William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Subject: Re: P67 vs D1s -- photo.net > He should have chosen the EF50/1.7 and the SMCP 105/2.4 for his test. > And he should have gotten a high end optical print made from the > film, rather than a scan.
Hi everybody, About this topic, I performed a film vs. digital test while in Prague. I shot the same scene with both the LX and the *istD, using the M 20/4, set at infinity, planning to do a optical print from the slide film (a Fuji Provia 100F) and a digital (still from a wet process, though) print from the *istD file. I made a 30x45cm (12x18'') print from the slide and a 20x30cm (8x12'') from the *istD file, to have the same magnification and thus comparable details on the two final prints. Last step was a couple of 600dpi scans of the buildings (note that the details are quite small compared to the actual print). The pictures shown are 100% crops of those details: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=137823 I tried to reduce the differences in the colours of the two (the original *istD file - and print - was a bit more yellowish), to better show the differences in grain and resolution. The *istD file had also been modified with a slight sharpening and darkened (still in order to match more the slide) before printing. >From what I can see, the *istD image shows a little more fine details, although there is a certain loss in the saturation of some colours (the slide was quite dark compared to the digital picture, so it may have preserved better the colours in the highlights of the scene). The print from the slide costed me 18 Euros (what is that now, US$ 23, right?) and the (smaller) print from the file 2 Euros. A 30x45cm print from the file (that I made anyway, with good results) was 5 Euros (US$ 6.50). What do you think? Ciao, Gianfranco ===== _ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
