This Test was completely flawed

[LJLRenner]

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

[howiesmith]

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?

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[howiesmith]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[JGracen]

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...

[Jim Pascoe]

Is this a record for the oldest thread ever resurrected?  Seven and a half years......

Jim

[Alan Goldhammer]

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!

[Jim Pascoe]

Look at the number of posts the resurrector has made to LuLa!

Yes, I love the first line of the post "....the style of test used is not only stale and outdated....."