LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:41:37 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:


Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite
enlargement.

You "often" hear this? From whom? Someone on this forum?

Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size,

It's been done. Is this not "enlargement?" Or is that word
reserved for purely optical processes?

mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned,
cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm
of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we
can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from
scanned film.

Such arguments/facts/observations are lost on Tom, I'm sure.

It almost seems like some people want to imply that you cannot get nice
large clean prints from film. I urge anyone to go see an exhibit of
Edward Burtynsky, or Galen Rowell, or numerous other well known film
users, and still claim that the prints are inferior in some way.

Oooh, bad boy. You mentioned a 35mm photographer
on an LF news group. Tsk. But since we're on the subject
of Galen, here's a statement of his from 1998:

"Digital is the major difference between the clean
reproductions in magazines of the nineties and the
murky ones of the not-so-distant past."

"I've switched to digital scans even for my highest-
quality photographic prints. Digital corrections for edge
sharpness, color, film flaws, and minor scratches are
incorporated into finished photographic prints that more
accurately represent what I saw at the scene."

Back in the LF world, here's David Muench:

"I used to print all my own black & white, processing
negative, etc., until about the mid 80's. I was doing
more fine art after 1983. The negatives are all on
hold, and now we are printing them digitally using
scanners. Digital helps to make the negatives more
manageable for printing."

Jack Dykinga is yet another LF photographer using
digital back-end exclusively these days. His words
on first seeing his images done up this way:

"The resulting prints left me speechless. Many
of the critical reviews wondered aloud how such
incredible prints were made."


In the same manner, I don't feel we can rightly put down, nor dismiss
direct digital images. At least some of the better cameras today allow
some very nice quality images to be captured and printed, and quite
often without any distracting artefacts nor aberrations. This is
especially true for people using the latest medium format digital backs,
the images from those are largely quite good.

Bigger sensor = better picture. Just like film.
It's all about catching light. So what's new?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:41:37 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:



Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite
enlargement.


You "often" hear this? From whom? Someone on this forum?




Professionals using the latest top line digital cameras and backs,
Digital gurus running workshops, some local professionals. I cannot
recall anyone on the large format news group making such a statement.


Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size,


It's been done. Is this not "enlargement?" Or is that word
reserved for purely optical processes?



English is my second language; if that word is improper usage, and you
want to suggest a better term, I would be happy to use that other term
from now on. Thank you.


mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned,
cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm
of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we
can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from
scanned film.


Such arguments/facts/observations are lost on Tom, I'm sure.


It almost seems like some people want to imply that you cannot get nice
large clean prints from film. I urge anyone to go see an exhibit of
Edward Burtynsky, or Galen Rowell, or numerous other well known film
users, and still claim that the prints are inferior in some way.


Oooh, bad boy. You mentioned a 35mm photographer
on an LF news group. Tsk. But since we're on the subject
of Galen, here's a statement of his from 1998:

"Digital is the major difference between the clean
reproductions in magazines of the nineties and the
murky ones of the not-so-distant past."

"I've switched to digital scans even for my highest-
quality photographic prints. Digital corrections for edge
sharpness, color, film flaws, and minor scratches are
incorporated into finished photographic prints that more
accurately represent what I saw at the scene."



Which is exactly why I mention a well known 35 mm photographer. Sure,
his prints are digitally handled, and they certainly look quite nice.

Edward Burtynsky would be the opposite example, in that his prints are
chemical prints from an enlarger, and he uses 4x5 and 8x10 cameras.
However, from what I read in an article and interview with him about a
year ago, the description of his enlarger set-up is quite impressive.
Such a high end enlarger probably costs more than many computer systems,
and also requires a high degree of skill to operate to get the best results.



Back in the LF world, here's David Muench:

"I used to print all my own black & white, processing
negative, etc., until about the mid 80's. I was doing
more fine art after 1983. The negatives are all on
hold, and now we are printing them digitally using
scanners. Digital helps to make the negatives more
manageable for printing."

Jack Dykinga is yet another LF photographer using
digital back-end exclusively these days. His words
on first seeing his images done up this way:

"The resulting prints left me speechless. Many
of the critical reviews wondered aloud how such
incredible prints were made."



Thanks for adding some more names. I only have digital prints made, and
have not made a B/W optical print in the last four years. I do still
like B/W chemical prints, but I largely work in colour.


In the same manner, I don't feel we can rightly put down, nor dismiss
direct digital images. At least some of the better cameras today allow
some very nice quality images to be captured and printed, and quite
often without any distracting artefacts nor aberrations. This is
especially true for people using the latest medium format digital backs,
the images from those are largely quite good.


Bigger sensor = better picture. Just like film.
It's all about catching light. So what's new?


Nothing really . . . which was my point. We now have many choices and
paths that can lead us to nice looking prints. About all we need then is
the ability to be creative, and capture something of interest on our
films and sensors.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon Moat wrote:

rafe b wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:41:37 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:



Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite
enlargement.


You "often" hear this? From whom? Someone on this forum?



Professionals using the latest top line digital cameras and backs,
Digital gurus running workshops, some local professionals. I cannot
recall anyone on the large format news group making such a statement.

I often hear it from digital amateurs, who know
less about the digital processes they boast about
than photographic processes...

Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size,


It's been done. Is this not "enlargement?" Or is that word
reserved for purely optical processes?


English is my second language; if that word is improper usage, and you
want to suggest a better term, I would be happy to use that other term
from now on. Thank you.

Digital images cannot be "enlarged." See my
previous post. It's a total misapplication of
a traditional photographic term by digital geeks
who know nothing. They are upsampled or interpolated...

mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned,
cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm
of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we
can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from
scanned film.


Such arguments/facts/observations are lost on Tom, I'm sure.


It almost seems like some people want to imply that you cannot get nice
large clean prints from film. I urge anyone to go see an exhibit of
Edward Burtynsky, or Galen Rowell, or numerous other well known film
users, and still claim that the prints are inferior in some way.


Oooh, bad boy. You mentioned a 35mm photographer
on an LF news group. Tsk. But since we're on the subject
of Galen, here's a statement of his from 1998:

"Digital is the major difference between the clean
reproductions in magazines of the nineties and the
murky ones of the not-so-distant past."

"I've switched to digital scans even for my highest-
quality photographic prints. Digital corrections for edge
sharpness, color, film flaws, and minor scratches are
incorporated into finished photographic prints that more
accurately represent what I saw at the scene."


Which is exactly why I mention a well known 35 mm photographer. Sure,
his prints are digitally handled, and they certainly look quite nice.

Edward Burtynsky would be the opposite example, in that his prints are
chemical prints from an enlarger, and he uses 4x5 and 8x10 cameras.
However, from what I read in an article and interview with him about a
year ago, the description of his enlarger set-up is quite impressive.
Such a high end enlarger probably costs more than many computer systems,
and also requires a high degree of skill to operate to get the best results.

Back in the LF world, here's David Muench:

"I used to print all my own black & white, processing
negative, etc., until about the mid 80's. I was doing
more fine art after 1983. The negatives are all on
hold, and now we are printing them digitally using
scanners. Digital helps to make the negatives more
manageable for printing."

David Muench ain't known for his b&w. I've seen
his b&w prints. Ain't exactly in A.A.'s league
IMO and Adams was a master printer...Muench is
foremost a (superb) chrome photographer who has
concentrated on photographic composition and form,
not mastery of photo processes as did master
printers like Adams, Weston, Minor White, etc.

Jack Dykinga is yet another LF photographer using
digital back-end exclusively these days. His words
on first seeing his images done up this way:

"The resulting prints left me speechless. Many
of the critical reviews wondered aloud how such
incredible prints were made."



