Digital versus Enlarger print sharpness opinions

[Drew Wiley]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But based on that, no, not by a long shot. Something is either not level and flat in the film or paper plane or it's a lens issue itself. For example, that Componon will probably perform best around f/8. If you simply have to stop it way further down in order to keep the negative in focus, then you need to address that problem itself first. And ditto what Bob said.

[Greg]

My 2 cents: Couple of related things to consider....

Enlarging photo paper far out resolves any inkjet printer.

Sharpening in PS actually does not add any resolution to the image, only the apparent illusion of more detail.

Oversampling in PS can actually add detail (Astro-photographers do this all the time)

The same 4x5 negative enlarged to 8x10 when put next to an inkjet print made from an excellent scan, well when both viewed from 3 feet away... well if one was actually sharper than the other you wouldn't be able see the difference. You would have to use a magnifying glass.

For one project I did years ago, I copied a survey map drawn in the 1800s with an excellent 4x5 copy set up and made a 20x30 print with the near best of equipment. I also digitally captured the survey map and made a 20x30 inkjet print. I had several people at the Museum look at the two prints. All said the inkjet prints were sharper. In fact the enlarged prints had more detail but the inkjet prints had more apparent visual sharpness and contrast.

This thread should be interesting to follow....

[Corran]

Assuming you don't do unsharp masking when enlarging (I'd like to learn and experiment with this personally), you can make much sharper inkjet prints than enlarged prints from the same negative. I've seen it over and over with my work and others, and many people I respect say the same thing. I prefer real darkroom prints for aesthetic reasons though.

I'm sure there will be many people who disagree.

One thing though - Greg above says "Enlarging photo paper far out resolves any inkjet printer." I'd like to see a source/test/etc. about that, and more importantly, a test to show actual max resolution on paper, not theoretical maximums based on specs and lab tests.

[Greg]

Forgot to include:

Edge of Darkness, The art, craft, and power of the high-definition monochrome photograph by Barry Thomton, Amphoto Books is a definitive guide to making "sharp" photographs. I'd advise anyone interested in achieving "sharp" prints to buy this book.

[Jeff T]

The negative was scanned on Imacon while the print was scanned with an Epson scanner.

You derived these images from two different methodologies using different tools and I can see the images are different but I cannot see if one has more detail than the other.

I can see that the Imacon image has more contrast, and more sharpen, however, I prefer the smooth gradation of tones of 8x10 print scanned with the Epson scanner.

Is it possible that the imacon image had more sharpening?

[Greg]

Greg above says "Enlarging photo paper far out resolves any inkjet printer." I'd like to see a source/test/etc. about that, and more importantly, a test to show actual max resolution on paper, not theoretical maximums based on specs and lab tests.

Simply put a X5 Loupe up to a 100 year old stereo photo card, then put the loupe up it up to the sharpest inkjet print you have. We commonly flatbed scan 1/2 of the stereo card (image is 3" wide) and print it as an 11x14" print for display. Do same with with a 3" wide section of an inkjet print and you will be amazed at the difference. FYI Sterio cards were made by contacting the stereo negative images onto photo paper way back then.

Q.E.D.

[John Olsen]

The negative was scanned on Imacon while the print was scanned with an Epson scanner.

Is it possible that the imacon image had more sharpening?

Yes, there's the question of different scanners. However, viewing the print with a loupe gives me the same impression as the Epson scan. The sharpening was the same (PS 21%), but it was pretty minimal. I don't think that's driving the result.

I've redone my enlarger alignment as suggested above and loaded the same negative into a Beseler anti-newton glass holder for a test print at f11 to f16 tomorrow. (I just have to consider how to throttle back the light in my enlarger to allow an f11 exposure. Kodak Wratten ND or perhaps a Hasselblad polarizer?)

[mdarnton]

Sharpening is definitely fair play. Sharpness is a dance between resolution and contrast, which considers both together. On film you can't do anything about that, but scanning you can increase the contrast part of the equation which results in more REAL sharpness, as it is defined these days.

Following the thread of the resolution of contact prints, this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ng,1545-3.html

[djdister]

Yes, I know there's a difference between film scan and enlarger. I'm not expecting to get the film scan result through the enlarger. I'm just showing that so you can guess whether my enlarger result is close to what would be expected based on a good piece of film. Thanks.

Why didn't you compare an inkjet print from the digital file with a photo print from the negative?

[Corran]

Simply put a X5 Loupe up to a 100 year old stereo photo card, then put the loupe up it up to the sharpest inkjet print you have. We commonly flatbed scan 1/2 of the stereo card (image is 3" wide) and print it as an 11x14" print for display. Do same with with a 3" wide section of an inkjet print and you will be amazed at the difference. FYI Sterio cards were made by contacting the stereo negative images onto photo paper way back then.

Q.E.D.

To be fair, that's an anecdotal piece of evidence that most of us can't compare (as I don't have any of those handy). Also, the only valid test would be two prints from the same negative, one wet print and one scanned and inkjet printed. Since a bit of unsharp masking is practically one click away for the digital file, I believe the inkjet print will always be sharper.