Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

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.

In article ,
(Bob Monaghan) wrote:

I disagree (what, again? ;-)? I also think you are confusing subjective
with objective reality.

I suspect the reason the digital shots look "better" to you at greater
enlargements is that various software algorithms have interpolated the
modest number of real data points into some very large number of smoothed
values. That's what you see on prints or on-screen, right? In some cases
90% or more of the dots on the print are interpolated. The fact that you
like this smoothed 90% interpolated print is your subjective reality. You
also don't like grain, while I find it rather less objectionable even in
blue sky patches, perhaps after years of looking at prints? ;-) Again, I
cite this as evidence of your preference for "smoothed" digital imagery.

That's probably very accurate. Its not the detail they like its the smoothing
and then they can play with their saturation buttons all they like.
--
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.

"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

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

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.

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

"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

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.

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

"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