I'm affraid it won't be long

[Corran]

I would like to see two drum scans from a 35mm slide, one at 4000, and one at 8000 DPI, side-by-side, and one set being the 4000 DPI scan uprezzed to match the 8000 and another set being the 8000 scan downrezzed to 4000 DPI. I'd bet money they would look mostly identical in resolution (probably slightly different grain).

Sure, you can keep upping the scanning resolution infinitely, but that doesn't mean there is any real gain in resolution. What I see is, as you alluded to, dye clumps, at which point there isn't really any point to that size enlargement / scan resolution. It is in effect, at least to me, like upscaling a digital file.

[Eric Rose]

Wow if you guys were fish in a pond the first fisherman to come along would clean you all out. Hey the guy is going to Yosemite! Woohoo, wish I could go.

[John NYC]

Tim Parkin's Big Camera Comparison demonstrates quite a difference between 4x5 and the IQ180 in this comment.

And of course after the question of resolution is dynamic range.

I think Tim's test was great for potential resolution on big prints. I would like to see the same tests done for prints at 16x20.

[Drew Wiley]

All it takes is a glance at his setup to make it apparent it was a hokey non-objective test, that essentially tells one nothing
except that doofey technique is capable of less than ideal results.

[Drew Wiley]

Woohoo. Yeah, sure. I grew up just down the road from Yosemite. We referred to it as the "city", i.e., crowded, a place to be
avoided. I walked to a different valley in the Sierra this summer even more spectacular. People there (other than me and my two companions): ZERO. That was the terminus of the horse trail. After that, things just got better and better. There are a lot nicer ponds to fish in than Yosemite Valley per se. So to repeat my routine advice of where to go: study all the picture books, websites, postcards, etc. - then go the opposite direction! Even within the boundaries of Yos Natl Park itself there are spectacular areas you might walk for days without seeing another person. Everybody heads to the Valley or Tuolumne Mdw area. The Valley can be nice off-season, when it's actually prettier.

[andrew gardiner]

I find it sad another one gone.
However I find you gave one of the good reasons to stay with LF..
Then again everyone should feel free to go where they want. Recently reading about Ralph Lambrecht going over to digital. It is a pity.

I spent ten years trying to make digital work for me, buying better and more expensive cameras, sitting in front of screens with the best technicians endlessly manipulating photographs that to me always seemed wanting, printing Lambda. Finally I went back to film, bought a Mamyia 7 and all my issues just seemed to resolve. Now I'm out there with a 4x5 and i'm not looking back.
I don't need to look at other peoples comparisons, I don't care how 'scientific' they are. I know the differences from my own experience ( of which in my opinion resolution and sharpness are certainly not the most important). So take heart, the traffic doesn't just go in one direction.

[ignatiusjk]

Yes. I use a Canon Eos T1i digital and a Wista field 4x5 with several different lens.Schneider,Nikon,Fuji. And yes the resolution and sharpness is just as good sometimes better than my 4x5.My 4x5 shows some grain in the sky where my digital is clean. I've taken the same shot with my digital and my 4x5 and there really is no difference.

[John NYC]

All it takes is a glance at his setup to make it apparent it was a hokey non-objective test, that essentially tells one nothing
except that doofey technique is capable of less than ideal results.

Can you be a little more specific, Drew? What is doofey technique?

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes. I use a Canon Eos T1i digital ...

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.

Personal analysis and choice:
When I decided that 16x20 was the size that 4x5 just got started going, that was based on looking at the print with a magnifying glass. 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.

[Corran]

And how about a Lightjet print from a digital file?
Equating digital output automatically as an ink print is folly.