the digital vs film debate

[gnuyork]

For the stitched images at Rodney's gallery, the resolution between the two systems would be similar. As to "punch"...that would be up to how the digital files were processed. You can "punch" up a digital file to such an extent that Velvia would look muted in comparison. There was probably more "punch" in the film image as the dynamic range of the digital file was in the area of 5+ stops better....in other words, far more range to work with.

If we are talking a single P65 vs 8x10....then yes, the 8x10 would slaughter it in a large print. But a 5 image stitch from a p65, in portrait, to create a panorama, assuming a 25% overlap in each image, would yield a file over 25,000 pixels wide. In other words, the 8x10 would need to have 2500ppi of real information to even begin to compete. I say begin because digital pixels are much cleaner and maintain acutance better than film.

As such, on an 80 inch print, the digital file resolution would greatly exceed 300ppi. In other words, the resolution between both systems would be similar....but the "look" between them would be different. That "look" is up to personal taste. But claiming the digital file was resolution limited compared to the film is simply wishful thinking....as both source systems exceed the resolution capabilities of the printer he uses.

Of course you can "punch" digital files beyond Velvia, but that would not look so good. For that matter you can do the same with scanned velvia files. I am sure Rodney, given his track record, made the best prints possible from the digital files, likewise with the scanned chromes. I think the chromes made the better prints.

As far as Rodney's prints, if I put my nose to the prints I could see some minor noise in the digital prints, and virtually no grain in the scanned chrome prints. It didn't really matter from a normal viewing distance.

I don't know what it was, maybe punch is not the right word, but the film images did it for me more than the digital.

This, of course is how I saw it, and my opinion. Other views may vary.

[David Luttmann]

Of course you can "punch" digital files beyond Velvia, but that would not look so good. For that matter you can do the same with scanned velvia files. I am sure Rodney, given his track record, made the best prints possible from the digital files, likewise with the scanned chromes. I think the chromes made the better prints.

As far as Rodney's prints, if I put my nose to the prints I could see some minor noise in the digital prints, and virtually no grain in the scanned chrome prints. It didn't really matter from a normal viewing distance.

I don't know what it was, maybe punch is not the right word, but the film images did it for me more than the digital.

This, of course is how I saw it, and my opinion. Other views may vary.

Understood. I like the look from some films over the equivalent shot in digital on occassion. And I agree....I doubt many can process an image better than Rodney!

[Bill Burk]

I always look at prints closely because I am a printer. I haven't personally created a BW digital print that didn't in some way disappoint me. I mean pizza wheel marks, drip and spatter, premature ozone fading, banding, color cast. I'm sure there are artists who can do better, but I found it exceedingly difficult to get a good B&W digital print.

So I made the decision to wait for digital technology to improve. Meanwhile, I am going to shoot 4x5 and print 11x14 B&W.

If digital technology helps me to this end, I will use it. For example I carry around a DSLR for exercise, to keep my eye trained. For previewing, it's a nice step up from holding a Wratten 90 filter up to my eye.

Though my prints are getting pretty good, I just noticed they are a bit fuzzy under 30x scope compared to a couple George Fiske albumen contact prints from 1884. This won't drive me to 8x10 contact prints, but now I totally get the appeal.

Bill

p.s. George's prints faded a bit over the years. I think I figured out what the dark brush marks on the mountain were - he spotted the prints and the print faded but the Spotone didn't.

[gnuyork]

I have been using my Epson 2400 with very good results in both B&W and color, but recently, my photo mentor (college professor) that I stay in touch with gave me a very large quantity of B&W paper & chemicals in sizes 8x10 all the way up to 20x24, in addition he gave me mass quantity of Ilfochrome paper and chemicals as well a nearly a lifetime supply of film 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5 in B&W and color, slide. My freezer is full! He would have given me 8x10 film if I wanted it, but I don't have a camera for it right now.

He also gave me 2 enlargers. An omega for 4x5, and a Leica Focomat II (in addition to the 2 enlargers I already have)...

So it looks like I will be busy using up that stuff. I am working on getting a space organized in my basement now.

I didn't have room for it in my vehicle, but he also has fro me a stainless steel darkroom sink and one of those Ilfochrome print processing machines the next time I visit.

I may have my own lab before long.

[Gordon Moat]

If someone feels a P65 can replace 8x10 for their work, more power to them. But the P65 does not meet my image quality criteria. I can see why it's useful and who the market is, but it's not me. I have tons of time, not much money, and I'm picky. LF film is a perfect fit for me.

It's interesting you should bring up Burtynsky... I have always felt he and a few others print 4x5 way too large. The prints don't hold up... There's a feeling of "it's LF, so it can be enlarged forever." I'm sure he has his reasons, but to me it seems like such a waste to not shoot 8x10 after going through all the trouble he goes through.

I've seen Burtynsky prints on exhibit at MOPA in San Diego, and I am not quite sure what you mean by them not "holding up". I suppose if you had the opportunity to drop a loupe onto the prints you might find them lacking, but at a normal viewing distance with normal (my vision is quite good) vision, I didn't notice anything lacking. Those were probably some of the best prints I have seen, and the only comparable prints I have seen were the C-prints of David Fokos. Who do you feel does better enlarged 4x5 prints?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[D. Bryant]

I have been using my Epson 2400 with very good results in both B&W and color, but recently, my photo mentor (college professor) that I stay in touch with gave me a very large quantity of B&W paper & chemicals in sizes 8x10 all the way up to 20x24, in addition he gave me mass quantity of Ilfochrome paper and chemicals as well a nearly a lifetime supply of film 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5 in B&W and color, slide. My freezer is full! He would have given me 8x10 film if I wanted it, but I don't have a camera for it right now.

He also gave me 2 enlargers. An omega for 4x5, and a Leica Focomat II (in addition to the 2 enlargers I already have)...

So it looks like I will be busy using up that stuff. I am working on getting a space organized in my basement now.

I didn't have room for it in my vehicle, but he also has fro me a stainless steel darkroom sink and one of those Ilfochrome print processing machines the next time I visit.

I may have my own lab before long.

I'm in the Atlanta area if he/she has any crumbs left over.

Don