luminous-landscape flawed conclusions.
Jim Linch
wrote:
><SNIP>..." It also highlights another anomaly covered
>here in this NG exhaustively; negative films scan better than slide
>film for printing in this class of printing devices. NG members have
>proven conclusively in the past months that slides scan slightly
>unsharp or fuzzy - yet Cibachromes (or similar) produce cutting edge
>sharpness and 3D effects of unparalleled quality."</SNIP>
I am new to this group and was wondering about that very question. I
am shooting Velvia for landscape/birds, but only to be scanned in by a
Minolta Scan Dual and posted to webpages, with occasional prints to a
Epson 1270 (have not purchased yet) at 8x10 max.
QUESTION:
Is there an archive site for this group, and if not could I ask what
the best PRINT film alternative would be for SCANNING to replace
Velvia 50 or Provia 100F? I understand that I should get better
shadow detail from the increased "Dynamic Range" (if it's just "range"
then forgive me!) of a print film, but is there something close to the
saturation and fine grain of say Provia 100F? Best case would be a
400 ISO with the grain of Provia 100F, but I think I am asking for a
bit much eh?
Thank's for any help.
Tuvok©
managed to say
>is trying to tell us that the new D30 is better than film. I submit
>that his conclusions are in error and limiting the size of a film's
>potential to the maximum of a digital source is erroneous and
>inaccurate.
I submit that you read his rebuttal, posted on dpreview, in
response to this nonsense. My opinion ? You're either
A. A film zealot
or more likely
B. An employee of one of Canon's competitors.
Michael Reichmann is an internationally published photographer
with years of darkroom experience. I suggest if YOU want to
be taken seriously, outline your credentials in photography,
and or digital imaging.
Joe Doupnik
A very poor response, weak and tries to intimidate. Display of
credentials is not a substitute for careful thinking and intelligent
discussion.
The Reichmann report is interesting, certainly, but not comprehensive
and certainly not sufficiently broad to deal with film vs digital as a whole.
Joe D.
Tuvok©
managed to say
I have corresponded with him personally as well, and he have heard
no concessions, or excuses about his testing methodology. He has no
apparent reason to be biased, nor does his article read as such,
addendum or not.
>Incidentally I was just one of twelve online critics of his technique
>and just one of a large number of personal emails largely saying what
>I had said.
And probably five times as many who have posted agreeing with him
in the last 48 hours. Whats your point ? At the end of this response,
I shall paste one of the most contemplative, and intelligent responses.
Read it and weep.
Posted by one Noel Carboni to a dpreview forum.
I have been trying to avoid wading into this thread, but I can hold back no
longer. Clearly, Michael...
1. Is experienced at a professional level.
2. Has top quality, modern equipment.
3. Put serious effort into leveling the playing field.
4. Told us and showed us exactly what he did.
How can you find enough fault in that to say anything negative?
As one who processes and presents images digitally, and who's always looking
to make better images, I find it HIGHLY relevant and interesting that a D30
has been recognized by a reputable photographer to deliver image quality
comparable with GOOD film shot in GOOD hands scanned directly from the
original slide on GOOD equipment.
I also found it VERY informative and useful that he estimated a practical
image size limit for D30 prints at 11" x 15", when prepared using modern
tools. People elsewhere are debating whether 3 MP cameras make good 8 x 10s.
For all you nay-sayers complaining about Michael's scanner being a problem,
let me point out: Michael took the film image through a MINIMUM of processing
on EXCELLENT equipment at ULTRA HIGH resolution to get it into the digital
realm. Michael's scans are likely far better than anything 99% of us mere
mortals are able to get from a film exposure.
Not convinced? Technically speaking, at 3200 dpi his 35mm slide film scans are
coming in at roughly 12 megapixels - 4000 pixels by 3000 pixels of TRUE RGB
color (imaged internally in the scanner at 14 bits per color, I might add).
Many experts believe 6 megapixels is enough for representing everything a 35mm
film image has to offer. Note that Kodak Photo CD format delivers only 6
megapixels. The resolution limitations pointed out by Michael are clearly in
the film.
For a camera deriving an image from a bayer-patterned 2160 x 1440 imager to
even come close is simply amazing. The D30 is clearly head, shoulders, and
torso superior to our beloved C-2500Ls. So be it.
Digital is here; sell your old camera, sell your film stock, get over it, and
have fun!
-Noel
Tuvok©
managed to say
>The only response I see is nine hours old in the canon forum, I'll
>look again.
Its there, in the same thread you initiated. Better check again.
Tuvok©
managed to say
>He turned turtle like very quickly. He now admits that he LIKES the
>results himself and he is only worried about himself, and he is
>entitled to that opinion.
He stated at the beginning of the article that the opinions posted
were his, and subjective. I don't see any retractions of his opinion,
nor did he do a 180 on what he believes. I do see a lot of people taking
your assessment to task however.
David Grabowski
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:59:44 +0100, Ger Bee <gbeeN...@indigo.ie>
>wrote:
>
>I am new to this group and was wondering about that very question. I
>am shooting Velvia for landscape/birds, but only to be scanned in by a
>Minolta Scan Dual and posted to webpages, with occasional prints to a
>Epson 1270 (have not purchased yet) at 8x10 max.
My experience has shown Kodak E100VS and Kodak E100SW to scan very
well, as will Fuji Astia though that is in a bit pof a different class
than the others. E100VS is similar to Velvia in general terms of
observation ( saturated, strong colors for scenic shooting), has an
extra stop in practice and probably a bit more neutral in tonal
quality, better latitude as well. The trade off is a bit more grain
but managable grain for printing with a little work in a photo editing
program.
Overall the key to working from slides is how you shoot them in the
first place, slides for viewing with a loupe on a light table vs
shooting them for digital workup are two different things IMO. Try
overexposing about a half stop to as much as a full stop if you intend
to print slides digitally. It also helps to not shoot the very deep
shadowed scenes that many of us have come to like from slide films but
try to shoot with a little less swing from highlight to shadows ( a
bit more even lighting).
As you move along you will learn about setting light and dark points
and working the curves tools in your programs. An understanding of
histograms will help you out. Take a look through scantips.com and
get a basic knowledge of scanning before you go too far. A lot can be
done with slides, for web viewing they should be fine and with some
teaking I would stick with them for printning as well unless you have
a burning desire to move to print film.
David Grabowski
jw&a
Ger Bee <gbeeN...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:1glfvs8tt3v65ht7a...@4ax.com...
> >4. Told us and showed us exactly what he did.
>
> He refers to the D30 as being ressed up for image beyond 6x9 -- in
> digital context this make no sense whatsoever.
>
genuine fractals is a software program that he says he used on the digital
photo. what it does is invent details that do not exist, in order to produce
more pleasing printouts. it is reported to work better on things like trees
and ferns than it does on portraits. i have no experience with it.
bob rogers
south carolina
Tuvok©
managed to say
>One of the reasons that I turned professional was because of the
>professional level of knowledge and service from our local community.
>But he and I, for that matter are only experienced at this level
>because you apparently are not.
>You as an apparent non-professional may make a god out of
>professionals if you want, I do expect better.
Oh-My-God! You have no credible counterpoint, so now you
resort to ASSumptions and personal attacks ? I can see
I have wasted a considerable amount of time debating
someone who is ill equipped. I can only close in asking
one question. Were your parents siblings ?
Tuvok©
>genuine fractals is a software program that he says he used on the digital
>photo. what it does is invent details that do not exist, in order to produce
>more pleasing printouts. it is reported to work better on things like trees
>and ferns than it does on portraits. i have no experience with it.
Actually, it doesn't use interpolation in the conventional sense,
such as "inventing" or guessing at pixels using adjacent data.
It enlarges individual pixels, which results in a larger file
size, with no apparent loss in sharpness.
Whats really hillarious is that Mr. "I'm a professional, and
you're not" Gerbee wasn't familiar with it. But now that he
has confessed to being a tire salesman, the reason is apparent.
Guy Finney
>
> As far as I know there is no archive of the group, it is held on
> servers from hours to days to months, but that's about the longest for
> pay news feed.
Good news for you guys! http://www.deja.com/usenet. You can use the
Power Search page to restrict searches to particular newsgroups, etc.
Pretty much everything ever posted, including the most trivial nonsense,
is kept there.
Kinda gives ya the willies, though, knowing that everything you've ever
posted can be dug up by anyone in the distant future.
---
Guy Finney
g...@primenet.com
George Deliz
I, for one, am inclined to accept Reichmann's assessment as I have
downloaded some of the high quality JPEG's of D30 Raw files available on
the net and printed them on an Epson 1270. I have even printed some at
12X18 after upsampling using Genuine Fractals and the results are very
impressive.
Frankly I don't understand the venom directed at Reichmann by some on
the net who have not tried the D30 nor tried printing pictures produced
with it. A couple of folks have definitely made my killfile.
George Deliz
Tuvok©
managed to say
>challenged me to prove credentials I was expecting reciprocate proof
>from you, in its absence I assumed you not to be involved in
>photography and not a particularly well versed NG member as you
>displayed no knowledge of these extensively discussed issues, am I
>wrong then?
Absolutely. This is the problem with assumptions. Of course, I said
nothing which would lead you to believe I have no photographic
experience, but your inability to substantiate your attack on
Mr. Reichmann's findings with facts led to personal insults.
Read it again if you need a refresher. But then again, now that
I know that you're a fricking tire salesman, I am less concerned
with what you have to say on the subject.
>As for credibility, that's life, one day you too will have one -- if
>you watch the stress levels of course.
See ? You are clearly a waste of genetic material.
Tuvok©
>Frankly I don't understand the venom directed at Reichmann by some on
>the net who have not tried the D30 nor tried printing pictures produced
>with it. A couple of folks have definitely made my killfile.
Especially after they admit that have an E-10 on order. I think
it looks like an iteresting camera, but suspect there may be
a little cognitive dissonance at work here.
Tuvok©
managed to say
>One last point, that Olympus, well I am buying the camera, so legally
>I can say it is mine and I have no allegiance to anybody, but buying
>at trade less 15% AND I'm getting the power grip and both the wide
>angle and tele adapters free. Nice deal. For that Olympus and my shop
>will get FREE, cover colour pictures in all 12 local newspapers,
>articles and ad features in the 25,000 circulations largest free sheet
Ahh, it is all completely clear now tire salesman. You get
free or discounted equipment in exchange for promotional
advertisements. Canon hasn't capitulated on your little
scheme, so they aren't good enough right now. Thanks for
the clarification.
Tuvok©
managed to say
>
>jealousy reveals so much of the soul that anonymity is futile.
I'm afraid you're confusing jealousy with amusement. Claiming
to be "Internationally published", and an expert in the digital
field while in reality you're an ex tire salesman. Please, I
haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Truth is though, you have
yet to refute Michael Reichmann's test results with facts. All
I see is opinion, and slurs.
jw&a
Tuvok© <vul...@deltaquadrant.org> wrote in message
news:aMgK5.22483$Dq4....@news3.atl...
the fact is he did not do a test, he did an experiment. the results are
limited by the assumptions. for a fairly good discussion of the issue, go
over to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.
bob rogers
south carolina
Tuvok©
>the fact is he did not do a test, he did an experiment. the results are
>limited by the assumptions. for a fairly good discussion of the issue, go
>over to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.
No, this isn't a fact, its another opinion. Your arguement is
purely semantic. His test was conducted using a repeatable methodology.
Whether one argues that its a test, or an experiment is purely academic.
Roland Karlsson
be friends and forget your unimportant argument.
I usually don't interfere in matters like this.
But ... please?
Roland
"Tuvok©" <vul...@deltaquadrant.org> wrote in message news:WGgK5.22474$Dq4....@news3.atl...
Tuvok©
managed to say
>Actually TuCocks
Tsk. So sophomoric aren't you ?
>I NEVER SAID I DISAGREED WITH MICNAEL'S FINDINGS
Really ? Read the subject line that you initially composed.
>You are so incensed with rage and the way I can extrapolate your most
>inner fears and doubts that you have followed and indeed started a
You have it all wrong my childish friend. Your insults and sexual
innuendos only further serve to undermine what little credibility
you once may have had. I'm actually amused at your behavior. Trust
me, your little brain has not even begun to rattle me, or occupy
a thought once I leave this newsgroup. I surmise you have spent
too many years hanging around the gas stations selling tires.
Goober wouldn't happen to be your dad would he ?
Lew Jansen
is done to "test a hypothesis"?
Perhaps j...@carol.net should describe what s/he thinks is the difference
between a "test" and an "experiment"?
-- Lew
"Tuvok©" <vul...@deltaquadrant.org> wrote in message
news:oLiK5.13151$4P2....@news2.atl...
Tuvok©
managed to say
>>Tsk. So sophomoric aren't you ?
I assumed you wouldn't know what it meant, but you certainly
should know what it is.
Tuvok©
managed to say
>Michael posted a flawed and totally meaningless piece of drivel, which
>any HIGH SCHOOL kid could do better.
Lets see, besides being a moron, are you also schizophrenic ?
Was it one of your other personalities that said this...
Gerbel wrote...
>I NEVER SAID I DISAGREED WITH MICNAEL'S FINDINGS
Perhaps it was the shoe salesman ?
>he told us all to F ourselves, he was happy with the
>results he got, that's all he is worried about, fine.
He did no such thing. Now you're not only conjecturing,
you're fantasizing.
>I don't care.
Obviously your puny little ego does. Otherwise, you would
have dropped this thread a long time ago. Do you by any
chance suffer from S.P.S. ?
Tuvok©
managed to say
>However, WebWord a PAY FOR international dictionary reveals;
>sophomoric; "Having or feeling no doubt or uncertainty; confident and
>assured." Well I doubt that anyone could disagree with that about me.
>Thanks for the compliment,
>See I knew you cared. :[}
Then you should get your money back. Try Webster's next time. This
is what it means, and its a perfect fit.
"Exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment: sophomoric behavior
"such as driving too fast in an attempt to show off."
Tuvok©
managed to say
>This is the fundamental difference between you and me, while we are
>courting, there is an avalanche of support for my objections, but you
>just Neanderthally blunder along and cannot see the difference between
>a useful experiment and one that can produce the same findings.
Obviously you dont't get out much. There is more support for Michael's
findings, than dissent. But its too much for you to admit. I understand
though, if I were a tire salesman, I would have no reason to live either,
if I couldn't sit behind a computer and pretend I was something/someone
else. And as for the "control" issue: Please, don't flatter your self.
You won't hear from me again. Since it means so very much to you, out of
courtesy to the others who have likely had enough, I'll grant you the last
word, and I'll have the last laugh. Go for it tire boy. You won't get
a rebuttal, nor occupy another thought.
So go for it tire man. You won't
thc
> Kinda gives ya the willies, though, knowing that everything you've ever
> posted can be dug up by anyone in the distant future.
>
A good reason for posters to be certain about the factual truthfulness of
their postings, and to refrain from mud slinging and profanity in the sand
box.
"Guy Finney" <g...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:39F8679D...@primenet.com...