Thanks for adding some more names. I only have digital prints made, and
have not made a B/W optical print in the last four years. I do still
like B/W chemical prints, but I largely work in colour.


In the same manner, I don't feel we can rightly put down, nor dismiss
direct digital images. At least some of the better cameras today allow
some very nice quality images to be captured and printed, and quite
often without any distracting artefacts nor aberrations. This is
especially true for people using the latest medium format digital backs,
the images from those are largely quite good.


Bigger sensor = better picture. Just like film.
It's all about catching light. So what's new?

yeah, never mind Nyquist rafy boy, if you even
know what it is...which pragmatically only
applies to pixels and doesn't apply to film.
There's SIMPLY NO SUCH THING AS A BIGER SENSOR.
It's typical digital geek nonsense...no silicon
sensor will EVER be able to have the resolving
abilities of LF film since (factually, as opposed
to ignorant geek misinformation) 1) silicon wafers
cannot be made that large, and 2) photodectors
(that's pixels for rafe's pitiful education...)
can't get that small.

Those are facts.

G- Blank wrote:

Fair enough, though the goal should be -not to need burning and
dodging,....something I strive for and usually accomplish especially
when creating color imagery.

If I might opine...

Exposing a negative that makes a straight
print on G2 or 3 without any burning or
dodging or other contrast controls was the
first assignment I ever had in my college
ZS class (too many years ago to tell.) But
while a useful professional exercise in
learning how to produce a good negative and
print, it hardly satisfies personal creative
inclinations whether b&w or color

Burning and dodging is a natural extension of
negative exposure. So-called digital burning and
doging ain't, since there's no light involved,
and I've been using PS for years and years.
Digital allows for contrast and brightness
manipulations, but I'd say in PS it's esay to
overdo and usually appears little contrived,
meaning it's harder to blend (feather) pixels
so the resulting contrast looks as natural as a
traditional burned and dodged print. For one,
if you change the image gamma, the brightness and
contrast manipulations become readily apparent.
Skilled burning and dodging is in reality not
accomplished using tools comparable to PS lasso,
but simply a card with wide penumbrae in the hands
of an experienced printer.

In article ,
"Todd Maurer" wrote:

Ah, I never said I hadn't worked in a wet darkroom. Only that I hadn't used
4x5 in a wet darkroom. I only have experience with 35mm and a wee bit of
medium format in the wet darkroom. I know first had how difficult it is to
burn in a specific area of an image without burning in the area next to it.
The master's were proficient with it, but I can't imagine they could do it
with the accuracy of digital. Even if one cuts a custom dodging tool, it
would be difficult (impossible?) to match the shapes that a digital
selection can accomplish.

Tom Phillips wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

. . . . . . . . .
Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size,


It's been done. Is this not "enlargement?" Or is that word
reserved for purely optical processes?


English is my second language; if that word is improper usage, and you
want to suggest a better term, I would be happy to use that other term
from now on. Thank you.


Digital images cannot be "enlarged." See my
previous post. It's a total misapplication of
a traditional photographic term by digital geeks
who know nothing. They are upsampled or interpolated...


My usage, if incorrect, comes from the commercial printing industry. In
that industry, when we talk of making a bigger printed size, we speak of
enlarging. That can often be expressed as a percentage, or as a
multiple. Whether that is a leftover term from using vertical copy
cameras for layout, or something shared with photography, I don't know .
.. . the point is that everyone here understood that my usage of
enlargement, even if incorrect, meant larger printed sizes.

If you want to slam me, or ridicule me for my usage of English, I think
that speaks a great deal of your character, not mine. There are more
terms left-over in the printing industry, such as leading, even though
all type is now "set" using computers.




mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned,
cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm
of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we
can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from
scanned film.


Such arguments/facts/observations are lost on Tom, I'm sure.
. . . . . . . . . .

yeah, never mind Nyquist rafy boy, if you even
know what it is...which pragmatically only
applies to pixels and doesn't apply to film.


I hate to be defending Rafe, and anyone here would probably know that.
You might be a great, or famous photographer (I have no idea if you
are), but you have no tact, and very little skill in presenting an
argument in such a manner. You and Rafe have worked yourselves into such
a turmoil that you are now replying to me, which means you are now
dragging me into this. At least Rafe has manners most of the time when
he types out something.


There's SIMPLY NO SUCH THING AS A BIGER SENSOR.
It's typical digital geek nonsense...no silicon
sensor will EVER be able to have the resolving
abilities of LF film since (factually, as opposed
to ignorant geek misinformation) 1) silicon wafers
cannot be made that large, and 2) photodectors
(that's pixels for rafe's pitiful education...)
can't get that small.

Those are facts.

Current facts: largest commercially available chips max out at around 38
mm by 48 mm, just under 645 film sizes; best current working pixel cell
sizes are 6 to 8 µm (microns), mostly due to noise control issues;
Samsung and Matsu****a have working imaging chips now that use 2.4 µm
pixel sizes, though quite likely noise limited; on camera processing
speed and storage currently are as much a limit as chip sizes and pixel
densities; some government contracts have specified imaging chips nearly
4" square . . . getting close to film, but not there yet. Want to know
my opinions, and read lots more numbers that involved a good amount of
research, then check he

http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html

The article about printing explains most of the numbers, and shows that
printing can be more of a limitation than other aspects. If you read
through the resolution comparison article, you will see that I point out
that film is potentially higher resolution, but I point out that getting
that onto a final print can be tough.

Wish I had your enthusiasm about darkroom prints. I have seen some very
nice prints from large format on display in museums and galleries, but
my darkroom skills and equipment were never that good. I mostly use
film, even for my work that goes to publications, but nearly everything
is scanned. I only have a few enlarger made prints (mostly B/W), and I
no longer know anyone in San Diego who does colour prints using an
enlarger. Whether using an enlarger is better makes almost no difference
to me anymore, it just is not an option for me, except for B/W.

I stick by my earlier statement, whether film or direct digital, it is
possible for someone to express a creative vision using either tool.
There is no reason to dismiss one technology over the other.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon Moat wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

. . . . . . . . .
Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size,


It's been done. Is this not "enlargement?" Or is that word
reserved for purely optical processes?


English is my second language; if that word is improper usage, and you
want to suggest a better term, I would be happy to use that other term
from now on. Thank you.


Digital images cannot be "enlarged." See my
previous post. It's a total misapplication of
a traditional photographic term by digital geeks
who know nothing. They are upsampled or interpolated...


My usage, if incorrect, comes from the commercial printing industry.

Which misuses terminology no end, such as
referring to DPI when in fact it's PPI...


In
that industry, when we talk of making a bigger printed size, we speak of
enlarging. That can often be expressed as a percentage, or as a
multiple. Whether that is a leftover term from using vertical copy
cameras for layout, or something shared with photography, I don't know .

It's technically and scientifically wrong and
inaccurate...

. . the point is that everyone here understood that my usage of
enlargement, even if incorrect, meant larger printed sizes.

Except I wasn't referring to your posts, though,
but to rafe's, which are both inaccurate and
ignorant.

Hope that clears things up, Gordon

If you want to slam me, or ridicule me for my usage of English, I think
that speaks a great deal of your character, not mine. There are more
terms left-over in the printing industry, such as leading, even though
all type is now "set" using computers.

Nope. Again I was responding mainly to rafy boy,
who should know better but doesn't, not you

mostly depending upon time and budget. Since film can be scanned,
cleaned up, sharpened and manipulated as an image file, the same realm
of prints is possible. Indeed, if we look back five or ten years, we
can find examples of really large prints, and those mostly came from
scanned film.


Such arguments/facts/observations are lost on Tom, I'm sure.
. . . . . . . . . .

yeah, never mind Nyquist rafy boy, if you even
know what it is...which pragmatically only
applies to pixels and doesn't apply to film.

I hate to be defending Rafe, and anyone here would probably know that.
You might be a great, or famous photographer (I have no idea if you
are), but you have no tact, and very little skill in presenting an
argument in such a manner. You and Rafe have worked yourselves into such
a turmoil that you are now replying to me, which means you are now
dragging me into this. At least Rafe has manners most of the time when
he types out something.

Science is science and facts are facts, something
digital geeks like Rafe ignore. Again, I was't
referring to you at all.


There's SIMPLY NO SUCH THING AS A BIGER SENSOR.
It's typical digital geek nonsense...no silicon
sensor will EVER be able to have the resolving
abilities of LF film since (factually, as opposed
to ignorant geek misinformation) 1) silicon wafers
cannot be made that large, and 2) photodectors
(that's pixels for rafe's pitiful education...)
can't get that small.

Those are facts.

Current facts: largest commercially available chips max out at around 38
mm by 48 mm, just under 645 film sizes; best current working pixel cell
sizes are 6 to 8 µm (microns), mostly due to noise control issues;
Samsung and Matsu****a have working imaging chips now that use 2.4 µm
pixel sizes, though quite likely noise limited; on camera processing
speed and storage currently are as much a limit as chip sizes and pixel
densities; some government contracts have specified imaging chips nearly
4" square . . . getting close to film,

Film? What film? 6-8 microns isn't anywhere
near the size of an average film silver halide
( 1 micron.) Second this is a Large Format
newsgroup. Silicon chips can't even approach
LF, now or in the future.


The article about printing explains most of the numbers, and shows that
printing can be more of a limitation than other aspects. If you read
through the resolution comparison article, you will see that I point out
that film is potentially higher resolution, but I point out that getting
that onto a final print can be tough.

Wish I had your enthusiasm about darkroom prints. I have seen some very
nice prints from large format on display in museums and galleries, but
my darkroom skills and equipment were never that good. I mostly use
film, even for my work that goes to publications, but nearly everything
is scanned. I only have a few enlarger made prints (mostly B/W), and I
no longer know anyone in San Diego who does colour prints using an
enlarger. Whether using an enlarger is better makes almost no difference
to me anymore, it just is not an option for me, except for B/W.

I stick by my earlier statement, whether film or direct digital, it is
possible for someone to express a creative vision using either tool.
There is no reason to dismiss one technology over the other.

Creative vision isn't really the issue though. The
issue is 1) whether digital posts are appropriate for
this newsgroup (they're not) and 2) the difference
between pphotographic and digital processes, which
are NOT the same and freely mixing the terminologies
is misleading and inaccurate.

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

G- Blank wrote:

Fair enough, though the goal should be -not to need burning and
dodging,....something I strive for and usually accomplish especially
when creating color imagery.

If I might opine...

Exposing a negative that makes a straight
print on G2 or 3 without any burning or
dodging or other contrast controls was the
first assignment I ever had in my college
ZS class (too many years ago to tell.) But
while a useful professional exercise in
learning how to produce a good negative and
print, it hardly satisfies personal creative
inclinations whether b&w or color

Burning and dodging is a natural extension of
negative exposure. So-called digital burning and
doging ain't, since there's no light involved,
and I've been using PS for years and years.
Digital allows for contrast and brightness
manipulations, but I'd say in PS it's esay to
overdo and usually appears little contrived,
meaning it's harder to blend (feather) pixels
so the resulting contrast looks as natural as a
traditional burned and dodged print. For one,
if you change the image gamma, the brightness and
contrast manipulations become readily apparent.
Skilled burning and dodging is in reality not
accomplished using tools comparable to PS lasso,
but simply a card with wide penumbrae in the hands
of an experienced printer.

By striving I meant finding scenes which don't require vast amounts of
it, as opposed to being unaware of where the scene's brilliance values
are in fact falling and then getting to the print stage only to either
not be able to make a good print to my liking or b spend vast amounts of
time burning little areas all over the print.



--
"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

greg_____photo(dot)com

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:34:32 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

. . . . . . . . .
Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building size,


It's been done. Is this not "enlargement?" Or is that word
reserved for purely optical processes?


English is my second language; if that word is improper usage, and you
want to suggest a better term, I would be happy to use that other term
from now on. Thank you.


Digital images cannot be "enlarged." See my
previous post. It's a total misapplication of
a traditional photographic term by digital geeks
who know nothing. They are upsampled or interpolated...


My usage, if incorrect, comes from the commercial printing industry. In
that industry, when we talk of making a bigger printed size, we speak of
enlarging. That can often be expressed as a percentage, or as a
multiple. Whether that is a leftover term from using vertical copy
cameras for layout, or something shared with photography, I don't know .
. . the point is that everyone here understood that my usage of
enlargement, even if incorrect, meant larger printed sizes.


While we frequently disagree, Gordon, our
discourse over the years has been generally
civil. The same cannot be said for my
encounters with Tom.

A 4x5 negative scanned at 2400 spi yields
a file of roughly 11000 x 8600 pixels. 2400
spi is probably close to the "real" resolution
of an Epson 4990 scanner ($400 retail.)

That's quite enough for printing at 24 x 30"
with no interpolation whatsoever. A print
that size is a 6x enlargement of the original
transparency. There is no more accurate
or succinct way of expressing this. Tom
does not own the English language.

[Which, by the way, is also my second
language; the first was Hebrew, which
I've almost completely forgotten.]

I suspect I'm telling you nothing you didn't
already know. As for "educating" Tom,
it's not possible, as his mind is closed.

I began this thread hoping that one or more
"analog darkroom" folks might post
comparable studies (ie. scans) of their
prints. None have done so.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:


I began this thread hoping that one or more
"analog darkroom" folks might post
comparable studies (ie. scans) of their
prints. None have done so.

Plain and simple your a trouble maker

The thing I think you have missed - (or shall we say not included) is
that scanning prints in no way compares the results of resolution
between originals (Transparency- File).

A print as is well known, is a second generation image. Visually an
inkjet image just is not as sharp as an optical print. To contend
otherwise is pointless. Never the less I can rather easily scan a print,
from my Epson Printer- and my enlarger if that would make you
happy.

However using high end scanners and Lightjet-Lambda output
I can state the benefits can overshadow the downside of nominal
(sharpness loss - If in fact there is any). As in better tonal scale
when scanning transparencies for printing- prints. That is well known.

But I also contend that unless one is the Lambda operator and
understanding all aspects of the Lambda it is quite possible, that this
circumstance too could enter sets of variables that are not readily
accounted for.

--
"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

greg_____photo(dot)com

Tom Phillips wrote:
G- Blank wrote:

Fair enough, though the goal should be -not to need burning and
dodging,....something I strive for and usually accomplish especially
when creating color imagery.

If I might opine...

Exposing a negative that makes a straight
print on G2 or 3 without any burning or
dodging or other contrast controls was the
first assignment I ever had in my college
ZS class (too many years ago to tell.) But
while a useful professional exercise in
learning how to produce a good negative and
print, it hardly satisfies personal creative
inclinations whether b&w or color

Burning and dodging is a natural extension of
negative exposure. So-called digital burning and
doging ain't, since there's no light involved,
and I've been using PS for years and years.
Digital allows for contrast and brightness
manipulations, but I'd say in PS it's esay to
overdo and usually appears little contrived,
meaning it's harder to blend (feather) pixels
so the resulting contrast looks as natural as a
traditional burned and dodged print. For one,
if you change the image gamma, the brightness and
contrast manipulations become readily apparent.

I assume you are using levels for burning and dodging since brightness
and contrast controls are about worthless.

I have done burning and dodging in both the darkroom and using
Photoshop and I find I have way more control in Photoshop.

Scott