 |
 | 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 / July 2006How much resolution.
This may be a stale question is some peoples mind's eye view but; I am asking it anyway ;) At what point given a standard form of output like an Epson photo printer would one achieve results as resolute as say an optical print by scanning the negative. That is how many dpi or ppi would one need to scan a 4x5 negative to get the same sharpness in the final image for both media. Here's the criteria: 4x5 negative 16x20 print Both the Optical and the Inkjet papers are Luster. The inkjet paper is microceramic and instant dry. The inkjet is able to print at 5760 x 1440 optimized (whatever this means) dpi .  SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >This may be a stale question is some peoples mind's eye view but; >I am asking it anyway ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >The inkjet is able to print at 5760 x 1440 optimized (whatever this >means) dpi . 16x20 from 4x5 is only 4x enlargement. So if you're printing at 300 dpi you don't need more than 1200 dpi at the scan. With a loupe you might see improvements printing beyond 300 dpi, but it's a bit anal doing that on a 16x20" print. Greg, you still owe us some "counterexamples" from the last time we had this discussion. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >This may be a stale question is some peoples mind's eye view but; > >I am asking it anyway ;) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com I was hoping you would reply as I recently got an R1800 and think I'll send you both digital and chemical examples. Give me about two weeks :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > This may be a stale question is some peoples mind's eye view but; > I am asking it anyway ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The inkjet is able to print at 5760 x 1440 optimized (whatever this > means) dpi . Hello Greg, I would think a bigger difference might be perceived by the viewer that one is a continuous tone print, while the inkjet output only mimics continuous tone. I don't know if everyone sees that difference, but I have found quite a few people who do notice. That is not to say an inkjet print cannot look good, on the contrary the output can be quite good, though I think some people would agree it is not continuous tone. Print resolution in inkjet or commercial printing depends upon dot gain and dot placement. Those aspects can be controlled by the type of paper, type of coating, and types of inks, though are also influenced by heat and humidity. You could try printing a control target, or a resolution test to determine the optical resolution of your printer. I use a printers loupe for this to inspect commercially output printed work, though you could probably do as well with a photographic loupe; the printers loupe has a scale of numbers in the field of view. Probably more important, if these are fine art works for sale, is which choice buyers prefer. If you find it easier to sell inkjet prints, then that might be your answer. If it does not seem to make a difference to the buyers, then go with the method that leaves the greatest profits. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.alllgstudio.com> > > This may be a stale question is some peoples mind's eye view but; > > I am asking it anyway ;) [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.alllgstudio.com> I tend to prefer chemical prints, I can now do both with my R1800. I also have a Peak Anastigmatic 7x which at one came with a scale sadly it was lost. I got this printer because some digital work I do requires retouching, and got tired of running 100 plus miles to the lab and back. Never the less the quality is quite good-for an inkjet :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com Greg, My reply might be perhaps sound a bit provocative for some readers, but I would say: You cannot compare optical printing and inkjet printing and therefore any comparison would be inconsistent to a certain amount. The reason in MHO is that a AgX print from an optically projected negative will show always more details and have more "meat" than any inket print because of the way it is done. An inkjet print means that you have to digitize the "analog" image (already loosing information - no matter at whatever resolution you scan) and then you have to work with a digital image printing software which again will loose some information and finally you can "spit" tiny drops of ink on a piece of paper to get an image. Please note that I work digitially a lot ( I got four printers with formats up to A2) but for art work, I do still recommend optical printing of AgX negatives as the most appealing solution. You might find that most viewers might not see any difference or not much of a difference between an equally well done optical print compared to an outstanding inkjet print, but this depends on the level of sensitivity of the viewer and the distance of viewing (and a few other parameters like light...). Maybe I am too conservative with this feedback but my suggestion would be to stick to optical printing if you can tolerate the inconveniences of that technology and use inkjet wherever you feel that the benefits of inkjet are more important than a perfect optical print. Kind regards Georg http://www.gnyman.com > This may be a stale question is some peoples mind's eye view but; > I am asking it anyway ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The inkjet is able to print at 5760 x 1440 optimized (whatever this > means) dpi . >Greg, >My reply might be perhaps sound a bit provocative for some readers, but I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Kind regards >Georg Dr. Nyman... Can you demonstrate this in any way? Or do we have to take your word on it? Any chance you could scan small portions of your best optical prints and post the results? The reason I ask is that I've made similar comparisons -- and reached the opposite conclusion. I've been waiting essentially forever for someone on "your" side to provide real evidence. This is not the first time we've had this discussion. It seems to me that with small prints (say, A4) and good slides or negatives, you *should* be able to beat inkjet prints with optical prints. At some point, where the printer's output resultion is no longer the limiting factor, the advantage would shift to inkjet. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >Greg, > >My reply might be perhaps sound a bit provocative for some readers, but I [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > prints. At some point, where the printer's output resultion is no > longer the limiting factor, the advantage would shift to inkjet. A reading of any good book on information theory and sampling will explain how it is possible to extract *all* the information from an analog signal if the sampling freqency is high enough. This is the basis of the music CD, for example. The highest frequency desired to be captured was 20,000 Hertz so the sampling frequncy was made slightly more than double at 44,000 Hertz. The same phenomena in the image domain is "resolution". Conventional B&W prints usually resolve about 13-20 lpm on the print after all the losses of camera, film, and enlarger are taken into account. Inkjet prints can do this as well. There are still many people that think analog phonograph records sound "better" than CD's. They are entitled to their own aesthetic experience, but the data doesn't bear them out. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com Recently, Robert Feinman <robert.feinman@gmail.com> posted: >>> Greg, >>> My reply might be perhaps sound a bit provocative for some readers, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > slightly more than double at 44,000 Hertz. The same phenomena in > the image domain is "resolution". Excuse the understatement, but this notion appears to be debatable. One caveat is your statement that "...the highest frequency desired was 20,000 Hertz...", unless you emphasize the "was". Perhaps a more accurate statement would be, "The highest practical sampling frequency *was* less than 50 kHz, because what happened as soon as this wasn't a practical limitation is self-evident; we are now recording audio with sampling frequencies of 192 kHz. What would be the point of that if there was no more usable information above above 20 kHz? > Conventional B&W prints usually resolve about 13-20 lpm on the print > after all the losses of camera, film, and enlarger are taken into > account. Inkjet prints can do this as well. As I see it, the issue is that resolution is only one factor of many. Yes, inkjets can print reasonably high lpm, and laser imagers have long been able to do much better. That does not mean that the image quality of an inkjet or laser is better than an optical print... they're just different. I don't know of an acceptable way to present these differences in an objective manner. I don't care for Rafe's suggestion that one can simply "...scan small portions of your best optical prints...", as it changes the media from one domain to another, which would at least introduce exactly the kinds of artifacts that Dr. Nyman mentions. Whether those are objectionable is a matter of personal aesthetics. More practically, I have made both optical and inkjet prints of some of my images (on high-end Epson, Roland and Océ printers), and there is no contest as to which I chose to hang on my wall. However, I do think that which medium better presents an image is dependent on the qualities of the image. Regards. Neil > Excuse the understatement, but this notion appears to be debatable. One > caveat is your statement that "...the highest frequency desired was 20,000 > Hertz...", unless you emphasize the "was". Perhaps a more accurate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > frequencies of 192 kHz. What would be the point of that if there was no > more usable information above above 20 kHz? Because there is useless information above 20KHz that has to be handled. It is much easier to over sample and filter digitally then it is to try and make a good anti-alias filter with analog parts. Whereas music can be very well represented with a sampling of 44KHz it is much easier to sample far higher and filter out frequencies above 20KHz with a digital filter. I have not seen that aliasing is a problem with scanned film. > > Conventional B&W prints usually resolve about 13-20 lpm on the print > > after all the losses of camera, film, and enlarger are taken into [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the kinds of artifacts that Dr. Nyman mentions. Whether those are > objectionable is a matter of personal aesthetics. Even a semi-good flat bed scanner should be able to capture all the detail that is in a print. If the detail can't be seen with a good scanner then there is no way your eye will magically see it. We here this from time to time, about how much more detail a optical print has then a scan of the negative. If this were really the case it would be very easy to show with a scan of the print. To date I have not seen the scan of a print that would back up the claim that an optical print "will show always more details" then a print made from a scan of the same negative. Scott Recently, Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> posted: > > Excuse the understatement, but this notion appears to be debatable. > One [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it is much easier to sample far higher and filter out frequencies > above 20KHz with a digital filter. "Oversampling" is not new, and is used even in 44.1 kHz systems. It certainly doesn't account for the recording of source material at 192 kHz, rather than, say, 96 kHz. IOW, this is not being done to handle "...useless information above 20 kHz"; it's being done because soem people can hear the difference, and it's technically practical. When it's technically practical to record at 384 kHz, undoubtedly some folks will do that, too. > I have not seen that aliasing is > a problem with scanned film. What of "grain aliasing", and the anti-aliasing filters used to reduce such things as Moiré and other interference patterns when scanning? >>> Conventional B&W prints usually resolve about 13-20 lpm on the print >>> after all the losses of camera, film, and enlarger are taken into [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > detail that is in a print. If the detail can't be seen with a good > scanner then there is no way your eye will magically see it. Again, you are concentrating on "detail" in a way that seems to describe the resolving lpm. There are other qualities to an optical print, such as it being a 3-dimensional object, whereas an inkjet, laser print or scan of a print is a two-dimensional object. Scanners do well with 2-D objects, and less well with 3-D objects. Additionally, optical prints are not typically intended to be viewed with the kind of lighting that a scanner produces, where all sides of the grain are illuminated with the same intensity as the film is being scanned. To some of us, that makes a visible difference that impacts the quality of some images. Not that one is intrinsically "better" than the other... that depends on the image. > We here this from time to time, about how much more detail a optical > print has then a scan of the negative. You didn't hear that from me, if you are using "detail" as a quality of resolution, e.g. lpm. Regards, Neil >Again, you are concentrating on "detail" in a way that seems to describe >the resolving lpm. There are other qualities to an optical print, such as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >visible difference that impacts the quality of some images. Not that one >is intrinsically "better" than the other... that depends on the image. In what way are optical prints "3D" -- and inkjet prints are not? Three dye layers? Sure. Separated by how many microns? What is it that you're afraid the scanner might miss? >> We here this from time to time, about how much more detail a optical >> print has then a scan of the negative. "Here" it from where? This claim isn't born out by my experience. Evidence, please. >You didn't hear that from me, if you are using "detail" as a quality of >resolution, e.g. lpm. The only logical strategy for you is the dismissal of quantitative evidence. Ho hum. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, Raphael Bustin <foo@bar.com> posted: >> Again, you are concentrating on "detail" in a way that seems to >> describe the resolving lpm. There are other qualities to an optical [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > In what way are optical prints "3D" -- and inkjet prints are not? In the way that optical prints are imaged on a pile of grains with light coming from a point source, while inkjet prints are sprayed flat on a piece of material from a 2-D rendering of the image. > What is it that you're afraid the scanner might miss? I'm not "afraid" of anything... I just note the difference, and that in some cases, the difference is important. >>> We here this from time to time, about how much more detail a optical >>> print has then a scan of the negative. > > "Here" it from where? This claim isn't born out by my experience. Ask that of the OP. I didn't (and wouldn't) make that statement, given how the term "detail" is used in different contexts. Please keep your attributions straight. >> You didn't hear that from me, if you are using "detail" as a quality >> of resolution, e.g. lpm. > > The only logical strategy for you is the dismissal of quantitative > evidence. Ho hum. And for you, the only logical strategy is to claim that only "quantitative evidence" is relevant. Similarly, ho hum. For me, the qualitative evidence that can be seen when placing prints from different technologies side-by-side is at least as important. Neil > Recently, Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "...useless information above 20 kHz"; it's being done because soem people > can hear the difference, err, no, it's done because some people are obsesively anally retentive, no one can hear anything over 30khz, no matter how good their hearing, at 21 your a rarity if you can detect anything over 22khz. >and it's technically practical. and a large premium can be charged to people who fail to understand the science. > When it's > technically practical to record at 384 kHz, undoubtedly some folks will do > that, too. yeah, but there's no point, unless theres going to be a lot of editing done to the audio, and it's all going to be downsampled to a reasonable frequency, i.e. 44.1khz which covers allmost all frequncies anyone aged 18 or over can hear, and it tends not to be teenagers who are obsessive audiophiles. > > I have not seen that aliasing is > > a problem with scanned film. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > visible difference that impacts the quality of some images. Not that one > is intrinsically "better" than the other... that depends on the image. what you mean, is that optical prints have different properties which better suit certain images than inkjet prints. > > We here this from time to time, about how much more detail a optical > > print has then a scan of the negative. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Neil > Even a semi-good flat bed scanner should be able to capture all the > detail that is in a print. If the detail can't be seen with a good > scanner then there is no way your eye will magically see it. Agreed. > We here this from time to time, about how much more detail a optical > print has then a scan of the negative. Wrong, Wrong,...flatly wrong. Scans equate to originals. The virtual image is on par with a negative but creating output on par with the optical rendition just seems not to always cut it. I have seen better prints both ways- so I see not conclusive method for output. > If this were really the case it > would be very easy to show with a scan of the print. To date I have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Scott Why would you scan a print-to compare it to an optical print made from a negative-its an absurd tack to take. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > Why would you scan a print-to compare it to an optical print made from a > negative-its an absurd tack to take. Can you think of another objective representation that's within reach of mortals and easily shared on the web? I'm open to alternative suggestions. I've asked for alternatives for months, and I've never heard one put forth by you or Dr. Nyman or anyone else arguing the superiority of optical prints. What I know, Greg, is that I sent you a print made on an Epson R1800, and that you now own one. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > > Why would you scan a print-to compare it to an optical print made from a > > negative-its an absurd tack to take. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What I know, Greg, is that I sent you a print made on an Epson > R1800, and that you now own one. And I might add to this that Dr. Nyman is claiming that there is lost of information when scanning a negative and when printing. His claim is not just one of esthetics of the print but deals directly with the detail on the final print, and this can be tested with a scan of the print. I for one would be interested in how much detail does get into a print that is done optically by someone who has the equipment and skill to do a very good job. Whereas this might not be the only criteria that makes for a pleasing print it is an important one. What I would find interesting is a scan of a print that is done at very low magnification, say 4x or less and one done at a more aggressive magnification say 12x or there abouts. It seems to be nonsense to talk about detail as being unimportant in the print since this thread was started with the question of how much resolution in a scan was needed to match an optical print. Scott > > Why would you scan a print-to compare it to an optical print made from a > > negative-its an absurd tack to take. > > Can you think of another objective representation that's within reach > of mortals and easily shared on the web? I don't advocate making these type comparisons on the web. Nothing like seeing a real print in one's own hands. > I'm open to alternative suggestions. I've asked for alternatives for > months, and I've never heard one put forth by you or Dr. Nyman > or anyone else arguing the superiority of optical prints. > > What I know, Greg, is that I sent you a print made on an Epson > R1800, and that you now own one. You will get my samples & now that I have that very same printer it will be true to a criteria you should be able to understand "or not" :^) > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> > Why would you scan a print-to compare it to an optical print made from >> > a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't advocate making these type comparisons on the web. Nothing like > seeing a real print in one's own hands. But what's happened here is a sleazy bait and switch. People claimed that projection prints render more detail than inkjets, but when people suggest making an actual test of the claim, the projection print fans run screaming for cover. Sleazy. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > But what's happened here is a sleazy bait and switch. People claimed that > projection prints render more detail than inkjets, but when people suggest > making an actual test of the claim, the projection print fans run screaming > for cover. I am not running, I will show my findings unbiasedly. I started this thread because the issue has been out there lingering for some time regarding how best to show the results & cost effectively :) , I was curious what would be said so I will scan a sample 4x5 at the output size, then output this segment from the scan and print a closely similar segment optically. The scanner I will use is a 2450 at 300 dpi, that is the resolution Rafe said would produce an equivalent result. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:15:46 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >> But what's happened here is a sleazy bait and switch. People claimed that >> projection prints render more detail than inkjets, but when people suggest [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >The scanner I will use is a 2450 at 300 dpi, that is the resolution Rafe >said would produce an equivalent result. I suggest scanning at the max optical resolution and then downsampling in Photoshop to whatever you choose for print resolution. If I said 300 dpi, I meant at the print size. And since you're printing from an R1800, feel free to use up to 360 or even 480 dpi -- at the print size. Seriously, if you've got it (spare resolution, that is) then use it -- unless it chokes something on your computer. As for print(s) you may be sending my way: the analog / chemical print is the one I'm *most* interested in. If the IJ print isn't as good as the analog print, I'll want to see the original scan. [If you would, please send the file on CD along with the print -- and put your copyright notice on it, by all means.] Again, I'll say that I *expect* the optical print to win on resolution, in the case where you're making an A4 or LTR size print from a 4x5" original. That's a measly 2:1 magnification, so there's no excuse for not meeting or exceeding human visual acuity with the optical print. Looking forward to seeing your print. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Again, I'll say that I *expect* the optical print to win on > resolution, in the case where you're making an A4 or LTR > size print from a 4x5" original. That's a measly 2:1 > magnification, so there's no excuse for not meeting or > exceeding human visual acuity with the optical print. On the other hand, there's no excuse for not meeting or exceeding human visual acuity with an R1800 print of that size either... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > Again, I'll say that I *expect* the optical print to win on > > resolution, in the case where you're making an A4 or LTR [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan And your suggestions are :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> > Again, I'll say that I *expect* the optical print to win on >> > resolution, in the case where you're making an A4 or LTR [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And your suggestions are :) My suggestion is that the only places optical prints _might_ have an advantage is in color rendition (which gets into personal taste), B&W rendition (which people succeeding at inkjet B&W argue with), and the 64$ elephant, namely resolution at sizes that exceed the capabilities of the film where it's claimed that the MTF loss of the projection lens is less than the loss in scanning. IMHO, that third case is sort of silly, since what you'd be looking at would be 35mm at 13x19 or 645 at 16x20, both of which (in an optical print) would be blown out of the water by one size up in format (properly) scanned and inkjet printed. I.e. the reason projection prints are dying is that they don't provide anywhere near as much of an advantage as moving to a larger format. (Which brings this subject around to something almost on topic for this newsgroup<g>.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Again, I'll say that I *expect* the optical print to win on >> resolution, in the case where you're making an A4 or LTR [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >On the other hand, there's no excuse for not meeting or exceeding human >visual acuity with an R1800 print of that size either... Greg might disagree. I don't think I would. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> A reading of any good book on information theory and sampling will >> explain how it is possible to extract *all* the information from an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > frequencies of 192 kHz. What would be the point of that if there was no > more usable information above above 20 kHz? Are you sure we are _recording_ at 192 kHz? I thought we were recording at 44.1 kHz, and interpolating up to <whatever>. But there isn't usable information above 20 kHz; people can't hear it. The oversampling is used so that one doesn't need brick wall filters, which trash the phase of signals below 20 kHz. Actually outputting sound involves gross amounts of noise at the sampling frequency, and getting rid of that noise is hard. >> Conventional B&W prints usually resolve about 13-20 lpm on the print >> after all the losses of camera, film, and enlarger are taken into >> account. Inkjet prints can do this as well. That's a much higher number than I've ever heard, and wildly optimistic for anything other than a contact print. The Hasselblad Zeiss 80/2.8 Planar, at f/8, has an MTF that's under 30% at 40 lp/mm across over the majority of the frame (according to the MTF charts on the Hassy site). Toss in the MTF of the enlarger lens and the printing paper, and that limits you to a 3x enlargement. You need 50% MTF at the lens at the target frequency to put useful information on a print, and lenses that really do that start at 100mm in MF and 85mm in 35mm. Normal and wider lenses don't. > As I see it, the issue is that resolution is only one factor of many. Yes, > inkjets can print reasonably high lpm, and laser imagers have long been > able to do much better. That does not mean that the image quality of an > inkjet or laser is better than an optical print... they're just different. I suppose. Color rendition is probably different. > I don't know of an acceptable way to present these differences in an > objective manner. I don't care for Rafe's suggestion that one can simply > "...scan small portions of your best optical prints...", as it changes the > media from one domain to another, which would at least introduce exactly > the kinds of artifacts that Dr. Nyman mentions. Whether those are > objectionable is a matter of personal aesthetics. Well, no. The point of scanning the prints would be that you'd scan them at 1200 ppi, and compare for resolution. One wouldn't be scanning to make other prints. The claim was that paper prints have more resolution than inkjet prints, and scanning the prints would show that, were it true. > More practically, I have made both optical and inkjet prints of some of my > images (on high-end Epson, Roland and Océ printers), and there is no > contest as to which I chose to hang on my wall. You might tell us which it was you prefered, and _why_. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: >>> A reading of any good book on information theory and sampling will >>> explain how it is possible to extract *all* the information from an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Are you sure we are _recording_ at 192 kHz? I thought we were > recording at 44.1 kHz, and interpolating up to <whatever>. Yes, I am sure that many devices are recording at 192 kHz. After processing, the recordings are downsampled to 44.1 kHz for CDs. >> As I see it, the issue is that resolution is only one factor of >> many. Yes, inkjets can print reasonably high lpm, and laser imagers [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more resolution than inkjet prints, and scanning the prints would > show that, were it true. It isn't *my* claim that optical prints have more _resolution_ than laser or inkjet technology. My claim is that factors other than resolution can also have an impact, how much depends on the image. >> More practically, I have made both optical and inkjet prints of some >> of my images (on high-end Epson, Roland and Océ printers), and there >> is no contest as to which I chose to hang on my wall. > > You might tell us which it was you prefered, and _why_. In the specific instances I was referring to above, I preferred the optical prints, as they exhibit a more dynamic quality. Of course, for some other images, it didn't make much difference, and in others the strength of the image was enhanced by the "flatness" of the inkjet print. Neil >I don't know of an acceptable way to present these differences in an >objective manner. I don't care for Rafe's suggestion that one can simply >"...scan small portions of your best optical prints...", as it changes the >media from one domain to another, which would at least introduce exactly >the kinds of artifacts that Dr. Nyman mentions. Whether those are >objectionable is a matter of personal aesthetics. Oh, please, Neil. Even if we discount the 4990's rated resolution to something around 2000 dpi, we still have the ability to resove far better than you can image onto a print with conventional means -- with ink or with light, take your pick. And please, no talk of image setters here -- just conventional, pro grade optical enlargement. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, Raphael Bustin <foo@bar.com> posted: >> I don't know of an acceptable way to present these differences in an >> objective manner. I don't care for Rafe's suggestion that one can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > talk of image setters here -- just conventional, pro grade > optical enlargement. If resolution is the only thing that matters in an image, then yes, inkjet or laser technologies will do as well or better than optical prints. I've not claimed any differently. My point is that, for some images, resolution is not all that matters. There are also other "laser technologies" than imagesetters for making prints (although imagesetters are more relevant to my particular line of work). Consider Lambda or Lightjet prints, for example. Neil >Recently, Raphael Bustin <foo@bar.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >my particular line of work). Consider Lambda or Lightjet prints, for >example. If it all comes down to taste then there's not much to discuss. On this matter of "depth" that you hint at, I believe we call that dynamic range. Or am I being too cold and clinical to suggest that it can be discussed in this manner? I'm not aware of too many studies that compare inkjet to optical prints in DR. Here's one article that says they're nearly equal (the best of both are in the 2.2 to 2.3 range) <http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi039/essay.html> I will agree with Dr. Nyman in this one regard: BW printing with digital is the "orphan child" and not as well understood or practiced as color printing. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Or hasn't been done, with great skill. Ask Jon Cone. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, Raphael Bustin <foo@bar.com> posted: >> Recently, Raphael Bustin <foo@bar.com> posted: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > If it all comes down to taste then there's not much to discuss. I think it all comes down to the particular image and how it is best represented. > On this matter of "depth" that you hint at, I believe we call that > dynamic range. Or am I being too cold and clinical to suggest > that it can be discussed in this manner? Not necessarily "...to cold and clinical...", but dynamic range is a bit difficult to compare objectively. For one thing, white and black points are not necessarily comparable, and for another, the dynamic range of different colors are unlikely to be equal in either medium. > I'm not aware of too many studies that compare inkjet to optical > prints in DR. Here's one article that says they're nearly equal > (the best of both are in the 2.2 to 2.3 range) > > <http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi039/essay.html> In his article, Pete Myers defines his concerns as being in the dimensions of "... resolution, depth, and fidelity..." What might that "fidelity" be, in objective terms? When I got an undergrad degree in Psychology, my area of concentration was in testing, and I spent a year helping to run a color perception test and subsequently analyzed the data, so I have no objection to "clinical" terms or empirical data. It's the complexity of the task that makes me skeptical, as that color perception test (which used single color plates) clearly proved that we don't all see things the same or with the same level of sensitivity. What might make no difference to you could be a significant difference to another viewer. > I will agree with Dr. Nyman in this one regard: BW printing with > digital is the "orphan child" and not as well understood or > practiced as color printing. BW digital printing uses the same techniques that have been employed in monochrome offset printing for many decades. Specifically, multiple "black" inks are used to increase the dynamic range. There is empirical information about using such techniques, so I'd say that it *is* well understood. Neil > There are still many people that think analog phonograph records > sound "better" than CD's. They are entitled to their own aesthetic > experience, but the data doesn't bear them out. The rhetorical question then becomes does one simply equate resolution with tonal rendering. A follow up question to the rhetorical one is how can ink reflect light within its surface. Most silver printing photographers as well as Alt process photographers (Like myself) will claim that the image resonates luminosity in the case of a chemical, metal salt, based print. So where does that leave off from the general perception that Ink prints are just as good. Where does that leave photographers that agree with the general perception. But most importantly where does it leave us that do recognize the short comings of ink jet printing. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > > There are still many people that think analog phonograph records > > sound "better" than CD's. They are entitled to their own aesthetic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > importantly where does it leave us that do recognize the short comings > of ink jet printing. Well certainly those of us who have worked in photography long enough remember fondly certain B&W papers that seem to have had a unique "look". I especially remember Varilour, Portriga and several of the Ansco and Defender papers. When RC came out many of us settled for a filmy surface look because the advantages of quick processing and no curl were too much of a temptation. The combination of particle size, silver grain structure, paper stock and surface texture can be unique. The same is true of alternate processes and even alternative inkjet processes. That's why some artists make watercolors and other use oils. The irony is that 99.9% of all images are seen as reproductions, either online or via offset printing. The number of venues where the average person can see original works of art is tiny. So much of our effort is seen only by a few. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com >Well certainly those of us who have worked in photography long >enough remember fondly certain B&W papers that seem to have had a unique [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the average person can see original works of art is tiny. So >much of our effort is seen only by a few. It's a good point, and it's the reason I don't get all nostaligic and teary-eyed about paper surfaces. Ultimately, the image has to stand by itself. It's a visual experience, and one can't really depend on the "tactile" experience. FWIW, some of the honchos in the inkjet world have this same fetish. And they're all excited because they can print photos on plush matte fine-art papers. AFAIK, that isn't possible with wet darkroom methods. This isn't a selling point for me in particular -- I want the best detail and contrast and gamut possible, and that usuallys dictate glossy, polished surfaces. I never did understand the attraction of "pearl" finish. What's that about? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > I never did understand the attraction of "pearl" finish. > What's that about? Some people find glossy prints detract from the image especially when placed under glass. I have always used a semi matte surface for any RC paper because I frequently display my work. In addition to not picking up finger marks the less glossy surface allows better viewing in a wider scope of viewing situations when placed under glass. I equate pearl surface to be a form of semi matte. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > In article <pfc9c21tf11vueqrmpllaikur0i4snata2@4ax.com>, foo@bar.com [SNIP] > A reading of any good book on information theory and sampling > will explain how it is possible to extract *all* the information from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > frequncy was made slightly more than double at 44,000 Hertz. > The same phenomena in the image domain is "resolution". Yet we know that CD doesn't come close to extracting all the information. SACD has a higher sampling rate, and it sounds _a lot_ better than CD. The digi-heads in music argued the point for years while LP was sounding better than CD yet they claimed that it didn't because it "couldn't" - they now have given up that fight and accept that while the theory suggested that 44.1kHz would suffice for "perfect sound" - it just plain doesn't. Now, don't assume I'm arguing for some musical voodoo that means the 'magic' overrides the science. Absolutely not. I'm simply pointing to an empirical fact that even a moderately cloth-earred person can (now that SACD and similar is here) hear for themselves. The point is not that the theory is wrong, but that it over-simplifies. Music, and in particular the human perception of it, is too complex a system (I use that word deliberately) to boil down to a very simple theory that relies on assumptions about what frequencies matter and which don't. The assumption that we can simply measure what tones a person can hear and then say "twice that'll do" seemed reasonable at the time, but in the light of experience turns out to be as simplistic as the assumption (in the 1960s) that econometrics could perfectly model and predict a national economy, or (in the 1970s and early '80s) that if only we had a powerful enough computer we could forecast the weather a month in advance. The system turned out to be too complex and to have too many variables to predict with a simple theory. Peter > Greg, > My reply might be perhaps sound a bit provocative for some readers, Maybe for the mindless digi -drones :^) > but I > would say: You cannot compare optical printing and inkjet printing and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://www.gnyman.com Your view is appreciated How have you liked that 57 Lotus View? > > This may be a stale question is some peoples mind's eye view but; > > I am asking it anyway ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The inkjet is able to print at 5760 x 1440 optimized (whatever this > > means) dpi . SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.