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 |
#491
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote: In article , David J. Littleboy wrote: Bob, 35mm looks like cr@p at A4, Not sure I'd agree with that, necessarilly, but mine are looking pretty ropey at A3, not as good as the 10D images. It may help that I'm only shooting 50 ISO silde film though, but even then, digital is giving me "cleaner" results. Don't know how much of that is grain-aliasing, and how much is down to scanning noise. That's funny too. I have a friend who shoots 35mm Kodak GA100 optically prints to 20 x 24,....me personally I shoot 4x5.....his stuff looks great at 20 x 24. -- 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. |
#492
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
|
#493
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
"Fil Ament" wrote in message ... In article , Chris Brown wrote: In article , David J. Littleboy wrote: Bob, 35mm looks like cr@p at A4, Sorry, that should have been A3. I get carried away some times... Not sure I'd agree with that, necessarilly, but mine are looking pretty ropey at A3, not as good as the 10D images. It may help that I'm only shooting 50 ISO silde film though, but even then, digital is giving me "cleaner" results. Don't know how much of that is grain-aliasing, and how much is down to scanning noise. That's funny too. I have a friend who shoots 35mm Kodak GA100 optically prints to 20 x 24,....me personally I shoot 4x5.....his stuff looks great at 20 x 24. But now you're being ridiculous. Printing 35mm at 11x14 is problematic, 13x19 off the wall. I've seen a lot of 35mm at 20x24 to 20x30; 35mm types seem to like it. It looks gross even from across the room. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#494
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:58:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote: 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? Neil, I've been on various listservs for years, in particular a few dealing with scanners and various printers. I've exchanged prints with several people from those groups over the years and met many of these folks in person. I still treasure all of those prints that I've received in trade from my friends on those lists. On one listserv (Epson printers) we even organized a "traveling portfolio" on a couple of occasions, mailing real (physical) prints around. Very interesting experience. I haven't looked high and low, but so far, here in the western 'burbs of Boston, I haven't found a lab that does true optical prints. Besides which... when posed as a contest, and with the ground rules I described, each contestant (eg, you and I) would be motivated to do his best work, in our preferred medium. This would not (necessarily) be true for a lab. (And since you don't do your own prints, you're right... I might as well compare to a lab print.) For me, the cost is relatively trivial -- even for large prints. Maybe ten bucks worth of paper + ink for a 16 x24" print off my Epson. I'm prepared to accept that others can make sharper optical prints from 35 or MF than I made in my own darkroom thirty years ago. I just haven't seen the evidence yet. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote: I've seen a lot of 35mm at 20x24 to 20x30; 35mm types seem to like it. It looks gross even from across the room. Yeah well I would say the same, I don't know exactly how he does it but I have seen the pictures, theyr'e good. I've also seen plenty of other photographers work done this size from small negatives that look good. You need to look up from that microscope on occasion. -- 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. I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home. |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:58:58 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote: Recently, Raphael Bustin posted: 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? Neil, I've been on various listservs for years, in particular a few dealing with scanners and various printers. I've exchanged prints with several people from those groups over the years and met many of these folks in person. If this is an answer as to why you don't do your own quality comparisons, I just don't understand it. I still treasure all of those prints that I've received in trade from my friends on those lists. I'm sure it's a pleasurable "club-like" activity, and there's nothing wrong with that. I get the same enjoyment out of my flying club activities, so I fully understand the feeling. I haven't looked high and low, but so far, here in the western 'burbs of Boston, I haven't found a lab that does true optical prints. I'd be surprised if there were none in the Boston area. It's been many years since I was up that way, but things can't be that bad for the pros, can they? Besides which... when posed as a contest, and with the ground rules I described, each contestant (eg, you and I) would be motivated to do his best work, in our preferred medium. This would not (necessarily) be true for a lab. As I said, color printing is not a creative process. The "best work" is that which is controlled the best. My Agnecolor processor was (perhaps still is) OK, but doesn't hold a candle to modern computerized film processors. Even exposure times are strictly computed. Focus, kill the lights, hit expose, then it's all just a matter of feeding the processor. It's not at all like b/w printing, and I really don't miss it. (And since you don't do your own prints, you're right... I might as well compare to a lab print.) Better, you'd be comparing a familiar subject with a known set of negatives and files. For me, the cost is relatively trivial -- even for large prints. Maybe ten bucks worth of paper + ink for a 16 x24" print off my Epson. I don't hang any prints from my Epson on the wall. I use it to proof edits, period. It's great for that. I'm prepared to accept that others can make sharper optical prints from 35 or MF than I made in my own darkroom thirty years ago. I just haven't seen the evidence yet. I'm not saying that the prints are sharper than I can do myself. I'm saying that color wet printing is not something that I find practical in the volumes that I need. None the less, there isn't an inkjet made that can match the quality of a wet print. Has it been 30 years since you last looked at a good one? ;-) Neil |
#497
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
"Fil Ament" wrote in message ... In article , "David J. Littleboy" wrote: I've seen a lot of 35mm at 20x24 to 20x30; 35mm types seem to like it. It looks gross even from across the room. Yeah well I would say the same, I don't know exactly how he does it but I have seen the pictures, theyr'e good. I've also seen plenty of other photographers work done this size from small negatives that look good. You need to look up from that microscope on occasion. And you should check the title of the newsgroup you're posting to: we're here because we've determined 35mm's not adequate quality. (It would be nice if it we would make life a lot cheaper and easier. But it's not.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#498
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote: And you should check the title of the newsgroup you're posting to: we're here because we've determined 35mm's not adequate quality. (It would be nice if it we would make life a lot cheaper and easier. But it's not.) Then why are you posting how good digital is? And not how good MF Digital is,.....because everyone knows how riduculously expensive it is, and how film MF beats the crap out of DSLR cameras. So do you have a point ? -- 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. I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home. |
#499
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
Recently, Bob Monaghan posted:
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? ;-) And, let's not forget that those grains are not in a 2D x/y matrix; they're also 3D, and depend on that physical aspect to provide subtle gradations. The same applies to photo papers. One difficulty with comparing scanned film rather than a print is that scanning fundamentally changes that 3D representation into a 2D matrix, and all that "flattening" implies. Regards, Neil |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
"Fil Ament" wrote in message ... In article , "David J. Littleboy" wrote: And you should check the title of the newsgroup you're posting to: we're here because we've determined 35mm's not adequate quality. (It would be nice if it we would make life a lot cheaper and easier. But it's not.) Then why are you posting how good digital is? Because it is, on a per square mm of sensor basis. And not how good MF Digital is,.....because everyone knows how riduculously expensive it is, and how film MF beats the crap out of DSLR cameras. That's why I shoot (mostly) MF. So do you have a point ? You seem to have missed the last two weeks of discussion on MF vs. future digital. And Bobm repeating his favorite insane overestimates of 35mm quality, which you seem to buy into... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |