Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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