negatives to prints
Bob C
up with paper prints, you have 2 options.
1) Make prints directly from the negatives. (old fashioned way)
2) Scan the negatives, then print out the files on a photo quality
printer.
Has anyone compared the 2 methods for image quality? Thanks.
Bob
Joseph Meehan
You can't say one is better or not. You can say you like one better than
that other.
Myself I find that I tend to like traditional prints most of the time
when both are well done. Finding good traditional prints these days is more
difficult than finding good digital prints IMO. So there you go.
BTW I do not always choose traditional. Sometimes my choice is flavored
by cost or time and other times by results. On some specific images one or
the other just seems to work better.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Bob C" <chemli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:da49da82.03030...@posting.google.com...
Matt Clara
Endlessley, and the jury is still out.
Tom
"Matt Clara" <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:2%oaa.10286$S_4.6149@rwcrnsc53...
But Matthew,
Saying the "jury is still out" in this case is like saying "the jury is
still out" when comparing music CD recordings with vinyl LP's.
The war is over and there are only a few zealots holding out in desperation
in a mountaintop fortress denying reality while the rest of the world goes
its way. :)
Tom
Joseph Meehan
still many who agree that vinyl is better in some ways. CDs won the market
by improving their technology to the point that they were better in many
areas, if not all. Digital photo reproduction is just getting there. In
time I believe digital will take over much of the market, but for the for
some time traditional photography will remain, just as oil painting remains.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Tom" <seaska...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pxqaa.13837$L1.2563@sccrnsc02...
Tom
"Joseph Meehan" <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LWqaa.6179$s75.3...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> That war is not over either. CDs have won the market, but there are
> still many who agree that vinyl is better in some ways.
Er, Joe... that's what I said. We appear to be in violent agreement here.
:)
>CDs won the market
> by improving their technology to the point that they were better in many
> areas, if not all. Digital photo reproduction is just getting there.
Right again.
> In
> time I believe digital will take over much of the market, but for the for
> some time traditional photography will remain, just as oil painting
remains.
Bingo. However, there are now few enough of them to all fit comfortably on
one mountaintop. ;)
Tom
stan
being mean. The variables invovled are wide reaching invovlving
everything from the basic paper to scanner type to ink type.
stan
Tom wrote:
Bull shit. The digital people have done a great job of brain washing you. There
is yet to be a definative publication claing one is better than the other under
all conditions. If you belive otherwise please post the article title. I'd love
to read it. Hell I guess it would have to be more than one you could have
written one and I could hav'd be even. You get the idea I hinkwrittten one and
we;
McLeod
in turntables and vinyl albums.
"Joseph Meehan" <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LWqaa.6179$s75.3...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
Bob C
Thank you for the input. The gist of the responses seem to
indicate there is no need to throw out my 24 year old Yashica just
yet.
Bob
stan
Peace
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
zilun
You probably have no idea how enlarged prints are made from film. For
digital, there are pixels, fixed, anymore digital enlargements are made-up
pixels, or fake information, the way to do enlargements is to print in
lesser and lesser DPIs as you print the same image larger and larger. For
film, enlargement is done optically, and will depend on the lens, film,
paper, and skill.
I don't see any relations of this to music
Tom
"stan" <stan...@mc.net> wrote in message news:3E6A7550...@mc.net...
> > The war is over and there are only a few zealots holding out in
desperation
> > in a mountaintop fortress denying reality while the rest of the world
goes
> > its way. :)
> >
> > Tom
>
> Bull shit. The digital people have done a great job of brain washing you.
There
> is yet to be a definative publication claing one is better than the other
under
> all conditions. If you belive otherwise please post the article title. I'd
love
> to read it. Hell I guess it would have to be more than one you could have
> written one and I could hav'd be even. You get the idea I hinkwrittten one
and
> we;
>
Stan, Stan, Stan,
You are starting to foam at the mouth old boy. Take a nice deep breath.
When you got to... "Hell I guess it would have to be more than one you could
have written one and I could hav'd be even. You get the idea I hinkwrittten
one and we;" ...you seem to have fallen over the edge.
Perhaps after you put out the fire under your baseball cap we could
continue? In English?
At any rate, while you were still semi-lucid you said for me to post the
"...definative (sic) publication claing (sic) one is better than the other
under all conditions..."
Sorry, there will never be one.
NOTHING is ever the best "under all conditions", no matter if you are
talking about 35mm or .45 cal. :)
By the way, 'brainwashing' is one word, not two. How about some nice warm
milk while your door is still unlocked, um?
Tom
Tom
"stan" <stan...@mc.net> wrote in message news:3E6AAA81...@mc.net...
> One of the smartest conclusions I've seen in some time.
> Peace
> Stan
> Visual Arts Photography
>
Well there you are Bob.
You have Stan in your corner.
Tom
Tom
"zilun" <zi...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mDyaa.414$5i5.44...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Digital to Film is not CD to Vinyls.
>
> You probably have no idea how enlarged prints are made from film.
Does operating the working darkroom at a major university day to day count?
But I am always open to learning, so lets see what you can teach me...
>For
> digital, there are pixels, fixed, anymore digital enlargements are made-up
> pixels, or fake information, the way to do enlargements is to print in
> lesser and lesser DPIs as you print the same image larger and larger.
Um. Well, I am going to have to study that one for a bit. These "fixed"
pixels are a bit new to me. I have always preferred the unfixed ones
myself.
Of course scanning enough of those little 'pixel' critters has not been much
of a problem with my LS8000.
>For
> film, enlargement is done optically, and will depend on the lens, film,
> paper, and skill.
Not for a long time. Most film is scanned and processed digitally.
Everything from 1-Hour photo labs to National Geographic. Sorry to break
the news to you in this cold and heartless manner.
> I don't see any relations of this to music
I always preferred the piano concertos by Rachmaninoff while working with
B&W, especially his "Variation on a Theme by Paganinni". His 18th Variation
is a masterpiece.
While working with color it was definitly Beethoven though.
By the way, have you met Stan?
Tom
zilun
"Tom" <seaska...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Auzaa.18165$3D1.1828@sccrnsc01...
Hickster711
him around for a while. Bob Hickey
Don Stauffer
scanners when there are periodic structures in the image.
While some may say that a negative is a sampled image also, since the
grains are in a way a sample point, the random, non-periodic structure
of film grains does not create Moire artifacts.
Ordinarily in real life scenes this is not a big problem. Only with
something like an athletic scene with striped uniforms, certain fences,
screens, etc.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer