Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,573   Posts: 1,545,694   Online: 789
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    For the last 12 1/2 years, Bill Nordstrom (LaserLight Phtographics and EverColor Fine Art) and I have been making digital scans of my 35mm, Medium Format (Rollei 3.5 F 12/24 Planar and Mamiya 7II) and my 4 X 5 (Linhof and Toho) transparencies. We standardly have made raw files (for storage purpose if we need such large prints) of about 225 to 300 mb. We usually work from much smaller digital files to print my work up to 20" X 30" or 24" X 30" but we have the raw files to print still larger. Originally we printed digitally through a 4 color separation method (4 separate CMYK perfectly registered negatives) which were later changed to 3 color RGB files for printing on the LightJet or Chromira Digital printers.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  2. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,037
    Images
    65
    And if you look up the patents on the Chromira printer, you will find that our own Jim Browning is one of the inventors.

    PE

  3. #13
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    And if you look up the patents on the Chromira printer, you will find that our own Jim Browning is one of the inventors.

    PE
    Ron,

    Thanks for that information. I was unaware of that.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Even though I am an enthusiastic film user, it looks to me as though there is some special pleading going on here. There's a big difference between information (including grain) and useful information. At one extreme, allowing for camera shake, shallow focus, etc., you can probably get equal quality to 35mm full frame from 10 megapixels. At the other, with the camera bolted down, top-quality lenses, optimum aperture and the right subject (as one software designer of my acquaintance said, "A portrait of Art Garfunkel with every hair sharp, no jaggies") you exceed 30 megapixels.

    There are enormous differences of opinion about what consitutes a megapixel equivalent to film. I have spoken to a wide range of people including well-informed people at Ilford and Zeiss, and a great deal depends on your interpretation of 'useful information' and the extent to which you believe that redundancies and randomization in the recording medium contribute to the look of film. This is the very highest figure I have ever seen for an equivalent, and while I would not dream of arguing with such a source, I would point out that it is worth bearing the above in mind.
    Free Photography Information on My Website
    http://www.rogerandfrances.com

  5. #15
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    There are enormous differences of opinion about what consitutes a megapixel equivalent to film. I have spoken to a wide range of people including well-informed people at Ilford and Zeiss, and a great deal depends on your interpretation of 'useful information' and the extent to which you believe that redundancies and randomization in the recording medium contribute to the look of film. This is the very highest figure I have ever seen for an equivalent, and while I would not dream of arguing with such a source, I would point out that it is worth bearing the above in mind.
    You are right Roger. Every comparision I have read between film and digital is fundamentally flawed, both in its setup and execution. It seems as if they are all saying "Which makes a better apple? A Red Delicious or a Banana? To determine which, they will take the banana, peel it, roll it into a ball, and paint it red. Then come to the conclusion the Red Delicious is better." That is exactly what all the DvA comparisons amount to. Both are different.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by roteague View Post
    You are right Roger. Every comparision I have read between film and digital is fundamentally flawed, both in its setup and execution. It seems as if they are all saying "Which makes a better apple? A Red Delicious or a Banana? To determine which, they will take the banana, peel it, roll it into a ball, and paint it red. Then come to the conclusion the Red Delicious is better." That is exactly what all the DvA comparisons amount to. Both are different.
    Dear Robert,

    A beautiful analogy.

    I think there comes a point at the bottom end (somewhere between 3 and 10 megapixels) where digi is Holga: you are best advised to make virtues out of its faults, because it has very few conventional virtues. Most comparisons are based on this 'scramble for the bottom'.

    But after that, it's all a question of what you want to do and how you want to do it. Many, for example, will argue that MF is better than 35mm, or LF better than MF, but their terms of reference are necessarily carefully chosen. To choose such a limited argument, for soft focus colour, I find digital better than silver (Lensbabies on the D70, Thambar on the M8). But soft focus colour is such a small subset of what I shoot, let alone what anyone else shoots, that you can't base much of an argument on it.

    There's also an argument from necessity. Some of the best boxing pictures I jave ever seen were shot on 5x4 inch; some of the best yachting pictures I have ever seen were taken on half-plate. But that's what they had. I strongly suspect that the same photographers could have done as well with 35mm (boxing) or Hasselblad (yachting), if they had had access to, and experience of, those cameras.

    Some film addicts are in the latter category, that of necessity: they can't afford decent digital equipment. Others have good film equipment, and know that no matter what they spent, digi wouldn't give them what they want. Yet others would rather spend as much as possible on taking pictures, and as little as possible on equipment, because every penny spent on kit is money not available for travel and shooting. The whole brew is so complex that a single rather weak and highly disputable argument -- pixel/film equivalents for the smallest commonly used film format -- is not a lot of use.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Free Photography Information on My Website
    http://www.rogerandfrances.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    45
    In motion picture film, there are type of resolutions - spatial resolution and temporal resolution. Spatial resolutions are those number of pixels per frame you are discussing above. Temporal resolution is the resolution per second that can give to an audience.

    Many video format uses interlace format and employ interlace filter to solve the problem but reduce the sharpness of the image at the same time. 35MM film can shoot slow motion (high temporal resolution) very easy just by speeding up the motor. However, digital is a lot more complicated in doing so that requires a lot of electronics and lower the picture quality.

  8. #18
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,037
    Images
    65
    I believe myself, from some tests, that a very high resolution scan of an analog negative or slide such as described by Bob Teague earlier, which is then digitally printed on the best quality digital printer, can approach or surpass a full analog print. It cannot equal analog in stability, but in pictorial quality it can.

    This hybrid allows one to produce some very high quality prints from 35mm and repair damage to old negatives or slides.

    How did I come to this conclusion?

    I have some very old (50 years or so) slides that have a lot of scratches on them. I have been able to scan them at high resolution and in PS remove the scratches and marks and then make some very nice prints up to 13" x 19" that equal or surpass the direct analog prints in overall quality (even discounting the repairs).

    Sure they won't last long, but they look nice hanging on the wall. Now, this may cause a firestorm here, but remember that I do agree that taking the original on digital would have yielded a vastly inferior product. I'm merely pointing out that analog + restoration -> digital print is a very useful path in producing some high quality prints.

    And, it requires a high resolution scan to achieve any degree of quality as noted above. The data is there!

    PE

  9. #19
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    And, it requires a high resolution scan to achieve any degree of quality as noted above. The data is there!

    PE
    You're right Ron. It takes a high resolution scan to bring out all that there is on the original transparency. I generally scan to 5400dpi, but output at 4000dpi. With a 16-bit scan, this creates about a 200 MB file.

    Additionally, I use tools like multiple sampling (for 35mm I use 8X sampling) to bring out the shadow details. I also use Kodak SHO (shadow details, but mine only works in 8-bit mode), Kodak GEM (to clean up the grain), and other tools. Done correctly, and with a bit of hard work, these will create an image, IMO, that surpasses what can come out of any DSLR.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nanaimo, British Columbia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    907
    Images
    4
    I'd be interested if anyone has experience making B&W, RA-4, or Ilfochrome prints from film, scanned then output using a digital enlarger. Please let me know if this question strays too far in to hybridphoto territory.

    - Justin

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin