Resolution loss from transparency to print

[Drew Wiley]

Corran - with digital, regardless of the quality of the scan itself, you're bottlenecked at the printing step. You either have to shoot it with a battery of tiny Krylon cans (inkjet) or with Chromira, or with
lasers like Lightjet or Lambda. All this kind of technology might be remarkable and still evolving to
some extent, but at this point in time just can't resolve things to the degree a large piece of original
film and apo enlarging lens can. I really don't care what one chooses esthetically. Each of us aspires to
master our own tools. But if you can surpass digital output with respect to the simple variable of
sharpness per se, something is seriously wrong.

[Drew Wiley]

"Can't" (stiff fingers as usual - one more reason to avoid PS in the off hours).

[Corran]

I'm certainly not going to argue that I have a completely fool-proof enlarging setup. But I find it interesting to read Paul's description of clearly a well aligned enlarger with excellent lens - an optimum system if there ever was one - and he sees exactly the same thing I do. I kept trying to chase down "issues" with my technique until I asked a veteran what he thought of my prints in terms of sharpness/detail and he said they look fine - as good as they're going to get. He's exhibited all over the country so I respect his opinion. I have pressed the point of not having a USM for the wet prints - because that very well may get things closer to equal - but with digital USM and a Lightjet print from a good printer, I've gotten sharper results, period.

I'll say it again though - I still prefer the look of a silver print.

[january112013]

It is good to see there really is room for "art" in photography beyond picture composition. The varying (and contrasting) comments show as much. Thank you all.
At the risk of saying something really dumb (or maybe really smart): A transparency (or neg) of the chart that shows line pair separation scale. Then scan the film and print versus a direct (?) RA4 print from film should show if there is a notable difference. Disregarding color. No?

[Drew Wiley]

No., There are a lot of variables, most of which the usual geek-speak suspects seem oblivious to. As
far as I'm concerned, alogorithms refer to woodpeckers attempting to mimic hip-hop. Paul's old optical
setup and workflow sounds pretty primitive to me. That's certainly no criticism of his current output or personal taste. He just prefers different tools than I do. I really don't want to get into too much of a food fight about this, since "sharpness" certainly isn't everything in this game, and I'm clearly butting
heads with people who just don't have enough background to relate. But the notion that extremely high-quality prints cannot currently be made in a traditional darkroom is utter BS.

[Corran]

Paul's old optical setup and workflow sounds pretty primitive to me.

Explain how his setup was primitive and how you could get better detail/sharpness with it please.

I'm clearly butting heads with people who just don't have enough background to relate.

I'll take Paul's experience and reputation over yours right now frankly.

But the notion that extremely high-quality prints cannot currently be made in a traditional darkroom is utter BS.

Now where did anyone say that??

[Drew Wiley]

I'm ducking out of this conversation. If you want to actually learn something fine. Otherwise, don't waste my time. The proof is in the pudding.

[Corran]

The proof is in the pudding.

Now that's something we can agree upon.

I'm listening to what you are saying, I just don't agree, and you've shown no compelling evidence except "I've done this and that so I know better than you."
I'm sorry but that's just not good enough.

The holier-than-thou attitude exhibited by some members of this "community" is just sad.

[Jac@stafford.net]

A strictly academic question.

Presuming a film that can resolve better than 80 lp/mm, then a taking lens of 60 lp/mm and an enlarging lens of 60 lp/mm, what is the resolution at the print surface?

If I can see sharp grain through the focus scope, I'm happy. Just being curious here.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, that would appear to be a direct question. But it depends on the specific medium. A very smooth
polyester-based medium like film itself or Fuji Supergloss print material (or formerly, Ciba) will accept more detail than conventional fiber-based or RC papers. This is true evern laser-printing. Quite a bit
still has to transact beween that aerial view under the focus magnifier and the medium itself.