Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

. . . . . . . . . .

*: One thing your ranting has me thinking about, though, is that maybe I
should forget 13x19, and concentrating on getting the most possible out of
the R800 at A4.

If you are happy with the outputs, why change?



As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets.

You're missing a great way to make prints. Your loss.

My only need for individual prints is my fine art work, or for restaurant
outputs. The restaurant items done as one off, or low runs, are usually
DuraTrans, or similar, which would not work on a desktop inkjet.



But you are also missing the point that the printing technology is
irrelevant to the questions at hand.

I think it is relevant, since it always comes up in statements of judgements
about quality. Hey, if it is only going onto a monitor, then why shoot film at
all? If you are only doing inkjets, then I think direct digital might be a
better match. You cannot look at a digital image file under a loupe, or
microscope, so that seems to leave prints as the only comparison, unless we get
involved in mathematics.


I urge you to go to a printing industry trade show, or just to get more
information on this industry.

Why? I like the quality of inkjets. At A4, the R800 provides good color and
great sharpness.

Good for you. You found a system you like, and you are sticking to it. I found
a system I like, commercial printing, and I am sticking to that. Nice world,
isn't it?

I've got a lot to learn to provide originals up to R800
capabilities (well, 645 + 8000 has the detail bit overkilled). If I ever get
to the state of needing better, I know who to ask.

But, more significantly, at A4 it provides better detail than 35mm (I think)
or 6MP digital (I know). In terms of detail rendered, the A4 inkjets seem a
good match for the 1Ds.

On that I will agree. I personally think it is easier for the advanced amateur
to get more consistent results on inkjet prints when using direct digital. I
have stated this same thing in the past.



Until you are knowledgeable of my industry, you have no basis to criticize
it,

I'm not criticizing it, I'm criticizing your claim that it's relevant.

It is relevant for me. This is because the conditions under which I need to
work are dictated by the printed outputs that are generated from my work. Since
Service Bureaux are less used than ever, and I come from a highly trained
Graphic Arts and Printing background, I need to ensure the quality of my own
outputs. I have tried to make it clear that my uses may differ greatly from
others, though it appears that I have not made myself understood.

13x19
from 35mm is soft because of the 35mm, not because of the printer. And I can
tell the difference between the amount of detail rendered with any of these
tools (screen, inkjet, whatever) by adjusting the magnification.

If you want to discuss printing technologies, I am happy to do so.

I don't. I never intended to. You're the one who claims they're relevant*.
Since I can take my originals to a lab, they're irrelevant to the question
at hand.

*: Every time I claim "A is better than B" (where A and B are imaging
technologies), you go off on a rant on how either my scanner or printer is a
dog.

I never dissed your scanner, though there are better scanners. Don't get the
idea that I drum scan everything, because I don't do that either.

You're wrong every time, simply because even if they are dogs, it
either is irrelevant (printer) or isn't a large enough difference (scanner)
to affect the claim.

Hey, you are happy with them. You think anyone would believe me now about the
$10k Kodak DCS I used several years ago, if I made any claims about anything
good from using it?



This was supposed to be a thread about MF vs. digital.

They each have benefits, choices, and "fans". All viewpoints still differ, and
I think it could be another five years before any of us agrees.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
Are modern lenses with 100 ISO films able to reach 100+ lpmm (bob is
right), or are modern high quality lenses with 100 ISO films unable to
reach even 42 lpmm (6 MP equiv., and rafe is right)?

Let's just say neither, and I now regret my "arses" comment earlier.
However, film's 100+ lpmm isn't making it onto paper, and I take nothing
else back.

dpreview publishes resolution figures for digitals in their camera
reviews.
Depending on the numbers you accept, the 10D yields 57 lpmm to 75 lpmm
(1450
lpi or 1900 lpi). This is through a real world lens, shooting a test
chart.
This detail can be printed, since there is no subsequent loss in the
digital
chain.

The specifications for the 10D indicate a CMOS sensor of 22.7 mm by 15.1
mm.
Taking the maximum possible file output size of 3072 by 2048 pixels, gives
a
maximum possible resolution of 67.7 lpmm by 67.8 lpmm. While I can almost
believe the 57 lpmm figure, since that would account for losses due to the
anti-aliasing filter, that figure of 75 lpmm seems impossible. How could
they
possibly capture more resolution in lpmm than the sensor is capable of
recording?

I'll second this. Dpreview calls the vertical resolution of the 10D to be
1450 lph which is 725/14 = 48 lp/mm.

Okay, that is much more beleivalbe. Still, it is a nice figure, and shows that
as a very useable and functional system.



For film's 100 lpmm to match the 10D's performance in print, the
enlarger
and paper resolution combined cannot be worse than 132 lpmm. (1/57 =
1/100 +
1/132). Using Bob's number, 42 lpmm for digital, we get a more realistic
figure for the enlarger and paper: 67 lpmm (1/41.5 = 1/108 + 1/67),
subject
to focusing and alignment errors in addition to printing lens
resolution.

It's a pretty close match, wouldn't you say, Bob? Not the 2:1 advantage
some
would have us believe.

It is definitely getting close. There are very few published reports of
tests
done on resolution targets for direct digital cameras.

Both Dpreview and Imaging Resource report test charts. You can eyeball them
yourself if you don't like what the reviews say. The only significant
"cameras" missing from these tests are the digital backs.

The few reports that
have appeared are often subject to a great deal of criticism. My
contention is
that it is entirely viable to create compelling images with either
technology,
and I do not find one to be exclusionary in usage to the other.

Not yet...

How about that . . . we agree on something.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:44:31 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:14:16 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


Kudos to your wife! She has correctly realized that it really boils
down to *the subject*. Some subjects may look *better* with digital
than with film. That's due to those elusive qualities that we call
"pop", for example, are not dependent on the technical capabilities
or limitations of a medium, and may in fact be *enhanced* by those
limitations (That's one reason why manufacturers can sell soft-focus
filters). BobM, Gordon and I are of the opinion that not *all*
subjects will look better with digital than with film, which is the
claim that you and David are making by challenging on the basis of
the technical capabilities of the media.


I don't believe I ever claimed that "all subjects will look
better with digital than with film."

That is the direct implication of claiming that direct digital captures
better image quality per mm than film. Did you not make that claim?


Right, but film has lots more square millimeters
as of this point. So there's no such implication,
as you claim, except maybe comparing a 1Ds
to 35 mm. And in that case, I hold my ground.
The 1Ds blows away 35 mm. The 10D merely
matches it (in most cases.)


I'm neither a film Luddite or digital visionary. I'd have
hoped that was clear by now.

I'm not accusing you (or anyone else for that matter) of being either, and
find such accusations to be of very presumptous, to put it kindly.

I also note that my print challenge continues to go
unanswered. Why is that, do you suppose?

Because it's expensive and pointless. "Prints" are not generic; subject
matter is important. A pro-quality wet print costs a lot of money, even if
you do it yourself. I have a 20"x20" shot on my wall that cost me well
over $100 to have printed at a pro lab I use. I also have lightjet prints
of the same image, and know for a fact that they don't compare. So, if you
need the proof, cough up the bucks and buy the wet prints yourself, then
compare.


Maybe this is why nobody makes wet prints any more?

Frankly, your alabi is lame, but so be it. Why is it that
you needed a lab to make your print for you? I guess
I assumed you make your own prints.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

I may sound a little thick, but are you saying or implying that given
the same digital MB file, the commercial print would necessarily
generate a visibly better image quality (for the same print size) than a
good inkjet printer? "Better image quality" does not, of course,
necessarily mean wet look, or other similar artefacts. I recall
another pro in this very NG, who, sometime ago, said that he replaced
his 150K printing system with an Epson 7600 (or so), because despite the
huge difference in price, the quality of the image was the same from
both printers. If I remember correctly, he may have said that at least
for some subjects the Epson produced better image quality than the
expensive commercial printer.

Incidentally, I visited your site, and liked your photos very much.
They are just that, true photos (a rare thing nowadays), as I would like
to be able to do (when I grow up... :-)). They convey the emotion or
feeling associated with the real life scene. If I may say so, they
show talent, professionalism, and feeling. In exchange for these
(really sincere) compliments, would you tell us what cameras/scanners
you used ?


As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. That is okay
for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing. Obviously,
commercial printing is not cost effective for very short runs, individual
outputs, nor for home usage.

I urge you to go to a printing industry trade show, or just to get more
information on this industry. It is much further beyond inkjet than most people
could ever imagine. You can also contact International Paper, and get a copy of
the Pocket Pal Graphic Arts Production Handbook, and read up on the various
commercial printing technologies. Creo also have some great white papers on
this technology, including their new patented Staccato printing method. AGFA
also have a great deal of printed information and books about the Graphic Arts
and Printing industries. Pantone are another company with many publications
about colour issues and printing.

Until you are knowledgeable of my industry, you have no basis to criticize it,
nor to dismiss the available technology. I am well aware of inkjet systems, and
I know of many printing systems that can deliver greater resolution, greater
colour range, and even create prints not possible on inkjet systems (metallics
are just one example).


--

nobody

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
I'll second this. Dpreview calls the vertical resolution of the 10D to be
1450 lph which is 725/14 = 48 lp/mm.

David, where does the 14 come from? Or is that 15, to get 48 lpmm? (725/14 =
52).

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
I'll second this. Dpreview calls the vertical resolution of the 10D to
be
1450 lph which is 725/14 = 48 lp/mm.

David, where does the 14 come from? Or is that 15, to get 48 lpmm? (725/14
=
52).

Oops. Should be 15, which is the height of the sensor in mm. Note that
Dpreview's test chart is not scaled adequately to get the horizontal
resolution right.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
(Bob Monaghan) wrote:

quoting rafe:
The digital sensor is still capturing far more
useful image data per square mm than film
could ever dream of. In terms of resolution,
the only advantage left for film capture is
surface area, and lots of it.
end-quote:

this is hard to understand, since the digital sensor's area is ten to
fifty times larger than many sub-micron film grains, yes? Shouldn't
something much smaller (like film grains) capture MORE information, rather
than less as you contend? ;-) Esp. since film is an analog medium, and
often features stacked emulsions (e.g., for color films) and so on? ;-)

WOW you touched a nerve with that one. See the irrate response that follows,
most interesting, most interesting indeed.
--
LF 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

In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:

Assuming you're talking about 35mm, then what's wrong with it is that it
doesn't come close to describing the results people are getting.

Son how much 35mm film have you shot ? Maybe if you shot the
10,000+ pictures I have on 35mm film you would see it differently.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Bob, 35mm looks like cr@p at A4

Thats very funny, hahahahahaha.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:44:31 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
Rafe stated:
I also note that my print challenge continues to go
unanswered. Why is that, do you suppose?

Because it's expensive and pointless. "Prints" are not generic;
subject matter is important. A pro-quality wet print costs a lot of
money, even if you do it yourself. I have a 20"x20" shot on my wall
that cost me well over $100 to have printed at a pro lab I use. I
also have lightjet prints of the same image, and know for a fact
that they don't compare. So, if you need the proof, cough up the
bucks and buy the wet prints yourself, then compare.

Maybe this is why nobody makes wet prints any more?

Hardly "nobody". The labs I use are quite busy. They also do the Lightjet
and Frontier prints, which are a lot cheaper than custom wet prints (for
good reason). I'm not sure what your issue is; you aren't challenging the
results, yet you aren't willing to pay the costs to do your own
comparisons? What's up with that?

Frankly, your alabi is lame, but so be it. Why is it that
you needed a lab to make your print for you? I guess
I assumed you make your own prints.

What you are calling an "alibi" is simply a workflow. When I was younger
*did* do my own color printing, and still have the darkroom equipment in
the unlikely event that I can retire and have nothing better to do with my
time. ;-)

Besides, color printing is very time consuming and I don't find it to be
creative or interesting. It's strictly a technical process that machines
do better, and they can't be bored. I don't need the volume of prints to
warrant purchasing those machines or the amount of chemistry that they
require for that matter. So, at this point in my life, it's cheaper to pay
others to do that work to get the quality that I want in the quantities
that I need. YMMV. Furthermore, this workflow is nothing new in
photography, which is why pro labs exist.

Neil