Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm with you other than the fact that "resolution" is a number. On 4/12/14 1:27 PM, "Bill Pearce" <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote: > In my mind there is never a math question > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rabiner > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:36 AM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution > > In some peoples mind though this is a math question. Numbers. > Comparing an inkjet pigment print against a darkroom print we can decide > which one seems more effective. Which one we personally like the most. Are > we going to try to measure resolution on the prints? Don't we know what > they > are already just by doing the math? > >> From all I've heard film has a resolution edge over digital. But plenty of > photo processes have been judged superior over other photo processes of > higher resolution. The highest resolution photo process ever invented is > ironically the first one; The Daguerreotype. No ones going get into doing > those for that reason. The do it for the look of the total package. The > many > which followed have been judged superior and otherwise preferable the the > one which preceded it. > > I saw very large prints today made from large format digital backs. Not > medium format. Large format as in 4x5 or whatever they call it. > They outdid any prints I've ever seen from large format film. > The guy said they were two gig files which took an hour to open on the > fastest Mac computers you can buy. > The superiority of the digital process both in the capturing and the inkjet > printing which is now being called "pigment prints" are without question at > least to me as for the past two days I've been looking at the AIPAD show > with the 100 top photo galleries in the world being represented. An > overwhelming experience on a number of levels. Lots of the worlds most > famous images of every conceivable photo process being sold for hundreds of > thousands of dollars and inkjets done this year for tens of thousands. > > > On 4/12/14 1:16 AM, "Bill Pearce" <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote: > >> mARK, >> >> Thanks for saving me the time of pointing out what is wrong here. The only >> fair comparison is a print from a digital file with a darkroom print, I >> hope >> both made by skilled printers. Otherwise you put the film at a >> disadvantage. >> >> Bill Pearce >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Rabiner >> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 11:57 PM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution >> >> Aren't we comparing a digital scanner against a digital camera? >> I don't think its a real film to digital comparison without a high end >> drum >> scan or at least a scan from one of those Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanners >> which cost the same as a used Chevy Nova. >> >> >> On 4/12/14 12:45 AM, "Howard Ritter" <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: >> >>> Oh, I absolutely agree. The film images in my repertoire that please me >>> the >>> most don?t depend on resolution to do so (sometimes not even focus ;-). >>> For example, the images of the skateboarders in London (link just now >>> posted) >>> would not be improved in the least by tack-sharp resolution, any more >>> than >>> by >>> a shutter speed that would have frozen the boarder in mid-air. >>> >>> Marginal detail does way less to degrade an image well seen and captured >>> than >>> the best detail can possibly improve a mediocre one. >>> >>> As a geek, as well as realizing that many applications do benefit from >>> however >>> great a degree of resolution can be achieved, I just wanted to look at >>> how >>> our >>> technologies stacked up, both within themselves and compared to each >>> other. >>> >>> >>> On Apr 12, 2014, at 12:26 AM, Richard Man <richard at >>> richardmanphoto.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Shoot film for certain qualities lacking in digital, whatever they may >>>> be, >>>> but chasing tangible qualities such as resolution is probably a loss >>>> cause. >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> > > > -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/