I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of
a first generation image to a third generation image.
The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film,
you need to print it optically.
That is so true. I recently had some prints done from
This seems to be more of a scanner test.(?)
My experience has been the complete opposite. Obviously, personal
impressions, also, play a roll.
Jack
--- Patrick Genovese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a
comparison of
a first generation
It is true,
all labs now print on some Noritsu machine.
And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process.
This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it to
that size to get A4 (20x30cm) image. Print was good, much better than
most of other pics, and i managed to get 1st
In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
Reference photo:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm
100% view of a single person:
Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:33 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13
: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
It is true,
all labs now print on some Noritsu machine.
And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process.
This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it to
that size
at this point.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposure
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM
JCOC To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JCOC Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
JCOC No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposure is the enemy of
JCOC good digital photography
JCOC On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
No, not really
faces often look a bit too reddish
MM for me, that's why I ask.
MM greetings
MM Markus
MM -Original Message-
MM From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
MM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MM Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:33 PM
MM To: pdml@pdml.net
MM Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the
highlights. You are correct to expose accurately for both ends of the
spectrum. The issue with digital, I think, is that the shadow areas
tend to show noise more - so it is
DiGiorgi
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the
highlights. You are correct to expose accurately
To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right
gear for the job.
Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan
from a Pentax 6x7.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
But paper is patient. So are HTML-files.
But what can
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those
are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant,
because underexposure causes image degradation.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the
right
gear for the job.
Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan
from a Pentax 6x7.
http
difficult.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing
the
right
gear for the job.
Well, I know Luminous Landscape says
To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabilities to the direct
digital capture more than the actual image on the film. I think I could
easily skew a test into the 6x7 column by shooting a nice fine ISO 100
BW film and printing in a darkroom say an 11x14 print on a good paper
with a
optical prints are not perfectly executed. This, of course,
makes the comparison difficult.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
To me this question is not a religion - just
43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af P. J.
Alling
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:41
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabilities
23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul
Stenquist
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm
Stenquist
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those
are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant,
because underexposure causes image degradation.
Paul
My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
print beats even a drum scan.
Evan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 22/01/07, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right
gear for the job.
Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan
from a Pentax 6x7.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for
printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips
up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double
the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here:
This one wasn done with a
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
In stead of arguing this and that; show me your digital group images.
Crop out one face covering 5-10% of the frame.
Lets see and judging for ourselves.
I wouldn't consider shooting a group
Evan Hanson wrote:
My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
print beats even a drum scan.
I have found just the opposite to be true: I've rarely seen an optical
print that can compare to a well-done scan and print. Oh, certainly the
*resolution* and fine detail will
: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey
DiGiorgi
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for
printing
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this
link sums up where I finally wound up:
http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php?title=stuff_per_pixelmore=1c=1tb=1pb=1
Medium format and certainly
As always Mark, you make a great point.
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote:
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this
link sums up where I finally wound up:
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Roberts
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:35 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Evan Hanson wrote:
My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
print beats
was done on 8x10 based on the quality.
Group people shots are extreme resolution hogs
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:13 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Cassino
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:48 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
thing. A lot of the things I worked
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey
JB DiGiorgi
JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13
JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for
JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily
:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Hello Jens,
Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens
ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
Here is the full shot to give you some perspective:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm
Here
as looking
JCOC jco
JCOC -Original Message-
JCOC From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JCOC Bruce Dayton
JCOC Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:50 PM
JCOC To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JCOC Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
JCOC Hello Jens
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bruce Dayton
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:04 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I'm not particularly defending small frame digital, but your example is
a much smaller group. I have shots of smaller
JB DiGiorgi
JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13
JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for
JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips
JB up as comparison
Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant.
G
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello Jens,
Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45
lens
ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
Here is the full shot to give you some perspective:
At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I dont agree that the higher resolution that
medium and large format photography provides
is moot or unnecessary in typical photography
unless you never print anything bigger than
4x6 or never make a web image display larger
than 1200x800 (both being
Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high
frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means
Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same
as producing a group photo for the web.
The right tool for the job is essential. For
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
For myself, that's not good enough.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
Reference photo:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm
100% view of a single person:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm
--
Bruce
Sunday, January 21, 2007, 7:47:22
HAR!
It's a tiny web image:-). You're obviously pulling our legs.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:14 PM, William Robb wrote:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Of
David Savage
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I dont agree that the higher resolution that
medium and large format photography provides
is moot or unnecessary
: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant.
G
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello Jens,
Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45
lens
ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
Here is the full shot to give you
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high
frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means
Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same
Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail than that. You
can get it, but you don't need it for a group photo.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
Reference
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Francis
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:26 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My conclusion is that in the hands of someone who knows what they are
doing even a small-frame 6MP DSLR
be lens limited compared to larger film or digital
formats...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
At 10:50 AM 22
NOT.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:04 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail than that. You
: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My point is if you know what your doing and the subject lends itself
to
the process, an APS sensor can be used to create very high resolution
images.
BTW, That shot was 3 images captured with the K10D stitched together.
I
could just as easily used a longer
50 matches
Mail list logo
