Reading mode: Light Dark

Luminous Landscape debunked?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chi
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
C

chi

Guest
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?
 
I have been saying for a while that he should be comparing digital prints to traditional photographic prints and NOT scans of film images which have been printed digitally. However, what is the real joke is that even after all of that he STILL had to run the digital camera image through Genuine Fractals just to get the resolution up to the level of the scan!

Nobody around here wants to think about these problems because they desperately want to believe that the digital camera they spent $4000 on is better than a $200 35mm compact film camera.
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
You are totally correct. Many people on this forum comparing film and digital refer to this site, but the reasononing is totally flawed. Digital users have their vested interest to push in justifying their high expenditure on digital cameras.

To my reasononing a valid test would be by comparing digital printed through an inkjet or dye sublimation printer and film printed via an enlager and the resulting paper prints compared.

You can get any result you want by the way the luminous-landscape comparison is made. In that comparison the film goes through an additional processing stage which degrades it, the scanning stage.
Geoff
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Totally correct. It is a scam.

These people are trying to justify the $10,000 they have spent on camera, computer and printer, put the film through a degading process and even then film comes up well.
Geoff
Robert MacLellan said:
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Geoff said:
Robert MacLellan said:
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What I want to see is a print made from a slide, through conventional means, compare this with a

print made from a 6mp chip camera, then see what looks better. I love digital but it's ludicrous to say

that a 3mp image has the same detail as a 35mm slide. I made inject prints from a Pro CD Kodak scan
from 35mm Provia film and they blow away images I've shot with my Fuji S1.

Even with scanning and ink jet printing the slide image shows a lot more detail than the digital.

This is especially true in my Grand Canyon landscapes where the point of focus is very far away.
 
Would be fine to sort all your arguments:

1. Scanning degrades film for printing (this is true in theory but not in practice)

Read this:

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op699.html

You might know that Frans Lanting's top prints are scanned and then printed on Lightjet (at Calypso in Santa Clara).

Ok. Your prints are better quality than by Galen Rowell and Frans Lanting.

2. Michael Reichmann is very well respected and shares his opinion (yours might differ that is ok). If you look closer for his equipment then you might easily learn that he does not justify the $4000 for his D30.

Uwe (www.outbackphoto.com)
Geoff said:
Robert MacLellan said:
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Agreed.
Digital is even further behind with direct printing from the neg or slide
Geoff
Michael Martin said:
Geoff said:
Robert MacLellan said:
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What I want to see is a print made from a slide, through
conventional means, compare this with a
print made from a 6mp chip camera, then see what looks better. I
love digital but it's ludicrous to say
that a 3mp image has the same detail as a 35mm slide. I made
inject prints from a Pro CD Kodak scan
from 35mm Provia film and they blow away images I've shot with my
Fuji S1.

Even with scanning and ink jet printing the slide image shows a lot
more detail than the digital.
This is especially true in my Grand Canyon landscapes where the
point of focus is very far away.
Click to expand...
 
Firstly to say scanning does not degrade film is crazy, it is sampling the image and not representing all the content of the image and colours, this is proven in practice.

The laws of science and engineering are against you here, the best result for a print from film is by direct enlarging from the film, there is no argument here.
Geoff
Uwe Steinmueller said:
1. Scanning degrades film for printing (this is true in theory but
not in practice)

Read this:

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op699.html

You might know that Frans Lanting's top prints are scanned and then
printed on Lightjet (at Calypso in Santa Clara).

Ok. Your prints are better quality than by Galen Rowell and Frans
Lanting.

2. Michael Reichmann is very well respected and shares his opinion
(yours might differ that is ok). If you look closer for his
equipment then you might easily learn that he does not justify the
$4000 for his D30.

Uwe (www.outbackphoto.com)
Geoff said:
Robert MacLellan said:
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You are quite right and this was trashed a long time back - I being one of the most vehement detractors at that time – I was totally flamed but it nice to see an ever growing number of people who see through these things immediately.

You would not believe the amount of digital nappies that proclaimed me a troll against the superior wisdom of this deluded digital wizard.

It caused quite a storm when first aired – then the site initially proclaimed that digital is better than film. The site was changed after my outrage gathered momentum. Despite I being an early adopter of digital I hold no illusions as to the true superiority of film – I believe film may well be replaced but not surpassed.
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Uwe Steinmueller said:
Would be fine to sort all your arguments:

1. Scanning degrades film for printing (this is true in theory but
not in practice)

Read this:

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op699.html

You might know that Frans Lanting's top prints are scanned and then
printed on Lightjet (at Calypso in Santa Clara).

Ok. Your prints are better quality than by Galen Rowell and Frans
Lanting.

2. Michael Reichmann is very well respected and shares his opinion
(yours might differ that is ok). If you look closer for his
equipment then you might easily learn that he does not justify the
$4000 for his D30.

Uwe (www.outbackphoto.com)
Click to expand...
Uwe,

I think it's a lost cause to try to convince most of those who have posted here because their minds have been "made up" and they don't want to be confused with "facts". :-))

A quick search of the Photos and Galleries section reveals that among ALL those in this thread who have "debunked" the Luminous-Landscape findings, a grand total of "two" images have been posted to demonstrate their collective skills and abilities as photographers. Some have been posting opinions for nearly a year and not a single shred of evidence to substantiate the validity of their claims.

One uses a C2500L, one has an E10, one is still using a DC215 and one has an S1. Who knows what the other has, or even IF he has a digital camera. It absolutely amazes me how little is understood about the way photography is done today and that in general, it's those with the least knowledge and skills who are the most opinionated.

It's too bad that rather than learning how to improve their skills and knowledge by reading and discussing current findings, a great deal of time is spent by them on this "Pro" forum as detractors who are only fooling themselves by bolstering each other's ego's while spreading dis-information and criticizing methodology which they apparently don't even understand.

I think I'll stop responding at all to these types of postings which should be moved to the "open talk" section rather wasting bandwith here where most of those who visit would like to learn from those with a great deal of experience like Michael and you, and appreciate the wisdom and correctness of what you have brought to the professional forums.

Best,

Lin
 
I hate to burst any bubbles, but the Durst Lamda printer used by more than a few pro devolpers, is a scanner/printer combination that produces the best prints I've ever seen. Side by side prints from the scanner, a digital camera (D1) and the same picture taken with Kodak Portra film printed on Kodak E paper, the the Lamda print looks far superior!!
Find a pro devolper, bring them a good negative and have them print

it for you on both the Lamda and their best wet film enlarger. Side-by-side, you will be blown away.

But don't take our word for it. Go to any magizine stand and look at the current months covers for the most popular photo mags. Three of them have a film vs digital story as their lead. Guess who wins in each story?

Peace,
GiantJim
Geoff said:
Uwe Steinmueller said:
1. Scanning degrades film for printing (this is true in theory but
not in practice)

Read this:

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op699.html

You might know that Frans Lanting's top prints are scanned and then
printed on Lightjet (at Calypso in Santa Clara).

Ok. Your prints are better quality than by Galen Rowell and Frans
Lanting.

2. Michael Reichmann is very well respected and shares his opinion
(yours might differ that is ok). If you look closer for his
equipment then you might easily learn that he does not justify the
$4000 for his D30.

Uwe (www.outbackphoto.com)
Geoff said:
Robert MacLellan said:
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
While it´s possible that the choice of printer may diffuse any differences, or perhaps even speak to one or the other´s favor, the issue of wether scanning a slide or negative degrades the image is mostly irrelevant. When, in a professional situation, will you have the opportunity to use the optical paper enlargement from film? Short of art-prints in your local coffeehouse, virtually all photographs will be scanned prior to reproduction. Any magazine, any brochure, any billboard, any poster, will with very few exceptions come from a computer file.

Once we accept that the image has to get into a computer somehow, then the comparison becomes relevant. I recently did a calender of food-shots on Ilford HP5+ film at 400 speed (not your typical choice, I know...), and even at PhotoCD resolution (3000x2000) at 100% resolution, the grain was so apparent that a higher resolution scan would only have made for a higher accuracy in the shape of each grain.
 
Michael Martin said:
What I want to see is a print made from a slide, through
conventional means, compare this with a
print made from a 6mp chip camera, then see what looks better. I
love digital but it's ludicrous to say
that a 3mp image has the same detail as a 35mm slide. I made
inject prints from a Pro CD Kodak scan
from 35mm Provia film and they blow away images I've shot with my
Fuji S1.
Even with scanning and ink jet printing the slide image shows a lot
more detail than the digital.
This is especially true in my Grand Canyon landscapes where the
point of focus is very far away.
Click to expand...
I can take a 'landscape' 'image' by shooting a 4x4 matrix with my digicam.
That ends up being (roughly) 8960x6720 pixels. What slide scanner
can extract that much information from slide film? (Can MF & LF film
be scanned? I've only heard about 35mm scanners...)

If that isn't enough resolution for you, I can continue to enlarge my matrix,
using an 8x8 matrix. The only downside is, I would need to join the
sub-pictures thru several iterations of the panorama software. Oh, wait,
that would still take -HOURS- less time than driving back and forth to my
local 'pro' photo shop.

But I think most people miss the most visible difference - that of color
accuracy. I've NEVER seen a chemical photo that came close to the
actual scene I shot. Both my Oly cams produce unbelievable color
accuracy, when printed to my Epson 1270, on matte paper.

And back to resolution, my EYES can't detect resolution differences,
at 8x10", at a normal viewing distance of 18". In some cases, a 1600x1200
image LOOKS sharper than a 2240x1680 image at that size, due to
edge enhancement.

You also misunderstand why upsampleing is done. It's not done to increase

sharpness, nor detail. It's done to hide -pixelation-. It is no more 'cheating'
(?!) than is using an enlarger for chem prints.
 
I don't see why people don't acknowledge some physical realities that has been well demonstrated in photography for years. When you start with a smaller initial image..either on a negative/slide or on a digital CCD... you get a better image the less you have to enlarge it from the original.. this is why 35mm gives a better and larger enlargement than APS and why medium and large format can be enlarged much more than 35mm.

You can also enlarge and image more successfully if the initial grain is small. Why do you think landscape photographers don't buy a lot of ISO1600 film?they do use quite a bit of ISO50 and lower.

The digital CCD is smaller than a 35mm frame and the indivitual pixels are much larger than film grain...why would you expect to be able to enlarge it with the same quality as film?? The fact is..you can't
Geoff said:
Totally correct. It is a scam.
These people are trying to justify the $10,000 they have spent on
camera, computer and printer, put the film through a degading
process and even then film comes up well.
Geoff
Click to expand...
 
What would you say if there was a direct comparison between an 8x10 film print and a digital print of the same image scanned from the same frame. I think you would find that the traditional print would be superior.
Uwe Steinmueller said:
Would be fine to sort all your arguments:

1. Scanning degrades film for printing (this is true in theory but
not in practice)
Click to expand...
 
larry said:
Michael Martin said:
What I want to see is a print made from a slide, through
conventional means, compare this with a
print made from a 6mp chip camera, then see what looks better. I
love digital but it's ludicrous to say
that a 3mp image has the same detail as a 35mm slide. I made
inject prints from a Pro CD Kodak scan
from 35mm Provia film and they blow away images I've shot with my
Fuji S1.
Even with scanning and ink jet printing the slide image shows a lot
more detail than the digital.
This is especially true in my Grand Canyon landscapes where the
point of focus is very far away.
Click to expand...
I can take a 'landscape' 'image' by shooting a 4x4 matrix with my
digicam.
That ends up being (roughly) 8960x6720 pixels. What slide scanner
can extract that much information from slide film? (Can MF & LF film
be scanned? I've only heard about 35mm scanners...)

If that isn't enough resolution for you, I can continue to enlarge
my matrix,
using an 8x8 matrix. The only downside is, I would need to join the
sub-pictures thru several iterations of the panorama software. Oh,
wait,
that would still take -HOURS- less time than driving back and forth
to my
local 'pro' photo shop.

But I think most people miss the most visible difference - that of
color
accuracy. I've NEVER seen a chemical photo that came close to the
actual scene I shot. Both my Oly cams produce unbelievable color
accuracy, when printed to my Epson 1270, on matte paper.

And back to resolution, my EYES can't detect resolution differences,
at 8x10", at a normal viewing distance of 18". In some cases, a
1600x1200
image LOOKS sharper than a 2240x1680 image at that size, due to
edge enhancement.

You also misunderstand why upsampleing is done. It's not done to
increase
sharpness, nor detail. It's done to hide -pixelation-. It is no
more 'cheating'
(?!) than is using an enlarger for chem prints.
Click to expand...
First of all film cameras resolve detail between than today's 3mp chips. Most of the problem is that

they are not good at detail that is far away. Close subjects look wonderful if not better than film,

but when you back up they start to look digital. Look at my original post and you will see what

I am talking about. http://www.imaging-spectrum.com does a great comparison between the S1, D30,

D1 and Kodak DCS 660 and Light Phase medium format digital. When you see this comparison
you'll have to agree that 6mp is needed to show detail far away.
 
The purpose of the test was to compare scanned Provia 100F with the D30 as a digital image soure. The author assumes that the image will be post processed in Photoshop. Your enlarger test may prove film is better, but if I need to use photoshop that isn't very helpfull.
Geoff said:
chi said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top