LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

G- Blank wrote:
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:


The detail in a digital image is maximized at the
scanned resolution and is all there is.


True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given
scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y.

So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution
scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively
low resolution required to make a print.


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.

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.

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.

Ciao!

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

I'm chiming in late. I haven't done a direct film enlargement of 4x5 for
5-6 years. Imacon scans (by a service), my file prep, output to inkjet or
lightjet.

I won't claim to have ever made my own enlargements from 4x5 film. I always
let a service make my enlargements for me. To qualify this I almost always
was buying Cibachrome enlargement in the 8x10 to 16x20 range. Some with and
some without silver masks. So one could reasonably argue that I wasn't
getting the best from my images as some lab jock was mass producing.

However, I did have two scans of the same 4x5 done. One a 150MB (8bit) scan
from Imacon and the other a 400MB (8bit) scan from a tango scanner. At a
size equivilent to a 30x40 it was difficult for me to find any details in
the tango scan that weren't in the imacon scan. And that was looking at
100% in photoshop. Sure I had to scale up the Imacon print to get 300dpi on
the 30x40 output. But at on the print it was also difficult to tell a
difference. Now the service uses a new imacon yielding nearly 400MB (16bit)
scans. Since I never go larger than 30x40, I've never gone back to a tango
scanner. (Though I'm tempted for another reason. The wet mounting process
of a tango drum scan avoids tons of dust and scratches that come through on
the Imacon process.)

Now I can't compare the details represented in the final print between a
digital and direct film print. The digital has a lot.

However the control I regain by doing the file prep myself is incredible.
The shadow detail that I can get to Fuji Flex prints (or even to the few
lightjetCibachrome prints I had made) blows film direct to Cibachrome away.
Even comparing those Cibachromes made with silver masks. The positive to
Cibachrome process is just too contrasty to capture the shadow and
highlights.

The ability to make very accurate selections and then affect only that area
wonderful too. I have an image that is part in open shade and part in full
sun. The open shade portion has a bluish cast. A careful selection and bit
of warming up of the color and the two areas were better balanced with each
other.

Yes the wet darkroom can generate wonderful images, particularly at the
hands of the masters. However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic
results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match. Ansel Adams is quoted
at being extremely excited about the digital darkroom. His last book while
he was living was done digitally. He was excited about the control digital
allowed. Very consistent as his work was all about controlling each step of
image production.

Todd
--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
G- Blank wrote:
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:


The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and
is all there is.


True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given
scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y.

So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan
without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low
resolution required to make a print.


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.

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.

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.

Ciao!

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

In article ,
"Todd Maurer" wrote:

However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic
results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match.

Huh, from one who has never made an optical print,...this becomes a
stretch & its the only sentence I take issue with. A poorly done digital
print can be just plain awful , in so many ways. I have seen many awful
digitally printed images.


--
"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 message
...
In article ,
"Todd Maurer" wrote:

However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic
results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match.

Huh, from one who has never made an optical print,...this becomes a
stretch & its the only sentence I take issue with. A poorly done digital
print can be just plain awful , in so many ways. I have seen many awful
digitally printed images.


So you should have that print I sent you, Gregory.

Any opinions? You can email me privately, if you'd prefer.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

G- Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

The detail in a digital image is maximized at the
scanned resolution and is all there is.

True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given
scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y.

So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution
scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively
low resolution required to make a print.

That's not what he said. He said "one can *enlarge*
as if making a big print..." No, you can't. It's a
misapplied term, which is typical of digital geeks
misappropriating photographic process terminologies
that don't actually apply to digital processes.

Of course I will agree that in the case of sprayed
ink of an inkjet the low resolution required is a
factor, and thus scanning at higher resolutions is
overkill. Typically (at least if one does professional
scanning) the scan resolution/file size is matched to
the intended output size for best quality.

In article ,
"rafe b" wrote:

So you should have that print I sent you, Gregory.

Its probably at the post office, which is closed today.

I was going to get it Saturday, but was running late to a
shoot so I'll get it tomorrow if its there.

Any opinions? You can email me privately, if you'd prefer.

I will certainly let you know, I'll email you.


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

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

G- Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

The detail in a digital image is maximized at the
scanned resolution and is all there is.

