Chip Louie wrote: >Hi Peter, > >You wrote that you could prove that digital images are sharper than film >with files from a Fuji FinePix S1 camera. OK I'll bite, prove it.
OK Chip, how can I do this for you? Would you like to see the prints? I did an article for Rangefinder http://www.rangefindermag.com/Magazine/April02/digitalSLR.tml which you can view. I usually do not brag or speak about my own work but I can tell you that the middle image of the three images in a row about half way down where the caption states "This is a vertical cropping of a horizontal image. The image still retains excellent overall sharpness." was about 1/2 (at most) of the original image size and I have a 11 x 14 of this one in my office on the wall that you would think it came from a medium format camera it is still soooo sharp. Data: 6MP interpolated file and not at the highest resolution either. >You then go on to state that advertising images have been digital for years >because digital images are better than film. On this point I you need to >know that in the beginning those "digital" images all started out as film >that was scanned. The move to original digital images has been more recent >and continues today. The reason for this is certainly NOT due to the >technical quality of the image but the cost and speed savings of digital >processing in prepress production. The fact is that most printed images in >magazines and the majority of newspapers still start out as film images that >have to be digitized. Pretty much only large newspapers, wire services, >contract/spec. news shooters start out as digital images because speed and >time to the editors is more important then technical quality. > >Next you say that GF can produce better images from small files. Better >than what, nothing? Skip, skip, skip....there you go again. I am friends with several photogs at large companies (be glad to tell you the names in a private email, but sufffice it to say they take many of the photos you see in magazines and on billboards) who have been using digital cameras since the mid-90s. ALL their images with exception of a few are done digitally. Some use GF and boost the image size 200% then use the printer to boost it another 200% so in effect you increase the image exponentially and lose little. >If you have not seen stunning 30x40 images from film then you need to get >out in the world or go to a better lab. Heck, at A&I Color they have huge >stunning, fantastic images thrown up on the wall, they change them all the >time and they are ALL from film originals. Where do you live? Find almost >any large art gallery that offers fine art prints and you will find a >zillion stunning large prints that originated from film. > >To rest so early, you must be tired. I did not say I have not seen stunning 30x40 from film but few from a 35mm negative to paper as you lose clarity at abour 20x24 where you should be using medium format film to keep it sharp. With a digital camera and a CCD or CMOS sensor smaller than a 35mm negative size I can do as well as say 6x4.5cm film. The huge stunning prints are almost always scanned using a drum scanner and then printed digital since you cannot get the same result directly from film to paper. Having said that, realize you are then using digital in the process so your point is invalid. Show me a beautiful large print and I will guarantee it was drum scanned from film, making it for all intents and purposes a digital file. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
