luminous-landscape flawed conclusions.

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical (Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan better than slide film for printing in this class of printing devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this fairy tale.

At the risk of putting words in Michael's mouth, I don't think he is arguing that digital can beat film on its home court. What he is stating is that when film is converted to digital medium, and when pictures are kept within the constraints of 11x15, digital fairs very well against film.

I agree that digital has a way to go to capture the detail that film does, but it has become a very capable medium for many jobs and it has a huge processing advantage over film in both ease, and capabilities never before affordable to the average photographer.

P.S. Why did you both add to the existing thread and start a new thread with same posting?

gbee said:

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet
fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still
look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more
knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print
much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning
equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an
Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image
will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same
equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical
(Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for
comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another
anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan
better than slide film for printing in this class of printing
devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months
that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or
similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of
unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match
film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take
the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of
salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this
fairy tale.

Click to expand...

In response to your questions, and those raised by others here and via email I have added the following to my review. I hope that this helps explain my position.


I've been writing for magazines and technical journals for as long as I've been a photographer; more than 30 years. In all that time this is one of the most controversial opinions that I've published so I'm concerned that I understand what it is that I'm seeing. After spending a number of additional hours examining images on screen and on paper, and sharing the evaluation with both pros and laymen, I've come to the following preliminary conclusion.

It is inescapable that the D30 produces sharper, better looking images than the scanned film combination at sizes up to about 10 X 13". Larger than this 35mm wins, but it isn't till above 11X15" or so that this starts to become obvious. Most lay observers can't see the difference. (The D30 image is, of course, ressed-up in Genuine Fractals for sizes above 6X9").

What appears to be happening is that the degree of superiority over the film/scanner combination is about 20%. It is only when the D30 image is res-up beyond this amount that the playing field levels.

I have received quite a number of emails and seen message board comments calling my conclusions into doubt, for various reasons. Let me start by saying that I'm the first to admit that I'm a photographer, not a scientist. But, I do understand the scientific method. (I have 8 granted U.S. patents in the field of telecommunications and computer interface methodology, so I have some experience in this area).

Having said that I will also add that all that I care about is how an images look on a print. As a fine-art landscape and nature photographer what counts most for me is what will appear on gallery and purchaser's walls.

Theory is secondary.One comment that I've seen is that my comparison is flawed because my prints were made on an Epson 1270 inkjet printer and that if they had been Cibachromes done on an enlarger the difference would have been the other way. I disagree. I have been a Cibachrome / Ilfochrome printer for 25 years and have taught workshops and written articles on it. I closed my darkroom 2 years ago because I believe inkjet prints to be superior in almost every respect. Many professional and fine-arts photographers believe similarly. Ciba prints Vs. inkjets is an old debate that I'm no longer interested in.

Another reason to dispute this position is that the superiority of the D30 image is clearly visible on-screen, even before a print is made. This visible difference then carries over to prints. In any event what we are doing here is a comparison, not a measure of absolute goodness.

Another objection is to the scanner used. Again, this is a pointless debate. The Imacon Flextight Photo is one of the most highly regarded scanners on the market and is used extensively around the world as a viable alternative to commercial lab drum scanners. Is a better scan possible? Yes, almost certainly. Will 99% of all photographers ever have such a scan made? Unlikely. Is the Imacon better than almost every other desktop scanner under USD $10,000. Most would agree.

The point that I wish to stress again is that what I have attempted to do is compare D30 output with a well scanned transparency. Not to see which can be blown up to 30 feet. Not to compare Ciba to inkjet. Not to argue the merits of various scanners, printing papers or other methodologies. My tests, evaluations and opinions are done done under conditions as good as if not slightly better than most photographers would use if they were doing them. I'll leave absolute scientific rigor and exactitude to others more qualified and especially those more interested in such minutia. As for me, I'm going out to take pictures.

Regards,

Michael

gbee said:

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet
fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still
look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more
knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print
much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning
equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an
Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image
will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same
equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical
(Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for
comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another
anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan
better than slide film for printing in this class of printing
devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months
that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or
similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of
unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match
film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take
the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of
salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this
fairy tale.

Click to expand...

I've said this elsewhere on the forum but I want to repeat it here: Michael's conclusions make a great deal of sense to me. Ben Lifson, a photography historian/critic and close friend of mine is fond of saying: "I can't talk about a picture I haven't seen". We aren't going to be able to see Michael's prints via our computer screens and I, again, suggest that others try a similar comparison so that they have first hand output to look at. Given Michael's background, it might be fair to assume that he knows how to judge a print.

Michael Reichmann said:

I've been writing for magazines and technical journals for as long
as I've been a photographer; more than 30 years. In all that time
this is one of the most controversial opinions that I've published
so I'm concerned that I understand what it is that I'm seeing.
After spending a number of additional hours examining images on
screen and on paper, and sharing the evaluation with both pros and
laymen, I've come to the following preliminary conclusion.

It is inescapable that the D30 produces sharper, better looking
images than the scanned film combination at sizes up to about 10 X
13". Larger than this 35mm wins, but it isn't till above 11X15" or
so that this starts to become obvious. Most lay observers can't see
the difference. (The D30 image is, of course, ressed-up in Genuine
Fractals for sizes above 6X9").
What appears to be happening is that the degree of superiority over
the film/scanner combination is about 20%. It is only when the D30
image is res-up beyond this amount that the playing field levels.

I have received quite a number of emails and seen message board
comments calling my conclusions into doubt, for various reasons.
Let me start by saying that I'm the first to admit that I'm a
photographer, not a scientist. But, I do understand the scientific
method. (I have 8 granted U.S. patents in the field of
telecommunications and computer interface methodology, so I have
some experience in this area).

Having said that I will also add that all that I care about is how
an images look on a print. As a fine-art landscape and nature
photographer what counts most for me is what will appear on gallery
and purchaser's walls.

Theory is secondary.One comment that I've seen is that my
comparison is flawed because my prints were made on an Epson 1270
inkjet printer and that if they had been Cibachromes done on an
enlarger the difference would have been the other way. I disagree.
I have been a Cibachrome / Ilfochrome printer for 25 years and have
taught workshops and written articles on it. I closed my darkroom 2
years ago because I believe inkjet prints to be superior in almost
every respect. Many professional and fine-arts photographers
believe similarly. Ciba prints Vs. inkjets is an old debate that
I'm no longer interested in.

Another reason to dispute this position is that the superiority of
the D30 image is clearly visible on-screen, even before a print is
made. This visible difference then carries over to prints. In any
event what we are doing here is a comparison, not a measure of
absolute goodness.
Another objection is to the scanner used. Again, this is a
pointless debate. The Imacon Flextight Photo is one of the most
highly regarded scanners on the market and is used extensively
around the world as a viable alternative to commercial lab drum
scanners. Is a better scan possible? Yes, almost certainly. Will
99% of all photographers ever have such a scan made? Unlikely. Is
the Imacon better than almost every other desktop scanner under USD
$10,000. Most would agree.

The point that I wish to stress again is that what I have attempted
to do is compare D30 output with a well scanned transparency. Not
to see which can be blown up to 30 feet. Not to compare Ciba to
inkjet. Not to argue the merits of various scanners, printing
papers or other methodologies. My tests, evaluations and opinions
are done done under conditions as good as if not slightly better
than most photographers would use if they were doing them. I'll
leave absolute scientific rigor and exactitude to others more
qualified and especially those more interested in such minutia. As
for me, I'm going out to take pictures.

Regards,

Michael

gbee said:

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet
fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still
look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more
knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print
much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning
equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an
Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image
will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same
equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical
(Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for
comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another
anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan
better than slide film for printing in this class of printing
devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months
that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or
similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of
unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match
film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take
the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of
salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this
fairy tale.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sean,

Thanks for your comments.

I'd like to add that if anyone would like to see prints of the comparison as well as other samples that I've shot they can visit Vistek in Toronto and ask to see Brian George on the 2nd floor digital camera department. He'll be pleased to show them to you.

Michael

(Needless to say I have no connection to Vistek other than that they get a lot of my equipment money, and Brian is an old friend).

Sean Reid said:

Michael Reichmann said:

I've been writing for magazines and technical journals for as long
as I've been a photographer; more than 30 years. In all that time
this is one of the most controversial opinions that I've published
so I'm concerned that I understand what it is that I'm seeing.
After spending a number of additional hours examining images on
screen and on paper, and sharing the evaluation with both pros and
laymen, I've come to the following preliminary conclusion.

It is inescapable that the D30 produces sharper, better looking
images than the scanned film combination at sizes up to about 10 X
13". Larger than this 35mm wins, but it isn't till above 11X15" or
so that this starts to become obvious. Most lay observers can't see
the difference. (The D30 image is, of course, ressed-up in Genuine
Fractals for sizes above 6X9").
What appears to be happening is that the degree of superiority over
the film/scanner combination is about 20%. It is only when the D30
image is res-up beyond this amount that the playing field levels.

I have received quite a number of emails and seen message board
comments calling my conclusions into doubt, for various reasons.
Let me start by saying that I'm the first to admit that I'm a
photographer, not a scientist. But, I do understand the scientific
method. (I have 8 granted U.S. patents in the field of
telecommunications and computer interface methodology, so I have
some experience in this area).

Having said that I will also add that all that I care about is how
an images look on a print. As a fine-art landscape and nature
photographer what counts most for me is what will appear on gallery
and purchaser's walls.

Theory is secondary.One comment that I've seen is that my
comparison is flawed because my prints were made on an Epson 1270
inkjet printer and that if they had been Cibachromes done on an
enlarger the difference would have been the other way. I disagree.
I have been a Cibachrome / Ilfochrome printer for 25 years and have
taught workshops and written articles on it. I closed my darkroom 2
years ago because I believe inkjet prints to be superior in almost
every respect. Many professional and fine-arts photographers
believe similarly. Ciba prints Vs. inkjets is an old debate that
I'm no longer interested in.

Another reason to dispute this position is that the superiority of
the D30 image is clearly visible on-screen, even before a print is
made. This visible difference then carries over to prints. In any
event what we are doing here is a comparison, not a measure of
absolute goodness.
Another objection is to the scanner used. Again, this is a
pointless debate. The Imacon Flextight Photo is one of the most
highly regarded scanners on the market and is used extensively
around the world as a viable alternative to commercial lab drum
scanners. Is a better scan possible? Yes, almost certainly. Will
99% of all photographers ever have such a scan made? Unlikely. Is
the Imacon better than almost every other desktop scanner under USD
$10,000. Most would agree.

The point that I wish to stress again is that what I have attempted
to do is compare D30 output with a well scanned transparency. Not
to see which can be blown up to 30 feet. Not to compare Ciba to
inkjet. Not to argue the merits of various scanners, printing
papers or other methodologies. My tests, evaluations and opinions
are done done under conditions as good as if not slightly better
than most photographers would use if they were doing them. I'll
leave absolute scientific rigor and exactitude to others more
qualified and especially those more interested in such minutia. As
for me, I'm going out to take pictures.

Regards,

Michael

gbee said:

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet
fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still
look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more
knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print
much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning
equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an
Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image
will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same
equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical
(Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for
comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another
anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan
better than slide film for printing in this class of printing
devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months
that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or
similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of
unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match
film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take
the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of
salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this
fairy tale.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Michael Reichmann said:

My tests, evaluations and opinions are done done under conditions as > good as if not slightly better than most photographers would use if they > were doing them. I'll leave absolute scientific rigor and exactitude to > others more qualified and especially those more interested in such > minutia. As for me, I'm going out to take pictures.

Click to expand...

Well said Michael. I for one appreciate your efforts to conduct
a test which is most analogous to REAL WORLD applications.
I would further postulate that dissenters are

A. Film zeaolots

or

B. Employees of competitive products

Just my opinion, but the proof is in the pudding.

It seems that many people are deriding this experiment on the basis of their own assumptions as to what it should have been, or should have meant. It seems clear to me that the conclusion that can be drawn is that for digital images up to 8"x10", the D30 is a better source than 35mm Provia F. If the application is to be digital, the film must be scanned, so comparison with a photographic print is irrelevant. Michael does not claim that for large prints the D30 produces superior results.
Charles

gbee said:

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet
fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still
look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more
knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print
much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning
equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an
Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image
will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same
equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical
(Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for
comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another
anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan
better than slide film for printing in this class of printing
devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months
that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or
similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of
unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match
film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take
the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of
salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this
fairy tale.

Click to expand...

This is so like the Compact Disc vs Vinyl "discussions" that appeared in the high-end audio magazines in the mid 1980s!

gbee said:

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet
fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still
look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more
knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print
much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning
equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an
Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image
will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same
equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical
(Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for
comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another
anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan
better than slide film for printing in this class of printing
devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months
that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or
similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of
unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match
film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take
the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of
salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this
fairy tale.

Click to expand...

Michael Reichmann wrote:
major snip

Michael Reichmann said:

As for me, I'm going out to take pictures.

Click to expand...

it's that the whole point? or am i missing the point that is it required to flame someone when they something against the hitherto accepted norm?

John Rausch said:

This is so like the Compact Disc vs Vinyl "discussions" that
appeared in the high-end audio magazines in the mid 1980s!

Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same thing. I had more or less reached the
same conclusion looking at Kodak photoCD scans on thier website
which I assume would be near best case and looking at samples
from the fuji S1. Both 6MP images, but the fuji was clearly superior
in every respect and this was obvious in a Jpeg. Dare to mention
such blasphemy and you are branded an idiot. Then people started
quoting luminous landscape at me, to "PROVE" there were 14MP+
in 35mm images. I love the Irony.

I was still surprised at the turmoil this caused. I wonder how many here

that were picking at Michael's results have anywhere near his skill/experience and equipment. I would recommend they read a much bigger section of his web site, to get a measure of his opinions worth, if they are unfamiliar with his work. This was not a casual examination.

After reading his conclusions, I am left with the impression that the only
venue left were 35mm film really wins is in slide projection.

Something I don't do.

Peter

No it is not. But to use your analogy then the test was like trying to run a record in a CD player and then say the record was flawed.

John Rausch said:

This is so like the Compact Disc vs Vinyl "discussions" that
appeared in the high-end audio magazines in the mid 1980s!

Click to expand...

cut

He doesn’t anymore; he amended his site after the avalanche of criticism he received. With the amended site I actually agree with him, I still don't agree that his experiment is valid, but as he says, it is what he does and he is satisfied and his clients pay him. Bottom line. I've been doing the same for two years with inferior equipment.

I had a hunch though that it is not that the D30 images are SO far ahead in terms of quality but that the slide prints and colour neg prints he was doing chemically were not as good as they should have been all along. When I changed I has horrified to see some of the prints I had sold customers, the casts and fuzzieness and dust of some of them was deplorable. It was a real eye opener. I bet that’s what has happened to Michael, and never underestimate the cleanliness of a digital print, no film print can ever match without careful retouching.

Charles said:

It seems that many people are deriding this experiment on the basis
of their own assumptions as to what it should have been, or should
have meant. It seems clear to me that the conclusion that can be
drawn is that for digital images up to 8"x10", the D30 is a better
source than 35mm Provia F. If the application is to be digital, the
film must be scanned, so comparison with a photographic print is
irrelevant. Michael does not claim that for large prints the D30
produces superior results.
Charles

Click to expand...

cut..

Actually Olympus has offered me a discount if I say E10 here, so I have.

Should have both by next week BTW.

Actually I agree with Michael’s personal opinion, I've been digitised two year now and thought 1.3MP beat the pants off film, as Michael described, the end result in a client’s hand and the cheque in yours – Boom Boom. However, I still disagree with his experiment and it says more about his former practice than his skill level suggests, he actually sounds to me very much like a child discovering something for the first time, he of course might be actually discovering something for the first time. It does come as a shock for all those who did their own darkroom work to discover the apparent superiority of digital over film. One does loose a little self worth and I think it is only natural then to blame or justify ones life work by renouncing that, that they had held so dearly. I’ve been through that phase and now I HATE film.

So I guess, yes! I want to get my ad in for a rival brand; first one to my door is the winner, without an invoice, of course.

Cut...

Tom28650 said:

A. Film zeaolots

or

B. Employees of competitive products

Just my opinion, but the proof is in the pudding.

Click to expand...

Simply because I did not see it first. I usually use news readers and don't like the web based forum format much, I clicked to join the discussion, which I presumed was about the subject I was reading on the main page, I was confused.

Member said:

P.S. Why did you both add to the existing thread and start a new
thread with same posting?

Click to expand...

cut

I'll start by saying I really appreciate this review Michael.

For me, this test is based on the premise that someone wants an image in a digital format as an end result. That is where a lot of people following this seem to be getting confused. This was not a test between a digital print and a chemical print. This was also not a test of Provia 100F vs. a D30. It really is a test of a film scan to a D30. The D30 wins. There is one less step to getting to where you want to go. If you want to go digital then get a D30. I'm going to.

Ink jets are really cool. They are not, however, even close to continuous tone. I have a 1270. I'm impressed. I'm outputting 120 scans from a Kodak RFS3570 film scanner. These are 14meg files. That's plenty even for an 11x14 print. Now, I output the same file on a Sienna Photolook 5000 and I get much better results than from the 1270. What I mean by better is that there is more tonal detail revealed in the print. It really picks up the little details better. It's a great test of digital output from the same "control" source. Why does it seem like so few people on this group know about CRT printers? Oh yeah, no one writes about them in consumer magazines.

Everyone (well, many people) here keeps saying; "well as long as your making money and the client is happy then digital is just fine." Great, thanks for helping to drop the quality level we put up with in this society yet another notch. Who needs pride in ones work? "Oh, but the client needs it now, or they will find someone else to do the job." Come one now people, we know that most clients are not well (or accurately) educated on photography (or much else for that matter).

Records are better than CDs just as a print from a slide or neg is better than digital if you want unprecidented tonal quality. We live in an analoge world. You see and hear with an infinite level of detail. It's that simple.

--good luck to all on getting a D30. I know I can't wait to get one.

Teymoor

Michael Reichmann said:

I've been writing for magazines and technical journals for as long
as I've been a photographer; more than 30 years. In all that time
this is one of the most controversial opinions that I've published
so I'm concerned that I understand what it is that I'm seeing.
After spending a number of additional hours examining images on
screen and on paper, and sharing the evaluation with both pros and
laymen, I've come to the following preliminary conclusion.

It is inescapable that the D30 produces sharper, better looking
images than the scanned film combination at sizes up to about 10 X
13". Larger than this 35mm wins, but it isn't till above 11X15" or
so that this starts to become obvious. Most lay observers can't see
the difference. (The D30 image is, of course, ressed-up in Genuine
Fractals for sizes above 6X9").
What appears to be happening is that the degree of superiority over
the film/scanner combination is about 20%. It is only when the D30
image is res-up beyond this amount that the playing field levels.

I have received quite a number of emails and seen message board
comments calling my conclusions into doubt, for various reasons.
Let me start by saying that I'm the first to admit that I'm a
photographer, not a scientist. But, I do understand the scientific
method. (I have 8 granted U.S. patents in the field of
telecommunications and computer interface methodology, so I have
some experience in this area).

Having said that I will also add that all that I care about is how
an images look on a print. As a fine-art landscape and nature
photographer what counts most for me is what will appear on gallery
and purchaser's walls.

Theory is secondary.One comment that I've seen is that my
comparison is flawed because my prints were made on an Epson 1270
inkjet printer and that if they had been Cibachromes done on an
enlarger the difference would have been the other way. I disagree.
I have been a Cibachrome / Ilfochrome printer for 25 years and have
taught workshops and written articles on it. I closed my darkroom 2
years ago because I believe inkjet prints to be superior in almost
every respect. Many professional and fine-arts photographers
believe similarly. Ciba prints Vs. inkjets is an old debate that
I'm no longer interested in.

Another reason to dispute this position is that the superiority of
the D30 image is clearly visible on-screen, even before a print is
made. This visible difference then carries over to prints. In any
event what we are doing here is a comparison, not a measure of
absolute goodness.
Another objection is to the scanner used. Again, this is a
pointless debate. The Imacon Flextight Photo is one of the most
highly regarded scanners on the market and is used extensively
around the world as a viable alternative to commercial lab drum
scanners. Is a better scan possible? Yes, almost certainly. Will
99% of all photographers ever have such a scan made? Unlikely. Is
the Imacon better than almost every other desktop scanner under USD
$10,000. Most would agree.

The point that I wish to stress again is that what I have attempted
to do is compare D30 output with a well scanned transparency. Not
to see which can be blown up to 30 feet. Not to compare Ciba to
inkjet. Not to argue the merits of various scanners, printing
papers or other methodologies. My tests, evaluations and opinions
are done done under conditions as good as if not slightly better
than most photographers would use if they were doing them. I'll
leave absolute scientific rigor and exactitude to others more
qualified and especially those more interested in such minutia. As
for me, I'm going out to take pictures.

Regards,

Michael

gbee said:

luminous-landscape in an article at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
inaccurate.

In the end he uses interloped files to reach a comparison but yet
fails to produce a 40x40Foot sample that the film scan should still
look sharp at 30feet.

Missing also is the printing software, and as the more
knowledgeable of us know only too well, digital files can print
much, much better than film scans even from high end scanning
equipment. It appears that the film scans were sent through an
Epson 1270 printer, through which almost any digital source image
will print perfectly and he also ran the scans through the same
equipment.

I submit that the slide (film used) must have wet chemical
(Cibachrome) prints made, as the media was deigned for, for
comparison to be anything realistic. It also highlights another
anomaly covered here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan
better than slide film for printing in this class of printing
devices. NG members have proven conclusively in the past months
that slides scan slightly unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or
similar) produce cutting edge sharpness and 3D effects of
unparalleled quality.

I think the D30 will be a fine camera and it output will match
film, well enough for commercial usage, in many fields, but I take
the conclusion that the D30 is better than film with a grain of
salt --- I can't help feeling there is promotional air to this
fairy tale.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Please don't make unsupported or unwarrented assumptions.

Michael

Ps: In what way did I ammend my site based on critisism? The only change I made was to revise my JPG Vs. RAW report and there had been no critisism of that at all. Kindly don't made untrue statements.

gbee said:

I had a hunch though that it is not that the D30 images are SO far
ahead in terms of quality but that the slide prints and colour neg
prints he was doing chemically were not as good as they should have
been all along. When I changed I has horrified to see some of the
prints I had sold customers, the casts and fuzzieness and dust of
some of them was deplorable. It was a real eye opener. I bet
that’s what has happened to Michael, and never underestimate
the cleanliness of a digital print, no film print can ever match
without careful retouching.

Charles said:

It seems that many people are deriding this experiment on the basis
of their own assumptions as to what it should have been, or should
have meant. It seems clear to me that the conclusion that can be
drawn is that for digital images up to 8"x10", the D30 is a better
source than 35mm Provia F. If the application is to be digital, the
film must be scanned, so comparison with a photographic print is
irrelevant. Michael does not claim that for large prints the D30
produces superior results.
Charles

Click to expand...

cut..

Click to expand...

Teymoor said:

Records are better than CDs just as a print from a slide or neg is
better than digital if you want unprecidented tonal quality. We
live in an analoge world. You see and hear with an infinite level
of detail. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

We do in fact live in an analogue world. However, human perception is in essence digital. Information is carried through the optic nerves in a manner that is basically equivelent to frequency modulation. At some threshold, a subtle change in tone or color does not produce a different frequency of the signal traveling down the axon.

A more telling example of how perception is digital is how discrete frames in motion pictures appear to produce continuous motion. The human eye refreshes the image about 60 to 80 times per second. You could run a motion picture at 300. Objectively, this would be a huge improvement. However, neither you nor I would be able to tell the difference.

I am not really that interested in whether a difference can be measured, if the difference is beyond my ability to perceive.