True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given
scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y.

So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution
scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively
low resolution required to make a print.

That's not what he said. He said "one can *enlarge*
as if making a big print..." No, you can't. It's a
misapplied term,

Obviously enlarged is a misapplied term for the most part,...
I can think of a possible exception.....digital projection lamphouse.

which is typical of digital geeks
misappropriating photographic process terminologies
that don't actually apply to digital processes.

I think they do it just to **** you off


Of course I will agree that in the case of sprayed
ink of an inkjet the low resolution required is a
factor, and thus scanning at higher resolutions is
overkill.

My statement applies to all digital output devices
which tend to require something be scanned with
only so much overall resolution relative to the dimensions of
the print to make the sharpest print the output device is able to make.

An unsharp original negative will always be
unsharp. The scanner can't make something inherently out of focus
focused. -Likewise Enlargers, we all know that- You, me and Rafe.

Typically (at least if one does professional
scanning) the scan resolution/file size is matched to
the intended output size for best quality.

Thats optimal......and probably not realistic for all
needs. I think the idea is to create one scan that works for
most anticipated needs. Its only a problem when the needs go
beyond the limits & their are plenty of people trying to make do
some time the loss is less or inconsequential enough to warrant the
fudge. Sometimes the fudge is quite apparent and should have been
handled differently. the shame is that fewer and fewer people get to see
were the fudge was made :-D

--
"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

Todd Maurer wrote:
snip a bit...

Yes the wet darkroom can generate wonderful images, particularly at the
hands of the masters. However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic
results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match. Ansel Adams is quoted
at being extremely excited about the digital darkroom. His last book while
he was living was done digitally. He was excited about the control digital
allowed. Very consistent as his work was all about controlling each step of
image production.

Yes but you can be sure he wouldn't have advocated
digital over film. These are different mediums with
different results. He also often noted one had to be
careful when publishing digitally, since it was
possible to override the creative intentions of the
artist in artifically manipulating the print values
he worked so hard in the real darkroom to achieve.

Todd
--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
G- Blank wrote:
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:


The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and
is all there is.


True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given
scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y.

So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan
without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low
resolution required to make a print.


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.

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.

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.

Ciao!

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

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:


He also often noted one had to be
careful when publishing digitally, since it was
possible to override the creative intentions of the
artist in artifically manipulating the print values
he worked so hard in the real darkroom to achieve.


More importantly preserving the intentions he worked to capture in the
field - knowing that his work and manifestation of those intentions was
preplanned before it ever hit the darkroom.



--
"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 ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

G- Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

The detail in a digital image is maximized at the
scanned resolution and is all there is.

True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given
scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y.

So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution
scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively
low resolution required to make a print.

That's not what he said. He said "one can *enlarge*
as if making a big print..." No, you can't. It's a
misapplied term,

Obviously enlarged is a misapplied term for the most part,...
I can think of a possible exception.....digital projection lamphouse.

which is typical of digital geeks
misappropriating photographic process terminologies
that don't actually apply to digital processes.

I think they do it just to **** you off

Naw. They're merely intentionally ignorant

Of course I will agree that in the case of sprayed
ink of an inkjet the low resolution required is a
factor, and thus scanning at higher resolutions is
overkill.

My statement applies to all digital output devices
which tend to require something be scanned with
only so much overall resolution relative to the dimensions of
the print to make the sharpest print the output device is able to make.

An unsharp original negative will always be
unsharp. The scanner can't make something inherently out of focus
focused. -Likewise Enlargers, we all know that- You, me and Rafe.

Typically (at least if one does professional
scanning) the scan resolution/file size is matched to
the intended output size for best quality.

Thats optimal......and probably not realistic for all
needs. I think the idea is to create one scan that works for
most anticipated needs. Its only a problem when the needs go
beyond the limits & their are plenty of people trying to make do
some time the loss is less or inconsequential enough to warrant the
fudge. Sometimes the fudge is quite apparent and should have been
handled differently. the shame is that fewer and fewer people get to see
were the fudge was made :-D

One scan fits all is not how I as a professional
would print digitally. There was a reason the old
Kodak CD and similar still available, for instance,
provided a range of different pre press resolutions.