(

Og
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: BlasR on July 11, 2006, 09:55:38 pm
Michael,
please, stop trying to convince me, you did already and I love it
and I really like to thank you for all those great informations that you giving me posting them here in some other places,  like your excellent DVD,and forget about who don't like your information.

You can't please everyone.....there are the ones that would complain if they were served Ice water in hell……sayin’ it wasn’t cold enough….or didn’t have a twist of lemon……. I find you one of the most honorable Person in photography ……any one doing   photography in the  way you do, will do just fine..Please keep the great work as always.

BlasR
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Nemo on December 10, 2006, 04:48:33 pm
Quote
The argument in itself is pointless anyway. Why do people need to measure things all the time? It never ceases to amaze me...

That is the base of science...
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: barryfitzgerald on December 10, 2006, 10:42:09 pm
Quote
That is the base of science...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Science or gearmania?

I am a photographer...I capture images...testing isnt part of the recipe..it is a side interest to those who want to look at it..

This isnt science..
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: howiesmith on December 11, 2006, 08:23:08 pm
Quote
That is the base of science...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Photography is a blend of art, science and magic.  You don't need to measure (maybe can't) art and magic.

I have not read the entire thread, but if one were comapring digital and film, why would you compare digital to a digitized film image?  Why not make a film image of the digital and compare with a wet print?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Bobtrips on December 11, 2006, 09:32:20 pm
Quote
I have not read the entire thread, but if one were comapring digital and film, why would you compare digital to a digitized film image?  Why not make a film image of the digital and compare with a wet print?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Because:

1) Most photographers who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print "dry vs. wet" find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film.

2) Transferring a digital file to film and then making a wet print from the resulting film would not be an accurate presentation of the original digital file.  Something would be lost in the transfer to film.  (And don't forget reason #1.)
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: pixman63 on December 16, 2006, 03:59:17 am
Quote
Because:

1) Most photographers who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print "dry vs. wet" find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film.

2) Transferring a digital file to film and then making a wet print from the resulting film would not be an accurate presentation of the original digital file.  Something would be lost in the transfer to film.  (And don't forget reason #1.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If reason #2 is correct (and I have no doubt that it is), then why should the same not be true of the converse. Scanning of any sort is the weak link in making digital prints from film originals.

Use a digital master printer for the digital, and a darkroom master printer for the film, then compare. Doing it any other way is absuing one method or the other by subjecting it to a process it wasn't designed for.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Bobtrips on December 16, 2006, 11:02:41 pm
Quote
If reason #2 is correct (and I have no doubt that it is), then why should the same not be true of the converse. Scanning of any sort is the weak link in making digital prints from film originals.

Use a digital master printer for the digital, and a darkroom master printer for the film, then compare. Doing it any other way is absuing one method or the other by subjecting it to a process it wasn't designed for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're ignoring #1.

Those who work at making the best possible prints from film generally find that they get superior prints from scanning and printing digitally rather than optically.  

If you were to make your judgement based on a film/optical print vs. a digital/inkjet print you would be placing the film capture at a disadvantage.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Forsh on December 19, 2006, 05:24:38 am
There's so much knowledge contained in this thread, I am in awe  
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: howiesmith on December 21, 2006, 04:41:17 pm
Quote
You're ignoring #1.

Those who work at making the best possible prints from film generally find that they get superior prints from scanning and printing digitally rather than optically. 

If you were to make your judgement based on a film/optical print vs. a digital/inkjet print you would be placing the film capture at a disadvantage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90925\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, you claim photographers "who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print 'dry vs. wet' find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film."

Seems you have assumed that a digital print is superior to a film print in order to prove it.  It is always easier to prove something is true is you first assume it is true.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Bobtrips on December 21, 2006, 04:58:52 pm
Quote
So, you claim photographers "who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print 'dry vs. wet' find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film."

Seems you have assumed that a digital print is superior to a film print in order to prove it.  It is always easier to prove something is true is you first assume it is true.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=91816\")


Actually I'm making that statement based on what Michael and Jonathon (among others) have posted on this site along with what [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital_advantage.html]Roger Clark [/url] has posted.

I've seen no one present any data to the contrary.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: LJLRenner on December 22, 2006, 06:19:51 pm
Quote
This thread reminds me of my Audiophile days.  Any Audiophile worth his salt knows that no amount of specsmanship can define or quantify good sound. You have to listen to the gear yourself, pays your money and makes your choices.

This type of discussion falls into that category IMHO. No amount of calculation can substitute for comparing prints in person. Then and only then can you make your choice. Which might not be the same as the person next to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: LJLRenner on December 22, 2006, 06:24:49 pm
Quote
This thread reminds me of my Audiophile days.  Any Audiophile worth his salt knows that no amount of specsmanship can define or quantify good sound. You have to listen to the gear yourself, pays your money and makes your choices.

This type of discussion falls into that category IMHO. No amount of calculation can substitute for comparing prints in person. Then and only then can you make your choice. Which might not be the same as the person next to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
MIKE:  ARE YOU THE MIKE KELLY OF ADS DAYS, THEN YOUR OWN SPEAKER COMPANY?IF SO, GLAD WE ARE BOTH INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO THE "FILM VS. DIGITAL" FRAY.  JACK RENNER
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: howiesmith on January 04, 2007, 04:36:18 pm
Quote
I reviewed the Web Article from the four Photographers regarding their experiments with different Digital Cameras / Lenses and 4x5 Inch Film Sheet.  Their undertaking had a major fatal flaw.  They didn't produce Optical Prints from the Film.  Instead, they just scanned the Film Sheet into their Computer which means that the original Resolution (86 Trillion) and Colour of the Film is lost.  Film has a Resolution of 6.9 Billion  Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre, but this is only retained if the Picture Print is made using real Light -- not a Computer Scan.  The Attached File explains the inferiorities of Digital Photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At the risk of incurring the rath of many, it seems logical to me, that if one is comparing film to digital prints, that the film print would be made from the original, not a scan.  A wet print compared with a digital print.

Comapring a digital camera file to a scanned film film doesn't seem relavent to me.  I cannot see a digital film.  I can see a digital print and a film print.

As a complete asside. I have seen that I get better prnts from wet chromes if I first make a color interneg and then print the negative.  Any explanation?
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 04, 2007, 04:49:22 pm
Quote
At the risk of incurring the rath of many, it seems logical to me, that if one is comparing film to digital prints, that the film print would be made from the original, not a scan.  A wet print compared with a digital print.

Comapring a digital camera file to a scanned film film doesn't seem relavent to me.  I cannot see a digital film.  I can see a digital print and a film print.

As a complete asside. I have seen that I get better prnts from wet chromes if I first make a color interneg and then print the negative.  Any explanation?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Turning to the real world of what people do - and there is no wrath necessary - those who use film but wish to make inkjet prints from film originals will scan the film using a film scanner and then print the digital file which is created by the scanner and scanner software - whether it is negative film, black and white, colour, or positive transparency film. Programs such as Silverfast can handle all of this, and good film scanners can achieve 5400 INPUT PPI or more. A good print resolution is say 360 PPI, so this would allow the large dimension of the print from a 5400 PPI scan to be 15 inches. Good scanning technique of course is required to optimize the quality of the digital file, which means understanding the software and the various adjustments and options it provides for optimizing scan quality. Thereafter it is just a matter of the usual techniques used to derive a good inkjet print from a digital image file. Starting the process by scanning a wet darkroom print is hopelessly inadequate because the resolution of these prints seldom exceeds 200~250 PPI, so you can never get beyond that; as well when you start with film you have all the sharpness and dynamic range of the film, which is far better than anything on paper from a wet darkroom that could be fed into a flatbed scanner.

If you want to make serious comparisons between wet darkroom technology and digital technology, you need to use the techniques that are best adapted to each medium from start to finish, and normalize as many of the variables as possible (very difficult) and see which provides superior quality. While that argument is essentially over with, no harm curious minds trying - but do it in a way that allows each medium to be at its best.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: howiesmith on January 04, 2007, 05:03:46 pm
Quote
Turning to the real world of what people do - and there is no wrath necessary - those who use film but wish to make inkjet prints from film originals will scan the film using a film scanner and then print the digital file which is created by the scanner and scanner software - whether it is negative film, black and white, colour, or positive transparency film. Programs such as Silverfast can handle all of this, and good film scanners can achieve 5400 INPUT PPI or more. A good print resolution is say 360 PPI, so this would allow the large dimension of the print from a 5400 PPI scan to be 15 inches. Good scanning technique of course is required to optimize the quality of the digital file, which means understanding the software and the various adjustments and options it provides for optimizing scan quality. Thereafter it is just a matter of the usual techniques used to derive a good inkjet print from a digital image file. Starting the process by scanning a wet darkroom print is hopelessly inadequate because the resolution of these prints seldom exceeds 200~250 PPI, so you can never get beyond that; as well when you start with film you have all the sharpness and dynamic range of the film, which is far better than anything on paper from a wet darkroom that could be fed into a flatbed scanner.

If you want to make serious comparisons between wet darkroom technology and digital technology, you need to use the techniques that are best adapted to each medium from start to finish, and normalize as many of the variables as possible (very difficult) and see which provides superior quality. While that argument is essentially over with, no harm curious minds trying - but do it in a way that allows each medium to be at its best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93732\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see.  And agree.  I think.  The test does not really compare a wet print to a digital print.

I guess I have trouble with the need to claim 200-250 ppi for a wet print (or a digital).  I can't see that under normal conditions, so why try?  I have never been a fan of the 100% comparison on the screen or the nose on the print scrutiny.
Title: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 04, 2007, 06:04:27 pm
Quote
The test does not really compare a wet print to a digital print.

I guess I have trouble with the need to claim 200-250 ppi for a wet print (or a digital).  I can't see that under normal conditions, so why try?  I have never been a fan of the 100% comparison on the screen or the nose on the print scrutiny.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll clarify a few points for you.

(1) The procedure I suggested does compare a wet print to a digital print. I was only discussing how one normally gets to the end result from the film onward for the digital print.

(2) Human eyesight can resolve something in the neighbourhood of 240/300 PPI from what I've read. You can often begin to see distinct differences in print quality once you print below the bottom of that range. There are other degradations (focus and dynamic range) that would deter you from starting a digital workflow from a paper print. Always start with the film itself. This is universally known and accepted.

(3) No-one is talking about comparing anything on a screen. You compare PRINTS, and you do not use a loupe because people don't look at prints through a loupe (under normal circumstances).

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: JGracen on June 16, 2014, 03:19:46 pm
I don’t care to argue over the flaws of a test like this but I would like to point out that the style of test used is not only stale and outdated, it’s limited.  Taking a photograph of “test” items that engineers and pixel-peepers love to use to “get their gun off” is not impressive.  A better test would be to head outdoors, have all four photographers setup and shoot the same composition under natural lighting conditions, using four different cameras and tripods and THEN compare the results.  Why?  Simple: 4x5 film (and the camera movements) have specific purposes, like Tilt / Shift / Swing / Rise / and Fall.  All things that cannot be done with a standard camera.  Sure, you can buy a $2000 TSE Lens from Canon or Nikon, but now you’ve probably just spent $5000 on a rig that still won’t BEAT 4x5 film in the hands someone that knows how to shoot.

The Nikon D800E seems to be the closest competitor in the FF world to catching, not beating, but catching 4x5 film capability (notice I didn’t say quality).  Lens factor is certainly important and I’m sorry but the lenses they used are simply NOT the best lens choices for those cameras.  The Hasselblad 50-110 zoom is a soft lens (I’ve owned it) and for shooting 4x5 you’d be better off trying a Schneider 90mm MC Copal 0 or a Super-Symmar 110mm lens.

Meet me at the top of the cliffs overlooking Pennybacker Bridge in Austin, TX.  Bring your best Canon, your best Nikon, I’ll bring a Wista 45SP with a Schneider MC 90mm F5.6 Copal lens and some filters (depending on the lighting conditions chosen) and we’ll examine afterward.  Sadly, I already know what to expect:

The P45 Back will do quite nicely with noise and detail.
The P30 Back (which I’ve owned and wouldn’t recommend) will be less sharp and have less contrast.
The Canon (any Canon) will be soft (the internal filters Canon uses destroy image integrity IMO)
The Nikon (800E) with a good TS Lens (very important) would render the scene quite nicely.
The Wista 45 with Schneider 90mm lens (if adjusted and focused properly, using good quality Velvia or Portra film, will produce the best shadow detail and best depth of field.

Which Camera is best for this situation... personally I would take either the 800E or the Wista.  What camera would work best for shooting rag dolls, dollar bills and pointless trinkets... a $200 point and shoot down at BestBuy!  Moral of the story: find a worthy composition for TRUE comparison and then you’ll have something to argue over.  Just my two cents...
Title: Re: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Jim Pascoe on June 16, 2014, 04:46:20 pm
Is this a record for the oldest thread ever resurrected?  Seven and a half years......

Jim
Title: Re: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 17, 2014, 08:41:15 am
Is this a record for the oldest thread ever resurrected?  Seven and a half years......

Jim
Look at the number of posts the resurrector has made to LuLa! :o
Title: Re: This Test was completely flawed
Post by: Jim Pascoe on June 17, 2014, 12:02:25 pm
Look at the number of posts the resurrector has made to LuLa! :o

Yes, I love the first line of the post "....the style of test used is not only stale and outdated....."