A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old November 29th 06, 09:33 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
babelfish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate


"Philip Homburg"
For fine grained film, dye cloud sizes can be in the order of micrometers.
Are you saying that you are printing to film at 25000 ppi?

If not, there is a good chance that the difference will be visible
under a microscope.


The last time I checked, there were no camera lenses that resolve 25000 ppi.
We don't image dye clouds, but at up to a true 4096 pixels per inch or 160
lines per millimeter written by a point light source, I've never been able
to tell the difference under the best 10x loupe between an original and an
LVT and neither have any of my customers. Actually, we can't tell at less
than half that resolution. We've enlarged these films up to murals as well.
To be honest, I've never used a microscope, and there might be some
artifacting there to give it away, but if you had no original to compare it
to, what would you look for to tell you that it wasn't original camera film
if original view camera lenses aren't any sharper than what this process can
yield?


  #13  
Old November 29th 06, 11:14 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate

In article TBbbh.15934$Uz.1518@trnddc05,
babelfish wrote:
The last time I checked, there were no camera lenses that resolve 25000 ppi.
We don't image dye clouds, but at up to a true 4096 pixels per inch or 160
lines per millimeter written by a point light source, I've never been able
to tell the difference under the best 10x loupe between an original and an
LVT and neither have any of my customers. Actually, we can't tell at less
than half that resolution. We've enlarged these films up to murals as well.
To be honest, I've never used a microscope, and there might be some
artifacting there to give it away, but if you had no original to compare it
to, what would you look for to tell you that it wasn't original camera film
if original view camera lenses aren't any sharper than what this process can
yield?


There is a good chance that if you scan it at a very high resolution,
there will be evidence of that 4096 ppi in the frequency domain (but
there are probably a number of other statistical correlation techniques
that allow you to find patterns that result from the digital imaging
system).

The issue is not whether the original is sharper, but whether you can
hide artifacts from your digital system in the noise. This assumes of
course that somebody really sets out to prove that it is a forgery.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #14  
Old December 16th 06, 09:07 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
John Horner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate

The debate is already over and the transition is moving even faster than
most people expected. For the amateur market the casual snapshooter has
been the economic driving force forever. Most of the 4x6 prints which
have been made really never needed to see the light of day! Almost
nobody is the developed world uses film for casual photography today.

In much of the professional world the situation is the same. Newspapers
ditched their darkrooms and were glad to do so. The film which is used
professionally almost all is on it's way to a digital scanner for final
printing and reproduction. Slides have been replaced by digital
projectors, and this is a good thing because the very act of projecting
slides degraded their dyes.

The debate is already over. Film will continue as a small niche product
for special applications or special artistic needs just as vacuum tubes
are still around and a few people make tintypes.

I drug my heals for a very long time and even though I was smart a few
years ago when I picked up some amazing lenses for my vintage Minolta
35mm equipment for next to nothing. I still enjoy using the stuff for a
few special purposes, but the majority of my needs are best met by
digital equipment and a digital workflow. Compared to the wet darkroom
my "digital darkroom" consisting of Photoshop CS and an EPSON 2200 is a
great pleasure to use.

The processing industry is adapting to the digital imaging world by
printing digital files onto silver paper. This results in a lot less
waste as the non-keeper photos are not being printed very often any more.

Once you are working in a digital darkroom it is much, much easier to
start with a digital file instead of film.

John


  #15  
Old December 16th 06, 06:32 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Greg Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate

John Horner wrote:

The debate is already over and the transition is moving even faster than
most people expected.


...huge, much needed, SNIP...


(Yea, it is 'worn out,' except that you just can't stop flapping on
about it...) Do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

Once you are working in a digital darkroom it is much, much easier to
start with a digital file instead of film.


No, not really. That's what a "scanner" is for! Believe it or not,
that horrid old film you love to bag on really does continute to WORK.
It WORKS very well, thank you!

Now, go meausrebate your megapixels....
  #16  
Old December 16th 06, 11:35 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate

In article ,
Greg Campbell wrote:

Now, go meausrebate your megapixels....


I think he is lacking pixels in some key areas "If you know what I mean"











--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode ashjas Digital Photography 4 November 8th 06 10:00 PM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 15 December 8th 05 12:03 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Digital Photography 1 November 28th 05 08:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.