PDA

View Full Version : Analysis of the 8x10 / IQ180 comparison



timparkin
5-Oct-2011, 15:27
Hi,

I've posted an article about this on the landscape photography website I run. I've made the article freely accessible so hopefully it won't cause any issues with me linking to it here.

http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/10/the-perils-of-testing/

Regards

Tim Parkin

jb7
5-Oct-2011, 16:05
It reads like an episode of CSI, the part where they explain the evidence, before making an arrest-

Thanks for corroborating my hunch about the shortcomings of the original test (smiley)-
I'm glad Marcus is still involved, and if the next test is as thorough as your forensic dissection of the first one, then we have something to look forward to.

Thanks also for maintaining a balanced view, throughout the whole episode-

j

EOTS
6-Oct-2011, 01:13
Well done, Tim!
Looking forward to the retesting!

Tobias Key
6-Oct-2011, 04:52
Tim

That's really interesting. I was wondering after the test is done would it be possible to show a breakdown of costs for 5x4 and 10x8 vs. MFDB. I think that's one of the areas that's studiously avoided by Lula and the like but I think it would be very useful to know at what volume of shots an IQ180 becomes cheaper than shooting LF. I think one of real advantages of LF film is in its price/performance ratio at low shooting volumes. Of course Kodak would be doing this if they had any brains...

polyglot
6-Oct-2011, 06:39
I remember the huge thread we already had on this and I think this newly published analysis confirms my earlier suspicion that it doesn't matter which medium you choose, because both of them will be limited by either DOF or diffraction depending on the aperture you choose. For a given perspective and with practical DOF, there can be no benefit to either in terms of resolution because both systems extract all of the possible information available in the light coming through that hole in front.

So, you can lug around a massive 8x10 (and get movements), or you can pay out the nose for the MFDB (and get a nice workflow) - choose your poison. Just to confound the issue**, my conjecture is that with modern optics and high resolution films, I suspect that you should be able to get the same results from a MF (view) camera. In other words, you can use a much cheaper/smaller system than either of the presented options and STILL be limited by DOF and/or diffraction for practical purposes - the IQ180 results show that 645 optics are good enough and we know that good films support at least 5um resolution, which is about all you need.

Therefore the only resolution advantage I see in going to huge formats is photographing very flat things, which IMHO is a very niche or uninteresting pursuit.

** no, I'm not just saying that to bait the LF forum ;)

Robert Hughes
6-Oct-2011, 09:18
How many threads does it take to discuss one topic?

Mark Stahlke
6-Oct-2011, 09:32
How many threads does it take to discuss one topic?
Yeah. Where's that dead horse video clip when you need it?

Daniel Stone
6-Oct-2011, 09:39
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll198/cropdustersteve/dead_horse.gif

E. von Hoegh
6-Oct-2011, 09:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y9QbntoyCA&feature=related

Mark Stahlke
6-Oct-2011, 09:40
Thank you!
:D :D :D :D

E. von Hoegh
6-Oct-2011, 09:42
Thank who?

Mark Stahlke
6-Oct-2011, 10:01
Thank who?
Both Daniel Stone and you.

E. von Hoegh
6-Oct-2011, 10:04
You're welcome. His is on utoob, too, right above where I got mine. :)

Daniel Stone
6-Oct-2011, 10:05
welcome :). I found mine on photobucket, I saved it for future reference too ;).

-Dan

PaulSchneider
6-Oct-2011, 10:08
I find Tim's effort important, interesting and would like to remind anyone that there's no duty to ready threads that do not interest you. Thanks Tim!

E. von Hoegh
6-Oct-2011, 10:09
welcome :). I found mine on photobucket, I saved it for future reference too ;).

-Dan

The ewetoob version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITG5JeSwzt4&feature=related

There are so many dead horses here we should be prepared.....;)

E. von Hoegh
6-Oct-2011, 10:13
I find Tim's effort important, interesting and would like to remind anyone that there's no duty to ready threads that do not interest you. Thanks Tim!

I agree that his effort is important, and I appreciate the time and work he has invested.

My quibble is with the endless tetrapyloctomy and resultant posts that surround the issue. I'm actually interested in where digital tech. is going.

John NYC
6-Oct-2011, 10:13
If no one had replied again with discussion, it would have been an informative one post thread for Tim to show us his article.

You guys don't have to read this forum or any of the threads that don't interest you. You certainly are not required to comment on a thread that doesn't interest you. The very fact that you insist on being argumentative about something that doesn't interest you says worlds about what actually goes wrong with threads in general on this forum.

Daniel Stone
6-Oct-2011, 10:22
just an FYI, I didn't post the picture to post my disagreement with this thread(or the topic in general, yes, I'm interested too), but do we REALLY need 4-5 threads of the same thing going simultaneously?

-Dan

John NYC
6-Oct-2011, 10:39
just an FYI, I didn't post the picture to post my disagreement with this thread(or the topic in general, yes, I'm interested too), but do we REALLY need 4-5 threads of the same thing going simultaneously?

-Dan

If Tim had not started a thread to post his article, I would have never seen it most likely. So, yes.

What was not needed is the 15 posts that followed that all amount to "I don't care", and also then including this one that is simply a plea to stop doing that.

rdenney
6-Oct-2011, 10:50
tetrapyloctomy

Wow! A word that demonstrates its own definition!

Rick "nothing to see here...move along..." Denney

Brian C. Miller
6-Oct-2011, 11:15
Hi,

I've posted an article about this on the landscape photography website I run. I've made the article freely accessible so hopefully it won't cause any issues with me linking to it here.

Tim, thanks ever so much for posting that article! Once I realized that there was a slider window (I browse with Firefox, with Javascript turned off), I found the comparison to be absolutely excellent. It would be nice to know where in the image you found the crops you used. I can't find them! It's like "Where's Waldo?" but I'm looking for a screw head.

I look forward to further results.

QT Luong
6-Oct-2011, 12:16
This is an excellent analysis, done with the correct math. Frankly, I just do not understand the "horse beaten to death" reactions. If you read the article, you will see that its rigor and insight goes much beyond the mostly speculative arguments that were thrown around in previous thread. If you don't read the article, please refrain from commenting !

I also think it is better to have multiple threads, so that each OP contribution can be discussed independently. You see, PaulSchneider lumped together two tests and people already got confused.

TheDeardorffGuy
8-Oct-2011, 17:34
One of my favorite phrases is "Ahh Bach". This is an Ahh Bach moment in digi v Film. Now when will it have to be repeated digi v digi? A year? sooner? I think the constant here will be film.

gth
8-Oct-2011, 18:03
Thanks Tim! Now I really HAVE to subscribe - been sitting on the fence too long.

Good work!

/gth

timparkin
9-Oct-2011, 03:13
Tim, thanks ever so much for posting that article! Once I realized that there was a slider window (I browse with Firefox, with Javascript turned off), I found the comparison to be absolutely excellent. It would be nice to know where in the image you found the crops you used. I can't find them! It's like "Where's Waldo?" but I'm looking for a screw head.

I look forward to further results.

Hi Brian.. here is the 'Blade Runner' version :-)

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/area.jpg

toyotadesigner
9-Oct-2011, 11:49
Now what?

Does it change the world?

No. Even if you would open yet another thread I don't get the point.

All I understand is that you try to clean your ear by reaching through the right leg of your pants to insert the Q-Tip into your left ear **if** you will ever happen to reach the ear.

Have you ever heard from Mr. Bean? This is the stuff for one of his slapstick movies.

timparkin
9-Oct-2011, 12:03
Now what?

Does it change the world?

No. Even if you would open yet another thread I don't get the point.

All I understand is that you try to clean your ear by reaching through the right leg of your pants to insert the Q-Tip into your left ear **if** you will ever happen to reach the ear.

Have you ever heard from Mr. Bean? This is the stuff for one of his slapstick movies.

wow... knoblet!

jb7
9-Oct-2011, 13:58
Now what?

Does it change the world?

No. Even if you would open yet another thread I don't get the point.

All I understand is that you try to clean your ear by reaching through the right leg of your pants to insert the Q-Tip into your left ear **if** you will ever happen to reach the ear.

Have you ever heard from Mr. Bean? This is the stuff for one of his slapstick movies.


Is this meant to be an attempt at humour? If it is, it's laughable...

Toyotadesigner, you wouldn't let a car be sold that hadn't been through a series of well designed tests, would you?
Otherwise, that Q tip, inserted through the right leg of your pants, (weird) might very well find its way into your left ear. Perhaps you come from a culture where the Test Department is derided as being run by Mr Bean...

Just what is the problem with writing more than a paragraph on this subject, other than the fact that some like to boast about their limited attention span? What is the problem with starting a new thread about a new testing procedure, when it has been admitted that the first comparison was deeply flawed? The initial comparison was between the resolution of the two systems, and downplayed more obvious differences- workflow, comparative cost, dynamic range- and these tests aim to rectify that. I wonder if LuLa will replace the original test with the new improved one, or if they, too, are prepared to put up with the 'good enough' version they still host on their site?

If people have had enough of this subject, they should read the title, then move on without opening the thread. It's not like the internet is a finite resource. Or that anyone is forcing them to learn something.

The intellectual rigour that Tim has brought to the design of this test should be applauded, especially by anyone with an interest in design- unless, of course, you want to design a Trabant, and all the intelligentsia have been sent to the Gulag-

Brian K
9-Oct-2011, 15:05
The 8x10 images, the ones with the screw head have vastly better resolution and while there's grain it looks like even more detail could be rendered. The IQ180 version has lost all detail and has become blobby. In addition it creates moire patterns in the vertical grill. And even if the IQ180 wa shot at f 6.5 in stead of f11 it would not be able to overcome the complete lack of ay detail in a blob, nor would it fix the moire pattern.

I would think this should put the matter to rest.

rdenney
10-Oct-2011, 20:39
Just what is the problem with writing more than a paragraph on this subject?

There have been many, many digital-vs.-film comparisons of the "one-paragraph" variety. I've done some myself. I find it ironic that those who complain of the detail required in a really careful test are often (not always) the same ones who react negatively to any comparison of the one-paragraph variety.

Quite simply, one paragraph is not enough to either slay or spare whatever sacred cow most experienced readers happen to worship. If it were, we'd have no sacred cows left, yet the worshiping seems to continue.

Rick "not sure, however, that it is necessary to choose apertures that deliver the same depth of field, unless out-of-focus details are the basis for the comparison" Denney

timparkin
11-Oct-2011, 01:07
There have been many, many digital-vs.-film comparisons of the "one-paragraph" variety. I've done some myself. I find it ironic that those who complain of the detail required in a really careful test are often (not always) the same ones who react negatively to any comparison of the one-paragraph variety.

Quite simply, one paragraph is not enough to either slay or spare whatever sacred cow most experienced readers happen to worship. If it were, we'd have no sacred cows left, yet the worshiping seems to continue.

Rick "not sure, however, that it is necessary to choose apertures that deliver the same depth of field, unless out-of-focus details are the basis for the comparison" Denney

I think he was asking "what is the problem of writing *more than one paragraph* on the subject".

And as for the 'not necessary to choose the same aperture', why would you want to choose different apertures when recording the same photograph? If you are comparing equivalents, isn't the aperture part of that equivalent? Unless you are doing copy work then the resolution of defocussed areas is a major part of the character of a picture?

Tim

rdenney
11-Oct-2011, 10:13
And as for the 'not necessary to choose the same aperture', why would you want to choose different apertures when recording the same photograph? If you are comparing equivalents, isn't the aperture part of that equivalent? Unless you are doing copy work then the resolution of defocussed areas is a major part of the character of a picture?

Most of us work in multiple formats, and just work around (or with) the difference in depth of field. Trying to force 8x10 to have the same depth of field as 645 might not be that relevant in application, because photographers will use other means to get the sharpness they need (such as tilt or swing), or compose differently to work with those differences. If the equivalency falls within the apertures that people normally use, then fine. (And it might--my quick check of DOFMaster indicated that f/11 and f/45 would provide similar depth of field between 645 and 8x10.) I would evaluate fine detail and resolution in the focus plane and do so accurately--that was a major issue with the LuLa test, as you discovered.

Also, the added depth of field (for smaller prints) provided by smaller formats is one of the advantages of using a smaller format. I'm not sure we need to provide that, though.

In terms of the character of defocussed images, it seems to me that lens design will play a major role--maybe enough to overwhelm other differences.

Rick "who would not use an extraordinary aperture setting just to match DOF with a different format" Denney

timparkin
11-Oct-2011, 10:33
Most of us work in multiple formats, and just work around (or with) the difference in depth of field. Trying to force 8x10 to have the same depth of field as 645 might not be that relevant in application, because photographers will use other means to get the sharpness they need (such as tilt or swing), or compose differently to work with those differences. If the equivalency falls within the apertures that people normally use, then fine. (And it might--my quick check of DOFMaster indicated that f/11 and f/45 would provide similar depth of field between 645 and 8x10.) I would evaluate fine detail and resolution in the focus plane and do so accurately--that was a major issue with the LuLa test, as you discovered.

Well you may work like that but a lot of people work differently. The f/11 and f/45 are both well into diffraction and hence you are limiting the capabilities of both systems. Many people shoot medium format 645 at f/ 11/16 which is the equivalent of f/64, a commonly used aperture for 8x10 users from my understanding.

The IQ180 has a critical aperture of f/5.6 for which the equivalent is f/22 2/3

Typical working aperture for a 645 may be f/8 which would be the equivalent of 32 1/3 which seems typical for both systems (this works out as f/22 1/3 - again not uncommon for 4x5)

Surprisingly, the most common apertures for 645 are similar to 4x5 and 8x10 (when made equivalent). The factor from IQ180 to 10x8 is 4.85. (2.42 for 4x5).

The test is about people who may wish to use IQ180 instead of 8x10 and hence the equivalents are even more important than usual (whether they end up using an ALPA or a Linhof Techno).





Also, the added depth of field (for smaller prints) provided by smaller formats is one of the advantages of using a smaller format. I'm not sure we need to provide that, though.

This is a complete fallacy - larger formats have just as much depth of field as smaller formats, diffraction merely reduces the available resolution from larger formats but they never get worse than the equivalent smaller format.




In terms of the character of defocussed images, it seems to me that lens design will play a major role--maybe enough to overwhelm other differences.


Absolutely - how was this bit relevant?

Rick "who would not use an extraordinary aperture setting just to match DOF with a different format" Denney[/QUOTE]

If you do the math, extraordinary apertures are similar for 645 and 10x8. Once you get to f/22 on medium format (which is losing a lot of resolution) the equivalent is f/64 2/3

Robert Hughes
11-Oct-2011, 12:54
Well, we're glad you like LF and the IQ180 Tim, but going up against rdenney and other long time photographers is not helping your case.

timparkin
11-Oct-2011, 13:03
Well, we're glad you like LF and the IQ180 Tim, but going up against rdenney and other long time photographers is not helping your case.

Forgive me if it sounded like I was going 'up against' anybody. I was merely trying to get to the bottom of

Rick "not sure, however, that it is necessary to choose apertures that deliver the same depth of field, unless out-of-focus details are the basis for the comparison" Denney

i.e. what is the alternative and why is it a problem to choose equivalent apertures.

How will people respond if I choose different equivalent apertures is also an issue. And which different apertures to use.

Brian C. Miller
11-Oct-2011, 13:23
Well, we're glad you like LF and the IQ180 Tim, but going up against rdenney and other long time photographers is not helping your case.

Tim is doing the testing. If you think you can do a better test, find someone with an 80Mp back and go for it! Offer them coffee and lunch and see what happens. That goes for the rest of you. No armchair analysis, go out and do it! There's someone with an 8x10 in every state, maybe more than one. Finding somebody with an 80Mp back may be harder.

At worst, what could happen? "My Schneidestock Unobtainagon got crushed when my film holder slipped!" or "I backed over my new 80Mp camera with my new Porsche SUV!" But best case, you'll wind up with some film to put under a microscope, and something to muck with in Photoshop.

E. von Hoegh
11-Oct-2011, 13:36
Using the so-called equivalent aperture of f64 (on 8x10) introduces much more diffraction, limiting the available resolution.

Are you guys talking about depth of field, or depth of focus?


I remember reading an artcle in Shutterbug, back in the late 80s. "Anything 4x5 can do, 35mm can do, easier and better" by Otha C. Spencer. Arrant nonsense, of course, but it reminds me of the IQ180 and 8x10 comparison, in that the author sought to prove something by comparing things that really are not comparable.

goamules
13-Oct-2011, 09:41
These scientific or quasi-scientific film vs digital tests are interesting to me. And since the technology of at least one media is evolving, how could anyone suggest further testing is beating a dead horse. To me it's like those people want to put their fingers in their ears and start singing "la..la..la...I can't hear you...la...la".

These tests are important because they attempt to answer the *age-old question, "which is better." I went to a Fall art show last weekend. There were several booths of over saturated, heavy photoshopped giant color landscape prints. All the "artists" shot digital. Buyers were lining up. I had a film camera with me, and the age old question came up several times. What do you answer? Inquiring minds want to know.


*an age in today's tech world is approximately 1 year.

John NYC
13-Oct-2011, 09:50
These tests are important because they attempt to answer the *age-old question, "which is better." I went to a Fall art show last weekend. There were several booths of over saturated, heavy photoshopped giant color landscape prints. All the "artists" shot digital. Buyers were lining up. I had a film camera with me, and the age old question came up several times. What do you answer? Inquiring minds want to know.


*an age in today's tech world is approximately 1 year.

You can photoshop the wazoo out of scanned film as well. The answer to the particular age old question you are asking here is "there is no accounting for [Ed.: lack of] taste."

Scott Davis
13-Oct-2011, 10:01
The answer is "whichever is the right tool for the task". If the task is to produce giant, oversaturated Photoshopped landscapes, then the umpty-gigapixel digital camera is the right tool. If the task is an 8x10 contact print, then an 8x10 camera is the tool. If the task is to produce a quantity of images within time and budget constraints, a DSLR is the tool. If the task is an image that is hand-printed and possibly unique, a film camera is the tool. Why people get their panties in such a bunch over which tool is "better" still boggles the mind - as a tool user, why would I want a hammer if I need a screwdriver? As an artist, why would I care if someone else paints in oils if my desired goal is a watercolor?

I find the testing interesting if only as a demonstration of the evolution of digital imaging technology, but it still appears as if 8x10 film is the benchmark against which digital is comparing itself. I'd like to see the tests done with the lenses set to the lens' optimum aperture as a control, and the resolution/sharpness tests conducted on an image area at the point of focus for both, instead of something somewhat peripheral that may fall farther outside the point of sharpest focus with one camera system than the other. Put a block of text in the image center, or a brick wall or something similar.

toyotadesigner
13-Oct-2011, 10:35
Stop your tests, please. Use whatever you want to use, but make some meaningful photographs instead of needless comparisons.

Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time:

http://www.amazon.de/Photographien-Katalog-Stiftung-Kultur-Köln/dp/382960565X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318527466&sr=1-1

timparkin
13-Oct-2011, 10:45
The answer is "whichever is the right tool for the task". If the task is to produce giant, oversaturated Photoshopped landscapes, then the umpty-gigapixel digital camera is the right tool. If the task is an 8x10 contact print, then an 8x10 camera is the tool. If the task is to produce a quantity of images within time and budget constraints, a DSLR is the tool. If the task is an image that is hand-printed and possibly unique, a film camera is the tool. Why people get their panties in such a bunch over which tool is "better" still boggles the mind - as a tool user, why would I want a hammer if I need a screwdriver? As an artist, why would I care if someone else paints in oils if my desired goal is a watercolor?

I find the testing interesting if only as a demonstration of the evolution of digital imaging technology, but it still appears as if 8x10 film is the benchmark against which digital is comparing itself. I'd like to see the tests done with the lenses set to the lens' optimum aperture as a control, and the resolution/sharpness tests conducted on an image area at the point of focus for both, instead of something somewhat peripheral that may fall farther outside the point of sharpest focus with one camera system than the other. Put a block of text in the image center, or a brick wall or something similar.

The 'test' is not particularly to find out which camera is better - it's to find out which camera you prefer (for whatever value of you) if you can't get your hands on the cameras to make the tests yourself.

We were donated a license for imatest for a very reasonable fee and will also be included transparencies on a lightbox, receding text in various colours, textiles plus a few other things.

If you have any ideas, please let us know.

We will also be shooting a scenic on various cameras and films. (plus DSLR's etc - might even throw in an iphone!)

Ken Lee
13-Oct-2011, 11:13
Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time...

Could you share a brief summary of the book ? Everyone likes to learn from the masters :)

timparkin
13-Oct-2011, 11:16
Stop your tests, please. Use whatever you want to use, but make some meaningful photographs instead of needless comparisons.

Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time:

http://www.amazon.de/Photographien-Katalog-Stiftung-Kultur-Köln/dp/382960565X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318527466&sr=1-1

I'm not a fan of straw man or ad hominem arguments but these comments come from someone who reviews cable releases on their website and has four articles on the 'resolution of film'.

I manage to make meaningful (to me) photographs *and* run tests. It's the combination of art and craft that make photography interesting to me - you can have either of them on their own but most of the best photographers have struck a balance between the two.

and... if you aren't interested - why are you still here?

Tim

Thom Bennett
13-Oct-2011, 11:51
Tim, good luck with your testing; looking forward to seeing the results. Glad to see you aren't letting the naysayers nay you into an early grave. :)

We recently were able to test a LEAF IQ180 back and compare it to our LEAF Aptus 65 and Valeo 17. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, we were unable to shoot an 8x10 transparency for comparisons sake. However, in comparing our 5 year old Aptus to the new IQ180 I have to say that I am surprised at how well the Aptus and even the Valeo held up. You really start to see the benefits of the IQ deep in the shadow areas and very subtly in the highlight transitions but, for our purposes, which is catalog reproduction, the cost does not outweigh the benefits. We plan to run our digital backs into the ground and then upgrade.

Sorry if I missed this in this thread but when do you think the results will be posted?

regorrengaw
13-Oct-2011, 14:51
Stop your tests, please. Use whatever you want to use, but make some meaningful photographs instead of needless comparisons.

Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time:

http://www.amazon.de/Photographien-Katalog-Stiftung-Kultur-Köln/dp/382960565X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318527466&sr=1-1

Absolutely, seems they have lots of Time to loose!
Best.

r.r

rdenney
14-Oct-2011, 11:23
It's the combination of art and craft that make photography interesting to me - you can have either of them on their own but most of the best photographers have struck a balance between the two.

I've recounted this before. I once asked the symphony tuba player with whom I was studying which was more important: Musicality or technique? (In musical terms, this is exactly "art or craft?") His answer: "Yes."

Rick "accurate resolution of fine detail is still the primary reason to use a larger format" Denney

Lenny Eiger
14-Oct-2011, 12:38
Rick "accurate resolution of fine detail is still the primary reason to use a larger format" Denney

That may be true for you. However, for me the real reason is the extra textural representation, the smoothness of tones, etc. As Sandy has often pointed out, the Mamiya 7 lenses are unbelievably sharp. They are sharper than my Sironar S, or at least as sharp. The extra size of the film gives me more tones, however. This is almost never discussed in these comparisons....

Lenny

rdenney
14-Oct-2011, 13:15
That may be true for you. However, for me the real reason is the extra textural representation, the smoothness of tones, etc. As Sandy has often pointed out, the Mamiya 7 lenses are unbelievably sharp. They are sharper than my Sironar S, or at least as sharp. The extra size of the film gives me more tones, however. This is almost never discussed in these comparisons....

No argument. But most people use large format to get a sense of endless detail even in a large print. Note that preservation of smooth tonal transitions is part of what makes that detail believably endless, which is why I said "accurate resolution of fine detail". Sometimes fine detail looks brittle and unnatural when made with a digital sensor and enlarged too much, even if it seems sharp.

But this has always been true. The duotone lithograph of Adams's Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain that is in my copy of Yosemite and the Range of Light is about the same size as my Special Edition print of the same image. The reproduction in the book looks sharper than the print. This confused me at first, so I studied them with a loupe. The lithographic screen on the reproduction actually produced false edges in the smooth transitions, particularly in the highlights, and that made it look sharper. But when you get close enough, the screen pattern causes the sense of endless detail to, well, end. We can, of course, do much better than those lithographic duotones, even with an inkjet printer. But it illustrates the principle important to both of us, that endless fine detail is both a matter of resolution and a matter of extra textural representation and tonal smoothness.

Rick "agreeing" Denney