If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints
Doug,
Today, as promissed by you, I received two large prints that you made. (For bystanders, these are ~35.5" x 24" (900 x 610mm) which comes to a sensor to print 'blowup' ratio of 40:1) They are gorgeous in color and detail and as large prints they are great. Regarding the D20 print: ======================== 1) The detail in the middle of the flower is very good. But I know a good 35mm film shot* will get as much 'detail' esp. in the center. Where this image BEATS 35mm hands down is the absence of grain / noise. It is clean and contrasty (for the subject). (Great lens, Velvia/Provia 100, good light). 2) In some areas where the color is continuous, there is a seemingly artificial look to the print (for example the yel/grn areas in the leaves that are out of focus; and in the deep area of the flower where the salmon color blocks up to orange). But if one stands back 24" or so, it is not an issue. In a film version that area would have had a texture as a result of grain and it would have looked grainy even standing back. 3) Fine-fine detail. Where there are fine hairs on the edges of the flower petals there is a 'glow' in between the fine hairs. It's impossible to say if this is from the lens, the sensor or your process. In the flower, the 'veins' are clear and discernible. The real 'win' here is the lack of noise allows that detail to clearly show. So far I have found nothing printed here above 1-2 lp/mm, but I'll keep looking. (I don't have a proper loupe for measuring this but I can get a good feel with a ruler and mag glass). 4) Compared to a Cibachrome from a MF slide: My initial impression is that similar sized Cibachrome from Velvia (Pentax 6x7) shows more detail than your prints (But I don't have one right here). For noise (grain) I have the impression your shot has less noise (OTOH, the noise on Cibachromes from a couple feet back is not discernible at all which is not the case of a large print from 35mm). I should be seeing my P67 shooting friend at the end of March (he is away from the city most of the year). I'll bring your prints with me when I go see him and I'll report then on comparing with his C'chromes and scan/prints. In summary, this photo shows that a digital image can printed very cleanly. It also illustrates the value of the low noise of digital sensors v. film grain (which I've stated many times in any case). PS:There is a streak on the lower most petal that is definitely artificial). Regarding the 10D print. ======================== While overall very impressive as a print, esp. from 4 MPix, even a second not particulalry close glance shows large continuous tone areas. IOW, it's blown up and filled, there is no detail in the filling. The low noise helps hold it together of course. A 35mm with a good lens and film can beat this in detail/resolution, but again, the low noise in this print makes it work. Edge detail is artificial looking. (eg: where the carb manifold ducks under the exhaust manifold; where the fuel line contrasts against black, screwheads, many others). I've seem smaller prints exhibit this same edge detail failing, so no surprise here. From 3 feet back, looks great. Your claims are in the main true and valid with respect to print quality from a digital camera v. a 35mm. But it's mainly about low nouise, not about resolution. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
From 3 feet back, looks great. Your claims are in the main true and valid with respect to print quality from a digital camera v. a 35mm. But it's mainly about low nouise, not about resolution. Cheers, Alan Where do we get to see these prints? JD -- EOS my GOD, Give me ISO for I have not yet seen the light. Take away my grain, give me colour and you shall have given me the edge! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Deciple of EOS wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: From 3 feet back, looks great. Your claims are in the main true and valid with respect to print quality from a digital camera v. a 35mm. But it's mainly about low nouise, not about resolution. Cheers, Alan Where do we get to see these prints? JD Ryadia has the flower picture on his web site but the full crop doesn't show any of the patented enargement, just a regular crop from a 6MP pic. I'd like to see a full crop of the enhanced digital version or a scan from the print... anything. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote: snip Regarding the D20 print: ======================== 1) The detail in the middle of the flower is very good. But I know a good 35mm film shot* will get as much 'detail' esp. in the center. Where this image BEATS 35mm hands down is the absence of grain / noise. It is clean and contrasty (for the subject). (Great lens, Velvia/Provia 100, good light). Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where does film come in? snip So far I have found nothing printed here above 1-2 lp/mm, but I'll keep looking. (I don't have a proper loupe for measuring this but I can get a good feel with a ruler and mag glass). A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore, if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print, then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia claims. Colin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Doug, Today, as promissed by you, I received two large prints that you made. (For bystanders, these are ~35.5" x 24" (900 x 610mm) which comes to a sensor to print 'blowup' ratio of 40:1) They are gorgeous in color and detail and as large prints they are great. Snipped Your claims are in the main true and valid with respect to print quality from a digital camera v. a 35mm. But it's mainly about low nouise, not about resolution. Cheers, Alan Lets not lose track of the comparison criteria, Alan. A film (6x7 if you wish but the deal was 'medium format' which could just as easily be 645) scanned on a Nikon 'Coolscan'. This carries with it the presumption the whole process is one which can be afforded by a lone (professional) photographer. The compared print will also be from an inkjet printer. You can't make a Cibachrome (llifochrome now) prints from a scanned image in an affordable for one person lab so you can't really compare the digital prints I gave you to Ciba with any degree fairness to either source but I'm willing to go along with someone scanning a 6x7 trannie on a Nikon Coolscan and using a digital laser printer to hit some ilfochrome paper if this is what you want. I've had a print lab since 1983. I really don't recall the date I started making monochrome masks to control the contrast of Ciba printing but it was in the '80, to be sure. I also used to make 'unsharp masks' for Ciba printing to enhance the sharpness of transparencies when the mirror slap of a RB67 at anything under 1/250th shook the **** out of the camera. The flower print I gave you would not have printed directly on Ciba ....had it been taken on trannie film, without a contrast mask. I doubt many people still able to make them, are not going blind from exposure to Ciba's chemicals or the constant bright to dark lit world we used to live in. But none the less, some still might exist and still have the gear to make them. Let me know if you find one. I'm please you agree that my "claims are in the main true and valid". Quite a long way from being "full of ****". Does this mean we can be civil again? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Colin D wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: snip Regarding the D20 print: ======================== 1) The detail in the middle of the flower is very good. But I know a good 35mm film shot* will get as much 'detail' esp. in the center. Where this image BEATS 35mm hands down is the absence of grain / noise. It is clean and contrasty (for the subject). (Great lens, Velvia/Provia 100, good light). Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where does film come in? snip So far I have found nothing printed here above 1-2 lp/mm, but I'll keep looking. (I don't have a proper loupe for measuring this but I can get a good feel with a ruler and mag glass). A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore, if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print, then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia claims. Colin He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing a final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live with it mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image resolution. 240 megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably more detail in it than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of it is digital noise, either. How you derive your calculations is beyond my comprehension. But then so is your navigation so I shouldn't be surprised what you come up with, should I? Are you sure you have the right bait this time? Lures are said to be better for trolling. Now about that Velvia... How much of it do you need for your dslr? Can you Email me a cheque for it? Doug |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Colin D wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: snip Regarding the D20 print: ======================== 1) The detail in the middle of the flower is very good. But I know a good 35mm film shot* will get as much 'detail' esp. in the center. Where this image BEATS 35mm hands down is the absence of grain / noise. It is clean and contrasty (for the subject). (Great lens, Velvia/Provia 100, good light). Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where does film come in? a discussion about where film would would not be able to print to a large size. Basically what I've said holds: the low noise of the digital allows one to make a large print, but the resolution is not up to the size of the print. snip So far I have found nothing printed here above 1-2 lp/mm, but I'll keep looking. (I don't have a proper loupe for measuring this but I can get a good feel with a ruler and mag glass). A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore, if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print, then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia claims. Yes. I have to go compare these with detail from Cibachromes which I won't have access to until late March. Caveat, I have to sit down with the 20D print and really search, there may be detail above what I stated. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ryadia wrote:
Colin D wrote: Alan Browne wrote: snip Regarding the D20 print: ======================== 1) The detail in the middle of the flower is very good. But I know a good 35mm film shot* will get as much 'detail' esp. in the center. Where this image BEATS 35mm hands down is the absence of grain / noise. It is clean and contrasty (for the subject). (Great lens, Velvia/Provia 100, good light). Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where does film come in? snip So far I have found nothing printed here above 1-2 lp/mm, but I'll keep looking. (I don't have a proper loupe for measuring this but I can get a good feel with a ruler and mag glass). A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore, if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print, then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia claims. Colin He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing a final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live with it mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image resolution. 240 megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably more detail in it than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of it is digital noise, either. I'm not sure how you set your printer but surely it was at at least 100 dpi, probably higher? -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ryadia wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: Doug, Today, as promissed by you, I received two large prints that you made. (For bystanders, these are ~35.5" x 24" (900 x 610mm) which comes to a sensor to print 'blowup' ratio of 40:1) They are gorgeous in color and detail and as large prints they are great. Snipped Your claims are in the main true and valid with respect to print quality from a digital camera v. a 35mm. But it's mainly about low nouise, not about resolution. Cheers, Alan Lets not lose track of the comparison criteria, Alan. A film (6x7 if you wish but the deal was 'medium format' which could just as easily be 645) scanned on a Nikon 'Coolscan'. This carries with it the presumption the whole process is one which can be afforded by a lone (professional) photographer. The compared print will also be from an inkjet printer. Indeed, recall where you brought up Pentax 6x7 which cooincidently is what a friend of mine uses. You can't make a Cibachrome (llifochrome now) prints from a scanned image in an affordable for one person lab so you can't really compare the digital prints I gave you to Ciba with any degree fairness to either source but I'm willing to go along with someone scanning a 6x7 trannie on a Nikon Coolscan and using a digital laser printer to hit some ilfochrome paper if this is what you want. I'll be looking at the Ciba's that my friend made. The other point here is that his Ciba's are about 24" at their largest, so I'll be looking for detail approaching 5 lp/mm at minimum on the print. I don't recall him stating if he made masks. I understand that is a very tedious process. I've had a print lab since 1983. I really don't recall the date I started making monochrome masks to control the contrast of Ciba printing but it was in the '80, to be sure. I also used to make 'unsharp masks' for Ciba printing to enhance the sharpness of transparencies when the mirror slap of a RB67 at anything under 1/250th shook the **** out of the camera. My friend is a very slow photographer and he shoots for color, contrast and detail. The flower print I gave you would not have printed directly on Ciba ...had it been taken on trannie film, without a contrast mask. I doubt many people still able to make them, are not going blind from exposure to Ciba's chemicals or the constant bright to dark lit world we used to live in. But none the less, some still might exist and still have the gear to make them. Let me know if you find one. As prev. stated, my friend wants to get away from Ciba as the process is long and expensive. I'm please you agree that my "claims are in the main true and valid". Quite a long way from being "full of ****". Does this mean we can be civil again? Where, specifically (link), did I say you were "full of ****"? I can't find it. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Ryadia wrote: Where, specifically (link), did I say you were "full of ****"? I can't find it. Cheers, Alan. Maybe you used the word 'crap' and use of the word '****' was aimed at one of my customers who replied to you. In any case, I don't keep records and the thread is out of my list now. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
large prints from digital file? | Dr. Joel M. Hoffman | Digital Photography | 14 | January 20th 05 08:25 AM |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 11:01 PM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Mike Henley | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 182 | June 25th 04 03:37 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |