I'm affraid it won't be long

[patrickjames]

If the OP thinks a Canon T1i is better than a 4x5 he is doing something completely wrong with the 4x5 or smoking something wacky....

Gotta love the internet!

Any bozo can make a claim that results in a bunch of arguments.

I don't think there is a method yet of extracting all of the information from film. When a comparison is made between a digital file and an electron microscope image of a negative and the digital file is better, I will believe it. The post above with the regular microscope image tends to support my contention. The limitation is not with the film but by the means of reproduction.

Until then, people believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence, or put another way, with the poor evidence they have in front of them. If it is easier for you to shoot digitally, then by all means go for it. Just don't make a blanket statement that it is better because it is easier for you. I make digital images too. It has it's place.

[Greg Miller]

Of course looking at an inkjet print with a magnifying glass shows dots. Like, duh. Right in front of me I have some contact sheets on glossy RC paper, and you know what? No dots, not with a 22x loupe. Of course, nobody brings a 22x loupe when they go looking at prints. But one is silver on paper, and the other is ink on paper. And yes, a magnifying glass does tell the difference, and does it quite easily.

What inkjet prints are you looking at? What printer? What paper? When I look at inkjet prints with a quality loupe, I don't see dots.

[SergeiR]

What inkjet prints are you looking at? What printer? What paper? When I look at inkjet prints with a quality loupe, I don't see dots.

and ink..

[Brian C. Miller]

Greg, Ctien used (and still uses) an Epson 3880. I use an Epson 2200. I can see dots on both, with the 3880 being finer. I don't remember right off hand what Ctien used for his paper, but I think it might be mentioned somewhere on TOP. IIRC, I used Epson Premium Luster. The loupe I use is a Peak 22x. (And Epson ink!)

TOP: Epson Printers Investigated (Product Variability Part II)

When I looked more closely at the new prints, they looked "grainier." The old printer produced invisibly-fine droplet patterns; I could just see the individual ink droplets in the new prints. Not so "hurray."

There is product variability which must be factored into what you have. For instance, the above blog post recounts Ctien's disappointment with his replacement 3880 printer. While the printer met factory specifications and manufacturing tolerances, it wasn't as good as the printer it replaced. Take a look at the images and his comments. I found it quite interesting.

I have seen the same thing with Epson scanners. My 750 produces really good results. Other people have not had good results with their 750, and there's a thread here about that, with images. If my 750 produced scans with "jiggles" like theirs, I'd have sent the scanner back under warranty.

[SergeiR]

Not too long ago, Ctien offered a print for $19.95, from his Pen digital camera. I bought the print, 17x22.

"Well, recently I made a photograph using my Olympus Pen E-P1 and the Zuiko 45mm ƒ/1.8 lens that I think exemplifies the very best that a Micro 4/3, 12-megapixel camera can do. It's not a hero experiment; I can go out any day and make photographs of this technical quality. I just can't see any possible way to make a much better one."

In subsequent postings he described the post processing he used to produce the print on his Epson 3880. No, the print wasn't just a raw dump from the camera. He's done a very good job with it. I can see every rivet on the bridge. I wouldn't call the sky perfectly noiseless, but it is very, very good.

Well.. I exhibited and sold quite a number of images shot in Rockies with E-510 / E-1 on 6-10mp. Printed as 30x40 (cm) and larger. No one complained ever about noise and details. Last September i went over my favourite spots and shot images with dMF (22mp) , and 8x10... I goofed up many things, didnt get colours right in slide film & etc.. But quite honestly, scanned at usual 2400dpi vs digital vs my old digital from 2006.. Pixel sharpness is by dMF, no doubt. Everything else.. 8x10 is just entirely different - tonality, everything.... Even with all the stupid mistakes i did (i am SO going back, armed with more knowledge and more time).

[Bernice Loui]

Been watching this most recent war on LFF over the past few days and it has been a rather interesting study in how blind to the bigger picture some can be.

The debate over sharpness, resolution with digital -vs- film is very much like the horsepower wars in the automotive world. This single factor alone is and never will be the determining factor in the overall performance of the technology involved. Yet, the heated, emotional debate generated is pretty amazing.

Why not simply accept the fact that digital imaging and film are completely different technologies, both have their specific merits and serious problems. Use each technology based on the image goals required. All this bickering and fighting is extremely counter-productive and amounts to much of nothing other than hurt feelings and swelling of more anger/hate and divisiveness which does NOTHING other than to fuel the fire of LFF's destruction.


Bernice

[Nathan Potter]

Well, I don't know. For comparison, here's a good quality example from a d800. Notice the total lack of visible noise, and detail all the way down to the pixel level. Most scans need to be downresed to 25% or less before you see this kind of pixel-level image quality. This was posted by a European photographer; he's also made some raw files available for people to play with. Even just in the jpeg, you can boost the shadows until they're full of useable detail before any noise becomes objectionable.

Paul, I've seen this image somewhere previously. It's fairly remarkable even for a D800. It's presented at 50X (75 inch wide) magnification and printing a small section at center shows a section of rope at a nominal 0.5 mm (500µm) linewidth. That's equivalent to a 10µm linewidth (nominally 50 lp/mm)referenced to the sensor surface. Not unusual for a quality lens but the quality of the demosaicing is pretty remarkable plus the fact that we're examining a composite of lens + sensor where 1/composite = 1/lens + 1/sensor, and means the lens really must be more in the 80 lp/mm category. I wouldn't want to print at 50 X 75 but might consider a 24 X 36 inch print.

Wish I had such a lens. The top Nikon lenses can achieve about 80 lp/mm (4000 LW/PH) at 50% contrast (see Photozone tests). I think this example represents about the best quality currently achievable from a full frame DSLR. I can squeeze this quality out of one of my old 75 to 150 Nikon zooms but only centrally and at about 100mm FL. and at a lower contrast.

Unit area for unit area my 4X5 with an 110 Schneider SSXL delivers about the same quality under ideal conditions but the 4X5 is nominally 13X the area so that is a clear advantage if I make use of the full area at equally high resolution - and that is more difficult to do with the 4X5.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Drew Wiley]

Per that Tim Parkin thing - you can prove anything with that kind of sloppy handicapping. Maybe both sides of the test were
half-assed. I don't have time right now to point out all the nonsense. He's got an 8x10 propped up on a twerpy little ballhead
that can't control shutter vibrations worth a damn. The film was probably sagging in the holder. Poor technique from the word
go.... And then you guys go quoting some photo guru or another ... and some of these guys I not only know and have had
in-depth discussions with in person, but have a very good idea of what their own work looks like in person (not over the web). Then there are people with more of a big-budget commercial commitment to the latest digital setups (way beyond what
probably anyone participating in this forum can afford), and I hear the pros and cons.... and I can make a sharper print in the
darkroom then they can with all that stuff. ... So no, I am not really impressed when someone shows up at the track with
an 800 HP dragster with four flat tires and an empty gas tank and tells me how a Vespa scooter is faster...

[Brian C. Miller]

Bernice, I don't see the digital vs chemical discussion as being destructive. For me, it is very instructive.

When Ctien offered his 17x22 print for sale, I jumped on it because I want to see how good 12Mp can look at that size. Now, I know that a 13x19 print from my Epson 2200 doesn't show all of the detail that is contained in a 6400spi-settting scan from my 750. The file is something like 120Mpixels of information. I wanted to see what 1/10th the information looks like. And yes, it looks very good!

The problem with these new technologies is that yes, they are new, and that product performance from the manufacturer is variable. Thus, I get good results from my 750 scanner, and other members don't get good results. So when Kirk says he scans at 2000spi or so, I'm guessing it's because his scanner gives him those jaggy lines. But all of us make the same mistake that the machines we use are as good as a high quality lens. One person can have great results, one person can have mediocre results, another can have horrid results, and all of it is with new equipment from the same manufacturers.

Another question is what is good enough. A post in the Lounge brought to light here a planing competition in Japan. Yes, a competition to shave wood. Now, some of us build a garden gate, and some of us build a fine cabinet. The garden gate carpenters say that a tolerance of 1/4-inch is good enough. The fine cabinet builders go nuts, and exclaim that a tolerance of less than 20mils is a bare minimum requirement, and actually represents a lot of slop that wouldn't pass muster with their products.

So when ignatiusjk says that his 15Mp camera is just fine at 16x20, I look at what Ctien delivered, and I'm sure he's right. Ctien used a camera with lower resolution to produce a lovely print of a larger size. It depends on what is photographed, how it is photographed, the post-processing used, and the size of the final print.

[Drew Wiley]

Also depends on the subject matter. Lots of the time in the field we are dealing with haze, changes in film plane which cannot be totally accommodated per depth of field even with movements etc - fun as a daily challenge, but technically impossible to iron out completely.... But again, detail is just one factor. Then you've got someone like Don Worth who set
up what were virtually shadow boxes on a wall - very flat subjects with tremendous detail - shot them in studio and printed
them on Cibachrome. The detail would absolutely blow away anything printed digital today. ... but esthetically, I was one of
numerous persons who asked, why not just display the shadow box itself ...the flowers would have faded when present, but
I'm just not enamoured about art copying art, or about avoiding the challenge of depth with essential two-dimensional subject matter to begin with. But anyone you who have seen those prints understand my point.... no inkjet is even in the
ballpark (again, referring to color prints). Yesterday I framed an 18X22 CAII print which, due to some atmosphere, really didn't look any sharper than an inkjet would, even though it was from an 8x10 original (highly cropped). But if it had been
enlarged to something like 3 x 5 feet, there would be certain unclouded parts of the image where you would detect the extreme detail, and the tonality or "look" would be a lot more seamless than any inkjet. But the image itself is a bit too
classically picture-booky for my personal taste, so doubt I'll ever bother printing it big.