Back when the high-res digitals first came out I downloaded one of the images and printed it 8x10. I took that and a 8x10 machine print from a 6x7 negative that I had up to GFM with me year before last and showed them to some of the list guys. Almost all of the list guys preferred the creamy smoothness of the digital, though when pressed had to admit the chemical print was sharper and more detailed. The only folks who thought the chemical print was outright better were myself and one of the speakers (who in my opinion was the most experienced photographer there, by a long margin). It is hard to realize that the only digital experience any of those guys had at that time was with snapshot cameras. Reading the list today you would think they have been using digital for decades.
Which is better, and apple or and orange. To me it depends upon how I am feeling that day.
But thanks for trying, as someone said, it was more honest than most of the web publications (who are supported by advertising just like magazines).
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
Gianfranco Irlanda wrote:
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 finedetails, 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
