[rollei_list] Re: Digital printing v. Analog
- From: Richard Urmonas <rurmonas@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:47:26 +0930
I don't print at home, the economics don't work, and trying match the
quality I am getting out of the pro-lab is just too much fiddling.
Interpolation does not give you any more detail. Once the image is
captured, what you have is all you get. Forget the sci-fi stuff on TV
with the police etc. zooming in to a car liscence plate. The reality
is it cannot be done.
Richard
On 16/04/2005, at 1:05 AM, Peter K. wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
Richard Urmonas
Other related posts:
