Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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/