[rollei_list] Re: Digital printing v. Analog
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:35:14 -0700
Richard,
You may be right for a 4MP and getting a print on your own computer.
If you look at the KRAFT Food advertisements, they have been digital
since the mid-90s. I know the chief photographer for Kraft. He uses
ALL digital but post processing is done through PhotoShop and then
commercial interpolation to create large posters. You can see the
grains of salt on a Ritz cracker that was created from a digital image
and is now poster size of say 3 x 4 feet. These reproductions are made
on high-end commercial printers and not small inkjets. That also
helps.
Peter K
On 4/14/05, Richard Urmonas <rurmonas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
>=20
> > Austin,=3D20
> >
> > I have seen many digital images. Done right, you could not tell the
> > difference between a quality digital image at 11x14 or one from a film
> > camera.
>=20
> Perhaps for the type of photography you do / are interested in. However
> not for all forms of photography. I have a range of 8x10 and 11x14 print=
s
> from a 4 MP digital, and the lack of detail (to my eye) is very noticable=
. To
> me it is even obvious in 5x7 prints. In saying this I am of course disco=
unting
> any photographs which are 'difficult' for a digital to capture. By compa=
rison
> I have similar sized prints from film (MF) which are very detailed. All =
prints
> were done by respected pro labs.
>=20
> I have in recent times gone to digital darkroom, and while I am still
> very much a beginner in using a scanner, the detail I am able to get
> from film amazes me. A few weekends ago I was scanning some Rollei
> b&W negs, and the detail was beyond the scanners ability to capture it.
> This fine detail is very obvious on prints from these scanned files.
>=20
>=20
> > However, if you are comparing 4x6 or 5x7 prints done at a one-hour lab
> > with the terrible digital prints you get at your local Walgreens or
> > Wal-Mart, it is the printing that is bad and not the image from the
> > digital camera.
>=20
> Yes, agreed. Far too often I come across people comparing
> cameras / lenses / whatever and using bad 1 hour lab prints
> for the purpose. It amuses me that they will go out and spend
> $1000s on new gear, but then compromise on the images
> just to save a few cents.
>=20
> Richard
> --
> Richard Urmonas
>=20
>=20
--=20
Peter K
=D3=BF=D5=AC
Other related posts:
