[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] Film: Begining of the End?
Hi all,
This is an interesting topic, one that I've been debating about myself lately.
As far as magazines go, I believe the good ones are printing at 300dpi. Most
are now accepting digital images, based on the Photographer's Market book that
gets published every year. A simple guideline I have seen is that for a full
page vertical spread, a 6 megapixel image is more than adequate, and for a two
page horizontal spread 8 megapixels are preferred, although a sharp image from
6MP can work too. That would be roughly 12x18 inches, depending on the size of
the magazine. Considering the fact that the image has probably been cropped by
the editor, this number conveniently works out to the upper limit for 35mm
slides and 6-8MP digital cameras.
This is a little counterintuitive and has been difficult for me to accept: when
I shoot a raw NEF from my wife's D70, I get a 300dpi image that is about 6.5x10
inches. When I scan a Velvia slide at a modest 3200 dpi, I get something
around 9x13 at 300dpi, depending on cropping (don't nitpick me on the numbers,
these are approximations). And a 3200dpi scan is leaving some information on
the table.
But, I've done experiments with some of my sharpest images in both mediums, in
which I take a crop of 1/9th of each image and then upsample it to an 8x10 at
314 dpi for my Kodak 8500 printer. I hate to admit it, but the digital files
just barely edge out the scans. Even upsampling at more than 3x original size,
the digital image still has that "critical" sharpness. Can someone explain
this? Same lenses used for the tests, by the way, so optics aren't an issue.
With the current offering of digital SLRs, I think the comparison with 35mm is
close enough to call a draw, depending on your preference, but I'd give the
edge to digital for convenience alone if money isn't an issue. For a beginner,
you can't beat 35mm value, not to mention the fact that a binder full of slides
can't crash the way a harddrive can.
So I believe medium format is the place to be for film purists who want to see
a definite improvement over digital. Of course, the people at the camera shops
will swear up and down that the D70 will produce better enlargements than a
6x7, but I think they are thinking with their profit margins. I'm considering
moving to 6x7, but I'd like to find out what the upper range is for print
sizes. Any MF shooters out there making wall-sized prints, or is that the
domain of view cameras?
Clear skies and round stars!
EZB
--- Joseph O'Neil <joneil@multiboard.com> wrote:
>
> >Because they are being shobish. You can't tell the difference
> >between a good digital and a chrome image at the resolution they
> >print in a book. Check these out....
> >
> >http://www.starvingphotographer.com/gallery.htm
>
>
> -snip-
>
> If memory serves me correctly, i beleive the images/pictures you
> see in most newspapers are no higher than 150 dpi (if that). At that
> range, a 1.3 meagapixel camera image will look as good as a 4x5 Chrome.
>
> However, and sadly most peopel ahve never seen a good, large
> print, from a large format negative in either B&W or colour. and very few
> peopel have ever seen a true, large Cibachrome or even a dye transfer print
> - they are remarkable.
>
> to give you an example - go here:
>
> http://www.clydebutcher.com/
>
> i've been to this gallery in person,a nd seen these prints first
> hand. I have seen some of his prints - 8x10 - and that is FEET, not
> inches, and while this is extreme to be certian, once you get into even a
> 16x20 (inch) print or larger, even I dare say an 11x14 (inch) print, the
> larger film negative just blows away most images that started out digital.
>
> there are exceptions - for example, you can get a digital scanning
> back to fixt a 4x5 camera. I forget the cost, but i remember something
> along the lines of having to get a second mortage if I ever wanted to buy
> one... :)
>
> Jason however, IMO, is correct - most images used in print -
> nespapers, magazines, catalog, web sites, books, etc, are simply just not
> that high a resolution. I even notice pixelation on some cable channels
> anymore - they seem to have 'dropped resolution", if that makes any
> snese. so in the majority of cases in popular print today , you cannot or
> will not notice the difference.
>
> but if you ever get a chance to see some really fine art
> photogrpahy in large prints, you will notice ti right away.
> joe
>
>
>
> http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca
> http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
> Una salus victis, nullam sperare salutem
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
=====
Eric Z. Beard
http://www.honeydewphoto.com/eric
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo