Darkroom vs. Computer printing
Jean-David Beyer
Gibbfam wrote:
>
> 20 years ago I had my own B&W darkroom and still have the equipment. I'd
> like to get back into the hobby but am unsure should I re-set up the
> darkroom or focus on new techniques etc. offered by computer generated
> prints since we have a good quality printer and operating system.
I think it will depend mostly on what you want to do. If you just want
to make photographs with a camera and then print them or project them,
a camera and darkroom setup are a convenient way to go about it. This
is especially important if you need high technical image quality. (It is
not clear that this will always be true.)
If you need to do a lot of image manipulation, if your customer (paying
or otherwise) really needs the images in digital form, or if you are
tired of getting wet in the darkroom, the computer methods are probably
the way to go. Except for curmudgeonly reactionaries like me, this is
no doubt the way of the future, but I do not believe the future has
arrived yet.
I used to do image processing (both still and moving) at a large
research organization. There has been considerable progress since
I did any work in that area. At the time, we used 8-bits linear encoding
of the images, mostly using a frame of 256x256 picture elements.
That is 8 bits per color (R,G,B). The 8 bits were the MINIMUM required
to avoid seeing contouring. 256x256 picture elements were the most
we could afford to process. In those days, the computer ran at a speed
of 1/2 MHz, and that was pretty fast. Needless to say, 256x256 is
totally
inadequate for most still photographic use, although it is barely
acceptable for moving images (where resolution is less important).
My preference is for about 7-10 lines/millimeter for the finished
product. For a 10" print, that comes to about 2540 elements along
the side. That tells me my HP DeskJet 660Cse sould have enough
resolution, 300x300 dpi. It does not look like it, although I am using
Georgia-Pacific InkJet pater, which is only a little better than copy
paper. I very much doubt it uses more than 8 bits total for the color
as severe contouring is present. A better printer would certainly
help for color work.
I note that while some of the photographs I download are quite nice and
usable as "wallpaper" on my monitor using 16-bit color resolution and
1024x768 elements, they certainly do not appear as well as a good print.
How much is due to the compression algorithms involved to prepare for
transmission through the Internet I do not know.
As so much in photography, what you do and what you choose to use
depends a great deal on what you need and what you have to spend.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
J.Pavel
In article <32E0F0...@exit109.com> Jean-David Beyer,
jdb...@exit109.com writes:
snip-
>My preference is for about 7-10 lines/millimeter for the finished
>product. For a 10" print, that comes to about 2540 elements along
>the side. That tells me my HP DeskJet 660Cse sould have enough
>resolution, 300x300 dpi. It does not look like it, although I am using
>Georgia-Pacific InkJet pater, which is only a little better than copy
>paper. I very much doubt it uses more than 8 bits total for the color
>as severe contouring is present. A better printer would certainly
>help for color work.
Unfortunately the HP DeskJet 660Cse uses 300x300 dpi but at 1 bit for
each color. It uses dithering for additional color which brings effective
dpi way down.
Unless you are willing to go with expensive dye sublimation printers you
are stuck with the old fashioned ways.
John
swhh...@softnet.co.uk
On 18/01/97 14:45, in message <19970118144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Gibbfam <gib...@aol.com> wrote:
> 20 years ago I had my own B&W darkroom and still have the equipment. I'd
> like to get back into the hobby but am unsure should I re-set up the
> darkroom or focus on new techniques etc. offered by computer generated
> prints since we have a good quality printer and operating system.
Phi...@light.sofnet.co.uk
It will be a long time yet before Computer photography takes over if ever. what
I believe is emerging is another branch of it. we will be slide workers print
workers ansd D.I. workers where some will overlap onto the others field whilst
some stay strickly single.
At present the only way to get a print of equal quallity is through printers
like Kodac dye sub which at 6000.00UKpounds for A4 and 2.50 per print isn't in
the amature market.Good prints are being produced by Epson Pro ink jet that
look like matt prints from about 5 fet away but not nearer which start fading
after 9 months. Rebuild your darkroom enjoy both mediums.
Gibbfam
Richard Knoppow
gib...@aol.com (Gibbfam) wrote:
There isn't a simple ansewer to this. Partly it depends on whether
you like working in the darkroom, I do.
Digital imaging systems at their best can, IMHO, duplicate good
conventional photographs but it takes more than the sort of scanners
an printers found in homes. I have seen work scanned with an Agfa
scanner and printed on an Iris printer that would knock your socks
off. I don't know the price of the scanner (2500dpi or somthing like
that) but the Iris printer is about $30,000. Otherwise all you need
is a Power Mac (with as much RAM as you can cram into it) and
Photoshop. I am probably overtstating this a little to make a point,
but I still think that conventional photography has a long life ahead
of it.
OTOH, a little patient used equipment shopping will get you going
for as little as a $1000 for B&W without stinting on enlarging lenses.
If you can promote a dedicated darkroom it will also get you some
solitude:-)
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Marcus J. Ranum
<swhh...@softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>It will be a long time yet before Computer photography takes over if ever.
What, are you kidding? Look around you!! The rate at which
digital cameras are improving puts them in a position to replace
film for most applications within 5 years.
mjr.
--
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
Ben Weiner
m...@clark.net (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
>>It will be a long time yet before Computer photography takes over if ever.
> What, are you kidding? Look around you!! The rate at which
>digital cameras are improving puts them in a position to replace
>film for most applications within 5 years.
to me to be considerably slower. Of course, once digital cameras
get common enough, you will see image quality printers that a minilab
can afford. But it will take quite a while before individuals can
afford one, unfortunately.
Rob Miracle
bwe...@muon.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
Printing is the last barrier. Supposidly these Dye-sub printers produce
photo quality prints. I am surpised that people haven't come up with a
way that you can print from your PC, and it comes out on real photo paper.
Digital has such great applications. The high end cameras are coming down
in price, and with Nikon and Canon SLR options available, it should become
a valid media for the Press. A photographer in the field takes his Kodak
DC420 camera, a laptop and celluar modem and can take the photos, and "beam"
his work back to the newspaper with no developing time, no chemicals, and
the editors have the work well before the deadline. This is available today,
just a bit pricy though.
A friend and I are just waiting on a printer that will spew photos that will
pass as photos. We can use a digital camera to capture images from a sports
tourney, and have them available to the families of the players before the
game is over, without wasting money on photos that will not be bought.
Right now, we take the photos, run them to a one-hour professional lab (if
one is near where we are, or a one-hour normal if not), bring back a bunch
of 4X6's or 5X7's of every frame. The families buy what they want, and
leave the stuff they dont want. Considering that at a tournament, the
people you took the photos of may not be back after the game, you miss a
sale because of the processing time. Digital photography will fix that.
Digital photography can fit in to most any professional need. Portrait
studios can give you your portraits before you leave. Even families shooting
vacation photos can benifit from it.
I think film will be around alot longer than 5 years, but digital will be
the prefered media for most within 5 years.
Rob
--
Rob Miracle
r...@mpgn.com
for webm...@mpgn.com
Kent Nickerson
Rob Miracle wrote:
>
> bwe...@muon.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
>
> >m...@clark.net (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
> >>>It will be a long time yet before Computer photography takes over if ever.
> >> What, are you kidding? Look around you!! The rate at which
> >>digital cameras are improving puts them in a position to replace
> >>film for most applications within 5 years.
<snip>
> Printing is the last barrier. Supposidly these Dye-sub printers produce
> photo quality prints. I am surpised that people haven't come up with a
> way that you can print from your PC, and it comes out on real photo paper.
<more snip>
I just taught an 11-year old yesterday to load a steel reel and develop
a BW film. I told him to remember this because he may never chemically
develop film again...
From an art perspective, present digital cameras are poor (despite the
performance of 110 and disc snap cameras). I estimate that a fine art
print must have 8 or 10K pixels width, resulting in required
uncompressed storage of about 300 MEGAbytes! Only slightly less for
B&W. From my work in image processing, I would have expected great
potential for compression, but even a factor of 3 can induce artifacts
to the observant!
So far, seems to me that pending better mass storage media, I'll keep my
negs and expect to use a neg scanner and high-res printer before a
complete digital solution is viable.
Kent
Joseph O'Neil
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
>
> <swhh...@softnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >It will be a long time yet before Computer photography takes over if ever.
>
> What, are you kidding? Look around you!! The rate at which
> digital cameras are improving puts them in a position to replace
> film for most applications within 5 years.
With all due respect, I beleiv the "death" of film is greatly over
exaggerated.
Please do not take me wrong - I love CCD work and computer image
editiing. In fact, I am in the middle of building my own CCD camera for
astronomical use.
However, I have learned much from building this camera so far, and
digital imaging has a long way to go in different areas. Add to that
the fact that film technology is advancing at great leaps and bounds
too.
Take it from somebody who uses both CCD and darkroom - they both have
a place in this world. Let me put it too you this way.
When photography was first being developed, there were some who
predicted that it would lead to the end of traditional oil, watercolour
painting and traditional artwork.
In truth, more people today take pictures than paint pictures.
However, the total number of people today who paint pictures is actually
larger than it was 100 or 200 years ago. Partly due to the increase in
the size of our population, but mostly due to the abundance and
avilablitlity of traditional artisit materials.
At some point, more people will take digital picutres thant use film
as the technology advances. Then we will have many self proclaimed
"experts" running around, publically patting themselves on the back,
claiming film has been "killed". But in reality, this will no means
sound the death knell of film. Automobiles have not killed off
bicycles, CCD may not kill off film either.
joe
Tjkphoto
CCD may not kill off film, but a 36 exp. 35mm roll of black and white film
could cost $25.00! Or $50.00!! Yikes, this might actually happen. I just
scared myself.
GLMeador
From: Joseph O'Neil <jon...@multiboard.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:40:45 -0800
[snipped]
<< When photography was first being developed, there were some who
predicted that it would lead to the end of traditional oil, watercolour
painting and traditional artwork.
[snipped]
At some point, more people will take digital picutres thant use film
as the technology advances. Then we will have many self proclaimed
"experts" running around, publically patting themselves on the back,
claiming film has been "killed". But in reality, this will no means
sound the death knell of film. >>
I agree!
For those of us old enough to remember, there were similar arguments in
the mid-1960's with the rise of color printing. Many "experts" argued in
many articles that color imaging would replace black-and-white imaging,
especially since the world around us was in color. Thirty years later and
black-and-white is still going strong. Different mediums for different
effects.
Here's another observation. In the 1960's when we made pictures with a
teletype printer and used X's, O's, and punctuation, it was called
"computer art". (Remember Snoopy calendars and the Mona Lisa?) By the mid
1970's we could make geometric patterns and construct primitive images on
the screen. We had to use a camera to photograph the screen since there
was no suitable color printer. It was still called computer art. In the
early 1980's we could do some better images with CGA and EGA, but it was
still computer art. So why is it that photorealistic computer art is now
"photography"?
Yet another observation on the subject. It is commonly accepted that I
cannot enter my color photograph into a competition for oil paintings.
However, if I start with a color photograph and paint over it entirely
with oils, is it now an oil painting? or is it still a photograph? I
would argue that I now have an oil painting although it started out as a
photo. By the same token, once I have completely enhanced the photo will
oils, is it still a color photograph suitable for competition with other
photographs?
Now, if I start with a photograph and completely modify with my computer,
is it now computer art? or is it still a photograph? And suppose I start
out in computer art with an image that never existed in the real world,
and make it photorealistic. Is it still computer art? or has it become a
photograph?
I would say that the photo was used as a starting point for computer art
just like the photo was the starting point for an oil painting (like
paint-by-numbers). If the photo is still a photo after digital
manipulation and dyesub output, then a watercolor painting scanned,
manipulated, and printed by inkjet is still a watercolor. Same logic, no?
Food for thought!
