Basic dpi question (art archiving) - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

john chapman wrote:
>
> And my dilemma is increased because I have seen some apparently very
> sharp (not oversharpened) very large photos from a 6MP Nikon D70. I
> do not have much digital experience, but I suspect this is only
> possible with certain subjects.
>
It's not so much the subject John as the quality of the image. Don't
think for a single moment all digital images qualify for enlargement. I
reject as many client provided images for enlargements as I accept.
Photoshop can enlarge images with steps of interpolation. 10% increments
is fairly common. so anyone with Photoshop 7.1 or CS can experiment
themselves.

The most significant area seems to be in the detail the sensors capture.
At high (as in higher than 100) ISO speeds, Canon's CMOS sensors begin
to lose detail in the picture until at 400 ISO under most conditions of
low or shaded light, there is not enough detail to get a substantial
enlargement.

I think for this reason, the new 10 MP plus cameras will help but until
they reach a situation of being able to capture full detail at high ISO,
Pro-sumer cameras like the 10D and new 20D will never have the
reliability of image capture to suit professionals.

I recognise this is a Photoshop forum and the thread is now moving into
an area way off topic. Maybe if anyone wants to continue camera related
discussions, moving to rec.photo.digital might be better?

Ryadia

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:58:40 +1000, Ryadia
<dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hecate wrote:
>
>>
>> It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn't, still, use
>> digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or
>> anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get
>> you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature
>> photography if used correctly. But, you're right, you still won't have
>> the information scanned film provides. So, it's back down to what use
>> you are going to put the images.
>>
>> --
>I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and
>ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There
>is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from
>medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.
>
>If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain
>either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is
>the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to
>anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital. Face it
>Hecate, your ideas are just relics from the past.
>
No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don't
require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any
size you want to print depending on the format you have used.

I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it
provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

"Ryadia" <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ri99lF1aikcnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Hecate wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don't
>> require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any
>> size you want to print depending on the format you have used.
>>
>> I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it
>> provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.
>>
>> --
> Good God, Hecate!
> Have you been pumping your bellows again?
> I suppose the feel of the cherry wood against your skin as you quickly
> duck under the hood to check the focus one last time before removing the
> light cap and starting the exposure has made you giddy, has it?
>
> I still have my enlargers, gathering dust. I still use my darkroom...
> Whenever a film gets stuck in someone's camera but next week the wreckers
> are coming to demolish it. In it's place will be a shiny new digital print
> centre. Christmas is the (expected) opening and it will be all
> celebrations too!
>
> It's a good thing you don't live around here Hecate, no work for film
> shooters for months. Those still using 120 roll film bring the processed
> stuff to me to have it digitised... No work for the enlargers either, it's
> all done bigger, better and faster with digital gear. Some say; "How sad".
> Me? How exciting can this be!
>
> Ryadia

Hello Ryadia,

If people are still bringing you film to digitize, then somebody is still
shooting film and somebody is processing that film.

Medium format and larger film has the advantage of a much larger surface
area for the image which can then be digitized into a multi-Megapixel image.

With the exception of a scanning back for a view camera, there is not yet a
digital camera that can capture the same detail that a large format film
can.

Digital cameras are very close to the same resolution that can be captured
with 35mm film. Medium format still beats the hell out of digital cameras.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:02:53 +1000, Ryadia
<dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hecate wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don't
>> require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any
>> size you want to print depending on the format you have used.
>>
>> I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it
>> provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.
>>
>> --

>I still have my enlargers, gathering dust. I still use my darkroom...
>Whenever a film gets stuck in someone's camera but next week the
>wreckers are coming to demolish it. In it's place will be a shiny new
>digital print centre. Christmas is the (expected) opening and it will be
>all celebrations too!

I can't remember the last time I was in a darkroom. I digitise
everything. I hope you enjoy your darkroom.

>It's a good thing you don't live around here Hecate, no work for film
>shooters for months. Those still using 120 roll film bring the processed
>stuff to me to have it digitised... No work for the enlargers either,
>it's all done bigger, better and faster with digital gear. Some say;
>"How sad". Me? How exciting can this be!
>
And I say you use the best tool for the job. Digital still cannot
record the detail that film can. I tired out a 1Ds for a week and
it's results were superb. However, it still didn't reach the
capability of Velvia. Nor does it produce digital negs (RAW) which are
good enough for Fine Art B&W. With digital, you swap the problems of
grain for the problems of noise and colour fringing. The Canon was
very, very good and I saw little fringing, but the noise was there at
levels where grain was *not&* detectable in Velvia. As for B&W, the
grain, in Fine Art at least, is often part of the character of the
image and I have yet to see any digital B&W compare to the quality of
well exposed and processed TriX neg.

There are two sorts of people - those who use whatever is necessary to
get the best results, and those who use whatever is the latest "cool"
thing. You are obviously one of the latter. But it's the former who
are most likely to succeed. Or do you just tell your customers who
want film quality that "I don't do film."

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

One option that has not been discussed is to have your art collection imaged with a Cruse Scanner. I read hecate's post about being on the bleeding edge of technology, etc... and I do agree in concept with what he is saying. Much of the technology that is being hocked on us may sound good, but when applied to the task, is incapable of backing up the claims.

Herman Cruse's art capture system does what it says it can. I spent about three years researching various medium format digital cameras and art capture systems such as the betterlight digital scanning back, Hasselblad multishot system etc. The big difference between the Cruse and the rest is that it is a fully encompassing system. The lighting, the camera, the optics, the software, all integrated to work together. The key technical difference that distinguishes itself from the rest of the equipment out there is that the light is focused directly onto the linear ccd sensor and does not focus on a ground glass plate as a better light system does. Also since the entire camera stays in place and the artwork moves in front of the lens and lighting, the center part of the optics are used and the edges of the image are discarded, which are subject to distortion from the elliptical qualities of the lens. What this means in the end is that you will have a perfectly square image and perfect scale, one cm on the painting will equate to 1 cm on the file.

Go checkout www.crusedigital.com. On the site there is a listing of service providers that have Cruse Scanners worldwide.

Each lighting mode is white balanced and then an ICC input profile is built. Subsequent re calibrations only require a white balancing, which is done through the software. On my particular machine I can run with both lights on for an image that is flat and evenly lit, left light only, Left light at 10cm distance, left Light Angled Louvre (a raking light that creates shadow below 3d texture. This makes the print look like it has physical texture and depth). or the Left light angle with right light on as well.