Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Apr 12, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Howard Ritter wrote: > Point taken?the final common pathway in both arms of the comparison is > digital, and the cleanest possible comparison would be of a photographic > enlargement from a negative vs. an inkjet print from a digital file. But I > don't think any particular skill would be required, since we're not > looking at any of the print attributes that take skill to select and bring > out?just looking at how fine detail is rendered at large scale. > > And the resolution of the Nikon Coolscan 5000 is surely sufficient to make > the point with the negative material I was using, as the pixel size in the > scanner output (even in the original, before the upsampling that was > needed to make the tiny ~300 x 200 pixel crops big enough to see on the > Gallery) was much smaller than the resolution of the negatives?just look > at the vertical elements in the deck railing. As well, I looked at the > negatives with a magnifier, and it's just as the scans show: there's no > more than a suggestion of the uprights. There's no difference between the > direct visualization of the detail and the scan rendering of the detail. > Digital sensors of, say, 15 Mpx and up just blow away ordinary film. It may be that the best comparison would be: projecting a transparency to the equivalent size as the 100% screen image and view from the same distance. both using light not mixing inkjet nozzles with silver halide chemistry. The greatest way to look at "film" [positive or negative] is with a very fine 8x, 10x, or 12x loupe Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist