LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

Scott W wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote:

Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite
enlargement. Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building
size, 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.

I seem to fight the battle equally with film and digital shooters,
there are a few in both camps who want to believe that they can make
very large prints without any loss in sharpness.


Post processing, and lots of work (I did mention time) can improve any
digital file for printing. You should be aware that really large
(billboard, bus, train, semi-truck, building) prints are actually quite
low resolution, going by the file preparation specs. There are a couple
reasons for this; mainly that too large an image file is just too slow
to process, and also due to the average viewing distance (you just
cannot get that close if you want to view the entire image).


It is a bit
different between the two media since with digital you will loose
detail but the increase in noise will not be some much an issue. With
film the increase in noise, loss of tonality, it often seen before the
loss of detail.


So you never learned how to smooth out noise in a film scan? You are not
aware of software that now makes this very quick and easy? Once it is in
the computer, the only advantage with direct digital over scanned film
is that it sometimes takes less time to prepare the direct digital
capture for print . . . sometimes. Skill is definitely another factor,
and I will agree that many people have a much easier times handling
files from direct digital capture.

Going back to the printing methods, it is possible to print continuous
tone (chemical) prints from digital files (direct or scanned) up to
around 50" by 100" (Durst), maybe a little larger. Nearly anything
larger than that will either be inkjet, dye-sub, silk-screen, or tiled
from press prints; all these other methods can mimic continuous tone,
but they are not. Get close enough to any of them, and you will see the
dithering, patterning, rosettes, or even dots. Those visible aspects up
close can seem like noise or grain, even though they are just an aspect
of the printing methods.

I keep coming back to the GigaPXL Project. Sure, he started off with
very large film, then had it scanned on a Leica Geosystems scanner. I
saw the images at MOPA. They even offered magnifying glasses for
visitors, if anyone wanted to see more detail in these very large
prints. The images were sharp, had great edge detail . . . probably as
technically good as it gets . . . and in all honesty I can state they
were the most boring images I had ever seen in any exhibit or museum.
They were like someone took cheap postcards and blew them up huge. None
of the visitors I saw in the museum that day spent more than five
minutes in that entire section, while the Steve McCurry exhibit in the
other hall was packed the entire time.

If the digital proponents are so up on the technical qualities as being
the indication of greatness, they would probably wet themselves seeing
the images from the GigaPXL Project. To me, that is the most boring
thing anyone could ever do with photography. I certainly hope this
digital path does not lead us only down this road.



But both film and digital image can be printed to any size and both
will suffer if viewed too close.


If the GigaPXL Project makes it to an exhibition hall or museum near
you, I urge you to go see it. Viewing this upper level of technical
achievement might change your mind about photography.

Ciao!

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

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...


Going back to the printing methods, it is possible to print continuous
tone (chemical) prints from digital files (direct or scanned) up to around
50" by 100" (Durst), maybe a little larger. Nearly anything larger than
that will either be inkjet, dye-sub, silk-screen, or tiled from press
prints; all these other methods can mimic continuous tone, but they are
not. Get close enough to any of them, and you will see the dithering,
patterning, rosettes, or even dots. Those visible aspects up close can
seem like noise or grain, even though they are just an aspect of the
printing methods.


You will not see dots on the output of an Epson R800 or
R1800 without a loupe. That doesn't make it contone,
so don't be putting words in my mouth. But I guarantee
you will not see dots without a loupe.

Another thing about this printer: it absolutely resolves
better than 360 dpi. But again, you won't see that
without a loupe.

LightJet is contone at 305 or 406 dpi, and Durst Epsilon
254 dpi.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...

If the digital proponents are so up on the technical qualities as being
the indication of greatness, they would probably wet themselves seeing the
images from the GigaPXL Project. To me, that is the most boring thing
anyone could ever do with photography. I certainly hope this digital path
does not lead us only down this road.


So photos can be sharp, but boring. Who knew?

Problem is, the present thread isn't about vision,
composition, aesthetics or art. None of that
touchy-feely stuff.

You can make art on a Holga. Arnie Gassan did
it with a plastic Diana camera, and had his students
do that also. Let's stick to the subject, or start a
new thread.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Gordon Moat wrote:
If the digital proponents are so up on the technical qualities as being
the indication of greatness, they would probably wet themselves seeing
the images from the GigaPXL Project. To me, that is the most boring
thing anyone could ever do with photography. I certainly hope this
digital path does not lead us only down this road.
I think we would all agree that just because a photo has good detail in
and of itself does not make it a good photograph. One the other hand
more then once I have seen a large photograph that captured my
attention only to be greatly disappointed when I walked up closer to
it.

Now to me the GigaPXL Project is not about artistic photography (oh god
let's hope UC does not read that). To me the GidaPXL project is more
about documenting the here and now. Photography has many uses, the
artistic part is one, telling a story or giving a feel for a time and
place is another. But documenting what is, and someday what was, is a
valid use of photography. Right now the GigaPXL photos have the same
appeal as using binoculars to looking at whatever the photos is of.
For the city shots this has little appeal right now except for the
novelty. But imagine a photo with the same resolution of say San
Francisco from 100 years ago, that is a photo I would be interested in.
Take the shot of the space shuttle, now imaging looking at it not now
but 100 years from now.

Here is an example of the photo that has zero artistic appeal, warning
it is just a bit on the large size.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/pan2c%2011-19-05.jpg

This photo however does have a lot of appeal to a lot of people, I have
gotten a lot of messages thanking me for this photos. This from people
who have visited here and have fond memories. But the real value of
this photo will not be realize until there are large changes along this
sea wall.

Does this photo need this kind of resolution, yup and maybe even a bit
more, this is one I did a couple of years before, again this is a bit
on the large side.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/28859665/original

Clearly the new one is much more appealing to look at.

I really wish more LF photographers would take the time to photograph
their hometowns.

Scott

rafe b 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.

I am disappointed at this as well. I can say that an optical print can
have very good resolution. In one of the threads someone (well more
then one person) was saying that they is no use in scanning a print at
higher then 300 ppi. As an example of why sometime scanning past 600
ppi is needed I used this scan. (small crop)
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51936563/original

I believe this is an optical print, it is a print that a friend sent me
(4 x 6). Clearly there is far more detail in this then a 300 ppi scan
can capture. The detail in the print is pretty impressive, the word
roasted is only about 10 pixel high or about 1/60 of an inch high. And
yet it is totally legible.

This tells me two things, if the detail is in the negative the
sharpness in an optical print can be fantastic, and two it is easy to
show this sharpness in a scan of the print.

Scott

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I did around two years of burning and dodging in the darkroom, I had
done darkroom work before that but it took me a while to try my hand at
burning and dodging. All of this was with BW prints BTW.

Two years classifies you as less than an apprentice.


With Photoshop or other editing programs I have be doing it for the
last 7 years.

Its the path you chose so it of course may seem or actually be better
for you. No cut intended.


Even though I have spend more time with Photoshop then the darkroom I
have to say that the first time I did the equivalent to a dodge I was
amazed at how well it worked.

One of the things that can be tricking when dodging in the darkroom is
keeping the blacks black in the dodged area, it is all too easy for the
dodged area to look like it lacks contrast. This is handled with ease
in Photoshop.

Selective contrast control can be achieved by using more filtration when
burning or dodging B&W imagery.
Also rubbing the print surface while it is in the developer has been
known to work.


Others experiences might differ but I find the control I have in
Photoshop very welcome.

Scott



--
"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

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:
Exactly! I often hear this, that direct digital somehow allows infinite
enlargement. Sure, any digital file could even be printed up to building
size, 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.
I seem to fight the battle equally with film and digital shooters,
there are a few in both camps who want to believe that they can make
very large prints without any loss in sharpness. It is a bit
different between the two media since with digital you will loose
detail but the increase in noise will not be some much an issue. With
film the increase in noise, loss of tonality, it often seen before the
loss of detail.

The noise as you put is grain in film,

I believe the loss of contrast could be gotten around if one uses a
large enough illumination source to
project the original and suitably expose the paper.

But both film and digital image can be printed to any size and both
will suffer if viewed too close.

Scott



--
"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

In article ,
"rafe b" wrote:

"G- Blank" wrote in message
...


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).

I have no idea what you mean by that. Try again?
What comparison would be valid, in your view?

Meaning the assessment is only valid in comparing the methods
for making the print.

A print as is well known, is a second generation image. Visually an
inkjet image just is not as sharp as an optical print.

With or without a loupe?

You may need loupe, however I don't.
I don't need a loupe when viewing the GG
and I got far better results on my recent California trip
after removing my eye glasses.

To contend otherwise is pointless.

So you say. Have you received or looked at that print I mailed you?

Yes Thank you
Its a nice inkjet print-fwiw.


Never the less I can rather easily scan a print,
from my Epson Printer- and my enlarger if that would make you
happy.

Optical prints only, please. I'm quite familiar with the
nature of inkjet prints. What I would like from you
or anyone else is an example or specimen of what you
would consider an exceptionally sharp optical print, at
2x or more if from LF, or 4x or more if from MF.

I think I know how I am going to proceed


[The scans I posted at the start of this thread were
of prints at 2x and 6x, from LF.]

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.

So far, prints I've had made from either LightJet or
Durst Epsilon machines (at several excellent and well-
know labs) have been beautiful. The few problems
I've encountered with these prints have been entirely
of my own making.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com



--
"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

G- Blank wrote:
In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I did around two years of burning and dodging in the darkroom, I had
done darkroom work before that but it took me a while to try my hand at
burning and dodging. All of this was with BW prints BTW.

Two years classifies you as less than an apprentice.

This of course may well be true, however it took much less time then
that using photoshop to get the results that I wanted.

Scott

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

G- Blank wrote:
In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I did around two years of burning and dodging in the darkroom, I had
done darkroom work before that but it took me a while to try my hand at
burning and dodging. All of this was with BW prints BTW.

Two years classifies you as less than an apprentice.

This of course may well be true, however it took much less time then
that using photoshop to get the results that I wanted.

Scott

In the grand scheme that's all that matters.

--
"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