Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Feb 22, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Frank Dernie wrote: > None of what you write here agrees with my practical experience. The > grain on my scanned negative film is much uglier than digital - but > scans of transparencies ar OK. I have certainly never used a > photoshop grain filter - the idea that this would make a more pleasing > image is at best a matter of opinion. I agree the appearance of film grain is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless 1) people have gone to the trouble to write photoshop filters that *add* grain to digital images 2) gaussian noise is much more pleasing than pixelated noise at any given level of noise. > There are certainly no visible "rectangular grains" in any of my > pictures, but I have never owned a camera with fewer than 2.2 > megapixels. This camera made reasonable 10x8 prints, considering it is > a P&S camera. That roughly corresponds to a printing resolution of 75 dpi. You might find that acceptable. I am saying that many people would print an 8x10 at 300 dpi which is four times that resolution. > The earliest digital cameras did produce a mosaic effect and were > unusable for normal photography. > I have never heard 360 ppi quoted as a maximum resolution, The Imageprint RIP uses this as a maximal resolution (at least the lite version). I personally can't see any significant increase in print resolution (with my naked eye) beyond this. You can certainly print at a higher resolution -- I am only suggesting that this may not result in a better print. I *am* saying, however, that most people can see a difference between 75 dpi and 300 dpi (8 megapixel for 8x10) or 360 dpi (10 megapixel for 8x10). > I would be interested what digital equipment you have been using to be > so disappointed? In my experience digital has been in every way > superior to my expectations. I am hardly disappointed in digital. I've used and written too many digital imaging products and techniques to list. What I am essentially saying is this: For 4x6 prints both film and digital P&S are fine (maximal visible printed resolution is 3 megapixel). For 8x10 although 6 megapixels might be acceptable, there is a *visible* improvement moving to 10 megapixels assuming all else equal (i.e. noise is constant). > A 10x8 camera is unusable for anything I do so its well known > potential superiority would not be realisable. > ... > I still use medium format when ultimate quality is required it > produces results clearly better than the best digital I can afford. > 35mm is dead in the water - it offers no worthwhile advantage, I have > only used two films in my (well used since 1985) M6 for the last 18 > months. That was when I wanted to use my 12mm lens. I use 35mm film for ergonomics. The batteries in my M last for a long time (M6) or forever (M3). It is compact yet with great optics. The film is a great archival format yet I can easily scan it and print it digitally (all my color and some B/W) or I can print it optically (B/W). I expect that film will be around for alot longer than people are predicting -- indeed new 8x10 films have been introduced in the past several years e.g. Bergger. I don't long for a digital D-SLR for the exact same reason my trusty Canon EOS 10s is used for about 5% of my shooting (the Canon 100mm Macro is a nice lens at a great price :-). Perhaps I will buy an Epson/Cosina digital M or a Leica digital M. What I am *not* going to do is buy into planned obsolescence by paying $ thousands for a 6 megapixel sensor. Jonathan - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html