Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Pixel resolution for 8x10 was: Re: [Leica] Reasons to use film
From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:40:10 +0000

None of what you write here agrees with my practical experience. The 
grain on my scanned negative film is much uglier than digital - but 
scans of  transparencies ar OK. I have certainly never used a photoshop 
grain filter - the idea that this would make a more pleasing image is 
at best a matter of opinion.
There are certainly no visible "rectangular grains" in any of my 
pictures, but I have never owned a camera with fewer than 2.2 
megapixels. This camera made reasonable 10x8 prints, considering it is 
a P&S camera. The earliest digital cameras did produce a mosaic effect 
and were unusable for normal photography.
I have never heard 360 ppi quoted as a maximum resolution,
I still use medium format when ultimate quality is required it produces 
results clearly better than the best digital I can afford. 35mm is dead 
in the water - it offers no worthwhile advantage, I have only used two 
films in my (well used since 1985) M6 for the last 18 months. That was 
when I wanted to use my 12mm lens.
I would be interested what digital equipment you have been using to be 
so disappointed? In my experience digital has been in every way 
superior to my expectations.
A 10x8 camera is unusable for anything I do so its well known potential 
superiority would not be realisable.
Frank

On Sunday, February 22, 2004, at 03:05  pm, Jonathan Borden wrote:

>
> 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
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org> (Re: Pixel resolution for 8x10 was: Re: [Leica] Reasons to use film)