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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Digital vs Film - just give in!
Stacey wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote: Both give exactly the same DOF. pixel / grain size *does* *not* *matter* DOF wise. If you can't follow that at a certain print size it does affect the whole image i.e. nothing is sharp/the whole image is blurry, then further explaination isn't going to get you to understand this. Try making a 16X20 print from a 35mm negative using 800asa film and try to find the focus point. Huh? What does print size have to do with this? And if you experience unsharpeing at enlargements then I would suggest you use different method - there is no reason an enlargement needs to look any more fuzzy that the original. You won't get more detail but that doesn't mean you need to lose sharpness. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Digital vs Film - just give in!
Stacey wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote: Both give exactly the same DOF. pixel / grain size *does* *not* *matter* DOF wise. If you can't follow that at a certain print size it does affect the whole image i.e. nothing is sharp/the whole image is blurry, then further explaination isn't going to get you to understand this. Try making a 16X20 print from a 35mm negative using 800asa film and try to find the focus point. Huh? What does print size have to do with this? And if you experience unsharpeing at enlargements then I would suggest you use different method - there is no reason an enlargement needs to look any more fuzzy that the original. You won't get more detail but that doesn't mean you need to lose sharpness. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Digital vs Film - just give in!
Stacey wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote: Both give exactly the same DOF. pixel / grain size *does* *not* *matter* DOF wise. If you can't follow that at a certain print size it does affect the whole image i.e. nothing is sharp/the whole image is blurry, then further explaination isn't going to get you to understand this. Try making a 16X20 print from a 35mm negative using 800asa film and try to find the focus point. Huh? What does print size have to do with this? And if you experience unsharpeing at enlargements then I would suggest you use different method - there is no reason an enlargement needs to look any more fuzzy that the original. You won't get more detail but that doesn't mean you need to lose sharpness. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced
paint... Jeff Of course not. It is too expensive to cover the outside of your house with film. Paint is much better. -Jack |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced
paint... Jeff Of course not. It is too expensive to cover the outside of your house with film. Paint is much better. -Jack |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Cochran" wrote in message
... 'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced paint... It's true- it would cost a fortune to cover my lounge wall in photos. At least i'd have a choice of Satin or Gloss, though... -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Cochran" wrote in message
... 'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced paint... It's true- it would cost a fortune to cover my lounge wall in photos. At least i'd have a choice of Satin or Gloss, though... -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"KBob" wrote in message ... However, prints produced with the usual methods (including hi-res inkjets) fall short of delivering "critical sharpness" in any case Unfortunately, the film processing labs often produce prints that are not as sharp as is the image on the negative. Inferior enlarging lenses? Or do they print slightly out of focus on purpose? Who knows? I have always seen much superior results when using slide film than when getting prints made from film. The less-than-expected print quality of prints does tend to narrow the quality gap between a film print and a digital print. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
"KBob" wrote in message ... However, prints produced with the usual methods (including hi-res inkjets) fall short of delivering "critical sharpness" in any case Unfortunately, the film processing labs often produce prints that are not as sharp as is the image on the negative. Inferior enlarging lenses? Or do they print slightly out of focus on purpose? Who knows? I have always seen much superior results when using slide film than when getting prints made from film. The less-than-expected print quality of prints does tend to narrow the quality gap between a film print and a digital print. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |