RE: [APML] Film: Begining of the End?

["Jeff Ball" <jeffball@astro-photography.com>]

Hello Eric,
I am no expert, but I believe Norman Koren really writes well on the
topic of image sharpness and acutance.  Here is a link to the
information and I hope it helps.  

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

I believe there are now analytical tools like DxO that should take
viewer subjectivity out of the equation when measuring the "sharpness"
of an image.  It is a huge topic with countless variables from raw
conversion algorithms to individual perception of "sharpness."  What
some consider sharp, I may consider "digitally overprocessed."  

Again the acceptable size of the print is going to vary from person to
person.  The size for me is limited by the file size I prefer to work
with and the print size of my printer.  I have a scan file size of 300mb
with my 67 slides.  That is 3000 ppi scan of a full frame.  I then end
up with a 100mb file size at 16 bits for a print size of 13x19 (Epson
2200 printer) at 300 ppi.  If I want to send the print job to my local
pro lab for larger prints, I just change the ppi for the size I prefer.
I don't think I would have a problem printing 28x22" at 180 ppi.  Don't
forget print media.  I have a 40x50" print coming out of the prolab on
Epson Canvas.  With canvas, you have a great amount of flexibility on
ppi and resolution.  It really becomes more than just resolution as your
main artistic component. 

Anecdotally, I recently took a landscape photography workshop in
Navajoland.  I shot with my Canon 10D and Pentax 67.  I used the 10D as
my meter and as my pre-visualization tool.  So that when I had a good
image and exposure I would then image with the Pentax at roughly
equivalent focal length.  I prefer the final output of the 67 to the
10D.  It takes more work to get the film image to where it surpasses the
digital.  The digital is ideal in wide dynamic range scenarios where
digital blending is needed and in panoramic situations.    


I really find a quote by Ansel Adams to be as appropriate today as it
was when he wrote it:

"Photography is in a period of development where means and methods
sometimes hold unbalanced dominance over creative effort."  Examples,
The Making of 40 Photographs.

Best regards,
Jeff Ball
www.astro-photography.com
 

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
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
 

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo