Reading mode: Light Dark

Luminous Landscape debunked?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chi
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Member said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lin,

I have followed many of your earlier discussions trying to deal with those
who prefer pixel counting to evaluation of results, and I agree with you.
Some of the discussions in this thread seem to want to fault Reichman's
assessment because of the degradation introduced by scanning the film
image in order to print the two prints for comparison. Other arguments, in
the past, maintained that a scanned image must be sharper than any
digicam image. Some have simply wanted to compare the inherent film
resolution with that calculated from the number of pixels in a digital sensor.

Once everyone agrees that, ultimately, the comparison has to be done in
terms of an output product - the print seems logical - I think the comparison
becomes much more meaningful. And I think the LL conclusions hold up
very well. Having been an optical systems analyst for 20 years, I find it
curious what is offered for the "engineering and science" arguments.

Darrell
 
I will certainly have a look at it. While I am doing that; YOU can look at the March 2001 issue of Petersen's Photographic. there you will find an article by the well know wildlife and landscape photographer Moose Peterson.

On page 56, you will see two images of the same scene..one done by a Nikon D1 and the other by a Nikon F100..and, you know what happened...the film camera wins!!

Without there being a hidden agenda to "prove" one medium is "better" than the other.

We shall see if the American Photo article was written by someone whith a hidden agenda who doesn't mind giving digital a little "boost" without saying anyting!!
Chunin Martinez said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
So the "well know wildlife and landscape photographer Moose Peterson" doesn't have a hidden agenda but the well known landscape photographer Micheal Riechman does. Is that because he disagrees with you. Does everyone who disagrees with you have a hidden agenda? Pehaps you need help.
Robert MacLellan said:
Chunin Martinez said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There is one thing I still cannot understand from the luminous-landscape comparrison. Why is there a cross-over point at which scanned film produces a better result? Reichmann concludes the D-30 produces a better result in the 8X10, but the 35mm shows greater detail in large prints.

Clearly the extra detail (in the 35mm scan) does not just come out of nowhere when printed at large sizes. Somewhere, either in the input, the re-sizing, or in the output, Reichmann is losing detail that is present on the slide (or his output is not capable of showing the benefit of the extra image detail contained in the slide).

The most likely culprit appears to be re-sizing. The file being printed at closer to its native resolution did better in the test (D30 was better until about 8X10). In the larger prints, the scans were not being re-sized down as much and were able to demonstrate the extra detail contained on the slide.

I believe that it is easier to get a high quality 8X10 out of a D-30 than a scaned slide. However, the fact that a scan from a 35mm slide shows more fine detail in a larger print suggests that the film is not the limiting factor. I rarely print 11X17, but I have some portraits with backlighting where you can clearly make out the individual strands of fine, downy hair on the nape of the model's neck. You can run a D30 image through Genuine Fractals all day long, and I don't think you will pull that kind of detail.
Lin Evans 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...
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
Click to expand...
 
I would not read that from it at all. One thing to bare in mind is the commercial nature of the Luminance Landscapes study and in the authors personal reply to me stated quite clearly that he has only recently discovered digital photography, in the last few months to be precise and until he acquired the likes of the D30 to do a review on he did not feel that this experiment was worth doing.

The simple facts are that the process to conclusion is wrong – the conclusions themselves many have enjoyed for over two years already and are personally satisfied – that’s another thing that the email reply from Luminous Landscape – contained – a strongly worded passage that said HE (the author) was satisfied and we could take what we want from that – he had not the time to redo anything and he was not going to do so.

For any test of this nature – and there are several done by now - it is necessary to run each source file though its own mill and output to commercial press and also have a high quality sample made from the file and from the neg/slide via their own separate process. The results from these tests suggest that the digital file survives better and ultimately prints better on the web offset CMYK commercial process – whereas most observers still consider a Cibrachrome to be the ultimate in display and probably cannot be bettered.

But, most people in the know agree on one thing – they are different!! As such they are two tools to achieve a result instead of one.
Andrew Grant said:
So the "well know wildlife and landscape photographer Moose
Peterson" doesn't have a hidden agenda but the well known landscape
photographer Micheal Riechman does. Is that because he disagrees
with you. Does everyone who disagrees with you have a hidden
agenda? Pehaps you need help.
Click to expand...
 
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
Member said:
Lin Evans wrote:
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
Click to expand...
 
If you want to process the image in photoshop scan the image, yes I agree, but I still stand by my claim that an enlarged image will look sharper than a scanned or digital image printed at 16x20 inch. Very rarely do you see digitally processed prints in exhibitions of 16x20 or greater.
Geoff
Andrew Grant said:
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...
Click to expand...
 
I think we all need some help.

A portrait may look better with lower resolution hence why digital is used for this application in a lot of cases. From my experience landscapes look better due to the higher resolution with film.

Here is some help from Nikon. Here in Australia, Nikon run a full page add for the D1 and I quote as follows from the add:

"...........This makes the images from the D1 applicable for almost any prepress or printing application up to A4 size, at magazine quality"

If you could go to a larger size with this camera Nikon who sell the camera would say so, they do not have any such statement for their film cameras. Doesn't that tell us something.
Can you hear the message??????????????????
Geoff
Andrew Grant said:
Robert MacLellan said:
Chunin Martinez said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Barry Ward said:
There is one thing I still cannot understand from the
luminous-landscape comparrison. Why is there a cross-over point at
which scanned film produces a better result? Reichmann concludes
the D-30 produces a better result in the 8X10, but the 35mm shows
greater detail in large prints.

Clearly the extra detail (in the 35mm scan) does not just come out
of nowhere when printed at large sizes.
Click to expand...
No, but the extra detail doesn't matter if you cannot see it. In fact if you aren't careful to filter it out, it will produce artifacts when printed at a lower resolution.

Somewhere, either in the
Barry Ward said:
input, the re-sizing, or in the output, Reichmann is losing detail
that is present on the slide (or his output is not capable of
showing the benefit of the extra image detail contained in the
slide).
Click to expand...
This is inherent in the process. Photographic printing will also lose high frequency components. (Detail is a subjective word for high frequency components of the image.) By photographically enlarging the image, the finest details in the film image are made larger and thus are more visibly reproduced on the photographic paper. But up to a point, you will be able to see details in a large print that you cannot see in a small print. I am fairly certain that this comes up in things like needing better optical quality in an enlarger for making big prints than you need for small ones.
Barry Ward said:
The most likely culprit appears to be re-sizing. The file being
printed at closer to its native resolution did better in the test
(D30 was better until about 8X10). In the larger prints, the scans
were not being re-sized down as much and were able to demonstrate
the extra detail contained on the slide.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. If the prints from scanned film looked significantly worse, perhaps, but that's not the impression I get from Reichmann's article. Detail is not the only component of subjective print quality. There's film grain, color artifacts, different sharpening processes, etc. Its not surprising to me that there are smallish subjective differences in the image.
Barry Ward said:
I believe that it is easier to get a high quality 8X10 out of a
D-30 than a scaned slide. However, the fact that a scan from a
35mm slide shows more fine detail in a larger print suggests that
the film is not the limiting factor. I rarely print 11X17, but I
have some portraits with backlighting where you can clearly make
out the individual strands of fine, downy hair on the nape of the
model's neck. You can run a D30 image through Genuine Fractals all
day long, and I don't think you will pull that kind of detail.
Click to expand...
So you agree pretty much exactly with Michael Reichmann.
 
Geoff said:
Very rarely do you see digitally processed prints in exhibitions of
16x20 or greater.
Click to expand...
You'll need to qualify that as most of this kind of work I've seen has been digitally processed. (I live in San Francisco where there are a lot of high end digital post processing shops. I used to work in digital imaging so I tend ask about this kind of thing. I'll admit that I'm unusual, but I don't think this kind of work is "very rare." Even in fine art photography.)

-Z-
 
Lin Evans,

So it is unprofessional to own a DC215, your comments are a little trite and VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.
I appologise if I am unprofessional for owning a DC215.
The DC215 is used for web based photography and is excellent for that.
Did you see my post on what Nikon say the capabilities of the D1 are? Take note.

I own several Nikon film cameras, many Nikon lenses and have won several major Australian photographic awards "with film" and I specialise in nature photogrphy. That is all for now thanks for your comments and good luck.
Geoff
Lin Evans said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Geoff said:
Lin Evans,
So it is unprofessional to own a DC215, your comments are a little
trite and VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.
I appologise if I am unprofessional for owning a DC215.
The DC215 is used for web based photography and is excellent for that.
Did you see my post on what Nikon say the capabilities of the D1
are? Take note.
I own several Nikon film cameras, many Nikon lenses and have won
several major Australian photographic awards "with film" and I
specialise in nature photogrphy. That is all for now thanks for
your comments and good luck.
Geoff
Click to expand...
Geoff,

Sounds like you are "stinging" a bit from my comments, and maybe you should be. There is nothing to "apologize" for. Not you, or me. It's not an insult, nor is a personal attack. What I intended to convey is that if one doesn't have experience with professional digital equipment, their assumptions about output quality and digital capabilities will be quite naturally colored by that experience. They are therefore not properly situated to make accurate assessments about its viability versus film. I stand by this, and if you look at your comments - reposted below, I think you will see why.

"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"

Well Geoff, does the above comment made about a very professional landscape photographer and the results of his testing a new product against his stock-in-trade, film, sound like they were made by a knowledgeable photographer in a professional way? Or do they sound like comments from one who thinks, without any firsthand knowledge, that there is an "agenda" ("its a scam") of some sort. You call it!

Lin
 
If you read the Moose Peterson article you will see that the intent of the article was not to "prove" that one format is "better" than the other. What makes that example so perfect for this situation is that the purpose of printing the images together on the same page was NOT to highlight qualitative differences but to show how focal length multipliers of the LENSES makes a difference. An unintended effect of showing those shots side by side is that you can see that there IS a visible difference in quality in spite of the fact that it is the same scene; the same lens; the same photographer; the same time; the same publication; the same size; on the same page.

For the article that you refer to.. I will have to read it to see if this is another "digital convert" attempting to evangelize to the masses! One thing that happens is that people "fall in love" with the "G-Wizz" factor of their new digital toys.

I have had several digital cameras, I still own one. I know that digital has its place and (as Moose Peterson demonstrates in his article) isn't the last word in photography.

Digital evangelists, want to claim that digital has no weaknesses and that film has no strengths. One of the most common exaggerated claims is the degree that digital images may be enlarged. Many subtle "modifications" are made to the digital image in order to prop up this belief. The conclusions are generally based on subjective evaluations which are questionable. For example, in order to have the same amount of detail in a print as a traditional photo print, it needs to be printed at (at least) 300 image pixels per printed inch...in order to "prove" that digital can be enlarged, the "believers" simply lower the standards. Any artifacts that appear in the print are either not seen or "explained away".
Andrew Grant said:
So the "well know wildlife and landscape photographer Moose
Peterson" doesn't have a hidden agenda but the well known landscape
photographer Micheal Riechman does. Is that because he disagrees
with you. Does everyone who disagrees with you have a hidden
agenda? Pehaps you need help.
Click to expand...
 
Yea, typical "hollier than you" response from Lin. You've had 30 years experience, I've only had 15. You've done work for art directors while I've only done work for Journalism Editors and yearbook type work. Yes, I know what Provia is. It competes with Velvia as a professional standard for professional slide film. Does that make me any better of a photographer?
Lin Evans said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
chi said:
Yea, typical "hollier than you" response from Lin. You've had 30
years experience, I've only had 15. You've done work for art
directors while I've only done work for Journalism Editors and
yearbook type work. Yes, I know what Provia is. It competes with
Velvia as a professional standard for professional slide film.
Does that make me any better of a photographer?
Click to expand...
The response was not about me or my experience, it was about your statement re-quoted below:

"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."

If you indeed did know that Provia is slide film, it even makes your statement more confusing. It either shows that you didn't read the article with any care and missed an important point (probable), or you are deliberately attempting to distort the issue. Either way it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues you are debating and a lack of attention to detail.

Does knowing what Provia is make you "any better" as a photographer? Of course it doesn't. What might make you a better photographer would be to study and learn from the experiences of professionals like Michael Reichmann, get some firsthand experience with the technology, then comment based on that experience.
 
Lin Evans said:
Geoff said:
Lin Evans,
So it is unprofessional to own a DC215, your comments are a little
trite and VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.
I appologise if I am unprofessional for owning a DC215.
The DC215 is used for web based photography and is excellent for that.
Did you see my post on what Nikon say the capabilities of the D1
are? Take note.
I own several Nikon film cameras, many Nikon lenses and have won
several major Australian photographic awards "with film" and I
specialise in nature photogrphy. That is all for now thanks for
your comments and good luck.
Geoff
Click to expand...
Geoff,
Sounds like you are "stinging" a bit from my comments, and maybe
you should be. There is nothing to "apologize" for. Not you, or me.
It's not an insult, nor is a personal attack. What I intended to
convey is that if one doesn't have experience with professional
digital equipment, their assumptions about output quality and
digital capabilities will be quite naturally colored by that
experience. They are therefore not properly situated to make
accurate assessments about its viability versus film. I stand by
this, and if you look at your comments - reposted below, I think
you will see why.

"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"

Well Geoff, does the above comment made about a very professional
landscape photographer and the results of his testing a new product
against his stock-in-trade, film, sound like they were made by a
knowledgeable photographer in a professional way? Or do they sound
like comments from one who thinks, without any firsthand knowledge,
that there is an "agenda" ("its a scam") of some sort. You call it!

Lin
Click to expand...
 
Considering the fact that I know someone who spent about $7500 on a used nonAF Canon lens years back, $10,000 for camera, copmuter, and printer seems cheap.

But don't forget. A computer has other uses than just Photoshop. A prnter does too, depending on which one. And if you're talking about a digital SLR, it's just the body and storage. The lenses, even though different in equivalent focal lengths, can be used in both film and digital bodies, so may be a moot point, depending on the difference. And as for storage, amoritized over time, how much more is it than film + processing? Then there is always the phisical storing of the 'negatives'. A digital file doesn't get scratched or degrades over time.

But don't forget. If you use conventional darkroom techniques, you need a room - don't forget the cost of square footage, whether in rental space, or just lost living space, chemicals, enlarger, ect.

I guess you can make the film digital, but then you still need a computer and scanner. But that's not my point.
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...
 
I'm not a professional photographer, but my friend was (is). He worked for a few of the studios in the North Carolina Triad. A few years ago, the studio he worked for went to digital post processing. The point I am making is the industry is becoming more and more digital.

The point I got out of the LL comparision was that if you don't plan on printing greater than 8x10, digital can be a very viable solution, professional or otherwise.

Exhibitions is just a small part of the photo industry. Just like most other industries, the largest part of the market is the non-pro consumer. Most consumers don't even print 8x10's - more are with the advent of photorealistic home printers, let alone 16x20. But that is off subject.

Other than exibitions and billboards, how often will most of the public see a print greater than say an 11x14? Except maybe posters... I'm pretty sure most of the industry doesn't routinely print 16x20.
Geoff said:
Andrew Grant said:
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...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
My post was not intended to support one view or the other. However, I see no evidence that Micheal Reichman is biased towards digital cameras. Most of his cameras are film cameras. In fact, much of his work is done using medium format cameras. He has a very good and very expensive slide scanner. His experiment was to see if he could use a D30 for his 35mm work. Since he digitally processes all his images, comparing the absolute quality of film vs digital would not have been useful for him. There does not appear to be anything hidden about his agenda. It is also worth pointing out that he uses Provia 100F which he claims is the most fine grained slide film available. It may or may not be, however it does not appear that he was trying to skew the results
Robert MacLellan said:
Andrew Grant said:
So the "well know wildlife and landscape photographer Moose
Peterson" doesn't have a hidden agenda but the well known landscape
photographer Micheal Riechman does. Is that because he disagrees
with you. Does everyone who disagrees with you have a hidden
agenda? Pehaps you need help.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The reason that there is a cut off is the human eye. It can only see
so much. The digital does very well until it gets to a point where
it can no longer provide enough information to fill the needed
space to cover athe possible 506 or so visable spaces contained
in a linear inch. Beyond that point, the greater information
contained in the chemical image comes into play, while at smaller
sizes it makes no difference because it can't be seen with our
eyes.
Barry Ward said:
Clearly the extra detail (in the 35mm scan) does not just come out
of nowhere when printed at large sizes. Somewhere, either in the
input, the re-sizing, or in the output, Reichmann is losing detail
that is present on the slide (or his output is not capable of
showing the benefit of the extra image detail contained in the
slide).

The most likely culprit appears to be re-sizing. The file being
printed at closer to its native resolution did better in the test
(D30 was better until about 8X10). In the larger prints, the scans
were not being re-sized down as much and were able to demonstrate
the extra detail contained on the slide.

I believe that it is easier to get a high quality 8X10 out of a
D-30 than a scaned slide. However, the fact that a scan from a
35mm slide shows more fine detail in a larger print suggests that
the film is not the limiting factor. I rarely print 11X17, but I
have some portraits with backlighting where you can clearly make
out the individual strands of fine, downy hair on the nape of the
model's neck. You can run a D30 image through Genuine Fractals all
day long, and I don't think you will pull that kind of detail.
Lin Evans 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...
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
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