| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2004 07:23:58 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Well, the result was stunning. Absolutely remarkable images. These prints were far beyond any DSLR results that I have printed to date. |
Michael, what DSLR kit do you use? Just curious if you have any thoughts on the 1Ds compared to a medium format?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 08:42:54 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by Morgan:
Well, the result was stunning. Absolutely remarkable images. These prints were far beyond any DSLR results that I have printed to date. |
Michael, what DSLR kit do you use? Just curious if you have any thoughts on the 1Ds compared to a medium format? |
Well, I am a true NIKON guy, so I should probably be smart and make an effort to avoid the Canon question.
I use two Nikon D1x(s), a D100, a 5700, and an old 950. DSLRs are terrific, but I can not agree that they out perform film. There are many levels to this debate that go way beyond the issue of image resolution. What about contrast ratio, low light sensitivity, colourimetry, truth of colour, texture and feel, and more.
Do not get me wrong, I am an avid user of DSLRs. They make my work and life easier and faster. But, I am not too sure that I can agree that DSLRs yield higher quality - not just yet anyway. Let's wait 10 days and learn what develops at the PMA show in Las Vegas. I do expect that they will and are displacing film in every day photography; there is no doubt about it. But, film has its place and will continue to play an important role in imagery for years to come.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 10:37:50 AM · #28 |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:07:59 AM · #29 |
Some more apparent rigor to the comparision
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
Bottom line is, good quality 35mm film is better than most DSLRs, with the 11Mp Canon 1Ds being slightly better than provia and velvia , but not as good as medium format.
Though there is a whole lot more to this than 'sharpness' and the ease of use of digital is comparable in many ways to the 35mm vs medium format decision.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:09:23 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
This past week, I shot with my Hasselblad 501 CM and various lenses. I then scanned the images into my computer with a Nikon 8000 film scanner.
Finally, after minimum possessing due to the very large image size (aka file size) and the significantly increased computer latency, I printed the images on a Olympus P400 dye sublimation printer.
Well, the result was stunning. Absolutely remarkable images. These prints were far beyond any DSLR results that I have printed to date.
Garbage in, garbage out... |
Just curious, with your 1Dx images what processing do you do prior to printing them ?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:46:01 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Morgan:
This past week, I shot with my Hasselblad 501 CM and various lenses. I then scanned the images into my computer with a Nikon 8000 film scanner.
Finally, after minimum possessing due to the very large image size (aka file size) and the significantly increased computer latency, I printed the images on a Olympus P400 dye sublimation printer.
Well, the result was stunning. Absolutely remarkable images. These prints were far beyond any DSLR results that I have printed to date.
Garbage in, garbage out... |
Just curious, with your 1Dx images what processing do you do prior to printing them ? |
A Lot of the newer digital cameras preprocess the image within the camera body (i.e.: extrapolation for example). The D1x does very little of this internal processing, which is why I like it.
For me, levels tend to need to be lifted, contrast decreased and chroma punched up. I use Kodak's VC or Vivid Contrast film, so I tend to pursue that same look in my digital images too. It is strictly a personal preference. I have been criticized here at DPC and elsewhere for going over the top. But, it makes me happy and I enjoy the look, so it is OK I suppose.
With the grey, cold, wet weather of winter, I tend to push the envelope even further, especially with the chroma - so it must be an environmental influence?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:49:45 PM · #32 |
By the way, Gordon, I loved your Fantasia image. A well deserved win.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:51:14 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
For me, levels tend to need to be lifted, contrast decreased and chroma punched up. I use Kodak's VC or Vivid Contrast film, so I tend to pursue that same look in my digital images too. It is strictly a personal preference. I have been criticized here at DPC and elsewhere for going over the top. But, it makes me happy and I enjoy the look, so it is OK I suppose.
|
Do you sharpen much at all before printing ? Do you sharpen differently depending on the print size you are targeting ?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 07:13:53 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Morgan:
For me, levels tend to need to be lifted, contrast decreased and chroma punched up. I use Kodak's VC or Vivid Contrast film, so I tend to pursue that same look in my digital images too. It is strictly a personal preference. I have been criticized here at DPC and elsewhere for going over the top. But, it makes me happy and I enjoy the look, so it is OK I suppose.
