 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / October 2004Negative -> Print Traditional; Positive -> Print Digital
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately, they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and digital prints. Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the slides? > Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has > less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the > slides? Its because scanners even good ones don't have the dynamic range reading ability to handle many B&W, and C41 negatives which are fully exposed.  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that > sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the > slides? 'Dynamic range' is a term in electronics, not optics. You mean 'density range'. Yes, the density range of negatives is less than that of slides. Negative films are designed to be printed on paper. That's what I recommend. > Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that > sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the > slides? Many people get successful prints from scanned slides and negatives. Like any output path there is a considerable amount of learning that is required to achieve the full capabilities of the medium. The latest generation of scanners are noticeably better than those of just a year or two ago. I suggest visiting some galleries or photo exhibits and speaking to those making digital prints for some guidance on what to do. By the way, black and white is much harder than color. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net >> Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that >> sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > Many people get successful prints from scanned slides and negatives. Again does "sucessful" mean they are better than the tranditional prints done by someone who is competant? I think people who believe digital output is better are comparing the results to prints they had made at wallmart. That's why I laugh when people compare their digital camera to scanned film, they dumb down the film using the scanner so they can believe their digicam is as good. Comparing a digicam to scanned film isn't comparing the digicam to film, it's comparing the scanner to the digicam. >The latest generation of scanners are noticeably better than those of >just a year or two ago. And they will continue to do so, which will continue to make film even better. SignatureStacey > That's why I laugh when people compare their digital camera to scanned >film, they dumb down the film using the scanner so they can believe their >digicam is as good. But even then, digicams aren't as good as properly scanned film. :) Using high-grade slide film (Velvia 50, Astia 100F, E100G), a decent scanner (Minolta DSE5400 manually-focused) and a high-grade lens, scanned 35mm still beats 6-8mp DSLRs without problems. But I keep seeing useless comparisons (old films, old scanners, improper scanning technique, consumer-grade lenses) that "show" a digital edge. Oh well. :) When I'll have time, I'll post a proper comparison between my 10D and my Elan 7 (no need to incomodate MF gear). Then we'll see. :) Fernando >When I'll have time, I'll post a proper comparison between my 10D and >my Elan 7 (no need to incomodate MF gear). Then we'll see. :) Great, look forward to seeing it. Make sure you show the full frame in each case, and comparable full-res sections. I'd be surprised if your data showed anything other than what I've had posted on my site for the last ten months or so. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com scan & digicam snippets: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis > In article <12271960.0410221338.3b6dd765@posting.google.com>, > Many people get successful prints from scanned slides and negatives. Like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > those making digital prints for some guidance on what to do. > By the way, black and white is much harder than color. I guess you don't know Calypso photo lab yet. If you want to talk to a printing expert, you'd not go to a gallery if Calypso is near, and of course, just like any top ranked photo lab, they would use the scanner that I believe you can only hope for. My point is, it's not a learning curve problem, neither a machine problem. it's just the state of the art as of today. The traditional negative prints is simply the most favorite, assumeing 20x024 is large enough. And you are absolutely right, it's even more so for B&W. That I've concluded much earlier, and I thought I knew why. > Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that > sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the > slides? Not sure why, but nothing can match the look of a properly shot and printed neg. There's no discussion. I did a test with a friend a while back, and shot some Reala with a Mamiya 7II, and then printed one of the shots. He did the same shot with his digicam (high-end DSLR), and printed whatever way he wanted. No comparison. Detail and tonality in the Reala print were amazing. The digi print was good, but in a different class altogether. >> Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that >> sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > print were amazing. The digi print was good, but in a different class > altogether. Sorry to change the subject, but what are your thoughts on the Mamiya 7II? I'm seriously considering buying one. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com> wrote in message news:MOyed.3205349 > > Not sure why, but nothing can match the look of a properly shot and > > printed neg. There's no discussion. I did a test with a friend a while [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > print were amazing. The digi print was good, but in a different class > > altogether. Silly comparison. The 1Ds (and now 1Dsmk2) are begining to encroach on 645 for detail. But they're still a long way from 6x7. > Sorry to change the subject, but what are your thoughts on the Mamiya 7II? > I'm seriously considering buying one. The viewfinder/rangefinder are horrible, the outrigger viewfinders required for 3 of the 6 lenses are essentially unusable with glasses. Using a polarizer is a pain, it doesn't focus closer than 3 feet. And its unusable for portraits. But it's got the best lenses and flattest film in MF. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com> wrote in message news:MOyed.3205349 >> Sorry to change the subject, but what are your thoughts on the Mamiya [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Thanks Bill, You responded to a thread I started on the subject a few months ago. I've heard some contrasting reports since then, and would like more data before deciding. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com> wrote in message news:MOyed.3205349 >>> Sorry to change the subject, but what are your thoughts on the Mamiya [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > heard some contrasting reports since then, and would like more data before > deciding. Sorry, I mean "David"--perhaps it's Bill Hilton's reply I'm thinking of??? SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >From: "Matt Clara" critics@large.com >Sorry, I mean "David"--perhaps it's Bill Hilton's reply I'm thinking of??? Yeah, I was wondering how you got us mixed up :) I doubt Littleboy has ever held the Mamiya 7 II, much less owned one and shot it ... >> Sorry to change the subject, but what are your thoughts on the Mamiya >> 7II? >> I'm seriously considering buying one. I'm seriously considering selling one, send me an email if interested. From earlier posts you're probably aware of the limitations ... if you use it mostly with the wide angles it's pretty good but the telephotos are difficult to use and focusing can be tough. See David Kennerly's book from a couple years ago for an example of what you can do with it and just one wide angle lens ... http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/dk_intro.html ... >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >> >> the outrigger viewfinders required >> for 3 of the 6 lenses are essentially unusable with glasses. Where do you get this nonsense? I wear glasses and the optical viewfinders work fine with them on the 43mm, 150 mm and 210 mm. Have you ever actually shot with this camera with any of those lenses? Bill > >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > work fine with them on the 43mm, 150 mm and 210 mm. Have you ever actually > shot with this camera with any of those lenses? They're fine if you don't mind not being able to see the whole frame at the same time. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the > same time. That's odd. I use the 43 and 50, and can see the whole frame just fine... > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan >"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote >> the outrigger viewfinders required >> for 3 of the 6 lenses are essentially unusable with glasses. >> They're fine if you don't mind not being able to see the whole frame >> at the same time. With the finder for the 150/210 mm I have no problems at all seeing everything. Ditto with the finder for the 43 mm, with glasses I can see the entire frame easily. Have you ever actually tried these viewfinders on this camera? They are actually brighter than the normal window. The external viewfinders are not without hassles ... another thingy to carry around and of course they don't couple to the rangefinder for focussing so you still have to focus thru the normal viewfinder (meaning these are of little use for action photography unless you're zone focussing with the 43 mm) but what you claim is simply untrue. Bill > >"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ditto with the finder for the 43 mm, with glasses I can see the entire frame > easily. I suspect we're talking about different things: I want to see the whole frame at one go. I've tried the 43 finder several times in the stores (not difficult, living in downtown Tokyo). I haven't tried the SWC finder (no point, it's out of my price range), but I find a lot of finders unacceptable. The Cosina outriggers are equally problematic. I do not consider having to look around/move my eye relative to the finder acceptable. > The external viewfinders are not without hassles ... another thingy to carry > around and of course they don't couple to the rangefinder for focussing so you > still have to focus thru the normal viewfinder (meaning these are of little use > for action photography unless you're zone focussing with the 43 mm) but what > you claim is simply untrue. Not for my eyes and my glasses. And I suspect that a lot of people are just used to bad finders that require moving one's eye to see the corners. In SLRs, the low end cameras have low mag and cropped areas, so are fine (well, unless you need to focus manually or frame accurately). But the midrange cameras are abysmal (N80/FM3 being the most egregious: f100's fine). David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > From earlier posts you're probably aware of the limitations ... if you use it > mostly with the wide angles it's pretty good but the telephotos are difficult > to use and focusing can be tough. For people interested in M7's wide angle, be awared that the 65mm lens has a pretty significant distortion. My pictures from Italy show leaning towers everywhere. They all leans towards the center! It's pretty "bad" compared to Hasselblad's 50mm. (The two lenses cover about the same angle of field: 65mm/68mm vs. 50mm/54mm). I say bad because I don't like that. You should try to see if that's a plus or a minus for you. 43mm might be another story, but I don't own it. > For people interested in M7's wide angle, be awared that the 65mm lens > has a pretty significant distortion. My pictures from Italy show [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because I don't like that. You should try to see if that's a plus or a > minus for you. You're right. The M7 + 65mm is a really bad combination. I'll do you a favor and give you $500 for the pair since I'm such a nice guy. Your problem is the photographer not the lens. You tilted the camera up and got converging verticals. If you don't like converging verticals, keep that camera level. Use the camera in the vertical ("portrait") orientation or get the 50 or 43mm lens if you need more of the tops of buildings. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Your problem is the photographer not the lens. You tilted the camera up and > got converging verticals. If you don't like converging verticals, keep that > camera level. Use the camera in the vertical ("portrait") orientation or get > the 50 or 43mm lens if you need more of the tops of buildings. What a discovery! Now do yourselve a favor. Try to compare M7's 65mm and HB's 50mm. > > Your problem is the photographer not the lens. You tilted the camera up and > > got converging verticals. If you don't like converging verticals, keep that > > camera level. Use the camera in the vertical ("portrait") orientation or get > > the 50 or 43mm lens if you need more of the tops of buildings. > > What a discovery! Now do yourselve a favor. Try to compare M7's 65mm and HB's 50mm. By your logic, the 'Blad 50mm has more "distortion" than the M7 50mm lens, since if I hold the M7 + 50 vertically, I get +/- 7mm of shift to reduce converging verticals even more. Converging verticals isn't distortion. It's what happens when the photographer fails to hold the camera straight. If you need that angle of view in the veritical direction, either hold the camera vertically so you get it, or use a wider lens. Using the wrong tool for the job and then claiming that the tool has a problem is not sensible. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan I take back my previous response. It sounds like a starting of another brand name war. My point, the tilt is not the only cause of the distortion. It's just the characteristics of most wide angle lenses. (surprise!). Some is just worse then others. The Biogon is one that reduces it. (yeah, no kidding :) > I take back my previous response. It sounds like a starting of another > brand name war. Even worse, a square vs. rectangle war<g>. The square gives you +/- 3 mm of shift when you crop to a rectangle. At the cost of a lot less magnification on the film. Or you could just use the 50mm lens on the M7. > My point, the tilt is not the only cause of the distortion. It's not distortion. It's correct projection of those lines onto the film at that angle. And the tilt _is_ the only cause of that problem. If you find you need to tilt, you need either a wider lens or a lens with shifts. Or to scan and correct it in a photo editor. > It's just the characteristics of most wide angle lenses. No. It's the characteristic of the projection and the angle. > (surprise!). Some is just worse then others. The Biogon is one that > reduces it. (yeah, no kidding :) If by "reducing it" you mean avoiding converging verticals, then the Sigma 12-24 on a 35mm film camera is the best way to not have to tilt and thus not see converging verticals. Hold the camera vertically, and you have the equivalent of an 18mm lens with +/- 6mm* of shift. (At the cost of a lot less magnification). *: Actually, equiv. to an 18mm lens with +/-9mm of shift. I think. It's 12mm on a 24mm wide frame shifted an actual 6mm, whereas to do the same thing with 18mm, you'd have to shift 9mm on the 36mm wide frame. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > My point, the tilt is not the only cause of the distortion. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No. It's the characteristic of the projection and the angle. I can't believe you've never experienced the wide angle lens's distortion, giving that you sound like quite an expert in camera equipments. I don't know how to help you if you really never noticed that. Anyway, I'll just repeat. For people interested in M7's wide angle, particularly 65mm (43mm may be different, as it hsa the Biogon type lens design), try it out, see if the distortion in the two side is something to like or to hate. You can simply put people or buildings on the 1/3 of the two side in the frame. Try to see if the people is noticible fatter or the building is noticible distorted. You'll need to compare with another lens you know, as all wide angle lens has more or less distortion, it's just relatively some are worse. >From: xuanjielih@gmail.com (Geshu Iam) >Anyway, I'll just repeat. For people interested in M7's wide angle, >particularly 65mm ... try it out, see if the distortion in the two side is >something to like or to hate I think anyone doing a lot of architecture work should steer clear of rangefinders in general :) This is one of the areas that large format is best suited for. That said, we've used the Mamiya 7 II with the 65 mm a fair bit in Mexico photographing ornate doors and buildings in places like Guanajuato and San Miguel de Allende and *never* noticed any major barrel or pincushion distortion. The type distortion you mentioned at first is due to the film plane not being parallel to the subject and is a photographer problem, not a gear problem. I forgot which 50 mm Hassy lens you said was much better than the Mamiya 65 mm but I found a couple of tests on the photodo site that actually tested the 50 mm f/4 Hassy and the 65 Mamiya 7 II ... both had pretty high overall ratings for wide angle lenses (which typically do relatively poorly in these tests), 3.8 for the 65 mm, 3.9 for the Hassy. The measured distortion was -.24% for the Mamiya lens (negative means barrel), -.98% for the Hassy so if this was the lens you were comparing then their tests disagree with what you claim. http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/Ma7N65_4L-312.shtml http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/HaDistagonCF50_4FLE-215.shtml You can see all the Photodo tests at http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html ... keep in mind they are for a sample size of one, but at least the same guy did all the tests using the same test instruments. Bill > >From: xuanjielih@gmail.com (Geshu Iam) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rangefinders in general :) This is one of the areas that large format is best > suited for. You didn't get the point. It's not about architectural photography. It's about a general purpose, all around camera. Particularly, for me, it's about the camera for travel. I got the M7 meant to replace the Hasselblad. I bet you know what I mean considering the M7's 65mm+80mm+150mm vs. HB's 50mm+80mm+180mm. Well, for many reasons, I'm sticking to HB for now. Part of the reasons are quite subjective and part of the reason is related to the tripod issue (insert anything of the format war and the brand name war here. try Google, for example, but no need to post, PLEASE). > That said, we've used the Mamiya 7 II with the 65 mm a fair bit in Mexico > photographing ornate doors and buildings in places like Guanajuato and San > Miguel de Allende and *never* noticed any major barrel or pincushion > distortion. Thanks, It's glad to know I'm not the only one on this earth knowing the wide angle distortion issue. (no argue, tele lens also has its distortion, but I've *never* noticed that yet.) > The type distortion you mentioned at first is due to the film > plane not being parallel to the subject and is a photographer problem, not a > gear problem. Yeah, it's all my fault, No good photographer on this earth should ever tilt his lens when shooting any subject. Grant it. But I happen to be lucky that some lens didn't bother me that much even if I did that bad thing! > I forgot which 50 mm Hassy lens you said was much better than the Mamiya 65 mm > but I found a couple of tests on the photodo site that actually tested the 50 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the Mamiya lens (negative means barrel), -.98% for the Hassy so if this was > lens you were comparing then their tests disagree with what you claim. It's definitely opposite from my observation. When I say significant distortion, I'm not talking about anything that need lupe or any precise measurement. It's by all mean just the sommon sense. > http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/Ma7N65_4L-312.shtml > http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/HaDistagonCF50_4FLE-215.shtml Before quoting any reference, have you ever try it yourself? even no need to be precise, just use naked eye. And for anyone who still has the patnt to stay with this topic. Do your own test. You don't need to rely on any experts for this issue. > Yeah, it's all my fault, No good photographer on this earth should > ever tilt his lens when shooting any subject. Grant it. Nobody said that no good photographer on this earth should ever tilt his lens when shooting any subject. But no good photographer on this earth tilts his lens up or down and then blames the lens when vertical lines that are parallel in the subject are not parallel in the photograph. > > >From: xuanjielih@gmail.com (Geshu Iam) > > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > And for anyone who still has the patnt to stay with this topic. Do > your own test. You don't need to rely on any experts for this issue. > "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com> wrote in message news:MOyed.3205349 >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > polarizer is a pain, it doesn't focus closer than 3 feet. And its unusable > for portraits. I have no problems with the rangefinder or viewfinder, and the outriggers aren't as bad for me, anyway. And I wear glasses. I just don't use it for action.... > But it's got the best lenses and flattest film in MF. No doubt! > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com> wrote in message news:MOyed.3205349 >> > No comparison. Detail and tonality in the Reala >> > print were amazing. The digi print was good, but in a different class >> > altogether. > > Silly comparison. Doesn't appear that it's silly to the digiguys, I see at least once a week someone posting that their digicam is equal to medium format.. SignatureStacey >>> Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that >>> sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Sorry to change the subject, but what are your thoughts on the Mamiya 7II? > I'm seriously considering buying one. Mamiya 7II is a tremendous camera, but limited. There's no telephoto solution, no fast lenses, and you have to deal with the issues associated with rangefinder framing. But, you simply won't find better lenses for any camera, period. They're absolutely amazing. Those lenses, combined with the big film produce results capable of huge blowups. The camera is lighweight, handles very well, but is not a quick shooters camera. Lens changes is a three-step process, but easy. Metering is adequate, at best. Most of the time, I'll use a hand held meter for accuracy. Build quality is excellent for camera and lenses. It uses either 120 or 220 film, and all you need to do is rotate the pressure plate to switch. Flash sync, thanks to leaf shutters, is at any speed, which makes shooting sun-sync incredibly easy. I've used a few MF cameras, but this is my favorite. >Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that >sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the >slides? Yes, the density range on negatives is lower than that of chromes by about an order of magnitude. So when scanning negs, you probably should scan using 48 bit files, or do your most critical color adjustments in the scanner driver (assuming it does these using 16 bit or higher arithmetic.) If you find yourself pulling hard on the color controls in Photoshop, then you most definitely want to be working on 48 bit files. You've gotta get the scan right in the first place. You can't "fix up" a lousy scan in Photoshop and expect a great print. I shoot Reala and other low-speed C41 films almost exclusively, and scan them with no problems on a Nikon LS-8000. I don't seem to have the problems with tonality that you're describing. I print mostly on my own inkjets, but have on many occasions used the services of Calypso, WestCoast Imaging, et. al. At PhotoExpo, most of the displayed prints were digitally produced, mostly on Epsons, the rest probabaly on Lightjet or Lambda. I'm not going to argue about film vs. digital capture... at least not today. But it's clear to me that the traditional wet darkroom is all but gone. There was only one vendor I saw showing wet darkroom gear -- but Epson printers were everywhere. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > So when scanning negs, you probably should > scan using 48 bit files, or do your most [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > first place. You can't "fix up" a lousy > scan in Photoshop and expect a great print. Thanks for this advise. I am doing quite opposite. I got advise previously that I should do minimun adjustment during the scan, and do the major adjustment in Photoshop. The only thing I do during scan is to make sure that the histogram is reasonable centered. I also scan and save in 16-bit mode (16-bit with correction). I tried 16-bit linear, but it seems no better. As the matter of color profiling, Calypso recommend Adobe RGB while Westcoast recommend CIE or wideRGA. and yet, For sure digital print is much easier to get to an excellent quality level, and it w'd be much more consistent from print to proint (an important issue to sell and marketing, like putting things in commercial gallries). but for the best, mine is till in the traditional print. And yes, the traditional's future is dimmed no matter how you argue for it. It's largely the marketing issue. Like it or not. I'm not against digital print, I'm looking for the suggestions to print digitally to match or even beat the traditional print. I'm giving up digital B&W for the moment, but even for color negatives, what I get from the best advise around, it seems the digital technology is not there yet. > I shoot Reala and other low-speed C41 films > almost exclusively, and scan them with no [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Right now I find myself competing with my inkjets. Scanned at 24 bit on an Epson 4870 at 600dpi, my medium format black and white negs produces a 7x8 inch print that is hard to beat. Traditional printing pyro negs printed with Ansco 130, or Defender 55, cold-lite source, and Rodenstocks, produces a smoother tone, but does not have the snap of the inkjet, which also manages to hold a greater dynamic range. Up close the inkjet shows its pixilation while the traditional doesn't, but at normal viewing distance they look the same. The slight increased contrast of the inkjet makes it look sharper. Of course I could dial down the contrast on the inkjet to match the print, but I can't add contrast to the traditional print without losing gradation that the inkjet holds onto so well. Now think of what a drumscan can do.I'm not able to print larger, but I have seen many large giclee prints in galleries and am stunned by their integrity. So I start at the computer, make a print and then go into the darkroom all day and try and match it. In the end I have a slightly more natural looking traditional print, but my eye wanders back at that crisp inkjet. My conclusion is that they are two different mediums, need not compete with each other, and allow me the option of which works best for whatever purpose I have in mind. I however am inclined to believe that for publication a drumscanned original would be better than making a tradition print and scanning it. KAS Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: (much snipped for brevity) > So I start at the computer, make a print and then go into the darkroom > all day and try and match it. In the end I have a slightly more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to believe that for publication a drumscanned original would be better > than making a tradition print and scanning it. KAS I agree that digital and optical prints are two different media, and each can create compelling images. However, I believe that the image should dictate the best reproduction methods, not the other way around. Some images intended for commercial printing will reproduce better from scanned film, others from scanned prints. It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Neil > > So I start at the computer, make a print and then go into the darkroom > > all day and try and match it. In the end I have a slightly more [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Neil Interesting. How could the intermediary of a print in any way improve the final magazine or book reproduction, over a direct scan, and Photo- shopping of the original film, if what one is trying to accomplish is the best possible reproduction of sharpness and tonality? Isn't the status of the hands on fiber print just that it is hands on, and retains a certain character for display or collection, that is enhanced by having come from the photographer? Yet if said image were to go into a handsome monograph ( don't we all wish ) scans from the neg would, in my limited experience so far, seem to be a superior way to get the most possible tonality. As I stated in my prior post, I struggle in the darkroom to hold as much tonality as the inkjet can get. And the inkjet gets it without sacrificing contrast. And this is mere desktop technology. Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: I stated: >> I agree that digital and optical prints are two different media, and >> each can create compelling images. However, I believe that the image [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > trying to accomplish is the best possible reproduction of > sharpness and tonality? What one typically wants is the best possible reproduction of the *image*. As prints are a creative step in making the image, their impact may not be immaterial. For example, in making a book of Ansel Adams' images, one does not start with his negatives and a scanner! ;-) > As I stated in my prior post, I struggle > in the darkroom to hold as much tonality as the inkjet can get. > And the inkjet gets it without sacrificing contrast. And this is mere > desktop technology. This only suggests that, for _your_ images, the inkjet is an appropriate technology; however, this is not a universal condition. The thing about film is that shooting is only one part of the process. Some of us have learned to shoot according to what we intend to do afterwards. That intention determines the choice of film, exposure settings, method of processing, etc. IMNSHO, it is an indication of digital's maturity that there hasn't been the presentation of an equivalent to a "Zone System" for shooting film intended for scanning. I suspect that few experienced photographers would argue that optimizing the exposure of a negative is best done in lieu of knowing how the image will be created from that negative. Yet, this is exactly the procedure invoked when involving some generic notion of "scanner" in the process. Curious, no? Neil > Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: > I stated: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Neil The creation of the negative is not in question. All those controls are performed just as if you were going to print traditionally. I'm pretty sure the negative will be more than adequate for the scanner, though if science guys want to exact a desitometer pixle marriage with factors for gravity, knock yourselves out. By scanning the thing, you gather up all the possible information that a negative is capable of, which has always exceeded the paper. Its not generic. Its ALL the information possible. Once the negative is scanned, the "image" can be created any which way. Doing it in a traditional darkroom may be more aesthetically appealing to some, but the controls possible with Photoshop are undeniable. Adams, who enthusiastically embraced Polaroid, would not have hesitated to work digitally. I'm pretty sure he would have prefered detail in landscapes were underexposure and plus development made for stunning clouds but left the horizon black. I don't think you have made any case for superior reproduction by skipping the traditional print. You have shifted the discussion to previsualization, and posited that I am making blind calls by not knowing what final look I have in mind,then printing directly from a scan without manipulating it. Actually if one were to take Adams's negatives and a scanner, (heresy), the results would prove quite exciting. Put aside the valuable notion of artistic integrity long enough to allow the fact, that YES, a very good book would result. I enjoy both worlds, doing Azo/Amidol contacts at the moment. While they are long toned and beautiful, I would still be inclined to mine more tonal range from the difficult contrast scenes with digital, if they were to go to a monograph. Anything else would seem to be a romatic notion. KAS Hi Ken, (both largely snipped for brevity) > > What one typically wants is the best possible reproduction of the *image*. > > As prints are a creative step in making the image, their impact may not be > > immaterial. For example, in making a book of Ansel Adams' images, one does > > not start with his negatives and a scanner! ;-) [...] > > > As I stated in my prior post, I struggle > > > in the darkroom to hold as much tonality as the inkjet can get. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > film is that shooting is only one part of the process. Some of us have > > learned to shoot according to what we intend to do afterwards. [...] > The creation of the negative is not in question. All those controls are > performed just as if you were going to print traditionally. That's my point. If the intention is to scan the film, one may want to expose the negative differently to optimize for the scanner's characteristics. Scanners are *not* generic devices that provide the same result regardless of source film. > [...] By scanning the thing, you gather up all > the possible information that a negative is capable of, which has always > exceeded the paper. Its not generic. Its ALL the information possible. I know of no professional scanner operators that make such claims, though it seems to be a prevalent perspective among the home-user crowd. > I don't think you have made > any case for superior reproduction by skipping the traditional print. I'm not attempting to make such a case... quite the opposite, instead. I stated that, for some subjects intended for commercial print reproduction, it would be better to use a print than a slide or negative; it depends on the image, not the technology. > You have > shifted the discussion to previsualization, and posited that I am making blind > calls by not knowing what final look I have in mind,then printing directly from > a scan without manipulating it. I don't see the discussion that you and I are having as being one of previsualization. I'm talking about images, and you appear to be talking about technology. To me, the image is what is important, and if that image exists in print form, it will be easier to reproduce it from that form than to recreate it from scratch, that's all. > Actually if one were to take Adams's negatives > and a scanner, (heresy), the results would prove quite exciting. To whom, you or Ansel Adams? You might find it interesting to read about what he went through to produce the existing books. Regards, Neil Gould ------------------------------ Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com Technical Graphics & Media >> > The creation of the negative is not in question. All those controls are > > performed just as if you were going to print traditionally. > > > That's my point. If the intention is to scan the film, one may want to > expose the negative differently to optimize for the scanner's > characteristics. Scanners are *not* generic devices that provide the same > result regardless of source film. Then when and if I find I have to make adjustments because of variables in scanning, I would. My intent is the finest possible image, period. It's not that complicated. At this point I'm going to do what I always do with film. Expose the shadow where I want it and try and hold the highlights that always want to get away, as landscapes are usually long ranged. This is then providing any scanner with as much information, i.e. under control densities, just like wet printing, as possible. The fact that scanners vary is simply something you work with. > > [...] By scanning the thing, you gather up all > > the possible information that a negative is capable of, which has always > > exceeded the paper. Its not generic. Its ALL the information possible. > > > I know of no professional scanner operators that make such claims, though it > seems to be a prevalent perspective among the home-user crowd. You're right about that. I am a home user, and have not run into the complications that might set this whole thing on its head. From what I see with an Epson 4870, it gathers a considerable range of information, that avails considerable potential. What are the problems facing the pro's? How is it that I can create an inkjet that is almost impossible to top with wet prints, but professional drum scanning... can't? Of course they can. > > I don't think you have made > > any case for superior reproduction by skipping the traditional print. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it would be better to use a print than a slide or negative; it depends on > the image, not the technology. The resultant "image" is always a result of some form of technology. Glass plate technology results in its look, etc. Image to me is the end product, the final thing in your hand. What is it to you? How can you claim to be making quite the opposite case, when my whole inquiry to you is based on the idea that you have stated that a print, ("image"?) might be better? Nothing you've said informs me of how it may be better. All creative imaging can be acheived digitally, above and beyond darkroom printing. So where is there any advantage to a print? If the photographer is satisfied with the creative results of a test print from an inkjet, then that information could go straight to the publisher via a CD. They can make information that goes straight to producing seperations for a Heidelberg or direct to inkjet or lasers. Tell me one thing that you find a print can do to enhance the published image, and why it is not just an unnecessary generation, given that I can create all I want in bits. > > You have > > shifted the discussion to previsualization, and posited that I am making [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exists in print form, it will be easier to reproduce it from that form than > to recreate it from scratch, that's all. The image does not exist in any form. I'm not talking about prints that have already been made. Certainly we haven't misunderstood each other that much? I make a great neg. Now do I make a great print, or PhotoShop the bugger? Its going to my publisher for my great monograph. Digital records an astounding range, and PS lets me dodge minutia. Why make a print? Maybe I should talk to someone at Little, Brown. > > Actually if one were to take Adams's negatives > > and a scanner, (heresy), the results would prove quite exciting. > > > To whom, you or Ansel Adams? You might find it interesting to read about > what he went through to produce the existing books. Probably both of us. He seemed to be interested in anything that did the job best, and did not go in for any artistic pretentions, having rather a taste that embraced both nicely. Even Ed Weston would have liked the clone tool to spot those tiresome portraits he grew weary of doing in the wee hours. And sure, I would be interested in reading of AA's publishing trials. Where can it be found? I'm not an advocate of any technology over another. I just want the most that the negative can yeild, and if the digital is out performing paper, then I would think that would be the way to go. If I am missing what you are saying, I apologize, but I don't see it. Regards to you too, and thanks for your patience, Ken Smith Regards, > Neil Gould > ------------------------------ > Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com > Technical Graphics & Media Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: >> Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message >>Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > product, > the final thing in your hand. What is it to you? The meaning of "image" is exactly the same to me. So, if handed a print for reproduction, and handed the source slide/negative, it might be more practical and/or easier and faster to use the print (see below). > How can you claim to be making quite > the opposite case, when my whole inquiry to you is based on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can be acheived digitally, above and beyond darkroom printing. So where > is there any advantage to a print? Let me try with another example. A recent thread here was on how to process & print film to emphasize grain. If that is an important element of the image, then its best representation will exist in the print. One could waste a lot of time trying to duplicate that image by starting with the negative. > If the photographer is satisfied with > the creative results of a test print from an inkjet, then that > information could go straight to the publisher via a CD. They can make > information that goes straight to producing seperations for a > Heidelberg or direct to inkjet or lasers. Tell me one thing that you find > a print can do to enhance the published image, and why it is not > just an unnecessary generation, given that I can create all I want in bits. See above. >>> You have >>> shifted the discussion to previsualization, and posited that I am [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The image does not exist in any form. I'm not talking about prints > that have already been made. Certainly we haven't misunderstood each other > that much? Apparently so, given that I *am* talking about prints that have already been made. ;-) But, let's not overlook that I'm saying that the best approach *depends on the image*, as in the example, above. > I make a great neg. Now do I make a great print, or PhotoShop the > bugger? > Its going to my publisher for my great monograph. Digital records an > astounding range, and PS lets me dodge minutia. Why make a print? > Maybe I > should talk to someone at Little, Brown. Good idea. >>> Actually if one were to take Adams's negatives >>> and a scanner, (heresy), the results would prove quite exciting. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Probably both of us. He seemed to be interested in anything that did > the job best, and did not go in for any artistic pretentions, having rather > a taste that embraced both nicely. Again, I refer you to writings on the process, both in his own words and in those of his collaborators. Considering that he was seldom completely satisfied with the results in spite of some rather elaborate efforts (primarily due to the differences between photography and printing technologies), I suspect that if he was your client, you may not get paid! ;-) Regards, SignatureNeil Gould -------------------------------------- Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com Technical Graphics & Media Just in case anyone is interested in a rational discussion of when digital prints are preferable to traditional darkroom prints, there is an article about that subject by Ctein in the current issue of Photo Techniques magazine. You may not agree with his conclusions (which basically are that some film images work better in the traditional darkroom, others work better printed digitally except that prints from slides are always better done digitally) but it's at least a thoughtful and considered article about the subject, as opposed to some of the stuff we get here like "anyone who thinks digital is better than darkroom prints must be comparing digital with prints from WalMart" or words to that effect that somebody posted here recently.. > Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > Regards, > Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: > > > > The meaning of "image" is exactly the same to me. So, if handed a print > for reproduction, and handed the source slide/negative, it might be more > practical and/or easier and faster to use the print (see below). Of course my example of making the perfect final image for a monograph does not require ease and speed. > > How can you claim to be making quite > > the opposite case, when my whole inquiry to you is based on the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > could waste a lot of time trying to duplicate that image by starting with > the negative. And nothing pertaining to best tonal reproduction, as I've harped on repeatedly as the issue, involves various effects that can be produced with a negative, from reticulation to cross processing etc. Effects are Photoshop's forte, but nevermind. These things do not address my simple question, and I'm sorry but to restate it seems futile. > > If the photographer is satisfied with > > the creative results of a test print from an inkjet, then that [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Apparently so, given that I *am* talking about prints that have already > been made. ;-) And I have been considering the best approach to publication,prior to the decision to make prints. This notion of mine grew out of the fine quality inkjets I am able to make with home equipment. I thought there might be something I was overlooking when you suggested a print might be best, but your argument is hanging on grain effects at the moment. Please excuse me if I sound contrite. I don't mean insult in any way. > But, let's not overlook that I'm saying that the best approach *depends on > the image*, as in the example, above. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > (primarily due to the differences between photography and printing > technologies), I suspect that if he was your client, you may not get paid! Consider this. His frustration is most likely based on the inabiltiy of his printer to satisfy his desire to hold as many tones as his print has while still retaining rich blacks and bright whites. Certain papers, double and triple black runs, in the hands of a craftsman can produce great books. Now consider just why I have made an issue of digital. Thanks for your time, I'm done with this thread, Ken Smith Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: >> Let me try with another example. A recent thread here was on how to >> process & print film to emphasize grain. If that is an important [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not address my simple question, and I'm sorry but to restate it > seems futile. I think that where we're going astray in our discussion hinges on the difference between "creation" and "reproduction". If someone has produced an image as a print, and my job is to reproduce that for print, then there are *many* issues to be dealt with that require attention; the more critical the customer (hence my mentioning Ansel Adams), the more difficult and expensive that job becomes. In my example, above, I mentioned one kind of effect that can be an important factor in the final image. One would not typically attempt to *recreate* that effect using the negative / slide, a scanner and Photoshop because the likelihood of failure would be pretty high. OTOH, if you are doing your own work, *and* you have a solid background in preparing images for commercial printing, then there is no reason why you can't scan and create your image in any manner that you wish. However, I have to say that some of the worst images I've had to work with are from otherwise good photographers who have never spent one minute in pre-press. Photoshop is not, nor is any other image editor a panacea or an enabler for those without experience. It's a tool, period. >>> The image does not exist in any form. I'm not talking about prints >>> that have already been made. Certainly we haven't misunderstood [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > grain effects at the moment. Please excuse me if I sound contrite. > I don't mean insult in any way. I'm not insulted... I've heard this many times, and then had to spend many hours fixing problems because people don't understand the differences between inkjet and commercial printing technologies. For one simple example; inkjets do not use screen technology to apply colors to the page (dye sub is even worse in this regard, as it mixes inks on the fly); commercial offset *must* use screens, and such details as the type of screen (e.g. traditional vs. stochastic), screen angles and frequencies, shape of the dot, and a other factors all have an impact on what that printed image will look like. If you aren't prepared to make such decisions, then the likelihood that you'll get what you expect may be reduced, *depending on the image*. When you're laying thousands of dollars on the line to get your images in that book reproduced properly, how much risk are you willing to take? Or will you be just another dissatisfied photographer trying to blame the printer for the end result? >> Again, I refer you to writings on the process, both in his own words >> and in those of his collaborators. Considering that he was seldom [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Now consider just why I have made an issue of digital. Sorry, but the connection escapes me. There is no "issue of digital", as I see it. Adams used some of the best print shops available, and used techniques that went well beyond double and triple black runs to get reproductions that were closer to his original images. Regards, and have a good weekend. Neil > Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > critical the customer (hence my mentioning Ansel Adams), the more > difficult and expensive that job becomes. Yes we have been talking at cross purposes. I have from the begining in this discussion been asking why a print is better. You are saying if someone has produced a print, and wants it reproduced... then obviously you go from there. In my case I am faced with these great looking home brewed inkjets, and the question arises in me, "Maybe if I were having a book done, the printers of that book can get even more from the neg?" Maybe this new technology of scanning could capture longer tonal ranges from my negs, than I can get from prints. Maybe my beautiful darkroom prints are in acuality losing quality by acting as an unnecessary generation. Scanning, and by that I mean your scanning, not mine, appears to be an advance worth considering, despite the tremendous work of the past done from prints. I am not concerned with my special spin on the neg. creatively speaking. I just want all the neg. can offer. For all the controls I exercise in the taking of the picture, the "performance" of the print consists largely of good contrast while holding max. tonality. I have no stake in whether I create prints or not. This seems to me to be a pretty straight forward and important question. Why can't you address it directly? I walk into your shop with a bundle of prints, they're great photos/prints, but I ask you. "Given the fact than scanning technology can capture even more tonality, while retaining good pictorial contrast, would we be better off scanning these prints, or scanning the neg? I know you'll probably say "depends on the image" Fair enough, I guess it should. > In my example, above, I mentioned one kind of effect that can be an > important factor in the final image. One would not typically attempt to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Photoshop is not, nor is any other image editor a panacea or an enabler > for those without experience. It's a tool, period. I'm sure there could be many problems involved going back and forth. I would be inclined to give over to the printer the whole task from scanning the negative to making the final page, based of course on your reputation and examples. I would provide printed examples to make clear how light or dark I want something, what I think is proper contrast? Does that sound like a good working relationship? Which is better, scan print or scan neg? > >>> The image does not exist in any form. I'm not talking about prints > >>> that have already been made. Certainly we haven't misunderstood [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > risk are you willing to take? Or will you be just another dissatisfied > photographer trying to blame the printer for the end result? This is why I'm asking you. I actually may be printed into a book this spring. 70 or so images. They are in exellent print form, but I will ask the printers if they would rather start with the neg. Has technology moved on? Can you get more from a drum scanned neg. than scanning a print? > >> Again, I refer you to writings on the process, both in his own words > >> and in those of his collaborators. Considering that he was seldom [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > techniques that went well beyond double and triple black runs to get > reproductions that were closer to his original images. Has technology moved on? Would Adams have been thrilled to see what a drum scanner could pull from his negative. He could always make collection prints himself. They would be different. But would he have been downright jazzed to see that when he was represented in book form, that the final images just screamed tonal range. From a landscape/documentary photographer such as myself, I print for full tonal range, natural contrast. I don't go in for effects. Pray for Snow, Thanks, Ken Smith > Regards, and have a good weekend. > > Neil Hi Ken, Recently, Ken Smith <aldenphoto@aol.com> posted: [...] > "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message >> I'm not insulted... I've heard this many times, and then had to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > this spring. 70 or so images. They are in exellent print form, but > I will ask the printers if they would rather start with the neg. That's your best bet. > Has technology moved on? Can you get more from a drum scanned neg. > than scanning a print? I think the best way to sum it up is that one gets *different* results from these methods. Which result is "best" is a subjective matter. > Has technology moved on? Would Adams have been thrilled to see what > a drum scanner could pull from his negative. He could always make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > landscape/documentary photographer such as myself, I print for full > tonal range, natural contrast. I don't go in for effects. Of course, there are printing technologies available today that weren't practical during the time that Adams' books were being created. I'd hesitate to state that scanning represents the biggest leap of all the advances, but it obviously offers options that weren't available "back then". However, key to the issue is that Adams considered his prints to be the target to hit, not his negatives. That is quite different from your perspective. As you've described your work and your objectives, it seems that scanning your film is likely to provide a broader range of options and possibly yield better results than scanning your prints. Again, talk to your printer about this for more insights, as s/he can look at your work directly and make suggestions about how to best proceed. There's no way someone can do that via usenet groups. > Pray for Snow, Thanks, Ken Smith No need to pray in this neck of the woods... it's guaranteed. Regards, Neil >> Right now I find myself competing with my inkjets. Scanned at 24 bit >on an Epson 4870 at 600dpi, my medium format black and white negs [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >to believe that for publication a drumscanned original would be better >than making a tradition print and scanning it. KAS I concur with most of this. I was at Photo Expo last weekend, grabbing print samples wherever I could, from all manner of inkjet printers and dye sub printers -- Epsons, Canons, HPs, Kodak's new 1400, Hi-Ti. Oh yes, and some Iris prints at Creo's booth, but not to take home... The pixellation is no longer visible to the naked eye, and on some of the best models, not even with a loupe. This is no exaggeration. Canon and Epson both have eight-color printers now, and dot sizes down to two picoliters. (Canon 9900, Epson R800.) With my ancient Epson 7000 at home, I can see dots -- but not with these guys. The Epson 4000 and 7600 have slightly larger dots, but then again they are intended for much larger prints (17" wide and 24" wide.) The dye-sub printers are limited to small prints (8x10" on the Kodak, 5x8" on the HiTi) and vendor-supplied media, but there is no pixellization whatsoever, and they are true continuous tone. They look just a bit soft next to the inkjet prints, IMO. --- Compared to your 4870, yes quite likely a drum scan will show some improvement, but of course it depends on the print size as well. If you're scanning MF, it would have to be a good sized print (say, 16x20") before the differences become apparent. On dense chromes, the drum scan should have better tonality and retention of shadow/highlight detail. These days a used or refurb Nikon LS-8000 will set you back about $1K. I submit that the difference between that and a drum scan are very small indeed. You'll find scan samples from a number of fine film scanners at the URL below, including several A:B comparisons of CCD to drum scanners. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ In particular, see the LS-8000 to Tango camparisons by Paul Graham and Bill Hilton, and the LS-8000 to Scanmaster comparison by Dave King. See the following URL for a another detailed comparison of the Heidelberg Tango drum scanner vs. the LS-8000: http://homepage.mac.com/anton/NikonTango/ I've been scanning with an LS-8000 for several years, and a ScanMaster 5000 (drum scanner) for a few months. Try as I might, I'm not seeing much of a difference between the best scans from each. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com Hi Rafe, Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> posted: > I was at Photo Expo last weekend, grabbing print > samples wherever I could, from all manner of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > naked eye, and on some of the best models, > not even with a loupe. This is no exaggeration. And, to be expected. Such things as dot gain come into play, so this is not necessarily a "Good Thing", unless one likes soft images. > The dye-sub printers are limited to small > prints (8x10" on the Kodak, 5x8" on the HiTi) > and vendor-supplied media, but there is no > pixellization whatsoever, and they are true > continuous tone. They look just a bit soft > next to the inkjet prints, IMO. Dye sub printers never did show pixelation, even those from 15+ years ago. As you've noted, though, they are softer than other methods. > See the following URL for a another > detailed comparison of the Heidelberg > Tango drum scanner vs. the LS-8000: > > http://homepage.mac.com/anton/NikonTango/ Thanks for this. Even on-screen, the Tango is a better scan. I don't know whether this is due to the user or the equipment, though, because his methods are questionable. > I've been scanning with an LS-8000 for > several years, and a ScanMaster 5000 > (drum scanner) for a few months. Try > as I might, I'm not seeing much of a > difference between the best scans from > each. As long as you're printing to inkjets, you probably won't. I think the LS-8000 is overkill for inkjet output. Neil >Hi Rafe, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >And, to be expected. Such things as dot gain come into play, so this is >not necessarily a "Good Thing", unless one likes soft images. I don't follow your reasoning at all. What's changed is that the dots are smaller. 2 picoliter dots can't spread as much as 4 picoliter dots, and neither one spreads much at all on suitable (ie. coated) media. So in what way are smaller dots NOT a good thing? >> The dye-sub printers are limited to small >> prints (8x10" on the Kodak, 5x8" on the HiTi) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >whether this is due to the user or the equipment, though, because his >methods are questionable. The Nikon scan is a bit noisier and a bit sharper than the Tango. Apply Gaussian blur to the Nikon scan (radius = 0.6 pixels or so) and what you get is the Tango scan. So, in what way is this a "win" for the Tango scan? >> I've been scanning with an LS-8000 for >> several years, and a ScanMaster 5000 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >As long as you're printing to inkjets, you probably won't. I think the >LS-8000 is overkill for inkjet output. No, I base my conclusions from viewing the scans at 100%, on screen. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> posted: >> Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> posted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 4 picoliter dots, and neither one spreads > much at all on suitable (ie. coated) media. So, you're saying that the 2 picoliter droplet (which is actually a measure of volume, not area) will retain the droplet's airborne diameter once it's on the media? Gravity will pretty much guarantee that this isn't the case, even if the medium is completely non-absorbtive (e.g. glass). > So in what way are smaller dots NOT a good > thing? The volume of that droplet is going to spread into a larger diameter on the media's surface. If the media is even slightly absorbtive, some of that droplet will spread (commonly referred to as "dot gain"). The closer together these are placed (e.g., the smaller the "dots" and higher the resolution), the more they will mix with other droplets, in other words, there won't be as much "white space" between drops, and thus you won't see "pixelation", but at the cost of sharpness. >>> See the following URL for a another >>> detailed comparison of the Heidelberg [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The Nikon scan is a bit noisier and a > bit sharper than the Tango. That isn't the way it looks on my monitor (interesting how that affects things). On my monitor, the Tango is sharper, cleaner, and has better tonal gradations. The Nikon is more contrasty (which may be why you see it as "sharp", but as it lacks the tonal definition of the Tango, it looks softer to me). >>> I've been scanning with an LS-8000 for >>> several years, and a ScanMaster 5000 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, I base my conclusions from viewing > the scans at 100%, on screen. Well, I'm not sure what you have as a "screen", but that's something that can't be shared without both of us looking at your "screen", anyway. One reason that I don't place much stock in such internet-based comparisons is that there are too many such variables. Neil >Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >once it's on the media? Gravity will pretty much guarantee that this isn't >the case, even if the medium is completely non-absorbtive (e.g. glass). Neil, please don't condescend. I do appreciate the difference between measures of volume and area, and picoliter is the standard measure of ink drop "size" in the industry. Furthermore, gravity has nothing to do with it -- either in the initial application of this ink drop or in the spreading mechansim (capillary action.) I haven't tried printing on glass, yet. The fact is that the drops are half the volume, thus there's less ink to spread once ink hits paper. Simple. >> So in what way are smaller dots NOT a good >> thing? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >there won't be as much "white space" between drops, and thus you won't see >"pixelation", but at the cost of sharpness. Again, the condescension. I do know what dot gain is, thank you. I also know that the extent of dot gain is a complex function of several variables -- the substrate, the ink, and not least of all, the volume of the ink drop, in the case of inkjet printing. A two picoliter drop will spread less than a four picoliter drop, no? >>>> See the following URL for a another >>>> detailed comparison of the Heidelberg [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >as "sharp", but as it lacks the tonal definition of the Tango, it looks >softer to me). I find it interesting that you're trying to explain to me why I "perceive" the Nikon to be sharp. The innuendo is that I've been duped by my senses. In the eye-detail comparison, Photoshop shows a three-point difference in the standard deviation between the two scans. For the sweater-detail comparison, the difference is less than one point. The numbers don't support your argument. They tell us that the scans are very well matched in terms of tonality. No, the difference is one of sharpness, and in favor of the Nikon. Apply a very slight blur (r=0.6) to the Nikon scan and voila, you get something very much like the Tango scan. >>>> I've been scanning with an LS-8000 for >>>> several years, and a ScanMaster 5000 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >reason that I don't place much stock in such internet-based comparisons is >that there are too many such variables. Hmm, a moment ago you had no problem drawing conclusions about Nikon vs. Tango scans. The practice of digital darkroom largely presumes a viewing screen (CRT, LCD, whatever) that meets certain criteria for sharpness, resolution, tonality, and color depth. IMO it's silly to suggest that my "screen" prohibits or inhibits a fair comparison of the Nikon/Tango sample scans or those that I've made myself. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> posted: >> Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> posted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Neil, please don't condescend. Please don't take this personally, Rafe. I'm trying to be clear, not condescending. We're in a newsgroup with many readers; some will have the background to know the issues involved, others not. I'm only tryinig to keep that in mind when I respond to these messages. > I do > appreciate the difference between measures > of volume and area, and picoliter is the > standard measure of ink drop "size" in the > industry. The salient point is that it is a "drop", not "2 picoliter dots", as you stated earlier (included in the snippet above), and is why I went into the lengthy explanation about the difference between volume ("drop") and area ("dot"). > Furthermore, gravity has nothing to do > with it -- either in the initial application > of this ink drop or in the spreading > mechansim (capillary action.) Well, we can disagree about that. I have yet to see liquid retain its droplet shape once it's placed on a surface within a gravitational field. So, it will take some impressive convincing to change my understanding of how that works. ;-) > The fact is that the drops are half the > volume, thus there's less ink to spread > once ink hits paper. Simple. We can disagree about that, too. My frame of reference comes from the world of commercial printing, where the ink "drop" size and "dots" are a small fraction of the size of the best inkjet printers. Despite this, dot gain is still an issue. >>>> Thanks for this. Even on-screen, the Tango is a better scan. I >>>> don't know whether this is due to the user or the equipment, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Nikon to be sharp. The innuendo is that > I've been duped by my senses. Not at all. Since I've drawn a distinction between "sharp" vs. "soft" and "contrast", and stated that to me, the Tango looks sharper, the comment, at best, begs more of an explanation of why you see the Nikon to be "sharper" than the Tango scan, if not for its increased contrast due to the lack of tonal range. > In the eye-detail comparison, Photoshop > shows a three-point difference in the > standard deviation between the two scans. Is that three "Standard Deviation" points? If so, I suspect that it would be too large a number. If not, I don't have a clue as to how you are computing your "standard deviation", as that is outside of my understanding of how that statistic is derived [ SD = sq. root of the sum of X (or X squared) / N ]. Given this formula (there are others), it might be reasonable to say that for subjects such as these scan samples, *especially* for the eye-detail, this is an inappropriate measurement tool to determine differences in tonality. > The numbers don't support your argument. > They tell us that the scans are very well > matched in terms of tonality. I don't understand your numbers, so I can't really comment on this. > No, the difference is one of sharpness, > and in favor of the Nikon. Apply a very > slight blur (r=0.6) to the Nikon scan > and voila, you get something very much > like the Tango scan. We can disagree about this, too. It would be interesting to see how others "perceive" the differences. >>>> As long as you're printing to inkjets, you probably won't. I think >>>> the LS-8000 is overkill for inkjet output. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Hmm, a moment ago you had no problem drawing > conclusions about Nikon vs. Tango scans. I stated as clearly as I could how those images appear on my "screen". I wouldn't expect them to look the same on yours or anyone else's screen. > The practice of digital darkroom largely > presumes a viewing screen (CRT, LCD, whatever) > that meets certain criteria for sharpness, > resolution, tonality, and color depth. In other words, there's a "standard screen" out there somewhere? I don't own one. ;-) In over 25 years of doing digital graphics (and over 35 years in video production), I've never even seen a "standard screen". ;-) There are calibration practices that can bring different screens closer to the same presentation in a controlled environment, but even those aren't perfect. > IMO it's silly to suggest that my "screen" > prohibits or inhibits a fair comparison of > the Nikon/Tango sample scans or those that > I've made myself. That isn't what I said. To repeat: you are comparing what *you* see, I'm comparing what *I* see, and we are coming to different conclusions about that. Interesting, no? Neil >Well, we can disagree about that. I have yet to see liquid retain its >droplet shape once it's placed on a surface within a gravitational field. >So, it will take some impressive convincing to change my understanding of >how that works. ;-) Point being that gravity isn't what put the ink on paper in the first place and it's not what causes the ink to spread. The spreading is due primarily to capillary action, and that's why the paper's surface qualities have such a huge effect on dot gain. Dot gain on newsprint is far greater than dot gain on kaolin, and in neither case does gravity have any meaningful effect. >> In the eye-detail comparison, Photoshop >> shows a three-point difference in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >*especially* for the eye-detail, this is an inappropriate measurement tool >to determine differences in tonality. Being a long-time imaging professional, I assumed you'd be familiar with the readouts in Photoshop's histogram tool. The largest possible value (by Photoshop's measure) is 128, and this would be from a document that has pure black and pure white in equal measure. As the image goes to "mostly" black or "mostly" white, the std dev goes down toward zero. But the fact is, Photoshop's calculation is a pretty good measure of the tonal range (ie., contrast) of an image or selection within an image. You claimed the Nikon images were more contrasty. Photoshop's numbers don't support that claim. Again, as you're a long time imaging pro, I'm surprised to be explaining this to you. >In other words, there's a "standard screen" out there somewhere? I don't >own one. ;-) In over 25 years of doing digital graphics (and over 35 >years in video production), I've never even seen a "standard screen". ;-) >There are calibration practices that can bring different screens closer to >the same presentation in a controlled environment, but even those aren't >perfect. You don't need a "standard screen" to interpret the A:B comparison images on the website that we were discussing. You do need one that's adequate -- ie., having reasonble contrast, sharpness, and resolution. Now, I grant you that millions of monitors attached to home PCs don't meet that requirement. However, I assume that those of us who are doing serious "digital darkroom" work are somewhat more clued in. Again -- as a long time digital imaging professional, you know (and I think I know) what makes a monitor suitable or even optimal for the pursuit of our craft. It's not exactly rocket science, Neil. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> posted: >> Well, we can disagree about that. I have yet to see liquid retain its >> droplet shape once it's placed on a surface within a gravitational [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > qualities have such a huge effect > on dot gain. Just for clarity's sake, I am not suggesting that ink is being applied by gravity. In fact, the actual method (spraying) will likely cause *more* of an increase in the diameter of the dot when the droplet contacts the media, and then the other factors that you've mentioned take effect. The only point being as originally stated, the diameter of the dot will be larger than the diameter of the droplet. >>> In the eye-detail comparison, Photoshop >>> shows a three-point difference in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I assumed you'd be familiar with the > readouts in Photoshop's histogram tool. Sigh. Yes, and so? (Is this supposed to be condescending, btw?) > The largest possible value (by Photoshop's > measure) is 128, and this would be from > a document that has pure black and > pure white in equal measure. As the > image goes to "mostly" black or "mostly" > white, the std dev goes down toward zero. My point is that if you don't understand the statistic of standard deviation, then you don't have a basis for understanding the results of the tool. I've presented a formula for calculating Standard Deviation, and if you understand that, you'll know that it is inappropriate to use SD as a measure of variance when you have highly dissimilar samples in a population, which is exactly the case when you have an image that involves many colors. < |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message