Luminous Landscape debunked?

[Michael Martin]

Lin and Michael,

You two are both right in either part of the discussion - these
revelations are after all based on facts/statistics in both film
and digital imaging that both of you are experiencing and know
about, personally apart from other sources.

Yes, digital imaging is getting to be more popular. It is easier
and less hassle when compared to film, even when it comes to
retouching digittized images - no dust and scratches to worry
about.

But film-based photography will never be replaced by digital
imaging. There will perhaps be less people shooting film as the
years goes by from now but it will still have its own niche segment
of the photographymarket, just like manual focus 35mm cameras are
still alive - Nikon even updated its popular FM2 to FM3A! Not to
mention three new Coolscan film scanners!

Convenient as it is, there are still a lot of professional
photographers and major publications that insists on using film for
digitizing their images rather than opting for digital equipment
altogether. National Geographic and Time magazine are among them.

Yes, some of the contract photographers with Time have already
shoot with digital cameras like the DCS 520/EOS D2000/EOS D30/Nikon
D1 but the majority of them still use film-based cameras.Time
magazine is by itself still prefers 35mm color trans over 2mp or
3mp digital images. Exceptions are for news events where the
deadline for the next issue is just hours away. Scanning the 35mm
slides needed for publication is in itself a digital process but as
far as both magazines are concerned, the original iamge is
preferably to be recorded in film, not digital.

Digital imaging is getting popular ONLY in the developed countries.
There is still money to be made from film and film-based equipment
in other countries where a Minolta X-300 is still considered as a
high-end model. And the manufacturers know this.

For example, APS products has no problems penetrating the North
American, European Community and Japan markets but struggles
against 35mm in the Middle East, African nations and the Far East
countries.

In my country, professionals do accept digital imaging as part of
their business but the number is still low - in
commercial/advertising, there is only one who use digital imaging
exclusively. The rest of them have something like 15-20% of their
business shot in digital but almost all of the images that are
produced on film/digital are printed digitally from pro commerical
labs utilizing Kodak's LED printer.

In news photography, only the foreign based agencies like Reuters
and AFP shoot digital exclusively whereas the local newpapers still
shoot on film vs. digital on a ratio of 9:1. Associated Press' (AP)
film vs. digital ratio is 3:1 as their photographers are still
encourage to shoot film whenever possible. In my opinion, those
that specializes in news should invest more in digital imaging as
beating deadline is really important but they are not. Weird.

Finally, the local advertising agencies and art directors still
have the old habit of viewing color trans over digital images
presented by photographers in Mac ibook/PC laptops, CD-ROMs or
A4/A3-sized LED prints - there is still a long way to go before
digital imaging can replace or make a dent against silver-halide
photography.

Kai,

Thanks again for your voice of reason. I believe that too many people on this site

think that if someone says that digital is not appropriate for a certain situation that
we're saying they're wrong. They take it personal and sometimes act like
we've wounded them.

Yesterday I did a family portrait shot of 20 people I shot

it on 120 film and I shot it on my Fuji S1. Shooting a group that large even with a

18-35mm lens just didn't give me enough detail for a suitable 11 x 14. And at this point
I can't afford a 6mp camera. So I had to shoot the job on film.

First of all Lin I've been using Photoshop for 5 years myself. I
love digital and I can't wait until I
can get an affordable pro 6 mp pro camera. I don't doubt that the
way we are
doing it is the best way (with photoshop and digital). But for
weddings and portraits
there are a lot of photographers doing things the old fashioned
way. One reason is that
in a lot of cases it's just plain cheaper. There are 7
portrait/wedding photographers
in my area, not counting newspapers (who do use digital because of
cost ) and there are only 3 of us using
photoshop. And I am the only one using a digital camera - the Fuji
S1.

So unless you can give me an exact verifiable count, I still
believe you are making an assumption.

Your post indicates that you appear to believe that
portrait/wedding photographers represent some large proportion of
professional photographers. Perhaps you should do the "exact
verifiable count", if you think it's reasonable and possible to do
it, so that you can get a handle on the scope of professional
photography - because wedding/portrait photographers represent only
a statistical minority of the trade.

I suggest you join PMA and when you do, you will receive many
sources for just the information you requested from me. You will
find that statistical polls are done among members and professional
subscribers to major photo publications, and these are reported for
your benefit as a member. Join, pay your dues like the rest of us,
and then you can believe or not believe the results. I choose to
believe them and understand reality enough to realize that an
"exact verifiable count" only exists in the dreams of someone who
hasn't a clue about reality.

Lin

 

[John S37185]

Joe,

You make a very good case for your purchase of that new scanner. Obviously, each of us has a unique set of circumstances and must decide for themselves when and where to put their resources.

Any disagreement we have probably just comes down to a matter of timing. I may be early, and be wasting my resources, but I strongly believe that in the next twelve months digital will have matured enough to represent the most effective technology for many, if not most, photo applications.

I'm sure you would agree that, historically, there have been at least as many "paradigm shift" reactionaries as there are radicals. It is my guess that almost always the radicals (early adopters) end up with an advantage over the late adopters. For the past twenty years I have been waiting for the personal compute industry to mature and stabilize. In 1981, I decided to jump in with a DOS based, 64K, machine. Have I wasted thousands of dollars keeping up with hardware and software "iterations"? I don't think so. Should I have an advantage over the typical guy who waited for the Pentium and Win95? You bet.

In photography, it may well be that for the next few years the only advantage of digital is the work flow efficiency that digital offers. For some, this efficiency edge may just be the difference between business success and failure. For others, no big deal.

John

These are all great examples of paradigm shifts due to technology
improvements. The only issue I have with your comment is that you
seem to believe that tomorrow (at the latest) will be the end of the
old paradigm. Get real!

How long did it take to replace the horse, wood fuel, typewriter,
record
with automobile, electricity, pc, cd? How many iterations did each of
these items need to go through before they were well accepted as the
new paradigm? Maybe after the digital camera goes through several
(3-4) cycles of applying a modified Moore's law (the Joe-Moore's
law) of
doubling # pixels and/or the color resolution every 18 months.

For me, my next purchase will be for one of the new Nikon film
scanners
(much less than $10k) so that I can leverage my existing equipment and
archived negatives. Oh, that reminds me, when will there be a real
solution to long-time MASS storage for these huge digital images?

After you have paid for (and you jerks are paying for that knee!) the
paradigm shift, I'll be glad to take advantage of the knowledge you've
gained, written about, and molded. I'll judge that date based on three
criteria:
1) the MSRP of the next new top-of-the-line digital camera.
2) how introducing that new camera affects the previous
top-of-the-line camera's price.
3) The iteration time between new models.

Joe

 

[Mike Delaney]

Well put!

URL in reference is:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

Maybe I missed something but what this guy does is scan the 35mm
negative, then print it out on an Ink Jet and compare quality.
Using that printer, film and D30 is in a dead heat with the D30
edging out the 35mm just slightly even though it's difficult to
differentiate. It all comes down to the printer.

Isn't it like getting a DVD and comparing it to VHS quality then
watching both on an old back and white TV from the 60's? And
saying you don't notice a difference between VHS & DVD?

After reading this and most responses to your post, I realize that
there is a great dearth of knowledge of current photography
practices among most who have responded. Let's start with: Do you
even know what Fuji Provia is? From your post (scan 35mm
"negative"), it certainly doesn't sound like it.

Few professionals today print 35mm directly without first
digitizing the image for processing. Those who do are doing things
the hard way. If you can explain how to get the film image into
digital form without scanning, then you can continue on with the
"engineering and science" arguments.

The "guy", photographer Michael Reichmann, who did the comparison
is one of the most respected landscape photographers in the
business who uses a variety of film equipment as well as digital,
and makes a VERY good living doing highly detailed landscape
photography. I would strongly suggest that those armchair
"experts" who have decided that they know more than those who make
their living doing this take a little drive to Canada and have a
first hand look at the results before continuing to banter about
what they obviously don't understand. The evidence it on display
for you to evaluate critically at your leisure. It's been done by
experts, and the consensus drawn by those who have examined the
prints are that his conclusions are valid.

You may not like it. You may not agree with it. But it's patently
obvious that most of you who are complaining about the methodology
or conclusions are those with the LEAST experience and knowledge of
current practices among professionals.

Lin

 

[Mike Delaney]

Robert,

Why would you run an image that is to be output to film, thru G.F. in the first place? That one makes no sense. If you wanted to prep your file for a large (over 8x10) inkjet print GF would be the way to go, if you are doing prepress or prepping for film output, you would want to stay as close to the RAW original as possible, or at least thats the way we do it. The story line here seems to be either you can use digital in your work flow or you can't, I would bet that those of us who can, are either doing a good job of it, or we are looking for a new line of work IMHO
Mike

Lin, I couldn't agree more!!!
If you work as a professional today, virtually EVERYTHING you shoot
will first have to be scanned before it's used (in magazines,
papers and so forth). Therefore, the comparison between scanned
slides and a digital camera is VERY relevant. Nore does it matter
if you use Genuine Fractals to boost the size of your pictures, the
comparison is really (what to me seems most important): How well
does a D30 stand up against a scanned slide? (that is, can you use
a D30 for professional work?)
And the answer as we all can see a "luminous" is: yes, very much
so! I don't know why people even bother using genuine fractals as
an argument against the D30! Say they some up with a "super"
program, that can take a 3mp file and generate a 40x60inch picture
with virtually no loss. Would there then be any reason not to buy a
dig. camera instead of an analog? The question is, can digital
(D30+genuine+sharpening....) stand up to scanned analog (type of
film+correct development+good scanner+sharpening...) The means to
how you get the best results is not very important... it's the
results themselves that matter!!!!!
So to all you sceptics out there.... visit luminous landscapes!
Mathias

 

[Ken Thomson #11725]

URL in reference is:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

Maybe I missed something but what this guy does is scan the 35mm
negative, then print it out on an Ink Jet and compare quality.

Yes, you missed something. Go back and read the article again. You will find that the author poses that exact question, and answers it.

 

[ExposureMeter]

John,
I totally agree with your sentiments.

For me digital is still not quite there and I continue to use film for my main stream ativities. However I use digital for web based work using a low level digital camera mainly to gain experience in the technology, photoshop, GF etc. I have even ben criticised here for such an approach.

There is a lot of hot air from the so called digital professionals on this site, however it is purely a personal thing as to what fits your circumstances.
Geoff

You make a very good case for your purchase of that new scanner.
Obviously, each of us has a unique set of circumstances and must
decide for themselves when and where to put their resources.

Any disagreement we have probably just comes down to a matter of
timing. I may be early, and be wasting my resources, but I
strongly believe that in the next twelve months digital will have
matured enough to represent the most effective technology for many,
if not most, photo applications.

I'm sure you would agree that, historically, there have been at
least as many "paradigm shift" reactionaries as there are radicals.
It is my guess that almost always the radicals (early adopters) end
up with an advantage over the late adopters. For the past twenty
years I have been waiting for the personal compute industry to
mature and stabilize. In 1981, I decided to jump in with a DOS
based, 64K, machine. Have I wasted thousands of dollars keeping
up with hardware and software "iterations"? I don't think so.
Should I have an advantage over the typical guy who waited for the
Pentium and Win95? You bet.

In photography, it may well be that for the next few years the only
advantage of digital is the work flow efficiency that digital
offers. For some, this efficiency edge may just be the difference
between business success and failure. For others, no big deal.

John

These are all great examples of paradigm shifts due to technology
improvements. The only issue I have with your comment is that you
seem to believe that tomorrow (at the latest) will be the end of the
old paradigm. Get real!

How long did it take to replace the horse, wood fuel, typewriter,
record
with automobile, electricity, pc, cd? How many iterations did each of
these items need to go through before they were well accepted as the
new paradigm? Maybe after the digital camera goes through several
(3-4) cycles of applying a modified Moore's law (the Joe-Moore's
law) of
doubling # pixels and/or the color resolution every 18 months.

For me, my next purchase will be for one of the new Nikon film
scanners
(much less than $10k) so that I can leverage my existing equipment and
archived negatives. Oh, that reminds me, when will there be a real
solution to long-time MASS storage for these huge digital images?

After you have paid for (and you jerks are paying for that knee!) the
paradigm shift, I'll be glad to take advantage of the knowledge you've
gained, written about, and molded. I'll judge that date based on three
criteria:
1) the MSRP of the next new top-of-the-line digital camera.
2) how introducing that new camera affects the previous
top-of-the-line camera's price.
3) The iteration time between new models.

Joe

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

Actually, I went and looked at that specific article, and guess what? The images were NOT taken at the same instant of time? In fact, it looks as though there was a considerable amount of time that passed inbetween the photos (more that 5 minutes). If you notice the clouds in the sky, they are in a much different orientation from the digital to the film. Additionally it looks as though there were a lot of clouds around. Also what stuck me most was the fact that the lighting was obviously not the same. Look at that lack of highlights in the digital image when compared to the film. Also the lack of shadows in the digital versus the film. Now the D1 that Moose Peterson used has enough resolution to resolve simple shadows and highlights (this isn't fine detail), especially that the small size of the pictures in the magazine. Lighting has a lot to do with how a film print will come out, and in this situation, I don't believe there was a fair match between the two. IMHO the digital print was taken under a condition when the sun was blocked by the clouds (as evidence of the diffuse and relatively flat lighting in the picture). Now you can say what you want, and maybe my opinion was wrong, but look closely, and you can see for yourself that the pictures were not taken at the same time under the same lighting conditions, with the digital camera print being in a much less flattering lighting situation. But does that really matter? The point of the comparison was not on which format was better, but was just to demonstrate the difference in the muliplying factor of the digital chip versus 35mm film. If you're going to compare film to digital, you're going to have to make it as scientifically correct as possible, and that means making the only varible between the two the fact that one is digital and the other is film. Not lighting, camera lenses, time of day, etc. Those must remain the same, or your "scientific" results are flawed. End of rant.

Oh, and your example below... is exactly my point... those images
you refer to were printed as a comparison of different
magnification factors NOT as a direct image quality comparison...
The goal was stated, the conclusion was delivered. We weren't
given the methodology... the digital image could have been severely
compromised... do you know for sure (I don't)???? How can the
"film camera win" (other than not having a magnification factor)?

-Kurt

There is indeed an 8x10 comparison of ISO100 film vs S1 and D30 in
the March/April issue of American Photo and the digital wins.
Without upscaling the file.

 

[ExposureMeter]

I totally support your views, I am talking quality, I am comparing paper prints with paper prints, that is my photographic requirement. Some work may need to be scanned, so be it, it does introduce some degradation, that cannot be denied.

It is absolutely ludicrous to say that a 3 MP image has the same information content as a 35 mm image, taking into account resolution, tonal range colour detail etc.

This is purely a personal issue of preference, quality is subjective and some digital users obviously have lower quality standards. It is time some of these digital proponents started enjoying their lives and photography a little more.
Eventually digital will catch up.
Geoff

 

[Ron Reznick]

re: storage, inside of the next two years we should be able to get a burner that will create 50GB-100GB multi-layer discs.

The digital workflow is time-consuming and for some things film is still better, but I'd never be able to shoot the way I do with film, and the ability to get the really good shots is sometimes linked to the number of opportunities taken. While the hardware will most certainly keep improving, and those of us who are taking advantage of the hardware now tend to pay for the privilege of using an emerging technology first (and have to deal with the bugs inherent in any new technology), the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion. Besides, if you keep waiting for a technology to mature, you'll never jump in, and you'll lose the advantages that the technology can give you and your workflow.

While it is of course your decision to stick with film (I do assume you have some interest in digital, otherwise why would you be here), If you consider the things that digital can do for you I have a feeling that you won't wait all that long to get into it. The tools available now and soon to be released are really quite good you know.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

How long did it take to replace the horse, wood fuel, typewriter,
record
with automobile, electricity, pc, cd? How many iterations did each of
these items need to go through before they were well accepted as the
new paradigm? Maybe after the digital camera goes through several
(3-4) cycles of applying a modified Moore's law (the Joe-Moore's
law) of
doubling # pixels and/or the color resolution every 18 months.

For me, my next purchase will be for one of the new Nikon film
scanners
(much less than $10k) so that I can leverage my existing equipment and
archived negatives. Oh, that reminds me, when will there be a real
solution to long-time MASS storage for these huge digital images?

After you have paid for (and you jerks are paying for that knee!) the
paradigm shift, I'll be glad to take advantage of the knowledge you've
gained, written about, and molded. I'll judge that date based on three
criteria:
1) the MSRP of the next new top-of-the-line digital camera.
2) how introducing that new camera affects the previous
top-of-the-line camera's price.
3) The iteration time between new models.

Joe

Horses don't get stuck in the mud or run out of gas
Wood stoves are much more reliable than electric
The IBM Selectric typewriter seldom crashes
LPs reproduce sound more realistically than CDs
And film is technically superior to digital

All true, but of course irrelevant today (or tomorrow at the latest).

The argument has been made that digital denizens have this huge
financial interest of thousands of dollars and must, knee-jerk,
protect it at all costs.

Get real!

The digital photographer's investment is certainly no grater than
the typical lifetime investment that film guys have in technology,
knowledge, etc.
The real question for the film guy has to do with future
investments, i.e., do I invest in the $10,000 scanner that I have
lusted for for years, or do I step into the digital waters.

The first automobile might not have been a good choice versus a
horse. However, by the time the Model T was introduced all but the
Amish and the Luddites saw the advantages.

John

URL in reference is:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

Maybe I missed something but what this guy does is scan the 35mm
negative, then print it out on an Ink Jet and compare quality.
Using that printer, film and D30 is in a dead heat with the D30
edging out the 35mm just slightly even though it's difficult to
differentiate. It all comes down to the printer.

Isn't it like getting a DVD and comparing it to VHS quality then
watching both on an old back and white TV from the 60's? And
saying you don't notice a difference between VHS & DVD?

 

[Robert MacLellan]

Well, even though you have attempted to send the discussion off on a tangent and away from the main issue of getting a little realism into the digital dogma, I shall bring things back on topic.

Just getting back to the basics of photography and the lessons that have been proved and re-proved for years, I am sure that you would agree that you would not expect a 35mm film frame to enlarge as "well" as a medium format image. There are many who would think that attempting to enalrge a 35mm image to 11x14 would be pushing things a bit. If that is the case, you can see where it would be correct to question the assertion that an image that is smaller than a 35mm frame (and of lower resolution) could be enlarged to 60% more than the film image and no only retain the same quality but...if you believe the preaching...EXCEEDS it. Since it doesn't make sense, you can understand why I question any results that make such a claim.

As for producing examples for myself and then attempting to make a case, I would be suspected of the same data manipulation as anyone who sets out to "Prove" a certain point. Instead, I have provided the information of the Moose Peterson article in Petersen's Photographic ( March 2001, Pg 56) which demonstrates the same scene taken with a Nikon D1 and a Nikon F100..and the results are quite clear! I have also pointed to the March 2001 Popular Photography article which is also indisputable.

Both of those articles are comparing digital prints to photographic prints (which I believe is what i have been asking for all along) and what the comparison shows is what I have been saying all along.

So we have what years of photographic experience tells us is the case...that starting with a smaller frame you have to apply much more magnification to enlarge it and since the resolving power of even the best lenses is limited by the laws of refraction you can never expect the smaller frame to hold as much detail as the larger one. Which is why there aren't many APS landscape photographers! So we can't expect a CCD (which is smaller than 35mm) to be able to be enlarged as much as film.

As far as GF goes, you must understand that I see it as the height of hypocricy that the same people who were condemning any camera that used interpolation (i.e. fuji) are more than willing to secretly use GF to do the same thing.

The fact that Mr Reichmann had to use it to "bump up" the digital image to get it into the same league demonstrates the weakness of the approach because the "conclusion" that people hear (or WANT to hear) is that a digital image "right out of the camera, without any enhancements" is as good or better than a film image...and that is certainly not the case. He could not use the image that came directly from the camera because he knew that it would be out of its league!

In the end, it is little use trying to argue what amounts to an article of faith with people who are already converted. No logic or science or experience will be accepted. However, I have to admire your loyalty. It reminds me of those Japanese Imperial soldiers we find holding out on remote Pacific Islands... they wouldn't believe the war was lost either!

O.K. Robert,
Why don't you answer a couple of questions for the readers? First,
which version of Genuine Fractals do you own? You appear to be an
expert on this subject, so let's see just how much you REALLY know.
Why don't you tell the forum the steps you take, keystroke by
keystroke with GF to produce an image of a given file size. Tell
them which menus and the choices from the drop downs, etc. While
you're at it just post a single file in the GF format. Any file
will do. Post the same one in jpg so we can see that you really do
have GF.

While you are at it, why don't you do exactly the tests you suggest
and POST the results right here so you can show everyone that you
are absolutely correct. They we can all get back to photography and
stop listening to these ridiculous tirades against GF and
Luminous-Landscape.

You know what? I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think
you have ever owned a copy of Genuine Fractals, or for that matter,
a professional digital camera. I'm pretty certain, and I've told
you this before, "you talk the talk," but you don't walk the walk.
Prove me wrong and let's see some concrete evidence to back up all
the hot air that you keep blowing. You've told everyone exactly how
the proper comparisons between digital and film "SHOULD" be done.
Now do it, or stop wasting everyone's time with endless criticism
of those who are competent and do know what they are talking about.

That's all......

Lin

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

Instead, I have provided

the information of the Moose Peterson article in Petersen's
Photographic ( March 2001, Pg 56) which demonstrates the same scene
taken with a Nikon D1 and a Nikon F100..and the results are quite
clear!

If you have not read my posting further down this page in the "Info vs. trolls", please quit using this Moose Peterson example as rhetoric for your views. The pictures were not taken at the same time in the same lighting condition! They are not a fair comparision of the image quality for the D1 (which had the much poorer lighting) compared to a well lit film shot. Instead, it is only a fair demostration of what he was actually trying to show: the angle of view dfferences due to the multiplication factor of the smaller CCD in the D1. I'm sorry, but you accuse many people on this forum and other professionals of being "biased", when it is quite obvious that you will take information from sources, and bias it for your own rhetoric, when the origional information was ment for something else entirely.

 

[ExposureMeter]

Provia 100F film is specified to have a maximum resolution of 140 lines per mm, if this is extrapolated across the full 36 mm frame the total resolution will be 5,040 lines. The minimum resolution specified for this film is 60 lines per mm or 2,160 lines across the frame.

The Nikon D1 has 2,012 pixels across the 23.7 mm sensor and theoretically should be able to resolve a maximum of 1,005 lines across the full frame dimension.

On this basis the Provia 100 has 2 to 5 times greater resolution than the digital sensor. I realise that this is a totally theoretical comparison and appears logical.
Perhaps logic does not apply in this discussion.
Geoff

URL in reference is:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

Maybe I missed something but what this guy does is scan the 35mm
negative, then print it out on an Ink Jet and compare quality.
Using that printer, film and D30 is in a dead heat with the D30
edging out the 35mm just slightly even though it's difficult to
differentiate. It all comes down to the printer.

Isn't it like getting a DVD and comparing it to VHS quality then
watching both on an old back and white TV from the 60's? And
saying you don't notice a difference between VHS & DVD?

 

[johnny]

Provia 100F film is specified to have a maximum resolution of 140
lines per mm, if this is extrapolated across the full 36 mm frame
the total resolution will be 5,040 lines. The minimum resolution
specified for this film is 60 lines per mm or 2,160 lines across
the frame.
The Nikon D1 has 2,012 pixels across the 23.7 mm sensor and
theoretically should be able to resolve a maximum of 1,005 lines
across the full frame dimension.
On this basis the Provia 100 has 2 to 5 times greater resolution
than the digital sensor. I realise that this is a totally
theoretical comparison and appears logical.
Perhaps logic does not apply in this discussion.
Geoff

true, and now please give me lens that have that resolution
even the 60 lp/mm is problem
that also the reason that I want the largest CCD/CMOS I can get
e.g. a small 3MP cam may have a real resolution of whopping 0.6MP
(20 lp/mm optic + 6mm CCD)

Johnny

 

[Robert MacLellan]

Yes, there is ALWAYS something that you can use to invalidate the examples. This is an example of ABSOLUTES. You deny the validity of the picture because it wasn't taken at ABSOLUTELY the same instant, from ABSOLUTELY the same angle,with ABSOLUTELY the same lens....blah blah blah...of course that precludes ANY example at all since it can NEVER be taken at exactly the same instant with the same lens on two DIFFERENT camera bodies!

Suffice to say that Mr Peterson had no knowledge of this discussion when he took those pictures (which are probably separated by no more time than it took to exchange lenses and mount on a tripod) and so he would have done nothing to "fix" the results one way or another... the magazine...also unaware of the current discussion... would have processed the images just as it would have naturally done...and they would have done nothing to "fix" the results. The printer would have set up the pictures on the same page of the magazine and so they are treated the same way during the printing phase... sounds like a good example to me!!

But were the pictures takens at EXACTLY, ABSOLUTELY the same instant...no...I would say one to two minutes apart.

the information of the Moose Peterson article in Petersen's
Photographic ( March 2001, Pg 56) which demonstrates the same scene
taken with a Nikon D1 and a Nikon F100..and the results are quite
clear!

If you have not read my posting further down this page in the "Info
vs. trolls", please quit using this Moose Peterson example as
rhetoric for your views. The pictures were not taken at the same
time in the same lighting condition! They are not a fair
comparision of the image quality for the D1 (which had the much
poorer lighting) compared to a well lit film shot. Instead, it is
only a fair demostration of what he was actually trying to show:
the angle of view dfferences due to the multiplication factor of
the smaller CCD in the D1. I'm sorry, but you accuse many people on
this forum and other professionals of being "biased", when it is
quite obvious that you will take information from sources, and bias
it for your own rhetoric, when the origional information was ment
for something else entirely.

 

[Robert MacLellan]

I have finally had a chance to look at the article you mentioned.

One of the problems I have with the article is that although he is quite clear about the lens, ISO and aperture settings he is conspicuously vague about which film he used!

As you know, one of the choices that film photographers have is in the wide range of film emulsions availalbe. Knowing the characteristics of different brands, a film photographer can fine tune exactly what he wants his shot to look like. One of the characterisitcs is grain.

Professional films have finer grain that consumer films and name brand film has finer grain than generic no-name brands.

The American Photo test was done using an unknown "consumer" grade film but we have no idea whether it was Kodak, Fuji, Agfa or Walmart.

Running into WalMart and grabbing a 3 for $1.00 pack of ISO100 film could certainly yield results as he has shown...but we don't know what he used even though he has fully documented all the other settings.
So the results are in question.

However, what is more important is that in the last paragraph of his article he says that he doesn't think that digital enlarged to 8x10 or larger can be done without serious degrading image quality.

There is indeed an 8x10 comparison of ISO100 film vs S1 and D30 in
the March/April issue of American Photo and the digital wins.
Without upscaling the file.

 

[Robert MacLellan]

In the current issue of Photo Life, Mr Reichman himself gives a glowing review of the D30 and, he does touch upon the controversy over his site.

I am sure in response to the flood of emails that he admits to receiving, he seems to have qualified his conclusions so that he claims NOT to have been saying that digital beats film but that the D30 can produce a print that approaches the quality of a "100ISO transparency scanned with a good scanner".

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I woudl think that the extreme position that an inkjet print from a D30 exceeds the quality of a traditional film print was a result of the religious fervor of several zealots.

All I wanted people to admit was that the comparison was NOT between digital and film but between digital and film scanner. Since this seems to be Mr Reichman's current position, I am willing to accept that.

URL in reference is:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

Maybe I missed something but what this guy does is scan the 35mm
negative, then print it out on an Ink Jet and compare quality.
Using that printer, film and D30 is in a dead heat with the D30
edging out the 35mm just slightly even though it's difficult to
differentiate. It all comes down to the printer.

Isn't it like getting a DVD and comparing it to VHS quality then
watching both on an old back and white TV from the 60's? And
saying you don't notice a difference between VHS & DVD?

 

[Michael Reichmann]

Well, this has been quite a discussion. I've been traveling for the past week and was surprised when I returned to discover that this old debate had resurfaced again.

Let me start by saying that I have not retreated from any position, because there is nothing to retreat from. Regretably some folks have misinterpreted or misrepresented my articles and have put forward as mine positions which I never took and staements that I never made. Some thoughtful and kind readers have come to my defense, and tried to set the record straight. I'm grateful for that.

But, I see no point in trying to defend a position which I never took in the first place. Rather than rehash things all I can suggest is that folks read my reviews and comments, and most importantly that they do their own tests to determine whether they agree with my findings.

Don't take my word for anything, nor that of my detractors. Do the tests and see for yourself. Not theory, not hypotheses but actual hands-on tests. Then use your own eyes and form your own opinions.

With this in mind I've written a short commentary on this issue of drawing ones own conclusions. It can be found at http://luminous-landscape.com/emperor.htm

Michael

 

[Bob Williams]

Mr. MacLellan, What part of the words Digital Photography
Review is it that you do not understand? We do not expect
that can't even find the correct forum for their views to
understand a technical argument, much less logic.

the information of the Moose Peterson article in Petersen's
Photographic ( March 2001, Pg 56) which demonstrates the same scene
taken with a Nikon D1 and a Nikon F100..and the results are quite
clear!

If you have not read my posting further down this page in the "Info
vs. trolls", please quit using this Moose Peterson example as
rhetoric for your views. The pictures were not taken at the same
time in the same lighting condition! They are not a fair
comparision of the image quality for the D1 (which had the much
poorer lighting) compared to a well lit film shot. Instead, it is
only a fair demostration of what he was actually trying to show:
the angle of view dfferences due to the multiplication factor of
the smaller CCD in the D1. I'm sorry, but you accuse many people on
this forum and other professionals of being "biased", when it is
quite obvious that you will take information from sources, and bias
it for your own rhetoric, when the origional information was ment
for something else entirely.

 

[Allan Eddy]

Stand firm, Michael. Your evaluations were concise and accurate. I find it interesting that most of the dissent on this forum comes from people who don't
have equipment or experience...only opinions based on something they heard,

thought or conjectured. They spend more time saying they wouldn't buy this or that, constantly changing their target for each new flavor of the week and never really base their arguements on fact, reality or the type of process you undertook.

I have been involved in photography for over 40 years, from 11x14 format to 35mm and everything in between. I have run high-end drum and flatbed scanners and desktop scanners. I shoot DV video and recently cleaned out my film based camera bag and closet and bought the same D30 you used for your comparisons. Although I kept one EOS film camera, I haven't take a shot with it in over a month but hold onto it because I know there "might" be a few instances where a film emulsion might be needed. I print most of my "keepers" on an Epson but am fortunate to also have access to Pictography and digital photo imaging materials. The "digital doesn't compare" arguement these days reminds me of the "nothing will replace 8x10", "nothing will replace 4x5", "nothing will replace camera back color separations", "nothing will replace dye transfer prints", and on and on. As Bob Dylan wrote, "The Times They are a Changin'".
Thanks for your vision and convictions.
Al Eddy

Well, this has been quite a discussion. I've been traveling for the
past week and was surprised when I returned to discover that this
old debate had resurfaced again.

Let me start by saying that I have not retreated from any position,
because there is nothing to retreat from. Regretably some folks
have misinterpreted or misrepresented my articles and have put
forward as mine positions which I never took and staements that I
never made. Some thoughtful and kind readers have come to my
defense, and tried to set the record straight. I'm grateful for
that.

But, I see no point in trying to defend a position which I never
took in the first place. Rather than rehash things all I can
suggest is that folks read my reviews and comments, and most
importantly that they do their own tests to determine whether they
agree with my findings.

Don't take my word for anything, nor that of my detractors. Do the
tests and see for yourself. Not theory, not hypotheses but actual
hands-on tests. Then use your own eyes and form your own opinions.

With this in mind I've written a short commentary on this issue of
drawing ones own conclusions. It can be found at
http://luminous-landscape.com/emperor.htm

Michael

 

[kurt]

Since you haven't bothered to respond to my last post from a few days ago, I'll bring up at least one of my points again here...

Suffice to say that Mr Peterson had no knowledge of this discussion
when he took those pictures (which are probably separated by no
more time than it took to exchange lenses and mount on a tripod)
and so he would have done nothing to "fix" the results one way or
another... the magazine...also unaware of the current discussion...
would have processed the images just as it would have naturally
done...and they would have done nothing to "fix" the results. The
printer would have set up the pictures on the same page of the
magazine and so they are treated the same way during the printing
phase... sounds like a good example to me!!

HELLO?!?!?!?!?!?! This is EXACTLY the point. Mr Peterson decided to show the magnification factor as part of his article. So he took basically the same shot with both bodies and the same glass, to illustrate the mag difference... that's what he had in mind as far as the technical setup for the shots when he took them...

HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION, thus, he most likely DID NOT DO everything possible to make sure it was an honest comparison between film and digital image quality... In fact, the stated goal of the two pics WAS JUST TO SHOW MAGNIFICATION.

HOW DO YOU KNOW that they didn't only run the digital image through some crappy pre-processing before printing, since the author "just wanted to show the magnification difference... I mean heck, it's only a magnification comparison... that's pretty easy to see, no matter what the quality of the pics...

YOU DON'T KNOW!! And yet you keep pointing to these two printed pics, as proof of your theory...

Just because an accomplished photog took a picture, and then it was pre-pressed and printed in a mag, does not instantly equal the statement "the picture is a planned, controlled, valid, scientific comparison of film vs. digital"

In fact, this is what is so frustrating about your many statements in this forum, and why people are arguing with you... I don't think too many are arguing about some of your valid points about film vs. digital... they are instead annoyed by your personal attacks on various people, websites and products (like GF) which are completely unsupported by your supposed "logical statements"

Your logic arguments are often flawed, and very judgemental in tone, and in fact are often demeaning to products and people. This, combined with your obvious (documented in many many posts on this site) dislike of digital, and those who choose to make a living from it, and those who chose to enjoy it as a hobby and art form... leads to the statement...

why don't you go away and leave us alone...? Or I challange you to at least contribute to advancing the taking of pics with digital devices....

It's one thing to have meaningfull discussions with people who use valid logic, even if you have differing views. It's quite another to try and dig through all the crap trolls throw out into these newsgroup.

You dear sir, sure seem to be volunteering for troll status these days....

Go to some film-only forum, and spend your days laughing with your friends about what idiots those of us who use digital are.... please...

-Kurt

But were the pictures takens at EXACTLY, ABSOLUTELY the same
instant...no...I would say one to two minutes apart.

the information of the Moose Peterson article in Petersen's
Photographic ( March 2001, Pg 56) which demonstrates the same scene
taken with a Nikon D1 and a Nikon F100..and the results are quite
clear!

If you have not read my posting further down this page in the "Info
vs. trolls", please quit using this Moose Peterson example as
rhetoric for your views. The pictures were not taken at the same
time in the same lighting condition! They are not a fair
comparision of the image quality for the D1 (which had the much
poorer lighting) compared to a well lit film shot. Instead, it is
only a fair demostration of what he was actually trying to show:
the angle of view dfferences due to the multiplication factor of
the smaller CCD in the D1. I'm sorry, but you accuse many people on
this forum and other professionals of being "biased", when it is
quite obvious that you will take information from sources, and bias
it for your own rhetoric, when the origional information was ment
for something else entirely.