Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > On Feb 22, 2004, at 1:49 AM, Frank Dernie wrote: > > Does one often need/fully exploit the potential of 35mm film on a > > Leica? I only exploited the full potential in the darkroom on my > > biggest prints, most of the time the resolution superiority was just > > wasted on a print of only 10x8". > > It is generally excepted that 360 ppi is a reasonable maximal printing > resolution, that is increasing printing resolution beyond this does not > generally yield better prints. Assuming an 8x10" print, that is 10 > megapixels. Consequently, although 8x10s can look fine with 6 > megapixels, the optimal resolution for 8x10 is 10 megapixel (assuming > zero cropping). > > Thats for an unmanipulated image, if you are going to run USM etc. on > the image it is a good idea to start with a higher resolution -- to > minimize the introduction of digital processing/blocking artifacts. > That is why I scan at ~40 megapixels. > > The other issue is the difference between shape and distribution of > pixels vs. film grains. Rectangular pixels when enlarged are not > pleasing to the eye. Film grains have a more irregular shape and more > random spatial distribution and when visible are *much much* more > pleasing. That's why photoshop filters exist to *add* the appearance of > film grain to digital images, and why it is often recommended to *add* > gaussian noise to a digital image ... this "randomness" (which is a > characteristic of film) reduces the appearance of digital "blocking" > artifacts. > > Enlarged film grain is very often not a terrible problem -- that is why > folks like Tri-X and can accept 35mm enlargements of 16x20 or greater. > > On the other extreme, if you need to be convinced about the potential > benefits of higher resolution, look at a good 8x10 contact print (i.e. > from an 8x10 negative). As much as I like my Leica, these 8x10s have a > characteristic look that cannot be equaled in smaller formats. I can't > explain the neural physiology or physics behind it, but it just *looks > different*. > > Jonathan > > -- Well, i have read that good eyes can easily spot the difference upto 600 dpi.So my guess is that if people can get close to let,s say an architecturial photo they,ll spot the difference.Probably as long as the viewing angle is the same as it was with the camera it wont matter.simon jessurun - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html