|
Do you sharpen much at all before printing ? Do you sharpen differently depending on the print size you are targeting ? |
Gordon, I tend to apply the sharpening filter rather sparingly. If it is overdone, it looks awful. I feel that every filtering process negatively impacts the image. So, if at all possible, I do avoid them. I agree with you assumption about applying varying amounts of filtering depending upon the output size. It is subjective, but I feel that I use more filtering on low resolution web images and far less on larger commercial printing.
I make use of a high-end professional lab here in Toronto called BGM. They are not inexpensive, but they are worth the price in quality, technical information, and creative suggestions for improvement.
With my own printers (Olympus P400, Epson Photo EX, HP something or other, and a Polaroid instant printer) I use some filtering for sharpness. Less on the Olympus and more on the HP. Selecting a different paper stock on the Epson has a far greater impact then sharpening filters.
Finally, you need to appreciate that what I shoot is mostly TV and microwave towers, satellite facilities and indoor technical facilities.
Have a look here - MICAN Image Gallery
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 19:14:42.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 08:27:36 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
It is subjective, but I feel that I use more filtering on low resolution web images and far less on larger commercial printing.
|
I haven't done much personal testing on that, but from what I've read the general wisdom seems to be to apply more sharpening for larger prints, though it does vary depending on the actual process being used too.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:38:03 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Morgan:
It is subjective, but I feel that I use more filtering on low resolution web images and far less on larger commercial printing.
|
I haven't done much personal testing on that, but from what I've read the general wisdom seems to be to apply more sharpening for larger prints, though it does vary depending on the actual process being used too. |
Perhaps my eyes are just getting too old, but I am challenged with smaller images and want to see them sharper. Larger images tend to be easier to view. I suppose that the viewing distance and the entire viewing environment comes into play, but that is how I see the issue.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2004 02:35:54 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I haven't done much personal testing on that, but from what I've read the general wisdom seems to be to apply more sharpening for larger prints, though it does vary depending on the actual process being used too. |
I've read (if I had a reference handy I'd provide it) that for prints it's best to sharpen just beyond the point where it looks reasonable for online viewing; i.e., oversharpen when printing. I can't recall if that advice applies to inkjet, frontier, dyesub, or what have you. I haven't played with this at home yet either. |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 07:27:09 AM · #38 |
Oversharpen for printing? That doesn't seem right to me. Maybe thats a trick to make up for a lesser printer? I have a great printer. I'm going to do some test prints late today if I can find time.
Tim |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 08:04:26 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I haven't done much personal testing on that, but from what I've read the general wisdom seems to be to apply more sharpening for larger prints, though it does vary depending on the actual process being used too. |
I've read (if I had a reference handy I'd provide it) that for prints it's best to sharpen just beyond the point where it looks reasonable for online viewing; i.e., oversharpen when printing. I can't recall if that advice applies to inkjet, frontier, dyesub, or what have you. I haven't played with this at home yet either. |
That was pretty much what I've read too.
A very brief web search (sharpening for printing) in google turned up a lot of hits e.g.,
Method 2: Sharpening for Print Reproduction
[...Printing digital images requires different sharpening techniques, whether you are printing on an ink-jet printer, a continuous-tone printer like the Fuji Frontier, or an offset press. Generally, images need a lot more sharpening for printing than for viewing on a computer. This version is sharpened for 4-color OFFSET printing, which usually requires the most sharpening:...]
//www.wfu.edu/users/bennettk/sharp.html
Certainly the amount of sharpening you use varies for the output process, but it isn't just for crappy printers that you need to consider this.
Also niksharpener Pro uses pretty heavy sharpening for print/ offset/ inkjet output compared to web output.
You can get a demo here:
//www.nikmultimedia.com/usa/products/sharpenerpro/complete/complete.shtml
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/12/2025 06:02:16 AM EDT.
