I am deeply envious of people who are part of a community of photographers who can actually get together over an evening and look at prints of each others' work. I have to think the conversations would be very different than the ones that happen on photography forums. There would certainly be a lot more "show" and a lot less "tell".
Like!
Originally Posted by sperdynamite
Tin Can
not saying that your prints are not nice...
Let me say it in other words: technically suboptimal, and I reiterate that this can be irrelevant, it can be a fantastic print anyway.
Just I state, and this is completely true, that a single D810 shot cannot take all graphic information that a 300ppi 20x16" print can contain, so Image Quality of the print can be technically improved with a better workflow. No doubt.
The impact of that improvement is debatable, of course... but it is for sure that result from a single D810 shot can be technically improved. Let me reiterate that if that technical improvement makes a difference or not for a particular print/criterion is another question, or if a x2 magnifier has to be used (or not...) to see well the difference.
Also it has to be mentioned that a good Ps processing may mitigate the scanning flaws... or it can introduce new flaws...
Your 4x5 negative may have 400Mpix effective, it's up to you how many of those you take, and at what modulation transfer between pixels: up to you...
Look, you say that a single D810 shot of a 4x5" negative is fantastic, I say no: this is suboptimal, four (2x2) overlaped-stitched shots would be near optimal for a 20x16/300.
Fine, you're right. The image is SUBOPTIMAL.
Next time I'll:
1. Use a 150/5.6 APO Sironar S, the most optimal of lenses. My Schneider APO Symmar is not optimal enough.
2. Anchor my tripod 50' into the ground to ensure vibration free exposures.
3. Use the shortest possible flash duration.
4. People move so I should have a lifelike sculpture of my subject made from a precision 3D scan to maximize stillness.
5. The air in the room probably causes some issues so maybe I could have it all sucked out so we're shooting in vacuum?
6. Have Fuji helicopter in the very freshest batch of Provia and ensure it's at the perfect temperature for exposure, and then have it helicoptered out directly to AGX lab for processing immediately.
Sarcasm aside, I'm not saying that my scan is the best possible scan of this image. I'm sure a Tango would do a better job in some ways. I'm saying that my scan resulted in a great print, and that is the very minimum possibility of camera scanning. I have no use for a 400mp scan of this image, it's just wasted data for my purposes. You may believe that it's prerequisite for...something...but those of us who have to use the equipment we can afford in the reality that exists before us simply make due. It's not a good idea to approach art making this way. Do you run around high school darkrooms telling students about their suboptimal prints because they used maybe-not-the-best enlarger lenses? Do you comment that every home cooked meal is 'sub-optimal' because it was not prepared by Michelin Star chefs?
I'll make sure to put the term 'modulation transfer' in my next artist statement and see how that goes over.
sperdynamite, first is that everyone prints/scans like he wants... do what you want, of course. And of course sharpness is a very overrated concept in photography.
...but we may find useful to understand what is Image Quality, what amount do we require to fulfill what a human eye can see in our print, how IQ is degradated through our workflow, and when that degradation is seen in the print.
It is a personal choice taking care or not about that.
Lately I've no problem, mostly I make contact prints from 8x10 so my prints are crazy sharp even if inspected with an strong magnifier.
I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand well the underlying concepts, me... I've learned a lot from it:
$8 used, Ebay. Worth $800+.
I think Pere means well and there may be native language interference.
But some do carry on about perfection in every aspect...
I try to enjoy my time here, not always easy!
As we trundle to the next castle to lay siege...
Tin Can
Unlike your interlocutor, you have a far greater practical understanding of it in real world use. Pretty much any decent contemporary DSLR/ ILC will outperform an Epson in real world performance because it's easier to eliminate vibration in copying set-ups & enhance precision of focus - both of which dramatically improve contrast performance.
:) :) :)
And also a hasselblad x5, that sports only 1800dpi effective for 4x5.
:) :) :)
Interneg, this is LOL !!!!
BTW, a DSLR scanner may easily reach 9000 dpi effective... if the right technique is used, which is an overkill.
What exactly is dedicated flatbed scanning? How does it differ from regular flatbed scanning?
Feel free to continue deluding yourself. The difference is not small. If you really need to see the difference between the '2400' you claim for the Epson and a high MTF response 2040 I could show you, but it will depend on whether I can be bothered to upload the files to somewhere they can be seen without being severely compressed.
Given that most of the Epson optical path is held together with clips not out of place in cheap picture frames & involves three mirrors before the lens in a structure to which the phrase 'precision' seems an alien concept, it's not surprising it's as poor performing in critical sharpness as it is. And no, no amount of sharpening will solve it. And yes, you'll see the difference even in small prints from 4x5 scans. BTDT on a regular basis.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks