[rollei_list] Re: Digital printing v. Analog
- From: Richard Urmonas <rurmonas@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:27:44 +091800
Quoting "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Austin,=20
>
> 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.
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 prints
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 discounting
any photographs which are 'difficult' for a digital to capture. By comparison
I have similar sized prints from film (MF) which are very detailed. All prints
were done by respected pro labs.
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.
> 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.
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.
Richard
--
Richard Urmonas
Other related posts:
