I am lucky to live in a place where there're over 10 labs within every 1 KM so it's fairly easy to locate a not too bad lab due to competition and most of them print it the old way. I think your test especially make good sense if talking about doing home studio in somewhere man power is very expensive.
Sean,
I hope you don't mind, but I am supplying a stand-in photograph
crop for you untill you post yours.
Here, again, is my Provia 100F @ ISO 200 (exposed at EI 200 and
push processed one f/stop), 4000 ppi scan, actual pixels crop. It
is the one where I applied unsharpen mask parameters of Amount:
350%; Radius: 0.3 pixels; Levels: 0.
By the way, you never commented on this, but clearly it is much
less "grainy" than the Provia 100F samples that you posted. (and
those were supposed to be taken at ISO 100, no less) You, of
course, might prefer to think I am crying "foul"...okay, perhaps
what you posted was done by someone inept instead.
All right, here's mine:
from this link:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=4695834
Now for the one that will temporarily stand-in for the one you will
provide. I'm sorry, I will not embed it, it was not my original
image. But the parameters are that it was taken with a Fuji S2 by
a professional photographer in the 'fine' jpeg 12 megapixel mode.
(resulting in a 4.9 megabyte jpeg file) Oh, at ISO 100
unfortunately, so it has an unfair quality advantage over mine. As
per the instructions I left for you, I uprezzed it so the long
dimension was 5669 pixels (the same as a full 35mm frame scanned at
4000 ppi), and Photoshop unsharpen mask was applied with the same
parameters stated above:
http://www.blackmallard.com/digital/proxy.jpg
It has been cropped to the same dimensions as my crop, and you
should see that it contains elements related to mine, though not
exactly the same. Also, I saved the crop with the very minimum
compression Photoshop allowed, unlike mine. Your proxy has roughly
two times the file size as my crop...I tend to play more than fair.
I hope this clears up your perceptions...
My best,
Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
--
Sean,
I hope you don't mind, but I am supplying a stand-in photograph
crop for you untill you post yours.
Here, again, is my Provia 100F @ ISO 200 (exposed at EI 200 and
push processed one f/stop), 4000 ppi scan, actual pixels crop. It
is the one where I applied unsharpen mask parameters of Amount:
350%; Radius: 0.3 pixels; Levels: 0.
By the way, you never commented on this, but clearly it is much
less "grainy" than the Provia 100F samples that you posted. (and
those were supposed to be taken at ISO 100, no less) You, of
course, might prefer to think I am crying "foul"...okay, perhaps
what you posted was done by someone inept instead.
All right, here's mine:
from this link:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=4695834
Now for the one that will temporarily stand-in for the one you will
provide. I'm sorry, I will not embed it, it was not my original
image. But the parameters are that it was taken with a Fuji S2 by
a professional photographer in the 'fine' jpeg 12 megapixel mode.
(resulting in a 4.9 megabyte jpeg file) Oh, at ISO 100
unfortunately, so it has an unfair quality advantage over mine. As
per the instructions I left for you, I uprezzed it so the long
dimension was 5669 pixels (the same as a full 35mm frame scanned at
4000 ppi), and Photoshop unsharpen mask was applied with the same
parameters stated above:
http://www.blackmallard.com/digital/proxy.jpg
It has been cropped to the same dimensions as my crop, and you
should see that it contains elements related to mine, though not
exactly the same. Also, I saved the crop with the very minimum
compression Photoshop allowed, unlike mine. Your proxy has roughly
two times the file size as my crop...I tend to play more than fair.
I hope this clears up your perceptions...
My best,
Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
Tariq,
Funny you would say that. When I shot, developed and printed my first one, it was such a none event and couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about and here you say it too? The only part that was any hassle was I couldn't see any grain with the grain enlarger up through the largest magnification I could get - 20 X 30. Contrast was well under control at ISO25 when using Technidol. Optimal conditions . . . good 'L' lens and a tripod and not a big deal. As far as flogging then using it . . . didn't you see what happens to flesh in Mel's new movie?
No interest in watching a Man be tortured to Death for 2 hours. Glad you enjoyed shooting Techpan and found it so easy to control. I would bet you are one of the few. I mastered it but it took some testing to nail the density range I wanted. I shot with a T90 and a L lenses as well by the way. My favorite was the 85mm 1.2 and using the 300tl flash to drag the shutter for portraits.
The first roll and subsequent rolls have been none events and I anticipate the future rolls will continue to be the same. I believe it is not as popular due to the required use of Kodak Technidol to develop for optimal results. I have by no means "mastered" it or any other film as I am brand new to film myself. Although I've shot just over 300 rolls, I have only used a few dozen rolls of a few brands.
i do the same,- the fuji cannt compare to 6x17 drumscanned images, thats clear. but a tool who does an outstanding job for this is the 14n. it can compare with 6x9 drumscanned cromes. you will find little bit more detail in the film, but the image in total from the 14n is not worther......i.m.o.
Okay Ed,
Sorry it took so long... this is not the best example, but more
than enough under the circumstances... I meant to go take a shot
similar to yours, but I have been too busy lately. I used this
image today to compare ACR to the EX converter and I decided to do
your comparison for you as well using the same image that I picked
at random for the other comparison since I already had it ready to
go and it seems to meet your criteria of high frequency detail.
Here they are:
Here is the crop:
here is your crop:
Here is mine sharpened using USM .3 at 350%:
And yours sharpened same settings:
Here is where I cropped:
here is where you cropped:
I think we can agree there is plenty of high frequency branches here.
No sharpening in camera or during conversion. You can see how
there are much less artifacts when RAW is used, unlike the "Stand
in" that you chose that looks just horrible and is in no way
representative of what the S2 can do.
Personally, I think your sample and my sample are pretty close,
what do you think? And I must admit, your sample is better than any
scan or enlargment I have ever gotten from film.
Here is a version resized down to 3mp size to give you an idea of
the detail in this shot, but you should see the resized up
version.... just let me know:
http://www.pbase.com/image/26943554
If you (or anyone else) wants to see the full size resized to 5669
pixels wide, let me know and I will e-mail it to you. (please do
ask... I would really like to share it... and hear your honest
opinions of its resolution because I think you have not been
looking at good samples from the S2) There is no noise at all in
the image. By the way, this was taken handheld with my AF-S 24-85
3.5-4.5 G lens at 35mm... so not the best glass in the world
either. I would also love to see your image at its full size as
well.
You also might want to look at this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=8005723
In it it shows the detail gains one gets with using the EX
converter with RAW over ACR 2.1 (using this image as an example). I
know you do not own the S2 Ed... and most of the samples you have
seen are from JPEG from the camera.... well just to put it in
perspective... JPEG is even worse than Photoshop RAW converter 2.1
for resolution/artifacts. So if the EX is this much better than ACR
2.1.... imagine how much better it is over JPEG. Maybe you have not
been entirely fair in your views about the S2 since you seem to
think that "stand in" you provided is typical of what the S2 can do.
Regards,
Sean
[snip]
[snip]Here they are:
Here is the crop:
here is your crop:
Here is mine sharpened using USM .3 at 350%:
And yours sharpened same settings:
Here is where I cropped:
here is where you cropped:
I think we can agree there is plenty of high frequency branches here.
No sharpening in camera or during conversion. You can see how
there are much less artifacts when RAW is used, unlike the "Stand
in" that you chose that looks just horrible and is in no way
representative of what the S2 can do.
Personally, I think your sample and my sample are pretty close,
what do you think? And I must admit, your sample is better than any
scan or enlargment I have ever gotten from film.
Here is a version resized down to 3mp size to give you an idea of
the detail in this shot, but you should see the resized up
version.... just let me know:
http://www.pbase.com/image/26943554
[snip]
maybee your minolta is better than my scanmate500 drumscanner,- or i dont no to use it...? no seriously,- i know to use it and the scanmate surely is better......
clearly the s2 is the much more usefull tool, and it is a "one for all" camera. i love mine. there is no comparation to the kodak, the 14n is a completely different concept. it is more than a studio midformat back with many limitations and you NEED postproduction for good images.
as i said above.... you will find that you can remove this kind of artifacts completely with converting in ps acr2.1 and using the color sliders and the CA sliders correctly.
See that the name of the file is "CROPSHARPENED" Hmmm no wonder there is a halo around the branches... it is the sharpened version.
See above... you mistakenly were looking at the sharpened version that you requested.
more important stuff snipped.
I do not see how film won in this case... most people who e-mailed me for the full size sample have said that it appears to them that the S2 has as much or more detail, they look pretty equal... and they want to see the full size image to see what the rest of the image looks like. So far yours has been the only response I have gotten that has said that Film is much better.
Fine... but if that was the best image you could get as an example of the S2 output, no wonder you do not appreciate how good the S2 is. That image is horrible. Not to mention that although I have a lot of experience, I do not claim to be an expert photographer either, although I think I am pretty good , I am sure others who do this for their living can make the S2 do a lot better than I. Yes, I know I am not in the same league as you Ed, not even close... and I do not say that sarcastically at all, you have great photos on your site! I admire your skill, and I can say with all honesty that I am nowhere near the photographer that you are. That said... my "website" was just a PBASE account that I set up so I could post comparisons... none of the images on there are images I am particulaly proud of, and they were all posted just for comparison purposes. Eventually I will set up a gallery though
. And although you have the superior skills, I still have plenty of experience with film, and I can tell you in all honesty I have never gotten as good results from any kind of film, from any pro lab development or even in my own darkroom, than I can get from my S2 now. Maybe that says something about me, not film or the S2, who knows... all I am saying is that for me, there is no contest.