Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:06:37 -0700
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: OT but Photo related
>>>><<<<
"When I got my first DSLR, I did some shooting with both and
some close comparisons of the results. This was practical testing, for
my own use, so I just used film I would have used anyway, not the
slowest, finest grain, etc.
>From my results, I concluded that it was just about a toss-up between
film and the 6.1 mp 300D.
On the other hand, fine detail, especially complex detail was rendered
slightly more accurately on film, albeit with a lot of grain.
Since I got the 5D, there is no comparison on issues of detail
resolution and noise, film loses. I'm leaving aside here issues of
"look" color qualities, etc."
<<<<>>>>
I'm still enjoying my Oly OM-4 T, although with a much narrower range of film
choices than when I started using it. I do tend toward slower, finer grain
film; Fuji NPS 160 is about as fast and grainy as I will comfortably go
(although I will throw in a roll of 800 or 1600 if needed). I don't have a
problem with grain; but I do have a preference for detail so that tends to be
the main criterion upon which I make my imaging decisions.
>>>><<<<
"We must live in different universes. Current high end inkjets are
capable, depending on quality of source image, of course, of absolutely
top quality photographic images, at least the equal of the best that
ever came out of a wet darkroom. In galleries, the issue for fine art
prints (and on high gloss paper too, not watercolor paper) is between
traditional wet prints and inkjet prints (or, as the expensive ones are
called, giclée). It was quite amusing to visit two galleries in the
same strip of shops, one selling both kinds of prints and the other selling
only pure analog prints. There was some stunning work in both places -
and some stuff with, to my mind, less than sterling image quality in
both.
Nowhere do I see color laser used for the highest quality photographic
work."
<<<<>>>>
Someone once asked me if I thought that "the universe has messages for
people". I told her, "The universe is always saying everything, all at the same
time - that is why it is called a 'universe'. What can be heard varies
according to where you are within it."
I first started using inkjets back around 1993: a Lexmark that put out
11"X17" at 300 DPI, followed by an HP in 1997 that put out 11"X17" at 600 DPI.
Image quality was definitely sub-photographic, although the HP was getting
close to what I considered the bottom threshold of acceptability. However, a
glass of water spilled upon a print from the Lexmark made me seriously question
the usability of its prints.
I know that printers have advanced an astonishing degree over the last
decade; so, perhaps the inkjets I've seen in galleries over the last few years
are not of the most recent technologies because, even though they were
photographic displays they were definitely not indistinguishable from a
conventional print!
My color laser is fairly old - it is a Minolta/QMS MagiColor 330 EX - but the
output is spectacular. I have yet to see an inkjet that can match it; but then,
I haven't really been looking at a lot of inkjets since I set that printer up.
Generally, when I print for display, I am outputting 11"X17" images on 13"X19"
paper and it is definitely of photogaphic quality (1200 DPI). The image quality
is so high that one of my framed prints is on display in the main lobby where I
work, right beside the security door (so people have something to look at while
waiting to be buzzed in). It does not look out of place beside the black marble
and chrome. I don't think I would try that with the inkjet output I've seen;
but again, I probably haven't seen what inkjets are currently capable of doing.
>>>><<<<
Personally, I simply disagree. My digital darkroom and inkjet printer,
both scanned film and digital capture, allow me to produce better
prints than I could ever buy, let alone do myself. Suddenly, I can make prints
that are at least the equal of a friend who is a master
Ciba/Ilfo-chrome printer who sells hundreds of his prints a year. Whatever
"inherent
shortcomings of inkjet printers" you may have encountered are either
cheap printers or old printers.
Moose
<<<<>>>>
I think we would both agree here, that a digital darkroom is much more
versatile and effective than a conventional one. I guess what I have been
thinking - and maybe not saying clearly - is that, when I first began to
experiment with digital imaging technologies, I found that the quality I was
use to seeing in film-based imaging was missing. Not a big surprise - people
like convenience, and I still see lots of xeroxed photo-posters around that
would look much better if a halftone had been used as the original - but I
guess that I would like to be fairly certain that such quality problems have
been rectified before I shift completely toward digital.
The bottom line for me can be summed up in a comment made by a very talented
newpaper photographer I was discussing digital equipment with late last year;
when I mentioned that i still shoot 35mm film, he said: "Nothing wrong with
that!"
So I suppose that I would really rather assure myself that there is nothing
wrong with the alternative before I embrace it whole heartedly!
John M.
John Morton
http://OriginOfWriting.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|