Reading mode: Light Dark

Sad gap beween DPR and print mags 'reviews'

Go to last post
DavidMillier

DavidMillier

Forum Pro
Messages
26,562
Solutions
1
Reaction score
8,376
Location
London, UK
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive, this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work [landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....? Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
 
I wonder what dot matrix printer he was using?
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
 
From Mr Noton's website:

http://www.davidnoton.com/despatch_200409.htm
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
 
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Its a sad reality, in my opinion, that most mags and their reviewers haven't got a clue when reviewing digital. I have read one pile of nonesense after another in reviews of various products. The mags reviews of printers are generally the worst of all - quite hopeless as a guide to quality, in my view.

Q.
 
Dave, Practical Photography and Amateur Photographer seem to have been designated as fogey mags now. In the days of the F4 in its prime, they were portrayed as young, trendy and modern; the likes of William Cheung could be seen cutting a dash, singlets at full mast. The same publishing group that puts out digital mags have obviously decided these two mags are best relegated to the dark ages to appeal to die hard film fans. Now the staff are portrayed as wrinkly Bronica toting tweedy types, ghastly old colonel Blimps. Articles seem to run along the lines of warning people that turning digital will mean they spend more time playing solitaire than taking photos, or claiming that digital just doesn't cut it compared with film. It's a deliberate marketing ploy and they obviously choose reviewers who will reflect that stance...
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
 
which is true is that if you select the red channel only you can see some blotching in the blue tones. probably is this what the author means. i never was affected of it in prints, but maybee i was not conscient.

i started in the last times to add grain in every larger slr image. at din a3 and larger it really gives the print a very nice effect, and things as this blotching are masked totally. the effect is as with film, where the sharpness limit is determinated by grain,- so i try to put the grain size and amount so, that the resolution limit of the sensor, where mostly appear moirees or other artefcats are "eaten" by the grain. i really like the effect. i found a nice plug in for photoshop,- it generates very good grain.....

nice effect is also if you generate grain in a layer and desaturate it. it becomes a very smooth, nearly b+w like grain structure.
you can find this tool as freeware here:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/
go to software, than photoshop and scroll down till grain generator appears....
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the software tips and link.

The article criticises pixellation in blue tones of a colour print not a specific channel. And not a print at the edge if useable resolution either but a modest A3 size.

My 14n produces perfectly smooth tones at this size so who knows what he was doing.
rainer viertlboeck said:
i started in the last times to add grain in every larger slr image.
at din a3 and larger it really gives the print a very nice effect,
and things as this blotching are masked totally. the effect is as
with film, where the sharpness limit is determinated by grain,- so
i try to put the grain size and amount so, that the resolution
limit of the sensor, where mostly appear moirees or other artefcats
are "eaten" by the grain. i really like the effect. i found a nice
plug in for photoshop,- it generates very good grain.....
nice effect is also if you generate grain in a layer and desaturate
it. it becomes a very smooth, nearly b+w like grain structure.
you can find this tool as freeware here:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/
go to software, than photoshop and scroll down till grain generator
appears....
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Flick

All the traditional UK mags seemed a bit hostile to digital until a year ago or so when they started lightening up a bit, but they are still pretty keen to jump on it given half a chance.

I never read the digital only mags as they seem expensive and gadgety in the extreme.

The shame about print mags in general is that they have probably always done shoddy, half baked, rushed and not very expert reviews from time to time but we just didn't have anything to compare to them to. With the rise of the web, and the advent of sites like DPR, The Luminous-Landscape, Norman Koren etc etc, the unprofessional and sometimes embarrasingly ignorant nature of much of the print mag copy is being exposed...
Flick said:
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I also add grain, to simulate a larger format, and increase perceived acutance and resolution for some larger prints.

I increase the image to about double the final print size, sharpen as needed (usually a combination of FocusMagic and Focalblade), but not too much, then add some monochromatic grain, around 3%, and resize down, then finallly tweak sharpness. Voila, a large format scan :-)

Roseman's grain generator looks awesome. I'll try it out.

Quentin
rainer viertlboeck said:
i started in the last times to add grain in every larger slr image.
at din a3 and larger it really gives the print a very nice effect,
and things as this blotching are masked totally. the effect is as
with film, where the sharpness limit is determinated by grain,- so
i try to put the grain size and amount so, that the resolution
limit of the sensor, where mostly appear moirees or other artefcats
are "eaten" by the grain. i really like the effect. i found a nice
plug in for photoshop,- it generates very good grain.....
nice effect is also if you generate grain in a layer and desaturate
it. it becomes a very smooth, nearly b+w like grain structure.
you can find this tool as freeware here:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/
go to software, than photoshop and scroll down till grain generator
appears....
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
hi dmiller,

no you are wrong. this guy found the pixelation also like me in the red channel. also the result appears with blue color more visible cause it is a very cold color.
he wrote in his article:

"Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep blue of the sky was a blotchy, pixellated mess. OK, up close film grain is unsightly, but at least it’s a uniform texture, like an artist’s brush. This blue sky of rebellious pixels looked gruesome. On the monitor, at 100% in RGB you can pick it up faintly, but in the red channel the problem became apparent. "

the 14n is another theme here, he writes bot the slr. with the 14n the color sensitivity was different,- therefore you can have problems with tungsten lights. with the 14n the blue channel is the noisiest. they changed this,- with the slr the blue channel is more sensitive, therefor the camera works well also in tungsten light. the red channal has increased noise now- proportional. so with cold colors as with blue it seems so as the slr can become blotchy or noisy. i have to check this out with prints the next days. in the monitor its clear that there is something in the sky,- and in the red channel you can see it very clear,- not so in the blue and in the green channel.....
DMillier said:
The article criticises pixellation in blue tones of a colour print
not a specific channel. And not a print at the edge if useable
resolution either but a modest A3 size.

My 14n produces perfectly smooth tones at this size so who knows
what he was doing.
rainer viertlboeck said:
i started in the last times to add grain in every larger slr image.
at din a3 and larger it really gives the print a very nice effect,
and things as this blotching are masked totally. the effect is as
with film, where the sharpness limit is determinated by grain,- so
i try to put the grain size and amount so, that the resolution
limit of the sensor, where mostly appear moirees or other artefcats
are "eaten" by the grain. i really like the effect. i found a nice
plug in for photoshop,- it generates very good grain.....
nice effect is also if you generate grain in a layer and desaturate
it. it becomes a very smooth, nearly b+w like grain structure.
you can find this tool as freeware here:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/
go to software, than photoshop and scroll down till grain generator
appears....
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
if we like or not. and for me this is not again the question if 35mm or 4,5x6cm is better. i dont think so,- therefore i use the slr.

but where this people are right they are right,- and i can find in my skies exactly what this guy describes. if it bother me or not is another question.

sorry,- i am opened to critics,- so i think if someone shows me something what i havent known before it has some practical use for me.....

another theme:

i just gave to a big client a calculation for shooting 9 great objects of architecture. i gave two calculations,- one with 4x5", 6x17cm film and drumscans and another one shooten with the slr completely. the slr calculation will not be so much cheaper as one can think,- it will be around 30% cheaper.now i have little bit fear that the people will not be enough content with the quality,- i described the quality as comparable till din a3. ( this is my impression in general..... )
lets wait if i will have the job and if they will elect the digital option.....
and if they will be content.

its my first really big job which i will shoot with the slr,- i have done several shootings but allways have been more little things or not just architecture shooting in pure form.
 
Well, I would say he is right and wrong. If he is right, then he is wrong in not knowing how to fix this in Photoshop. It's quite easy. When you have noise (or whatever you want to call it) in a blue sky, it is fixed with the Selective Color Tool in Photoshop.

(1) Select either cyan or blue and then move the 'BLACK' slider either to the left or the right until the sky is nice and smooth

(2) Due the same again, but this time using the color you didn't use before--i.e. use blue if you used cyan before and vice versa. (You won't always have to use both colors.)

The black slider seems to eliminate color, hue and contrast differences within a color group.

This technique will make any blue sky a creamy, dreamy blue. Problem solved.

Another problem I notice with evaluating digital in general is that a lot of printing seems to be done with inkjets. I don't think inkjets (yes, even the 2200) can render subtle gradations of tone as nicely as a LightJet or Chromira print. People can yell at me all they want. But a true continuous tone print is much better. I'm not saying it's better for all prints. But I've made enough of my own comparison examples to be skeptical of believing that a 700 dollar 2200 can match a quarter of a million dollar LightJet. I wish it was, but it just ain't so . . .
rainer viertlboeck wrote:
 
Flick said:
DMillier said:
I've just read a review in the September edition of Practical
Photography (UK) of the SLR/n. It is a 'hands-on' review rather
than a lab test review by professional landscape photgrapher and PP
columnist, David Noton.

Mr Noton is a self proclaimed film die hard but he started of well
saying a lot of good things about the SLR/n, until....

"The RAW files looked dreadfully soft..."

"A3 prints...superb, very crisp...but hang on what's this in the
sky? Viewed in good light and up close the subtly graduating deep
blue of the sky was a blotchy pixellated mess....This blue sky of
rebellious pixels looked gruesome"

"I shot blue skies with various lenses and filters and the
pixellation in the dark blue tones is a continuous feature"

"a 2 sec exposure takes much longer, about 1 minute"

"while the resolution of its big sensor is extremely impressive,
this camera is not a workable tool for my kind of work
[landscape]..."

"I'll just have to continue with my 35mm film".

The UK print mags are trying to pull themselves into the 21st
Century but they do use every opportunity to revel in problems with
digital (imaginary or otherwise).

I have no idea what this esteemed professional was doing but his
descriptions don't tally with my experience of the 14n so any
SLR/n owners care to venture a guess as to what went wrong....?
Perhaps I can compile a list of tips and email him ;-)

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I can only repeat something I said in another post. A freind of mine phoned me the other day, he had been asked by a mag to do a "how to" for a UK mag, it involved digital processing, he is a very good photographer and has an international reputation for his line of work, but his Photoshop knowledge is very basic. I was out at the time so I did not take the call, by the time I had gotten the message for help and returned the call it was to late he had already writen the article. He could not manage the task in PS so he cheated it, the article is due for publication soon, but it is a complete fabrication. They did not choose him for his ability to write about the subject he was choosen for his name, not his fault, someone offered him a reasonable sum to do the job, he tried and found he could not do it. Rather than risk his reputation he faked it.

The guy reviewing the SLR/n would not of been choosen for his digital knowledge, most people on this forum including Green Pixel would of been a better source for testing this camera, come to that any other digital camera.

For a long time before I even went digital I was amazed at the lack of digital knowledge by writers in U.K. magazines, AP being the worst of the lot, Damien Demoulder is a joke when he tests anything digital, there scanner reviews are completey idiotic.Some of the repro looks like budget prints scanned on a desktop scanner. How often have I read that a scanner is soft for scanning 35mm but scans medium format well and you can get huge files, bigger than any digital camera at a fractiopn of the cost.
I haven't read the review, nor do I need to. The reviewer has not got a clue.

Kevin.
 
I have experienced to some extent what the author has. This problem is with PhotoDesk using noise reduction. It attempts to reduce noise, but it doesn't do too well with certain gradients of color or brightness. This causes ugly blotchy pixilated regions to be present. But, not to worry, with the new option to turn off NR, gradients become natural looking without the blotches. I imagine people using ACR don't have this problem. So maybe that's why not too many people agree with the author complaining about this.
 
JTF said:
I have experienced to some extent what the author has. This
problem is with PhotoDesk using noise reduction. It attempts to
reduce noise, but it doesn't do too well with certain gradients of
color or brightness. This causes ugly blotchy pixilated regions to
be present. But, not to worry, with the new option to turn off NR,
gradients become natural looking without the blotches. I imagine
people using ACR don't have this problem. So maybe that's why not
too many people agree with the author complaining about this.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be an explanation ... I really started to look for pixelation, blotches and alike and nearly doubted my perception. I cannot see any of these artefacts - in fact blue skies are extremely smooth and have much less noise than from my D1x (which is good in this respect). But of course I use ACR ...

--
Nirto Karsten Fischer
 
Quentin (UK) said:
I also add grain, to simulate a larger format, and increase
perceived acutance and resolution for some larger prints.

I increase the image to about double the final print size, sharpen
as needed (usually a combination of FocusMagic and Focalblade), but
not too much, then add some monochromatic grain, around 3%, and
resize down, then finallly tweak sharpness. Voila, a large format
scan :-)

Roseman's grain generator looks awesome. I'll try it out.
Click to expand...
How big do you print then finally? I'm faced with the need to print quite large in high quality and started doing some testing. The prints will be probably up to around 1.60 x 2.40 meters. I did some upscaling test and printed crops from simulated 2x3 meters and I found the quality better than expected for my motives (subjects). In a discussion about this print tests with the head of the gallery/agency I'm now working with he suggested to add some grain for better perception. I couldn't use your value as a start because the grain size should depend on the print size, right? Is it a good idea to use two or more different grain sizes in lower amounts?

@Rainer

thanks also from me for the Roseman link - I'll check this out too ... already downloaded ...
Do you have any tips for adding grain in large prints?

--
Nirto Karsten Fischer
 
i make a new transparent layer, filled with 50% grey.

in this layer i create grain with the rosenman plug. i use standard and an amount of 13- 20 %. this grain i desaturate and higher the kontrast.

now i can use the layer transparency slider to control the amount of the grain. the grain size is automatically greater if i upscale the print.

the results for big prints are much much better than without grain,- i really dont like the digital look if upscaled,- and every image artefact beomes also too much visible than. the grai n masks all of this,- and the ugly zone where the resolution ends also.
Nirto Karsten Fischer said:
Quentin (UK) said:
I also add grain, to simulate a larger format, and increase
perceived acutance and resolution for some larger prints.

I increase the image to about double the final print size, sharpen
as needed (usually a combination of FocusMagic and Focalblade), but
not too much, then add some monochromatic grain, around 3%, and
resize down, then finallly tweak sharpness. Voila, a large format
scan :-)

Roseman's grain generator looks awesome. I'll try it out.
Click to expand...
How big do you print then finally? I'm faced with the need to print
quite large in high quality and started doing some testing. The
prints will be probably up to around 1.60 x 2.40 meters. I did some
upscaling test and printed crops from simulated 2x3 meters and I
found the quality better than expected for my motives (subjects).
In a discussion about this print tests with the head of the
gallery/agency I'm now working with he suggested to add some grain
for better perception. I couldn't use your value as a start because
the grain size should depend on the print size, right? Is it a good
idea to use two or more different grain sizes in lower amounts?

@Rainer
thanks also from me for the Roseman link - I'll check this out too
... already downloaded ...
Do you have any tips for adding grain in large prints?

--
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Click to expand...
 
i work also with acr. see only the red channel in a region which contains a large area of dark blue and you will see what he and me are telling. there are "clouds", zones with different densities,- and also lots of dirty noise.
Nirto Karsten Fischer said:
JTF said:
I have experienced to some extent what the author has. This
problem is with PhotoDesk using noise reduction. It attempts to
reduce noise, but it doesn't do too well with certain gradients of
color or brightness. This causes ugly blotchy pixilated regions to
be present. But, not to worry, with the new option to turn off NR,
gradients become natural looking without the blotches. I imagine
people using ACR don't have this problem. So maybe that's why not
too many people agree with the author complaining about this.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be an explanation ... I really started to look for
pixelation, blotches and alike and nearly doubted my perception. I
cannot see any of these artefacts - in fact blue skies are
extremely smooth and have much less noise than from my D1x (which
is good in this respect). But of course I use ACR ...

--
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure what you mean...

If I look at 19 x 13 inch prints from my 14n with blue skies, they look perfectly even to me. I can see no evidence of noise, pixellation, posterisation, anything. Just perfectly even, smooth blue.
rainer viertlboeck said:
if we like or not. and for me this is not again the question if
35mm or 4,5x6cm is better. i dont think so,- therefore i use the
slr.
but where this people are right they are right,- and i can find in
my skies exactly what this guy describes. if it bother me or not is
another question.
sorry,- i am opened to critics,- so i think if someone shows me
something what i havent known before it has some practical use for
me.....

another theme:
i just gave to a big client a calculation for shooting 9 great
objects of architecture. i gave two calculations,- one with 4x5",
6x17cm film and drumscans and another one shooten with the slr
completely. the slr calculation will not be so much cheaper as one
can think,- it will be around 30% cheaper.now i have little bit
fear that the people will not be enough content with the quality,-
i described the quality as comparable till din a3. ( this is my
impression in general..... )
lets wait if i will have the job and if they will elect the digital
option.....
and if they will be content.
its my first really big job which i will shoot with the slr,- i
have done several shootings but allways have been more little
things or not just architecture shooting in pure form.
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