Gary L. Meador
Odessa, TX
Joseph O'Neil
Kent Nickerson wrote:
>
> Rob Miracle wrote:
> So far, seems to me that pending better mass storage media, I'll keep my
> negs and expect to use a neg scanner and high-res printer before a
> complete digital solution is viable.
You have touched on a point seldom disccused - archival permenance.
With digital storage, these media is no archival. CD-ROMs only have a
rated lifespan of approx 35 years. A single missplaced static shock can
do terrible dame to a floppy or hard drive. There are real concerns,
IMHO.
However, seeing as we are all loosing much of our collective heritage
to acid based paper in books, fading colour dyes in both prints and
negatives, and more, I doubt the issue will really warrant serious
consideration outside of libararins and historians. shame
joe
Kent Nickerson
GLMeador wrote:
>
> From: Joseph O'Neil <jon...@multiboard.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:40:45 -0800
>
> [snipped]
> << When photography was first being developed, there were some who
> predicted that it would lead to the end of traditional oil, watercolour
> painting and traditional artwork.
> For those of us old enough to remember, there were similar arguments in
> the mid-1960's with the rise of color printing. Many "experts" argued in
> many articles that color imaging would replace black-and-white imaging,
I see close parallels to the CD vs. LP phenomenon. Reports of the death
of chemical photography will doubtless be exagerrated, and the public
will be hyped into buying one or two early generations of crappy digital
product (like early CD players), but digital will prevail in the mass
market. Not just because it's digital, but because it will be cheaper,
more convienient and technically at least as good as chemical means.
It's not a transition I will celebrate but it is a logical one (forgive
the pun).
Rob Miracle
Kent Nickerson <knick...@rim.net> writes:
>Rob Miracle wrote:
>>
>> bwe...@muon.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
>>
>> >m...@clark.net (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
>> >>>It will be a long time yet before Computer photography takes over if ever.
>> >> What, are you kidding? Look around you!! The rate at which
>> >>digital cameras are improving puts them in a position to replace
>> >>film for most applications within 5 years.
> <snip>
>I just taught an 11-year old yesterday to load a steel reel and develop
>a BW film. I told him to remember this because he may never chemically
>develop film again...
I am hoping to get my B&W darkroom setup this weekend. I can't wait to
see the excitment on my kids eyes when their first print comes into being
right in front of their eyes. It is soooo coooool.
>From an art perspective, present digital cameras are poor (despite the
>performance of 110 and disc snap cameras). I estimate that a fine art
>print must have 8 or 10K pixels width, resulting in required
>uncompressed storage of about 300 MEGAbytes! Only slightly less for
>B&W. From my work in image processing, I would have expected great
>potential for compression, but even a factor of 3 can induce artifacts
>to the observant!
At the 300 dpi of the dye sub printers, the Kodak DCS 420 (NIkon N90
body) produces almost a 3.5 x 5 print. The resoultion is 1700x1200 or
somewhere in that neighborhood. For news papers and such this is currently
more than acceptable. For fine art work, they are still far off, but
look how far they have come in the past five years. In the next five,
the quality may be indisinguisable from normal.
>So far, seems to me that pending better mass storage media, I'll keep my
>negs and expect to use a neg scanner and high-res printer before a
>complete digital solution is viable.
For now, you are right. Kodak's paper and chemistry biz isn't in any
threat. But Kodak is pushing the digital edge because they see the writing
on the wall.
In Astrophotography, CCD digital photography has overtaken film. The CCD
sensors are much more sensitive to small amounts of light and doesnt suffer
reporicity failure like film.
David Torix
m...@clark.net (Marcus J. Ranum) wrote:
> <swhh...@softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>It will be a long time yet before Computer photography takes over if ever.
>
> What, are you kidding? Look around you!! The rate at which
>digital cameras are improving puts them in a position to replace
>film for most applications within 5 years.
>
>mjr.
>--
>http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
I beg to differ. (I should also note the Jesse Berst, of PC
Week proposes this same point of view. I also wrote to him
disagreeing.)
I am a computer professional. I am also a semi-pro or
serious amature photographer. (I have been paid in the past
but do not make a living as a photographer.) Those are my
credentials.
1. The best numbers I have seen put computers in 35% of the
U.S. Households. Each of these systems probably run around
$2000 US. Most do not have a scanner, or color printer
capable of photo quality output.
2. A decent digital camera is several hundred dollars. By
decent I mean the same resolution as a photo scanned at
1200dpi and output to a dye sub printer. That is the
minimum resolution that I would consider photo quality.
That class of camera and output costs $10,000US or more.
3. The best digital camera, under $1000 US, has much lower
resolution than the $5 disposable camera I can buy just
about anywhere.
My total point being. Digital is too expensive for reduced
quality. Film is relatively cheap.
A decent camera and lens costs about $150 US (Point and
Shoot) or $500 (SLR). Next add film. $20 for 196 exposures
at Costco/Kmart. (Kodak Gold 400) Now add in development
of around $5 per roll, Another $40. Total price is less
than the cost of the same SLR (Canon EOS) with a digital
back.
How many households have a camera sitting in a drawer? How
many have access to disposible cameras? Match that against
how many have photo quality printers. Film is so available
it just doesn't make sense to switch to digital.
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. My employer doesn't pay me enough
to claim them. You want 'em? Rent them like everybody else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The pen is mightier than the sword, but a hand grenade beats 4 aces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moon...@nidlink.com Moon...@aol.com Tor...@pss.iix.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MSchaf7081
Digital or not the savy will still practice skills of composition and
lighting
because this will never change.
You have to see it in your mind before you can capture it on the medium of
your
choice.
Digital imaging does allow for some post touch up at times but this can be
very painstaking as well.
I'm still on the fence.
Rob Miracle
- David Torix writes:
- >My total point being. Digital is too expensive for reduced quality. Film is relatively
- >cheap.
- I think the point of this thread originated with digital in 5 years putting the
- whammy on film. Digital isn't practical yet for a majority of applications and
- the current lack of people with access to it is still small (though a community of
- 10 million warrents a serious look).
- The Digital vision is very compelling, and at the rate of tech advances in the area,
- 5 years seems about right for Digital to put a pinch on film for many applications.
- Your home snap shooter is still going to use film, but news media and such probably
- wont. As far as needing computers in the home, that isn't as much as a requirment as one might think. Once cameras get a removable storage (like the higher end cameras have), you will take your digital camera, shoot your "roll" of film, bring it home and pop it into a player attached to the TV and view them there in a slide show fashion. Look what video tape did to film movie cameras? And think of the flexibility, you take several shots of your new baby on two or three electronic rolls and want to send them to grandma. You load each e-roll into the reader, pick the pics to send to granny, write them on a new e-roll, and drop it in the mail.
- Granny doesn't have a e-roll reader? No problem, drop it into your $150 film printer and spew out real pictures. Look where color ink jet has come in three years. When I got my Canon BJC-600 it was 360dpi and cost around $600. Today I get a 720dpi printer for $250 with much better color saturation. Dye Sub is a bit expensive now, but it won't be for long.
- Rob
--
Rob Miracle (r...@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- s:++ a34 w+ !v C++>++++ UU++++$ P---
Tantalus Inc. Key West, FL | L+ E--- W+++ N+++ o K- w+ O- M-- V-- PS+ PE
Contrary to popular belief, | (-po+) Y-- PGP- t++ !5>++ X-- R+++ tv+++ b DI+++
I don't know what I'm doing. | D G+ e++ h---- r+++ y++++ (Geek Code 3.14)
Richard Knoppow
Rob Miracle <r...@TanSoft.com> wrote:
>
>------------7017BCE4B8C0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
Long previous thread snipped...
>such probably</DT>
>
><DT>wont. As far as needing computers in the home, that isn't as
>much as a requirment as one might think. Once cameras get a removable
>storage (like the higher end cameras have), you will take your digital
>camera, shoot your "roll" of film, bring it home and pop it into
>a player attached to the TV and view them there in a slide show fashion.
>Look what video tape did to film movie cameras? And think of the
>flexibility, you take several shots of your new baby on two or three
>electronic rolls and want to send them to grandma. You load each
>e-roll into the reader, pick the pics to send to granny, write them on
>a new e-roll, and drop it in the mail. </DT>
But.. Video tape hasn't replaced film for theatrical motion pictures
and is unlikely to in the forseeable future. The quality requirements
for home movies are different and the instant results are important.
Certainly digital imaging will have an impact on conventional
photography, it may even happen within five years but I rather think
it will be longer. This sort of prognosticating is always dangerous,
however, since we don't have any way of knowing whats waiting in the
wings and technology has been changing extremely rapidly lately.
><DT> </DT>
>
><DT>Granny doesn't have a e-roll reader? No problem, drop it
>into your $150 film printer and spew out real pictures. Look where
>color ink jet has come in three years. When I got my Canon BJC-600
>it was 360dpi and cost around $600. Today I get a 720dpi printer
>for $250 with much better color saturation. Dye Sub is a bit expensive
>now, but it won't be for long. </DT>
>
><DT> </DT>
>
><DT>Rob</DT>
Jason Ware
Rob Miracle wrote:
>
> The Digital vision is very compelling, and at the rate of tech
> advances in the area,
> 5 years seems about right for Digital to put a pinch on film for many
> applications.
seems like I heard this 5 years ago.
--
-Jason Ware
---------------------------------------------------------
VISIT MY ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY HOMEPAGE!!
ASTRO IMAGES FOR DOWN-LOAD, TIPS, REPRINTS
URL: http://www.galaxyphoto.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
r...@news.MPGN.COM (Rob Miracle) wrote:
>Digital has such great applications. The high end cameras are coming down
>in price, and with Nikon and Canon SLR options available, it should become
>a valid media for the Press. A photographer in the field takes his Kodak
>DC420 camera, a laptop and celluar modem and can take the photos, and "beam"
>his work back to the newspaper with no developing time, no chemicals, and
>the editors have the work well before the deadline. This is available today,
>just a bit pricy though.
I don't believe you are talking the same quality though. Perhaps it is
my ignorance, but I cannot see how you could transmit the amount of
data needed for a good quality, say 600dpi full color, picture in any
reasonable amount of time using a cellular phone.
Michiel
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
Rob Miracle
>r...@news.MPGN.COM (Rob Miracle) wrote:
USA Today has been electroniclly transmitting its entire paper to regional
print centers since its inception. Even our little Key West citizen gets
photos electronically from its offices up the Keys. Newspaper work is hardly
600x600 dpi. But with JPEG compression, a 600 dpi picture can be transmitted
in a short time. A 10 minute download at 28.8 is much faster than a 2 hour
drive, plus lab time. I was also kind of visioning the future. Right now
cellular doesn't make sense economically. But as the technology expands,
and the rates become more normal, you will see more of it. More and more people
are using ISDN as well, and at 128Kbits per second, those 600 dpi's become
more realistic.
We should take this to rec.photo.digital....
Howard Jenkins
Here's my 2 cents worth. I can (and occasionally do) scan a 35mm neg at
moderately high resolution (sprintscan 35), punch it up a little in
photoshop, and print it with my Stylus color pro on Epson HQ glossy
paper. I get an "almost photo quality" 7x10 print that looks great, and
will amaze my friends. BUT--the HQ paper costs in excess of
$2.50/sheet, and the printer takes 30-45 minutes to print it. On the
other hand, I can go down to my darkroom and make an 11x14 truly photo
quality color print on Kodak Supra in 3 or 4 minutes, at a cost of under
$1. Of course it takes 30-45 minutes to set up the darkroon for color
printing--after which I can make numerous prints at 3-4
mins/print(unless of course I have to fuss with the color balance-I use
a Beselar-minolta 45A light source, and usually don't have to make test
prints)
Darkroom is more fun, but you can watch TV while the printer is
grinding out a print.
Howard