D30+genuine fractals = no more film??

Mathias31920 · Feb 6, 2001

I was just over at http://www.luminous-landscape.com (great site!) and read about the comparison between the D3o and Provia 100F scanned at 3200dpi. The author seems to know what he is talking about, and I must say I am convinced.

I need to be able to do prints as large as an A4 paper (20x30cm). Can anyone confirm the results from the website above. Is it possible to get better or equal results from a D30 as from scanned film?

Also, if anyone knows or has tested, how big is the difference from a picture taken with a D30, printed at about 300dpi, compared to a "normal" picture from film (say fuji 100 negative film) developed at a lab?

I will do my own testing as I have access to a D30. Will post results later, but would be great to hear any ideas or testing that has already been done, so I know what to expect.
Mathias

Randolph McMillan · Feb 7, 2001

Try adding Nik Sharpener to your images after upsizing with GF. I think you will find hey will look even better.
Randy

Mathias said:
I was just over at http://www.luminous-landscape.com (great site!) and
read about the comparison between the D3o and Provia 100F scanned
at 3200dpi. The author seems to know what he is talking about, and
I must say I am convinced.
I need to be able to do prints as large as an A4 paper (20x30cm).
Can anyone confirm the results from the website above. Is it
possible to get better or equal results from a D30 as from scanned
film?
Also, if anyone knows or has tested, how big is the difference from
a picture taken with a D30, printed at about 300dpi, compared to a
"normal" picture from film (say fuji 100 negative film) developed
at a lab?
I will do my own testing as I have access to a D30. Will post
results later, but would be great to hear any ideas or testing that
has already been done, so I know what to expect.
Mathias

Robert Maclellan · Feb 7, 2001

If the author of this site had applied Genuine Fractals to the scanned image he got from the Provia frame after the 3200dpi scan, how big do you think it could have been printed? Anything he does to the D30 image could also have been done to the scanned image and the resolution lead of the film image would be maintained.

Don't forget, he came to his "conclusions" based not on a comparison of a lab print to a digital print but of his enhanced digital print to a 2nd generation digital print of a film image. As you can see he had to apply several 3rd party enhancers to the digital image to "level the playing field".

It is sort of like putting a rocket engine on a VW and then claiming the VW is faster than a Ferrarri.

Mathias said:
I was just over at http://www.luminous-landscape.com (great site!) and
read about the comparison between the D3o and Provia 100F scanned
at 3200dpi. The author seems to know what he is talking about, and
I must say I am convinced.
I need to be able to do prints as large as an A4 paper (20x30cm).
Can anyone confirm the results from the website above. Is it
possible to get better or equal results from a D30 as from scanned
film?
Also, if anyone knows or has tested, how big is the difference from
a picture taken with a D30, printed at about 300dpi, compared to a
"normal" picture from film (say fuji 100 negative film) developed
at a lab?
I will do my own testing as I have access to a D30. Will post
results later, but would be great to hear any ideas or testing that
has already been done, so I know what to expect.
Mathias

Michael Reichmann · Feb 7, 2001

I am the author of the article being discussed.

Although I thought I had explained my purpose and methodology perhaps it wasn't expressed clearly.

The test had two purposes. The first, how does a D30 image compare to a high-quality scanned transparency at a typical size -- ie: on 8.5X11 paper? The results are irrefutable - the D30 produces superior resolution, colour purity and dynamic range.

Secondly, can such an image be ressed-up to print on 13X19" paper, and how does the image look and compare? The answer, -- very good indeed. Not quite as good as scanned film when the size gets over about 10X15", but damn close. ( I should add that it's a rare 35mm image that can stand being enlarged to 16X20" of beyond.

Now of course I had to use Genuine Fractals to get a decent sized file to produce a bigger print. If I'd gone even larger I would have also had to use Genuine Fractals on the scanned file as well! The sole point is their relative properties, and these I've just described.

As to comparing to a "lab print", I see this as a red herring. What lab print, done by whom and with what materials? A type R print, an Ilfochrome? Or, is the image scanned and then a Lightjet or a Durst Lamda print made? If so what scanner, done by whom?

My experence after 25 years as a Cibachrome printer and teacher is is that I can produce much better images via a high quality scan and Photoshop than I ever could in the traditional darkroom. Just about every serious worker that I know now takes this as an article of faith. That's why I didn't bother to make a "lab print". My desktop prints are simply better.

So, where this left me was in wanting to see how images from the D30, using the tools and materials that I normally use, compared to scanned images from film, using the tools and materials that I normally use. Any other test might be of academic interest but not terribly practical or relavent.

It's now been 3 months and about 3,500 D30 frames since I wrote that article (and a comparable D30 review that appears in the forthcoming issue of Photo Techniques magazine). I have done several major shoots with it during that time and remain convinced of my conclusions.

Finally, I leave next week for a shoot in the rainforst in Costa Rica. Do I bring the 1V or the D30? There's no question in my mind, partciularly since much of my shooting wiill be at ISO 400. For anyone interested this issue is now discussed at http://luminous-landscape.com/iso100-400.htm

Michael
The Luminous Landscape

Michael

Mathias31920 · Feb 7, 2001

I totally agree with you Michael, and for me the important thing is also the difference between a D30 image (with genuince fractals applied) and a scanned negative/positive.

At work (I'm a photographers assitent) we use a polaroid spintscan 35 plus (not close to as godd as the one you use) at 2700dpi and scan our films. They are saved at 20x30cm (don't know exactly in Inches, but around 9x12) and then saved in JPG format. The results from this procedure is acceptable for basicallt all kinds of work we do. Soooo... I'm about to start my own business, and am thinking about only getting a D30 (already have a EOS 1 which I will keep just in case) to do most of my jobs, the upsizing them with genuine fractals, and send them to clients.... and after you report I am convinced I will be able to do this with EXCELLENT results (better than with our mediocre scanner and negative film (mostly Fuji 100 or 400)). He has a D30 and next week I will take it out for a shoot, save some in TIFF and some in JPG, try resampling, and see the results.

Thank you for an excellent test (and website!). Will post my results later on this website. You definitely seem to know LOTS about digital pictures, and (after surfing your website) take excellent pictures. Have a great time in Puerto Rico, and be sure to let us see the results!
Regards,
Mathias Sjöström, Sweden

Michael Reichmann said:
I am the author of the article being discussed.

Although I thought I had explained my purpose and methodology
perhaps it wasn't expressed clearly.

The test had two purposes. The first, how does a D30 image compare
to a high-quality scanned transparency at a typical size -- ie: on
8.5X11 paper? The results are irrefutable - the D30 produces
superior resolution, colour purity and dynamic range.

Secondly, can such an image be ressed-up to print on 13X19" paper,
and how does the image look and compare? The answer, -- very good
indeed. Not quite as good as scanned film when the size gets over
about 10X15", but damn close. ( I should add that it's a rare 35mm
image that can stand being enlarged to 16X20" of beyond.

Now of course I had to use Genuine Fractals to get a decent sized
file to produce a bigger print. If I'd gone even larger I would
have also had to use Genuine Fractals on the scanned file as well!
The sole point is their relative properties, and these I've just
described.

As to comparing to a "lab print", I see this as a red herring. What
lab print, done by whom and with what materials? A type R print, an
Ilfochrome? Or, is the image scanned and then a Lightjet or a Durst
Lamda print made? If so what scanner, done by whom?

My experence after 25 years as a Cibachrome printer and teacher is
is that I can produce much better images via a high quality scan
and Photoshop than I ever could in the traditional darkroom. Just
about every serious worker that I know now takes this as an article
of faith. That's why I didn't bother to make a "lab print". My
desktop prints are simply better.

So, where this left me was in wanting to see how images from the
D30, using the tools and materials that I normally use, compared to
scanned images from film, using the tools and materials that I
normally use. Any other test might be of academic interest but not
terribly practical or relavent.

It's now been 3 months and about 3,500 D30 frames since I wrote
that article (and a comparable D30 review that appears in the
forthcoming issue of Photo Techniques magazine). I have done
several major shoots with it during that time and remain convinced
of my conclusions.

Finally, I leave next week for a shoot in the rainforst in Costa
Rica. Do I bring the 1V or the D30? There's no question in my mind,
partciularly since much of my shooting wiill be at ISO 400. For
anyone interested this issue is now discussed at
http://luminous-landscape.com/iso100-400.htm

Michael
The Luminous Landscape

Michael

Search

D30+genuine fractals = no more film??

Mathias31920

Well-known member

Randolph McMillan

Well-known member

Robert Maclellan

Guest

Michael Reichmann

Well-known member

Mathias31920

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts