Basic dpi question (art archiving)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:28:04 -0400, Richard Pini
scribbled:

Richard Pini

How’s Wendy?

Richard Pini wrote:

I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of resolution. A digital camera shoots files of certain pixel dimensions, for example 2000 x 3000 pixels. Whether that would be 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 72 dpi or 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 300 dpi is totally irrelevant, because both are still 2000 x 3000 pixels, so the files are identical. Forget dpi, it’s the number of pixels, the quality of the lens, and the imaging algoritms that counts. dpi is only a setting for printing, nothing else.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Richard Pini" wrote in message

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap isn’t too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps there’s more than I’ve so far been able to search on the web…
I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
Thanks in advance!

Richard Pini

The 72 dpi setting in digital cameras is not an actual dpi rating of the image. It is an arbitrary value.

The 72 dpi is easy to change in any photo editing software, such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. Also when printing the image.

The important specification of the image is the dimensions in pixels. The more pixels the higher the resolution of the image.

At what resolution do you scan the 4 X 5 film at to get the image you want?

The more megapixels the camera is capable of, the more resolution you have to print large prints.

For large art pieces, I would only consider cameras that are at least 5 Megapixels with manual controls and a tripod mount.

Digital cameras are getting very good, but they do not compare to a 4" X 5" view camera.

To photograph art with no glare or shadows, requires a very good studio setup.
Depending on the size of the art, a large room for the lights and camera.

—
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
—

aren’t there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?

Articus

"CSM1" wrote in message

"Richard Pini" wrote in message

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap isn’t too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps there’s more than I’ve so far been able to search on the web…
I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
Thanks in advance!

Richard Pini

The 72 dpi setting in digital cameras is not an actual dpi rating of the image. It is an arbitrary value.

The 72 dpi is easy to change in any photo editing software, such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. Also when printing the image.
The important specification of the image is the dimensions in pixels. The more pixels the higher the resolution of the image.

At what resolution do you scan the 4 X 5 film at to get the image you want?

The more megapixels the camera is capable of, the more resolution you have to print large prints.

For large art pieces, I would only consider cameras that are at least 5 Megapixels with manual controls and a tripod mount.

Digital cameras are getting very good, but they do not compare to a 4" X 5" view camera.

To photograph art with no glare or shadows, requires a very good studio setup.
Depending on the size of the art, a large room for the lights and camera.
—
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
—

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

aren’t there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?
Articus

ps – one of the side effects of the rush towards digital cameras is that 35mm cameras are going for a song

have a look at Canon SLR’s

I estimate an SLR with good lens will probably do the trick

alternatively = camera hire?

Articus

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:28:04 -0400, Richard Pini
wrote:

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap isn’t too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps there’s more than I’ve so far been able to search on the web…

These 2 articles may help you get some background info:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/DPI/Default.htm

Unique and easy to use graphics programs
http://www.ransen.com

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi?

Don’t think dpi, think pixels. Digital cameras work in pixels.

Lets say that I set my digital camera to 1600 x 1200 pixels.

If I now print 6 inch x 4.5 inch:

The resolution will be
1600 / 6 = 266 dpi
x 1200 / 4.5 = 266 dpi

And so on.
ie dpi depends on print size, not the camera.

Malcolm

Thanks to all who replied. I actually do (very sort of) understand the pixels vs. dpi thing, though sometimes putting it into words gets dicey.

Wendy’s fine, thank you.

To answer the question about the 4×5 film image, if the original piece of art was, say 16×20 inches, and if I could scan it directly using a minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan would end up as a 4800×6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4×5 film image, I’d have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course, that the film image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to make that worth doing.)

That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn’t it…

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools" wrote:

aren’t there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?

There are – if you have a *very* understanding bank manager 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Richard Pini wrote:

Thanks to all who replied.

Oh crud! I just replied because i did not see the other posts – my newsreader filtered them.

That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn’t it…

Or, try a panel scanner at 4800 Dpi … they look nifty 🙂

The Doormouse

—
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Richard Pini wrote:
[re scanning paintings]

If you have a multi-megapixel camera, experiment with photographing your images. This will be totally adequate for most purposes. If you want higher resolution, split the painting into sections and assemble them as you would a panorama or mosaic. Use filtered daylight lighting if possible, second best is diffuse electronic flash, and be cautious about photographing under tungsten light, which often yields a noisy blue channel.

On another tack, you may find a frame scanner will do the trick. At $500, HP’s is not that expensive. Keep in mind that with this, or any scanner there may be a substantial color shift due to metamerism of the paint pigments and the cold fluorescent technology used by most of these scanners.

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,67384,00.html

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Richard Pini writes:

To answer the question about the 4×5 film image, if the original piece of art was, say 16×20 inches, and if I could scan it directly using a minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan would end up as a 4800×6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4×5 film image, I’d have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course, that the film image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to make that worth doing.)

That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn’t it…

Your arithmetic is correct, but there is more to this than just megapixels.

Just how many megapixels you need to have in a digital camera to match the quality of a good MF photograph is frequently discussed and contested in the newsgroup rec.photo.digital and various boards. Some say 8 Mpx, some say 14 Mpx, some say 30 Mpx (and a gentleman named Steve Giovanella posting under various aliases say 3.43 Mpx if its Sigma megapixels). I wouldn’t take Steve Giovanella too serious – but on the other hand I don’t think you’ll need as much as 30 Mpx to match quality MF film. To me 14 Mpx looks about correct – but as always: YMMV.

Film has grains, and to compensate for the grains you need to oversample. To make quality scans from film, you therefore end up with huge files. Low ISO digital is smooth, so you get more resolution with fewer megapixels than you do with film scans.

If you really care about having quality photographs of your paintings, and money is no object, what you should use a 4×5 or a view camera with a *scanning back*. These, if done competently, blow anything else (film and digital) out of water.

Take a look at:
http://www.digitaloutput.net/back%20edit/edittopic2e.html http://www.betterlight.com/
—
– gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no – http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ============================================================ ============ «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)

Hecate writes:

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools"

aren’t there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?

There are – if you have a *very* understanding bank manager 😉

For reproducing fine art – and anything else that doesn’t move – the way to do it is with a large format camera and a scanning back. The difficult part is to explain to
your bank manager what a «scanning back» is.
—
– gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no – http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ============================================================ ============ «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:45:24 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Richard Pini wrote:

I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of resolution. A digital camera shoots files of certain pixel dimensions, for example 2000 x 3000 pixels. Whether that would be 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 72 dpi or 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 300 dpi is totally irrelevant, because both are still 2000 x 3000 pixels, so the files are identical. Forget dpi, it’s the number of pixels, the quality of the lens, and the imaging algoritms that counts. dpi is only a setting for printing, nothing else.

Someone said, a few postings back, that only newbies is still visiting this ng. I am totaly new to this ng (still not sure whether I will stay) but not a newbie either to cameras or ps. Someone (think it was the same author) also ask the reader to close the door if he/she was the last to leave,
It is because of people like you, Johan. It is also ’cause of people like you that I am not sure if I want to stay.

What have you done wrong, you ask? You could have given the same answer without your first (full of yourself!) sentence. (What you have said here, still does not mean that you are so clever, ’cause that is general knowledge.)

Maybe, you are a helpfull guy. Maybe I am attacking someone who is a value to this group. If yes, sorry therefor. As already said, I am new to this group. And maybe, you are on of those ‘in love with yourself’ humanbeings blowing there own hooters on all newsgroups.

Al this lecture because of your first sentence? Yes, never say unnecessary things. (Maybe I have said unnecessary things, but on the other hand, I have read a few postings, and only maybe it is necessary:-)

Dave

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:22:42 +0200, Dave Du Plessis
scribbled:

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:45:24 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Richard Pini wrote:

I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of resolution. A digital camera shoots files of certain pixel dimensions, for example 2000 x 3000 pixels. Whether that would be 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 72 dpi or 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 300 dpi is totally irrelevant, because both are still 2000 x 3000 pixels, so the files are identical. Forget dpi, it’s the number of pixels, the quality of the lens, and the imaging algoritms that counts. dpi is only a setting for printing, nothing else.

Someone said, a few postings back, that only newbies is still visiting this ng. I am totaly new to this ng (still not sure whether I will stay) but not a newbie either to cameras or ps. Someone (think it was the same author) also ask the reader to close the door if he/she was the last to leave,
It is because of people like you, Johan. It is also ’cause of people like you that I am not sure if I want to stay.

What have you done wrong, you ask? You could have given the same answer without your first (full of yourself!) sentence. (What you have said here, still does not mean that you are so clever, ’cause that is general knowledge.)

Maybe, you are a helpfull guy. Maybe I am attacking someone who is a value to this group. If yes, sorry therefor. As already said, I am new to this group. And maybe, you are on of those ‘in love with yourself’ humanbeings blowing there own hooters on all newsgroups.
Al this lecture because of your first sentence? Yes, never say unnecessary things. (Maybe I have said unnecessary things, but on the other hand, I have read a few postings, and only maybe it is necessary:-)

And maybe you’re just a fuckwit.

Richard… A lot of confusion, postulating replies etc. Maybe this will help.
72 DPI is the theoretical dpi of a computer monitor. When you open an image in Photoshop it defaults to 72 DPI. Photoshop’s default print resolution is 300 DPI. Both can be changed but while they exist, a 72 DPI image will have large linear dimensions but print dimensions will be much smaller. I have the feeling you may be confusing some of these settings in your request for a 72 DPI camera.

The real problem is that dots and pixels have no linear measurement. You can have as many in a unit of linear measurement as you want and that (linear) measurement will be unchanged but the clarity of an image which fits in it will alter (improve) as the number of pixels or dots increase.

As a rule of thumb (pretty rough but accurate) you need at least 180 DPI (pixels or dots are OK) for a good quality inkjet photo printer to reproduce a faithful picture. Perhaps 300 dpi for a continuous tone printer as used in photo labs. If you can post the dimensions you wish to print at, I’m sure there are many contributors who will offer you advise as to the camera you need to be able to obtain that size print from a digital camera. E-mail me privately if you wish to avoid the insulting poster(s).

I not long ago did a shoot of an art collection for insurance. Having due regard for reflections and perspective, I am sure you can photograph your art and obtain quality photo prints with a moderate DSLR camera. Which one is best for your application will depend on the size you wish to output and the quality you expect of that output.

I use Canon 10D and Mamiya medium format cameras and HP Designjet photo printers. I frequently photograph watercolours for a client. She exhibits her work and phones me with orders which I print using watercolour paper and the results are indistinguishable from the original to anyone but the artist. Sometimes even she is fooled if we frame and glaze the prints!

Oil paintings may not reproduce so accurately due to the texture of the paint but certainly I would have no hesitation in taking on a job like yours. files from a 10D camera can be interpolated up to produce stunning prints 20" x 30". There are higher spec camera if you need larger prints. Some of my posters are 24"x 36" from 10D images. I use the Mamiya gear if I need larger output.
Hope this helps,
Ryadia.
————-
"Richard Pini" wrote in message

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap isn’t too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps there’s more than I’ve so far been able to search on the web…
I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
Thanks in advance!

Richard Pini

Dear Bank Manager

I have come here today oh greatly beloved to obtain a scanning back

Fear not – my own back really is OK I merely seek to take high class high quality images of my personal art gallery and …

No, Stop there! Personal art collection?

Is it for insurance purposes? See your accountant, here’s the dosh. Take it, all of it ..

BTW can you sell the images to authors and publishers?

No!, really? No!

OK forget what I said – give me the money back and go forth and multiply?

Articus

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+> wrote in message

Hecate writes:

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools"

aren’t there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?

There are – if you have a *very* understanding bank manager 😉

For reproducing fine art – and anything else that doesn’t move – the way to do it is with a large format camera and a scanning back. The difficult part is to explain to
your bank manager what a

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.

If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a **thicker skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining about people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have seen it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in court appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through many different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If you don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar went to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

"Dave Du Plessis" wrote in message

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:45:24 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Richard Pini wrote:

I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of resolution. A digital camera shoots files of certain pixel dimensions, for example 2000 x 3000 pixels. Whether that would be 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 72 dpi or 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 300 dpi is totally irrelevant, because both are still 2000 x 3000 pixels, so the files are identical. Forget dpi, it’s the number of pixels, the quality of the lens, and the imaging algoritms that counts. dpi is only a setting for printing, nothing else.

Someone said, a few postings back, that only newbies is still visiting this ng. I am totaly new to this ng (still not sure whether I will stay) but not a newbie either to cameras or ps. Someone (think it was the same author) also ask the reader to close the door if he/she was the last to leave,
It is because of people like you, Johan. It is also ’cause of people like you that I am not sure if I want to stay.

What have you done wrong, you ask? You could have given the same answer without your first (full of yourself!) sentence. (What you have said here, still does not mean that you are so clever, ’cause that is general knowledge.)

Maybe, you are a helpfull guy. Maybe I am attacking someone who is a value to this group. If yes, sorry therefor. As already said, I am new to this group. And maybe, you are on of those ‘in love with yourself’ humanbeings blowing there own hooters on all newsgroups.
Al this lecture because of your first sentence? Yes, never say unnecessary things. (Maybe I have said unnecessary things, but on the other hand, I have read a few postings, and only maybe it is necessary:-)

Dave

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:45:33 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a **thicker skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining about people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have seen it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in court appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through many different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If you don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar went to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

True, Gymmy (or is it Bob:-) it is true. Probably I spoke to fast, because I am dealing with a newsgroup where the people
are permanantly in a boxing ring. But I see this is, like you said, a newsgroup standard.
And I have been on Johan’s homepage, and do apologize;
he seem to be quit experienced. Sorry Johan:-) and thanks for welcoming me, Bob.

Dave

"Richard Pini" wrote in message

Thanks to all who replied. I actually do (very sort of) understand the pixels vs. dpi thing, though sometimes putting it into words gets dicey.

Wendy’s fine, thank you.

To answer the question about the 4×5 film image, if the original piece of art was, say 16×20 inches, and if I could scan it directly using a minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan would end up as a 4800×6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4×5 film image, I’d have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course, that the film image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to make that worth doing.)

That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn’t it…

4800 X 6000 = 28,800,000 Pixels or 28.8 Megapixels.
So yeah, 30 Megapixels.

—
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
—

This group is very tame and polite compared to most I have been on…LOL

Text is not a good medium for humour and really needs to be spelled out or shit will happen.

Are you really that stupid?

(sarcasm)

Point made?…LOL

"Dave Du Plessis" wrote in message

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:45:33 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a **thicker skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have

seen

it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in

court

appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through

many

different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If

you

don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar

went

to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

True, Gymmy (or is it Bob:-) it is true. Probably I spoke to fast, because I am dealing with a newsgroup where the people
are permanantly in a boxing ring. But I see this is, like you said, a newsgroup standard.
And I have been on Johan’s homepage, and do apologize;
he seem to be quit experienced. Sorry Johan:-) and thanks for welcoming me, Bob.

Dave

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:38:47 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+> wrote:

Hecate writes:

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools"

aren’t there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?

There are – if you have a *very* understanding bank manager 😉

For reproducing fine art – and anything else that doesn’t move – the way to do it is with a large format camera and a scanning back. The difficult part is to explain to
your bank manager what a «scanning back» is.

LOL! very true.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:33:28 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+> wrote:

To me 14 Mpx looks about
correct – but as always: YMMV.

In which case you’d be very interested in magazine article I read by a Pro landscape photographer who found that once you took the image to A3 size from a Kodak 14mp camera any areas that, on film, would have been continuous tone, start breaking up. Unlike those from a 35mm SLR. In other words, it’s not as good as 35mm, let alone MF.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

A Photoshop newsgroup is unlikely to yield any qualified information about cameras or printers. Your query is about both.

The armithitic is all wrong, the information being provided is flawed, the process suggested is inconsistent and the advise comes from people without practical experience. Just the sort of research to present your bank manager when you ask for the loan to buy a 30 Megapixel camera!

If the people telling you, you need a 30 Megapixel camera had ever taken a photograph with a 4 megapixel DSLR and enlarged it to a size they all claim cannot produce a quality image, they might find that it actually can be done and it does indeed produce a quality image. The measurement should not be a marketing Guru’s dream (megapixels) but sensor size and image quality. Those who have never seem my work, claim I must have a low quality requirement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I frequently print 24"x 36" photographs from a 10D Canon camera on a HP Designjet 130 that are indistinguishable from an 8" x 10" print from a non-interpolated image. www.fstoponline.com.au interpolate digital images to huge sizes and retain fine detail in their prints on a daily basis with their Lambda, continuous tone laser. Until I started making my own large prints I used to have them print mine… Interpolated from 100 dpi files which I produced from scanning MF negatives.
http://www.technoaussie.com/big_prints.htm

If 16"x20" @ 300 dpi is all you seek, a Canon 10D will do very nicely. Way, way under 30 Megapixels! You can even use the rudimentry ‘Bicubic’ interpolation supplied with Photoshop and get results to rival or equal those you’d expect from a 4" x 5" film scan. Digital images have no grain.

It is an unfortunate fact of newsgroups that many who offer advise have no practical experience. Their information is based on what someone else said, wrote about or just ‘invented’ an entertaining story about. Those who actually do have the experience are all too often howled down by self styled "experts". No doubt there will be posts from .nl addresses disputing this but then they have equal time in this forum too!

Ryadia
————————
"CSM1" wrote in message

"Richard Pini" wrote in message

Thanks to all who replied. I actually do (very sort of) understand the pixels vs. dpi thing, though sometimes putting it into words gets dicey.

Wendy’s fine, thank you.

To answer the question about the 4×5 film image, if the original piece of art was, say 16×20 inches, and if I could scan it directly using a minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan would end up as a 4800×6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4×5 film image, I’d have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course, that the film image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to make that worth doing.)

That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn’t it…

4800 X 6000 = 28,800,000 Pixels or 28.8 Megapixels.
So yeah, 30 Megapixels.

—
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
—

Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He’s posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage. Thick skin? Absolutely!

Ryaia
—————-
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a **thicker skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have seen it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in

court

appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through many different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If

you

don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar went to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:07:28 +1000, "Ryadia"
scribbled:

It is an unfortunate fact of newsgroups that many who offer advise have no practical experience. Their information is based on what someone else said, wrote about or just ‘invented’ an entertaining story about. Those who actually do have the experience are all too often howled down by self styled "experts". No doubt there will be posts from .nl addresses disputing this but then they have equal time in this forum too!

Do you time share with your ego or have you just added on to the back of your head for room?

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:12:27 +1000, "Ryadia"
scribbled:

Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He’s posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage. Thick skin? Absolutely!

Aww, poor little crybaby.

When I was told about "The Village Idiot" I didn’t quite understand waht relationship it had with you …untill I read some of your posts. So now the thread is complete. All the trolls have joined in. No killfile for you my non-friend, way too much pleasure to be had from your posts.

Ryadia
————–

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:07:28 +1000, "Ryadia"
scribbled:

It is an unfortunate fact of newsgroups that many who offer advise have

no

practical experience. Their information is based on what someone else

said,

wrote about or just ‘invented’ an entertaining story about. Those who actually do have the experience are all too often howled down by self

styled

"experts". No doubt there will be posts from .nl addresses disputing this but then they have equal time in this forum too!

Do you time share with your ego or have you just added on to the back of your head for room?

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:45:33 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a **thicker skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining.

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:29:36 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:

This group is very tame and polite compared to most I have been on…LOL
Text is not a good medium for humour and really needs to be spelled out or shit will happen.

Are you really that stupid?

(sarcasm)

Point made?…LOL

and then, English is not even my home language
which makes stupidity only a lìììttle bit more allowable:-)

Was my Fuji Finepix S5000 buy a good decision?

Dave

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:51:26 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:07:28 +1000, "Ryadia"
scribbled:

It is an unfortunate fact of newsgroups that many who offer advise have no practical experience. Their information is based on what someone else said, wrote about or just ‘invented’ an entertaining story about. Those who actually do have the experience are all too often howled down by self styled "experts". No doubt there will be posts from .nl addresses disputing this but then they have equal time in this forum too!

Do you time share with your ego or have you just added on to the back of your head for room?

Hi Voivod, how about saying sometimes little bit more than only one sentence? Or, at least, try to…

Dave

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:33:28 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+> wrote:

To me 14 Mpx looks about
correct – but as always: YMMV.

In which case you’d be very interested in magazine article I read by a Pro landscape photographer who found that once you took the image to A3 size from a Kodak 14mp camera any areas that, on film, would have been continuous tone, start breaking up. Unlike those from a 35mm SLR. In other words, it’s not as good as 35mm, let alone MF.

Kodak does not use a low pass filter, so perhaps that can be expected with this camera. It’s not necessarily true for other cameras, though. You can probably find at least as many articles (last year in the UK magazine Professional Photographer for example) that say that Canon 1Ds (‘only’ 11 Mp) already beats 35mm hands down. I know that ‘Luminous Landscapes’ tried (although his method of proving is point is doubtful at the least) to prove that the Canon evens beats a Pentax 67.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:35:25 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:33:28 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+> wrote:

To me 14 Mpx looks about
correct – but as always: YMMV.

In which case you’d be very interested in magazine article I read by a Pro landscape photographer who found that once you took the image to A3 size from a Kodak 14mp camera any areas that, on film, would have been continuous tone, start breaking up. Unlike those from a 35mm SLR. In other words, it’s not as good as 35mm, let alone MF.

Kodak does not use a low pass filter, so perhaps that can be expected with this camera. It’s not necessarily true for other cameras, though. You can probably find at least as many articles (last year in the UK magazine Professional Photographer for example) that say that Canon 1Ds (‘only’ 11 Mp) already beats 35mm hands down. I know that ‘Luminous Landscapes’ tried (although his method of proving is point is doubtful at the least) to prove that the Canon evens beats a Pentax 67.

That’s interesting. I haven’t yet subscribed to that magazine – I tend to just pick up what’s on the shelf rather than subscribing to something, but it sounds like the mag may be worth having.

I have heard very good things about the Canon, so I’m not entirely surprised, though I would be surprised if it was as good as MF.

(Incidentally, the reason the guy used a Kodak was that he was a Canon Nikon user and as Nikon didn’t make anything like the Canon 1Ds he didn’t have much choice <g>).

Thanks for the info. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:07:28 +1000, "Ryadia"
wrote:

If the people telling you, you need a 30 Megapixel camera had ever taken a photograph with a 4 megapixel DSLR

Unfortunately it is part of simplistic marketing. 30 MUST be better than 4.

Like a car which goes at 500 MPH MUST be better than a car that goes at 200 MPH.

The fact that you don’t need (and can’t use!) a car which goes at 500 MPH seems to be missed by some people.

Unique and easy to use graphics programs
http://www.ransen.com

Hecate wrote:

That’s interesting. I haven’t yet subscribed to that magazine – I tend to just pick up what’s on the shelf rather than subscribing to something, but it sounds like the mag may be worth having.
I have heard very good things about the Canon, so I’m not entirely surprised, though I would be surprised if it was as good as MF.

In terms of pure resolution a scanned medium format slide still wins. But the difference is remarkebly small.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-fi eld.shtml

(Incidentally, the reason the guy used a Kodak was that he was a Nikon user and as Nikon didn’t make anything like the Canon 1Ds he didn’t have much choice <g>).

Photokina is coming and next week Nikon will announce their new stuff.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" posted:
"Photokina is coming and next week Nikon will announce their new stuff."

HeHeHeHeHe …

It is widely rumored that Canon will introduce the EOS 1Ds Mark II at Photokina, in addition to the EOS 20D they have already ‘leaked.’

HeHeHeHeHe …

I have no idea about that model. I owned two original 1mp and 2mp Fujifilm cameras and they had nice quality and bnice features, user friendly. After owning a Pentax they are pretty obsolete, but times have changed and so has technology.

"Dave Du Plessis" wrote in message

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:45:33 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite

in

most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a

**thicker

skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining.

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:29:36 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:

This group is very tame and polite compared to most I have been on…LOL
Text is not a good medium for humour and really needs to be spelled out

or

shit will happen.

Are you really that stupid?

(sarcasm)

Point made?…LOL

and then, English is not even my home language
which makes stupidity only a l

Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law suit he can probably get access to the other person’s information. If he doesn’t have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other person does.

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He’s posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage. Thick skin? Absolutely!

Ryaia
—————-
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a

**thicker

skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have

seen

it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in

court

appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through

many

different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If

you

don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar

went

to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:25:18 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

That’s interesting. I haven’t yet subscribed to that magazine – I tend to just pick up what’s on the shelf rather than subscribing to something, but it sounds like the mag may be worth having.
I have heard very good things about the Canon, so I’m not entirely surprised, though I would be surprised if it was as good as MF.

In terms of pure resolution a scanned medium format slide still wins. But the difference is remarkebly small.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-fi eld.shtml

That’s interesting. However, the medium format used was the smallest <g>

Also, for some images I personally prefer grain to noise (I love the grain in Tri-X).

Otherwise, it seems excellent. Now, if I could afford one <g>…

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Did I miss the fight?

Was it gory?

Who won?

Articus

"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law suit he can probably get access to the other person’s information. If he doesn’t
have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other person does.

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in
the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He’s
posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage. Thick skin? Absolutely!

Ryaia
—————-
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in
most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a

**thicker

skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have

seen

it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in

court

appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through

many

different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If

you

don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar

went

to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 11:53:31 +0200, Dave Du Plessis
scribbled:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:51:26 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:07:28 +1000, "Ryadia"
scribbled:

It is an unfortunate fact of newsgroups that many who offer advise have no practical experience. Their information is based on what someone else said, wrote about or just ‘invented’ an entertaining story about. Those who actually do have the experience are all too often howled down by self styled "experts". No doubt there will be posts from .nl addresses disputing this but then they have equal time in this forum too!

Do you time share with your ego or have you just added on to the back of your head for room?

Hi Voivod, how about saying sometimes little bit more than only one sentence? Or, at least, try to…

Why should I bother with verbose posts that would be over your head? A simple, brief, response is all that’s necessary. Here, have four sentences. Are you happy fuckwit?

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:57:43 +1000, "Ryadia"
scribbled:

When I was told about "The Village Idiot"

You applied for the job?

No one won.
No one ever does.
Technoaussie is our of pocket a few grand chasing the troll and still looking.
The troll has gone to ground and not making any more posts. Yesterday the sun rose (and set).
God willing it will rise again tomorrow
http://users.bigpond.net.au/techo-aussie/

Ryadia

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

Did I miss the fight?

Was it gory?

Who won?

Articus

"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law

suit

he can probably get access to the other person’s information. If he doesn’t
have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other person does.

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in
the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He’s
posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy

damage.

Thick skin? Absolutely!

Ryaia
—————-
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in
most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a

**thicker

skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage

complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have

seen

it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in

court

appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through

many

different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point?

If

you

don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar

went

to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

I think they chose the right candidate for the job

Really seems to be making quite a good job of it

Articus

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:57:43 +1000, "Ryadia"
scribbled:

When I was told about "The Village Idiot"

You applied for the job?

Dare I ask?

Articus

"Ryadia_" wrote in message

No one won.
No one ever does.
Technoaussie is our of pocket a few grand chasing the troll and still looking.
The troll has gone to ground and not making any more posts. Yesterday the sun rose (and set).
God willing it will rise again tomorrow
http://users.bigpond.net.au/techo-aussie/

Ryadia

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

Did I miss the fight?

Was it gory?

Who won?

Articus

"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law

suit

he can probably get access to the other person’s information. If he doesn’t
have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other person
does.

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered
in
the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He’s
posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding
behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy

damage.

Thick skin? Absolutely!

Ryaia
—————-
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite
in
most cases. I don’t see the derogatory sense in the statement.
If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a

**thicker

skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage

complaining

about

people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have

seen

it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in

court

appearances, a person’s death and went from 1996 in one group through

many

different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point?

If

you

don’t believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar

went

to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area, but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of my 6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste length portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each eyelash is individually identifiable. How can even the best enlargement extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that would not result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged image? While I can accept that using such software can do relatively lossless enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to resolution limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the loss of such fine details might not be discernable in 8×10 images, they would be noticeable the poster sizes you are describing. I would appreciate your ideas on this.

(john chapman) writes:

Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area, but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of my 6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste length portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each eyelash is individually identifiable. How can even the best enlargement extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that would not result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged image?

It can’t. That’s basic information theory.

Also, what Ryadia fails to mention, is that while good interpolation software can do amzing things to images that consists of large fields of uniform colour, I’ve yet to see a program that don’t break up if the image contains a lot of fine detail.

And of course, it can not restore detail that was not recorded in the first place.

While I can accept that using such software can do relatively lossless enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to resolution limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the loss of such fine details might not be discernable in 8×10 images, they would be noticeable the poster sizes you are describing.

Indeed.

I would appreciate your ideas on this.

Don’t hold your breath.
—
– gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no – http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ============================================================ ============ «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

Don’t hold your breath.

Ah yes. From the pixel darling. Author of an "in depth" (not) article defining the size of a pixel…

To quote: "don’t worry about it, it means nothing".

You’ve done well there Gisle… Don’t call the kettle black when you’ve got soot all over you too.

Ryadia

john chapman wrote:

Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area, but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of my 6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste length portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each eyelash is individually identifiable. How can even the best enlargement extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that would not result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged image? While I can accept that using such software can do relatively lossless enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to resolution limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the loss of such fine details might not be discernable in 8×10 images, they would be noticeable the poster sizes you are describing. I would appreciate your ideas on this.

Unfortunately I cannot explain the mathematics of Interpolation. All I can do is demonstrate what it does. Seeing as so many people are confused about the process and the results it can achieve, I will take some pictures at work today as I enlarge jobs and post the results tonight. About 12 hours from the time of this post. There is no reason why your "eyelash" example cannot enlarge and maintain proportions too.

I’ve found in the past posting small (Internet ready) images of things does not show the full story. Hopefully this exercise will not result in sceptics claiming I’ve somehow manipulated the pictures. Stand by…

Ryadia.

Well, I have looked at your posts. According to the texts from your posts, the interpolators do a good job of retaining detail, but, of course, cannot and indeed probably should not make detail where there was none. A tiny smudged eyelash is not noticeable in a small photo, but the interpolation will provide an accurate replication of that smudge in a larger print where it now will be visible.

So my digital/analog dilemma remains. Scanned film has much more detail than a 6MP dslr can provide. How significant (in real world terms) are the losses going to digital, and can I live with them are the questions I am still pursuing.

Ryadia …

john chapman wrote:

Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area, but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of my 6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste length portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each eyelash is individually identifiable. How can even the best enlargement extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that would not result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged image? While I can accept that using such software can do relatively lossless enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to resolution limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the loss of such fine details might not be discernable in 8×10 images, they would be noticeable the poster sizes you are describing. I would appreciate your ideas on this.

Unfortunately I cannot explain the mathematics of Interpolation. All I can do is demonstrate what it does. Seeing as so many people are confused about the process and the results it can achieve, I will take some pictures at work today as I enlarge jobs and post the results tonight. About 12 hours from the time of this post. There is no reason why your "eyelash" example cannot enlarge and maintain proportions too.
I’ve found in the past posting small (Internet ready) images of things does not show the full story. Hopefully this exercise will not result in sceptics claiming I’ve somehow manipulated the pictures. Stand by…
Ryadia.

On 22 Sep 2004 05:03:49 -0700, (john chapman) wrote:

Well, I have looked at your posts. According to the texts from your posts, the interpolators do a good job of retaining detail, but, of course, cannot and indeed probably should not make detail where there was none. A tiny smudged eyelash is not noticeable in a small photo, but the interpolation will provide an accurate replication of that smudge in a larger print where it now will be visible.

Unfortunately, Ryadia seems to believe that you can create detail where there is none, so won’t understand your perfectly logical reply.

So my digital/analog dilemma remains. Scanned film has much more detail than a 6MP dslr can provide. How significant (in real world terms) are the losses going to digital, and can I live with them are the questions I am still pursuing.

It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn’t, still, use digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature photography if used correctly. But, you’re right, you still won’t have the information scanned film provides. So, it’s back down to what use you are going to put the images.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn’t, still, use digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature photography if used correctly. But, you’re right, you still won’t have the information scanned film provides. So, it’s back down to what use you are going to put the images.

—

I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.

If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital. Face it Hecate, your ideas are just relics from the past.

Ryadia

Ryadia wrote:

I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.
If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital.

Agreed. But there is absolutely no reason to interpolate such a scan anyway. A 4000 ppi scan from a 6×7 cm slide is approx 100 Mpixels, which is more than enough pixels to make a 24" x 36" print. To print 24" x 36" at 300 dpi, one needs ‘only’ 77 Mpixels, and 300 dpi is overkill for a large poster anyway.

I agree with you that digital images can be printed at much larger size than most people anticipate. I print images from a 6 Mpixel DSLR on an Epson Stylus Pro 7600 at the same size you do, and the result is indeed impressive. However, if I print a scanned 6×7 cm slide, I do see the difference in favour of that slide. There simply is more detail. That’s why I will buy a >10 Mpixel DSLR soon. Interpolation can work very well, but it is no substitute for real captured information. If it was, why would Nikon announce a 12 Mpixel camera and Canon a 16 Mpixel camera, or why would anyone be interested in it?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

I have the same problem that most photographers have. When I take a shot, or a series of shots I do not necessarily know what I might do with them in the future. If I ever go back to doing art shows, I will be enlarging them and selling them (‘scapes, wildlife, still life, etc.). Therefore, in general, I want every shot to be potentially usable in that forum; i.e., of very high technical quality.

And my dilemma is increased because I have seen some apparently very sharp (not oversharpened) very large photos from a 6MP Nikon D70. I do not have much digital experience, but I suspect this is only possible with certain subjects.

Ryadia …

Hecate wrote:

It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn’t, still, use digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature photography if used correctly. But, you’re right, you still won’t have the information scanned film provides. So, it’s back down to what use you are going to put the images.

—

I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.
If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital. Face it Hecate, your ideas are just relics from the past.

Ryadia

john chapman wrote:

And my dilemma is increased because I have seen some apparently very sharp (not oversharpened) very large photos from a 6MP Nikon D70. I do not have much digital experience, but I suspect this is only possible with certain subjects.

It’s not so much the subject John as the quality of the image. Don’t think for a single moment all digital images qualify for enlargement. I reject as many client provided images for enlargements as I accept. Photoshop can enlarge images with steps of interpolation. 10% increments is fairly common. so anyone with Photoshop 7.1 or CS can experiment themselves.

The most significant area seems to be in the detail the sensors capture. At high (as in higher than 100) ISO speeds, Canon’s CMOS sensors begin to lose detail in the picture until at 400 ISO under most conditions of low or shaded light, there is not enough detail to get a substantial enlargement.

I think for this reason, the new 10 MP plus cameras will help but until they reach a situation of being able to capture full detail at high ISO, Pro-sumer cameras like the 10D and new 20D will never have the reliability of image capture to suit professionals.

I recognise this is a Photoshop forum and the thread is now moving into an area way off topic. Maybe if anyone wants to continue camera related discussions, moving to rec.photo.digital might be better?

Ryadia

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:58:40 +1000, Ryadia
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn’t, still, use digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature photography if used correctly. But, you’re right, you still won’t have the information scanned film provides. So, it’s back down to what use you are going to put the images.

—

I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.
If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital. Face it Hecate, your ideas are just relics from the past.

No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don’t require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any size you want to print depending on the format you have used.

I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don’t require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any size you want to print depending on the format you have used.
I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.

—

Good God, Hecate!
Have you been pumping your bellows again?
I suppose the feel of the cherry wood against your skin as you quickly duck under the hood to check the focus one last time before removing the light cap and starting the exposure has made you giddy, has it?

I still have my enlargers, gathering dust. I still use my darkroom… Whenever a film gets stuck in someone’s camera but next week the wreckers are coming to demolish it. In it’s place will be a shiny new digital print centre. Christmas is the (expected) opening and it will be all celebrations too!

It’s a good thing you don’t live around here Hecate, no work for film shooters for months. Those still using 120 roll film bring the processed stuff to me to have it digitised… No work for the enlargers either, it’s all done bigger, better and faster with digital gear. Some say; "How sad". Me? How exciting can this be!

Ryadia

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don’t require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any size you want to print depending on the format you have used.
I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.

—

Good God, Hecate!
Have you been pumping your bellows again?
I suppose the feel of the cherry wood against your skin as you quickly duck under the hood to check the focus one last time before removing the light cap and starting the exposure has made you giddy, has it?
I still have my enlargers, gathering dust. I still use my darkroom… Whenever a film gets stuck in someone’s camera but next week the wreckers are coming to demolish it. In it’s place will be a shiny new digital print centre. Christmas is the (expected) opening and it will be all celebrations too!

It’s a good thing you don’t live around here Hecate, no work for film shooters for months. Those still using 120 roll film bring the processed stuff to me to have it digitised… No work for the enlargers either, it’s all done bigger, better and faster with digital gear. Some say; "How sad". Me? How exciting can this be!

Ryadia

Hello Ryadia,

If people are still bringing you film to digitize, then somebody is still shooting film and somebody is processing that film.

Medium format and larger film has the advantage of a much larger surface area for the image which can then be digitized into a multi-Megapixel image.

With the exception of a scanning back for a view camera, there is not yet a digital camera that can capture the same detail that a large format film can.

Digital cameras are very close to the same resolution that can be captured with 35mm film. Medium format still beats the hell out of digital cameras.

—
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
—

CSM1 wrote:

Digital cameras are very close to the same resolution that can be captured with 35mm film. Medium format still beats the hell out of digital cameras.

One day… Doubters will be dragged screaming and kicking from the past into the present. That’s OK…

It’s opening the window to the future that will really shock them.

Ryadia

Those 35mm cameras will look great on the shelves of Dollarama. There is a sucker born every minute. Swallowers are harder to find.

"Ryadia" wrote in message

CSM1 wrote:

Digital cameras are very close to the same resolution that can be

captured

with 35mm film. Medium format still beats the hell out of digital

cameras.

One day… Doubters will be dragged screaming and kicking from the past into the present. That’s OK…

It’s opening the window to the future that will really shock them.
Ryadia

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:02:53 +1000, Ryadia
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don’t require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any size you want to print depending on the format you have used.
I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.

—

I still have my enlargers, gathering dust. I still use my darkroom… Whenever a film gets stuck in someone’s camera but next week the wreckers are coming to demolish it. In it’s place will be a shiny new digital print centre. Christmas is the (expected) opening and it will be all celebrations too!

I can’t remember the last time I was in a darkroom. I digitise everything. I hope you enjoy your darkroom.

It’s a good thing you don’t live around here Hecate, no work for film shooters for months. Those still using 120 roll film bring the processed stuff to me to have it digitised… No work for the enlargers either, it’s all done bigger, better and faster with digital gear. Some say; "How sad". Me? How exciting can this be!

And I say you use the best tool for the job. Digital still cannot record the detail that film can. I tired out a 1Ds for a week and it’s results were superb. However, it still didn’t reach the capability of Velvia. Nor does it produce digital negs (RAW) which are good enough for Fine Art B&W. With digital, you swap the problems of grain for the problems of noise and colour fringing. The Canon was very, very good and I saw little fringing, but the noise was there at levels where grain was *not&* detectable in Velvia. As for B&W, the grain, in Fine Art at least, is often part of the character of the image and I have yet to see any digital B&W compare to the quality of well exposed and processed TriX neg.

There are two sorts of people – those who use whatever is necessary to get the best results, and those who use whatever is the latest "cool" thing. You are obviously one of the latter. But it’s the former who are most likely to succeed. Or do you just tell your customers who want film quality that "I don’t do film."

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

There are two sorts of people – those who use whatever is necessary to get the best results, and those who use whatever is the latest "cool" thing. You are obviously one of the latter. But it’s the former who are most likely to succeed. Or do you just tell your customers who want film quality that "I don’t do film."

—
Oddly enough I agree with everything you’ve said. I have a film scanning

service. $8,000 worth of scanners sitting idle for days at a time. The most popular posters I sell are scans of 6cm x 9cm negatives – both of them! Everything else is digital and the sheer volume of sales from those images make the return on the 2 most popular posters seem irrelevant.

I wasn’t aware you were a "Fine Art" photographer. Nothing I have said in the past included black & white images. Of course grain is a feature of black and white prints. Colour is a feature of colour prints. I don’t believe I have ever seen a B&W print from a colour image that had any visual appeal, regardless of it being a digital or film print.

It’s true, I have gotten carried away with success of "bleeding edge" technology in photography or more precisely… Providing the services to fulfil bleeding edge imagery. So that’s my business, if you choose not to move in that direction, that’s your business. Out of curiosity, are you British? I just realised too, this is a cross posted thread. I must be slipping in joining it.

Ryadia

My Darkroom is in front of the TV and there is no timers or time constraints.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:02:53 +1000, Ryadia
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don’t require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any size you want to print depending on the format you have used.
I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.

—

I still have my enlargers, gathering dust. I still use my darkroom… Whenever a film gets stuck in someone’s camera but next week the wreckers are coming to demolish it. In it’s place will be a shiny new digital print centre. Christmas is the (expected) opening and it will be all celebrations too!

I can’t remember the last time I was in a darkroom. I digitise everything. I hope you enjoy your darkroom.

It’s a good thing you don’t live around here Hecate, no work for film shooters for months. Those still using 120 roll film bring the processed stuff to me to have it digitised… No work for the enlargers either, it’s all done bigger, better and faster with digital gear. Some say; "How sad". Me? How exciting can this be!

And I say you use the best tool for the job. Digital still cannot record the detail that film can. I tired out a 1Ds for a week and it’s results were superb. However, it still didn’t reach the capability of Velvia. Nor does it produce digital negs (RAW) which are good enough for Fine Art B&W. With digital, you swap the problems of grain for the problems of noise and colour fringing. The Canon was very, very good and I saw little fringing, but the noise was there at levels where grain was *not&* detectable in Velvia. As for B&W, the grain, in Fine Art at least, is often part of the character of the image and I have yet to see any digital B&W compare to the quality of well exposed and processed TriX neg.

There are two sorts of people – those who use whatever is necessary to get the best results, and those who use whatever is the latest "cool" thing. You are obviously one of the latter. But it’s the former who are most likely to succeed. Or do you just tell your customers who want film quality that "I don’t do film."

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:50:18 +1000, Ryadia
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

There are two sorts of people – those who use whatever is necessary to get the best results, and those who use whatever is the latest "cool" thing. You are obviously one of the latter. But it’s the former who are most likely to succeed. Or do you just tell your customers who want film quality that "I don’t do film."

Oddly enough I agree with everything you’ve said. I have a film scanning

service. $8,000 worth of scanners sitting idle for days at a time. The most popular posters I sell are scans of 6cm x 9cm negatives – both of them! Everything else is digital and the sheer volume of sales from those images make the return on the 2 most popular posters seem irrelevant.

You see, we can agree on stuff.

I wasn’t aware you were a "Fine Art" photographer. Nothing I have said in the past included black & white images. Of course grain is a feature of black and white prints. Colour is a feature of colour prints. I don’t believe I have ever seen a B&W print from a colour image that had any visual appeal, regardless of it being a digital or film print.

One of the areas I do concentrate on. A lot of my landscape work is B&W. Nature/landscape/architecture is my area, but not in the "commercial" sense, though I do commercial work if it’s offered 😉

It’s true, I have gotten carried away with success of "bleeding edge" technology in photography or more precisely… Providing the services to fulfil bleeding edge imagery. So that’s my business, if you choose not to move in that direction, that’s your business. Out of curiosity, are you British? I just realised too, this is a cross posted thread. I must be slipping in joining it.

That’s right. We can agree to disagree about some stuff. The problem I had earlier was you were making dogmatic claims which didn’t suit all situations.

Yes, I’m a Brit.

I’m not a fan of crossposted threads either, but it happens…

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui