New Chip "better than film"?
Brian Downey
chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
Photokina digital photos will be displayed that deliver this quality (> 16
million pixels) and from a much less expensive chip technology. The
inventor even compares the quality to that of Ansel Adams! Personally, I'm
doubtful (I still have BOTH my record and CD players) -- but thought you
might want to read it for yourself.
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2626502,00.html
BTW, if you're into computers at any level, this is a great news service -
and it's free (and I'm not connected with it in any way :-).
Daniel Grenier
fact, and only a matter of months, before my 8x10 (and yours) is outclassed
or at the very least matched by CMOS imaging technology. I work in the
semiconductor industry and one of my company's off-shoot is a CMOS imaging
start-up (www.symagery.com ) and what they do is along the same line as the
company profiled in the news clip below. I see daily evidence that indeed
film is just about to be outperformed!!! Do I want to sell my 8x10? Will I
end-up with a CMOS-imager based camera? Don't know yet. In any case, there
is no doubt in my mind that Ansel Adams would embrace this warmly. After
all, what matters is the end product (the print) - not the tools to produce
it (camera type). Doesn't it?
Check back with me in a year. I may have an 8x10 system for sale.
Regards - Daniel G.
Brian Downey <brian....@stratcomm.com> wrote in message
news:Ggzv5.193649$i5.27...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Marc Banik
> all, what matters is the end product (the print) - not the tools to
produce
> it (camera type). Doesn't it?
Nope. Not for me. I think for many large format amateurs, the process
itself has to do with a lot of the satisfaction there is to making a fine
image. Just look at this NG. There's a lot of socializing that goes on
about tips and techniques. At least for me, one of the nice things about
large format community is the forum (like this one) that is maintained by
people who are willing to trade ideas. This makes it a great place to visit
and learn.
That's not to say that this would disappear with digital film, but only to
say that the end product is not all that matters to at least some LF people.
Granted, these are probably not people who make a living on it but still,
they can be very successful photographers and highly regarded by their
peers.
cheers,
marc
richar...@my-deja.com
> all, what matters is the end product (the print) - not the tools to
produce
> it (camera type). Doesn't it?
is simply the final result. Thats why people choose different arts to
practice. Who would make a pot when you can buy one at K-mart . Who
would make a print when you can buy an Adams calender. Why would anyone
study dance when there is no end "product". Its only in the practice
of a process that we appreciate , that we find enjoyment. I could buy
an Adams print and have ( in my opinion ) a perfect end product so why
should I bother spending my time and money to probably never match his.
I do it because I love the process - camera , film , chemicals ,
darkroom. When the process is gone so am I and to Hell with the end
procuct.
Sincerely Richard
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pico
Certainly the digital imaging revolution will be perfectly capable of
replacing film, making what many find dear today Simply Obsolete. There
will become a limited market for things like a Pyro Plug-in or Automatic
Rodinal Edge Effect, Add Grain (choose one of dozens of Old Time Formats).
In a world that is forgetting certain literacy, children will grow up not
understanding what we mean today by Being There. Virtual will be the norm.
Simulation will be assimulated and complete. But for a few there will still
be film.
There will still be film, and at the same time it will finally become clear
that film is the antithesis of image-virtuality. Film will be the way to
make pictures by Being There, making the effort and enjoying the
contemplation which accompanies physical effort. The difference between
digital and photographic film art is similar to watching a mountain climber
and being one. Some will be one. And think of all the room in reality we
will have! How little bad company we will have to suffer by Being There.
Digital photography will finally liberate the phenonema of film because
there is finally a _profound difference_. We bemoan the transition at this
moment because we do not understand that for almost a hundred years
photography has been stumbling about undecided between the perfectly
handmade arts and technology. Digital will assume the technolgy, and film
photography will be well defined by its limitations and embraced by artists
and amateurs in the real meaning of the word.
Jess4203
correct. As it was stated, the new chip gives four times the pixels. If the
current technology can't even eclipse 35mm, how can this improvement eclipse
8x10? Don't make no sense to me. There is a gentleman coming from France
(maybe) for me to buy him a beer here in Knoxville about another disputed
matter ( damn, turned out he really did have a plane!) Care to get in line?
The fried onion flowers are also good at the pub here, and we can take a
(digital or analog) macro photo before we eat.
Best Wishes,
Roy
John Andrewjeski
Bring on the digital.
Soon, every man and woman on the earth, with a computer and decent printer,
will be printing grossly and weirdly manipulated images. These will be a
dime-a-dozen.
It will be as easy as child's play.
My darkroom prints, and darkroom prints of this newsgroup community, will
proudly display a "NON-DIGITAL" sign, making them TEN times more valuable than
a (soon to be) run-of-the-mill digital print.
Which do you think people will admire the most- a picture heavily manipulated
in
Photoshop, or a genuine representation of what was really there?
If one buys into the "Digital will be /is superior" line of thinking, then I
suspect that within a few years, we should be able to do away with the
picture-taking apparatus (i.e. camera, be it digital or film-based). Since
images will be so heavily changed in Photoshop, why even bother taking the shot
in the first place?
Soon, we should be able to construct an image from scratch by using the
computer, thus doing away with even going outside of the computer room in our
house. It will be so easy , why bother leaving your seat to capture an image?
Sit, relax, think of your subject, input to the computer, manipulate, then
print.
Voila,
Virtual Photography!!!!
John
please remove KILLSPAM from address
Wilt W
>chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
>Photokina digital photos will be displayed that deliver this quality
Not everything boils down to simply quality, in the comparison. A few years
ago a commercial photog friend compared 4x5 with digital back to film...quality
was high enough for print media. The downside then was how LOOONG of an
exposure time it required in the studio...MINUTES.
Admittedly the new chip sounds like it can rival film now in quality. CD-R at
less than $1 per disk makes cost in the ballpark with conventional film and
processing. A stack of 9 CD-R is somewhat comparable in size to 36 mounted
slides. What's the exposure time of this chip?
--Wilt
c._downs
>The reason is that a larger image requires a larger lens for a given
>field of view. The larger lens, in turn, will have less depth of
>field, because it will subtend a larger angle as seen from the
>subject. Even if you stop way down to maximize depth of field, the
>large-format image will not have as much depth of field as the digital
>image. Back-of-envelope calculation: Digicam focal length of 6mm,
>wide open at f/2, gives a lens diameter of 3mm. 4x5 camera with 120mm
>lens (about the same angle of view), stopped down to f/22, gives a
>lens diameter of more than 5mm. 8x10 camera with 240mm lens, even
>stopped down to f/64, will not have as much depth of field as digicam
>wide open.
I believe that something is missing here. Print size. Given the same
print size the enlargement factor to make , for example, an 8x10
image from the smaller lens and receptor will loose the same or more
info than the same angle of coverage on an 8x10 camera at the same
F/stop. You do not for instance get more depth of field by using a 150
mm lens on a 4x5 camera than you would by using a 300mm lens on an
8x10 at the same F/stop if equal print sizes are compared. Paul Butzi
makes the point well in his reply to this subject. There is a limit to
the resolution of lenses and size does matter. I am amused by folks
having their images scanned in high res files. The real truth is that
there is a limit { debatable as to size } and that you are gaining no
real info except film artifact when scanning at resolutions above 1600
to 2400 DPI. The actual resolution of objects in your image is very
dependent on lens length and distance from subject. No matter how many
pixels or whatever your medium is including film you will not exceed
the best resolution of lens/vibration/air dispersement of
light/shutterspeed as related to subject movement and anymore factors
that go to forming an image. Paul's point about top lens resolution
goes to the heart of the matter. You will reach a level of resolution
never greater than the lens ....and lens length then plays the most
important roll in deciding what final resolution will be. I doubt that
you will ever reach the resolution of silver film with present
technology so you will have to increase the size of the receptor to
match the resolution of film. 4x5 receptors will be expensive and 8x10
....well you guess!
Depth of tonal response is also very important. Film can record { B&W
} much greater range than can be scanned by anything other than the
best drum scanners and even with all of the claims made I haven't seen
a scan that covers the range of B&W albeit the range of color can be
reached in some cases. I'm talking Drum scanners here not camera
sensors. Camera sensors are a long way from Drum scanners. If this
were a small format news group I would readily agree that 35mm will be
in for a run for its money. But..... digital cameras that have the
real resolution and tonal scale {not just pixels per sq inch and tonal
scales suppressed by programs such as Photoshop} of Large Format
silver are as of right now just pipe dreams.
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
(Joseph O'Neil) wrote:
> ...have you been in an art store lately?
> It would seem despite the wide abundance of film and CCD chips, oil
> painting, water colour painting, charcoal sketching, and other art
> forms are verymuch alive and well.
> I even seem to remember reading some where that in pure,
> brute numbers, there are actually more people oil painting today than
> at any other period in history.
You have to be careful with such arguments. There are also more people in
cemetaries "than at any other period in history."
I'd think it would be rather simple to show that were were more artists
PER CAPITA before photography than there are today. Not that absolute
numbers are meaningless -- it takes a certain minimum in order to support
a support industry. We can only hope that those absolute numbers will
continue to exist for photochemistry.
> ...saying CCDs will replace film in the
> area of art is just as silly as saying CCD will replace oil paints or
> wood carving tools.
No, but it is safe to say digital imaging will *supplant* photochemistry,
reducing it to a specialty niche player. Supplies and equipment will be
harder to obtain, and you won't see thousands of "Nikon vs Canon"
newsgroup postings. Users will re-focus on art and technique, and
recognize technology and equipment in its rightful place as a support
role.
> Electronic organs have not replaced traditional
> pianos or string violins, have they?
Well, yes, for the most part. I would guess there were many more pianos
and violins made PER CAPITA before electronic organs, radio, TVs, and
video games.
You can still buy a piano, and many school children play band instruments,
but where is the rousing "self entertainment" business of history? Gone --
the first nail in the coffin was radio, then TV sealed the grave. People
used to sit up evenings and play music. True, SOME people still do, but
not as many PER CAPITA as in the pre-broadcast days.
> People who keep screaming film is dead, just don't get it.
I don't think film will "die," but its use and perception are going to
change in big ways. You can either prepare for (and perhaps even exploit)
those changes, or you can stick your head in the sand while reciting,
"Film isn't dead, film isn't dead, film isn't dead..."
Any chemistry photographer who isn't at least experimenting with digital
is going to be in trouble. Any digital photographer who doesn't understand
the principles of photochemistry is also in trouble.
There are three types of people in the world: those who make things
happen, those who watch things happen, and those who pull their head out
of the sand and say, "What happened?" :-)
--
: Jan Steinman -- Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com
: Bytesmiths -- digital artistry <http://www.bytesmiths.com/Art_Gallery>
: +1 503 635 3229
VILNTFLUID
2) I , for one, will be most happy to have a choice between film and digital
image capture when appropriate and affordable..
The view camera isn't dead by any stretch.
Keith
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
Smith, Photographer" <sho...@brigham.net> wrote:
> Meanwhile, the damnable old dinosaur nearby with his laughable old view
> camera and that silver wasting film in the holders gets the photo.
Meanwhile, fungus has eaten away at the dinosaur's negatives, while the
digital guy is restoring his back-ups.
In any endevour, there are good practices and bad practices. You lose
credibility when you make arguments based on your adversary's worst
scenario, while citing success in your best case.
No, I'm not a digital bigot, but I believe in fair arguments.
Mike McDonald
J...@Bytesmiths.com.gov (Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]) writes:
> No, but it is safe to say digital imaging will *supplant* photochemistry,
> reducing it to a specialty niche player. Supplies and equipment will be
> harder to obtain, and you won't see thousands of "Nikon vs Canon"
> newsgroup postings. Users will re-focus on art and technique, and
> recognize technology and equipment in its rightful place as a support
> role.
I haven't had this good of a laugh in a long time! Thanks! What you will see
are thousands of postings saying "My Nikon 8.1 Mpixel camera is better than
your Canon 8.0 Mpixel camera".
Technology doesn't change people.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Eric Woodbury
in. For my 5x7, I'd need a 226 Mega pixel array.
Cost and delivery information please? And what is the equivalent ISO?
E
Paul Butzi
>I believe that something is missing here. Print size. Given the same
>print size the enlargement factor to make , for example, an 8x10
>image from the smaller lens and receptor will loose the same or more
>info than the same angle of coverage on an 8x10 camera at the same
>F/stop. You do not for instance get more depth of field by using a 150
>mm lens on a 4x5 camera than you would by using a 300mm lens on an
>8x10 at the same F/stop if equal print sizes are compared.
Actually, I believe that you do.
> Paul Butzi
>makes the point well in his reply to this subject. There is a limit to
>the resolution of lenses and size does matter. I am amused by folks
>having their images scanned in high res files. The real truth is that
>there is a limit { debatable as to size } and that you are gaining no
>real info except film artifact when scanning at resolutions above 1600
>to 2400 DPI.
Just so we're clear which bridge it is I'm straddling, I'd point out
that 1600 pixels/inch is 63 pixels/mm, or something similar to 31 line
pairs/mm. My experience with small format (e.g. 35mm) leads
me to believe that I've routinely gotten better results from this from
film, and that scanning at 1600 ppi is throwing away information
that's encoded in the negative. 2400 ppi is about 45 lp/mm, still
pretty doable. I've actually gotten 70 lp/mm doing lens tests, so
I'd say 45 is still down there where you're in the realm of throwing
away information.
> The actual resolution of objects in your image is very
>dependent on lens length and distance from subject. No matter how many
>pixels or whatever your medium is including film you will not exceed
>the best resolution of lens/vibration/air dispersement of
>light/shutterspeed as related to subject movement and anymore factors
>that go to forming an image.
I would agree that the big thieves of resolution are not always
the lens and the film. Still, if we're comparing apples to apples,
then we compare image detector (film) to image detector( CCD or
CMOS image sensor) and ignore the rest.
> Paul's point about top lens resolution
>goes to the heart of the matter. You will reach a level of resolution
>never greater than the lens ....and lens length then plays the most
>important roll in deciding what final resolution will be. I doubt that
>you will ever reach the resolution of silver film with present
>technology
Of course not. But it *will* reach the resolution of silver film with
future technology. That's what technological advance *means* -
something not possible with current technology.
The Foveon sensors apparently raise the bar to something like
16.8 million pixels/in^2. That works out to 4100 pixels/inch linear,
or about 161 pixels/mm, roughly equivalent to 80 lp/mm. Here, we're
brushing against the limits of the optics, even for very fine optics.
At this point, image sensors will not only increase the pixel density
but they'll start to get larger (and more expensive).
For those who would use Moore's law to predict the future of
imaging, remember that Moore's law states that the number of
transistors will double every 18 months.
However, remember that linear resolution grows as the square
root of the number of pixels/(transistors). That means that
exponential growth in numbers of transistors (as suggested
by Moore's law) will produce only LINEAR progress in
resolution.
> so you will have to increase the size of the receptor to
>match the resolution of film. 4x5 receptors will be expensive and 8x10
>....well you guess!
Yep. Expensive at first, then cheaper and cheaper. What will
determine how cheap they get? Mostly it will be a matter of
how many can be sold.
-Paul
--
Newly updated and moved web site at:
http://www.butzi.net
Andrew Koenig
> print size the enlargement factor to make , for example, an 8x10
> image from the smaller lens and receptor will loose the same or more
> info than the same angle of coverage on an 8x10 camera at the same
> F/stop. You do not for instance get more depth of field by using a 150
> mm lens on a 4x5 camera than you would by using a 300mm lens on an
> makes the point well in his reply to this subject.
You must certainly do get more depth of field by using a 150mm lens
on a 4x5 camera than if you use a 300mm lens on an 8x10 at the same
f/stop with equal print sizes.
If you don't believe me, try the following experiment.
4x5 is the same aspect ratio as you would get by cropping a 35mm
negative to 24x30mm.
The long dimension of the image part of a 4x5 negative is about 120mm.
Therefore, if your claim of equal depth of field were correct,
it would be possible to do the following:
1) Take a picture using a 35mm camera and a 30mm lens
(if 28mm isn't close enough for you, use a zoom lens
set to 30mm) at, say, f/8.
2) Take a picture from the same camera position using
a 4x5 camera and a 120mm lens at f/8.
3) Make 8x10 prints from both negatives, cropping the
35mm negative as necessary to fit the 8x10 format.
4) Compare the prints.
I am quite confident that the difference in depth of field will be
immediately apparent to the most casual observer.
--
Andrew Koenig, a...@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Frank Calidonna
process - which I also love - of chemicals and darkroom - is (was?) important
because that's what we need to get the print. I assume(a bad idea I know) that
your view camera with all of its perspective controls will not disappear. A
suitable back will go on your camera. You still need your "eye", all the skills
of composing will still be necessary. The only thing that will change will be
how you make the print. Photoshop or some other program will still be needed to
adjust contrast etc. and maybe for awhile you will just print negatives to use
in a darkroom.
For years people could win attention and respect if all they could do was expose
a negative correctly and make a print. These people hated autofocus and
autoexposure. It took away their claim to fame. What it does is raise the bar
for artistic prints. You have to do more than expose and print correctly. You
have to actually make a compelling photograph. That has been the idea all along.
Ansel Adams and Weston, Bullock, etc., etc., etc., are not just admired for good
print jobs. Lots of people are great printers. A handful are artists. That is
what we strive for. Great digital tools do not remove that priority.
I take great pleasure from my darkroom and will work in it until I die, but I
certainly will take advantage of any good, affordable digital process too. How
many of us are using wet glass plates?
Progress and change, however inconvenient or undesireable for some, will still
occur. Nothing wrong with that. All of the photographers here are sitting in
front of a computer so you can't all be against digital technology for writing.
And communicating. Digital imaging is not spelling the death of anything. It is
an opportunity.
Commercial photographers have jumped in and are using all of this technology all
the time. Their livelyhood depends on the final product, the print. An aspiring
artist also has to depend on the final product -NOT the process.
I also work in the screenprinting. A few old college teachers are still
promoting silk as the only "artistic" fabric to use. Yet anyone not using
polyester is being left in the dust because silk offers absolutely nothing
except grief compared to modern fabrics. The assumption - a silly one - is that
old masters would not have used polys over silk if they were available.
The assumption that Adams, Weston, Lange, Smith, etc., would have shunned
digital for film if such technology was available is difficult to justify.
Digital or film this is still photography. You still need a camera, lens,
imagination and visual sense. That does not change at all. Never will.
Frank Rome, NY
c._downs
wrote:
>> I believe that something is missing here. Print size. Given the same
>> print size the enlargement factor to make , for example, an 8x10
>> image from the smaller lens and receptor will loose the same or more
>> info than the same angle of coverage on an 8x10 camera at the same
>> F/stop. You do not for instance get more depth of field by using a 150
>> mm lens on a 4x5 camera than you would by using a 300mm lens on an
>> 8x10 at the same F/stop if equal print sizes are compared. Paul Butzi
>> makes the point well in his reply to this subject.
>
>You must certainly do get more depth of field by using a 150mm lens
>on a 4x5 camera than if you use a 300mm lens on an 8x10 at the same
>f/stop with equal print sizes.
>
Snipped................
you can empirically argue this all day and not come to any
success.........
I may not be able to explain it to you but the loss of resolution {
read DOF } by doubling the size of the print will equal the loss of
resolution { also read DOF } by doubling the focal length at the same
f/stop. The actual resolution of objects given in "Diameter of Circles
of confusion" is what determines what the DOF is.
Let me try this another way.
Lenses of different focal length have the same DOF when used at the
same F/stop when equal image sizes are compared.
Depth of Field MUST be compared at the same Circle of Confusion size.
I'm the wrong person to make this simple so apologize!
Let us say that :
F = the focal length of lens
f = the f/number of relative aperture
H = hyperfocal distance
u = distance of focal plane of focal distance from lens
d = diameter of circle of confusion
Then:
( Hxu ) divided by { H+(u-f)} = near point of DOF
and
( Hxu ) divided by { H-(u-f } = far point of DOF
My apologies for not being able to quote a simpler way to arrive at
this.
Please if anyone with better skills at explaining this is reading
this .....HELP!
In other words the longer lens {300 mm in this case } used on the
8x10 produces twice the resolution { defined by size of circles of
confusion } as the 150mm lens used on the 4x5 camera. You then have to
double the magnification ratio to make the same size print with the
4x5 camera as you do the 8x10 camera. This gives the same circle of
confusion diameter for both examples all else equal when the same size
image is examined.
Maybe this will work { borrowed from a post by Michael Gudzinowitz }:
The model results in a derivation which uses a section through a cone
to represent the out of focus projection of a point, so the result is
easier to express as a blurred disk or circle of confusion.
(print_magn)(print_res_lpmm)(focal_length)^2
hyperfocal_dist_in_mm = --------------------------------------------
(f_number)
If I could explain this better maybe I could finally explain why
after receiving my AARP card I still carry an 8x10 camera instead of
something smaller like my 4x5.
If anyone has a simple explaination please chip in..this should not
be opinions just fact......I'll save the opinions as to which type
print looks better! :o)
Chris Ellinger
> 1) What IS the exposure time of this chip?
It is apparently ISO 100 equivalent sensitivity.
Helge Nareid
[...]
>Just for fun, Joe:
>
>I think all this talk of dry film plates replacing wet plates is a bunch
>of crap.
>Dry film plates can replace wet plates for commercial needs, but they
>cannot replace the artistic process. Dry film plate cameras have not
>replaced traditional wet plate cameras, have they?
There may be more truth to that statement than you think. Dry plates took
over from wet plates in the 1880-1890 timeframe according to conventional
wisdom. But wet plates were still used for specialized applications as late
as 1960 (according to a very well-informed acquaintance of mine).
You may think that dry plates also are history, but in my day job
(holography) we use dry plates every day. We would _love_ to go digital,
but we need about 5000 line-pairs/mm of resolution to match the performance
we get from dry plates. Digital detectors are still about two orders of
magnitude away from that requirement.
So reading the press report about the alleged revolutionary chip, I was
interested but not overwhelmed. I can think of very interesting things to
do with a 16 megapixel chip, but it is certainly nowhere near being an
adequate substitute for silver halide materials for our applications.
The lifetime of "old-fashioned" technology may be considerably longer than
some people imagine. I am certainly no luddite, and I am following the
emergence of the new digital technology with considerable interest, but
conventional silver halide photography will live on for a long time yet. As
a scientist, I have noticed that old technologies may go out of fashion,
but they never _die_, and they often get resurrected in surprising ways. In
the area of photography, I can mention Lippmann photography (an early
colour photography technique=, which went out of fashion around 1907 but
formed the basis of reflection holography from the early 1960's onwards.
john
"John Costello" <jcos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39BFAE3...@home.com...
from the emotional to the pragmatic.
> A second thought after reading the comments about sticking with film as a
> separate, but parallel medium, is the following. Will the companies
producing
> films and photo chemicals today continue to do so?
Frankly, I think the first company to discontinue many films will be Kodak.
They don't inspire any confidence by their (apparent) behavior to behave in
short-term market-driven ways. If they don't osolete a lot of film, then I
am afraid they will raise the prices to prohibitive levels to force
obsolescence. All this depends, of course, on how certain Kodak can be
certain the own a big part of a proprietary chip patent.
> [...] Since my goal is almost always a print, I use color
> negative film primarily. This seems like the first candidate to disappear
for
> the reasons stated in one of the notes in this thread (massive amateur
use)
My bet is that Black & White films will go earlier. It is quite simpy a
burden upon Kodak to make it now.
john
"VILNTFLUID" <vilnt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000913133513...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
> The view camera isn't dead by any stretch.
But the film for them will be.
john
Digital, DOF will become greater. Digital will be so vastly superior that
your Digtal Camea will probably have an optional "Old Fashion Mode" to
degrate the resolution. Yea, yea print size and viewing distance enter into
the equasion, but the the Plugged-In generation won't be printing anyway.
Instead, they will be swimming in their monitors.
Chris Ellinger
> The Foveon sensors apparently raise the bar to something like
> 16.8 million pixels/in^2. That works out to 4100 pixels/inch linear,
> or about 161 pixels/mm, roughly equivalent to 80 lp/mm. Here, we're
> brushing against the limits of the optics, even for very fine optics.
This assumes that the sensor is used in a 3-chip camera with beam splitters,
rather than a 1-chip camera which yeilds only 1/3 of its "nominal" resolution.
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Pettrow
take up photography (?) as a result and, no doubt, a good number of
existing pro & amateurs who will switch over. Who knows what will
develop out of all this down the road. However, the lore and art of
silver photography is just too ingrained (no pun meant) for a good
many to abandon it just to do something similar but in an entirely
streamlined manner...sort of a technical cut & paste process. If
you really want to see America, Europe, the world - take the
backroads, not the 4-lane highways.
Eric Woodbury <wood...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Let's see..........at 50 lp/mm, that's 100 pixels/mm or 6.45Megapixels/square
>in. For my 5x7, I'd need a 226 Mega pixel array.
>
>Cost and delivery information please? And what is the equivalent ISO?
>
>E
>
>Brian Downey wrote:
>
geod
unless you're using a Leica, based on the argument that that camera needs no
batteries. Well, the space shuttle is electronic and *it* works, at least
most of the time, so I think we can be confident that better electronic
equipment is pretty darn good.
Apples and oranges. Different mediums lend themselves to different
applications, that's all.
> From: J...@Bytesmiths.com.gov (Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com
> [remove .gov])
Andrew Koenig
>> on a 4x5 camera than if you use a 300mm lens on an 8x10 at the same
>> f/stop with equal print sizes.
> I may not be able to explain it to you but the loss of resolution {
> read DOF } by doubling the size of the print will equal the loss of
> resolution { also read DOF } by doubling the focal length at the same
> f/stop. The actual resolution of objects given in "Diameter of Circles
> of confusion" is what determines what the DOF is.
I'll have to think about that statement; it may well be true.
However, I must point out that it's unrelated to the claim I made.
What I said was that if you change the _negative_ size (leaving the
print size unchanged), and you change the lens' focal length to obtain
the same angle of view (leaving the f-stop unchanged), then the depth
of field (as seen in the print) will change.
Again, my two points of comparison:
1) 4x5 negative, 150mm lens, 8x10-inch print.
2) 8x10 negative, 300mm lens, 8x10-inch print.
If you take pictures of the same subject with both lenses set to,
say, f/22, the depth of field in the two prints will be different.
What you're saying is that if I made a 16x20-inch print from (1),
and compared it to the 8x10-inch print from (2), the depth of field
would be the same. That's a different statement.
> Let me try this another way.
OK...
> Lenses of different focal length have the same DOF when used at the
> same F/stop when equal image sizes are compared.
> Depth of Field MUST be compared at the same Circle of Confusion size.
But are you talking about Circle of Confusion on the negative,
or on the print? The two treatments lead to different definitions
of depth of field!
The conventional definition refers to Circle of Confusion on the
negative, but I'm talking only about the final print here.
> I'm the wrong person to make this simple so apologize!
> Let us say that :
> F = the focal length of lens
> f = the f/number of relative aperture
> H = hyperfocal distance
> u = distance of focal plane of focal distance from lens
> d = diameter of circle of confusion
> Then:
> ( Hxu ) divided by { H+(u-f)} = near point of DOF
> and
> ( Hxu ) divided by { H-(u-f) } = far point of DOF
Well, OK, but what is the value of H?
> My apologies for not being able to quote a simpler way to arrive at
> this.
No need to apologize -- it's intrinsically confusing :-)
> In other words the longer lens {300 mm in this case } used on the
> 8x10 produces twice the resolution { defined by size of circles of
> confusion } as the 150mm lens used on the 4x5 camera. You then have to
> double the magnification ratio to make the same size print with the
> 4x5 camera as you do the 8x10 camera. This gives the same circle of
> confusion diameter for both examples all else equal when the same size
> image is examined.
If the 8x10 produces twice the resolution on the negative as the 4x5,
and you have to enlarge the 4x5 print twice as much, then the 8x10
will produce four times as much resolution on the print, not the same
resolution as you claim.
Here's another way to look at it.
Why are objects out of focus when they're at the ``wrong'' distance?
The reason is that different parts of the lens view the object with
different perspective. What matters, as far as depth of field on the
final print (of a given size) is concerned, is one thing and one thing
only: how large the lens aperture appears to be as viewed from the
subject!
And a 300mm f/22 lens is twice as big as a 150mm f/22 lens from the
subject's viewpoint.
So if you take pictures with those two lenses, and you make prints
of the same size that show the same amount of the subject, the print
from the 300mm lens is going to show less depth of field than the
print from the 150mm lens.
I do not think we're really contradicting each other here -- I think
that if we are precise enough about what we're saying, we'll find
that we're in agreement.
c._downs
We evidently have different definitions of Circle of Confusion.
Analog, Digital, silver film or whatever the resolution max of lenses
will not change.In absolute resolution { defined by Circle of
confusion }the best lenses have not really improved much. Contrast,
flair prevention, etc, are getting better but the maximum resolution
achievable is not going to change by much of a percent.
The limiting factor here is the lens. Whatever you use to record the
image you will not exceed the limits of lens resolution.
I'll beg to differ in one other point.....Since this is a large
format group I'll just mention that as long as we have film for the LF
cameras and lenses don't change I think that the switch will have to
be placed on the silver film camera in the way of an soft image filter
to match the best digital until the image sensors start to get to 4x5
or larger sizes.
Paul Butzi
<staf...@vax2.winona.msus.edu> wrote:
>As an acceptable Circle of Confusion becomes smaller and smaller thanks to
>Digital, DOF will become greater.
My understanding (perhaps limited, since I made a fairly major math
error in the post to which you're responding) is that as the circle of
confusion gets smaller, the depth of field gets smaller, too.
In any case, I don't see what using CMOS or CCD sensors has to do with
the size of the circle of confusion. Optics is optics, and doesn't
much care about how the image is recorded.
> Digital will be so vastly superior that
>your Digtal Camea will probably have an optional "Old Fashion Mode" to
>degrate the resolution.
Perhaps digital will one day be vastly superior to silver film. But
I fear it won't happen nearly as soon as people (including I) might
hope.
Let me give an example of the state of the art one year ago. A friend
of mine and I did some simple lens tests using a test target, a Leica
M6 and four different lenses, and a Canon Eos-1n RS and two different
lenses. Examining the negatives (done on, if I recall correctly,
Kodak Royal Gold 100) with a microscope, we could quite easily resolve
the lines in the test patches down to 70 lp/mm. Pretty good.
We repeated the test some short while later with what was then a top
of the line digital camera, my Olympus C-2000z, thinking it would be
interesting to compare the lens in the Olympus to the Leica and Canon
lenses. But the resolution (at 1600x1200 uncompressed) was so poor
that you couldn't even make out the test patches, let alone resolve
lines. I'm sure the lens is doing 52 lp/mm but the problem is that
the frame size is 10mmx13mm, so if you scale it up to the equivalent
on a 35mm frame it's more like 41% of that, or about 22 lp/mm.
There were no 22 lp/mm patches on the test chart.
So I'm still waiting for digital to outstrip the least of my current
film formats, let alone render it so obsolete that emulating the film
is an 'old fashioned' mode.
To put it another way, if all we had was the current crop of digital
imaging, and no silver imaging, and someone invented silver
based film, it would be heralded as a breakthrough invention that
would soon supplant digital imaging, because of the ten to 100 fold
improvement in resolution, the possibilty of very large, very fast
image recordings, etc.
c._downs
wrote:
>I do not think we're really contradicting each other here -- I think
>that if we are precise enough about what we're saying, we'll find
>that we're in agreement.
Well I got lost on that last exchange so will only say that :
Lenses of different focal lengths have the same depth of field when
used at the same F/stop to produce the same size image......
c._downs
wrote:
>To put it another way, if all we had was the current crop of digital
>imaging, and no silver imaging, and someone invented silver
>based film, it would be heralded as a breakthrough invention that
>would soon supplant digital imaging, because of the ten to 100 fold
>improvement in resolution, the possibilty of very large, very fast
>image recordings, etc.
>
>-Paul
Best comment yet!!
Now help me find someone to carry the 8x10 when we visit your area
next year! Y'all got any Llamas for rent up there in the Volcano
Capitol?
Andrew Koenig
> Lenses of different focal lengths have the same depth of field when
> used at the same F/stop to produce the same size image......
Whether or not that is true depends on how you define depth of field,
and whether you define `image' to be the image made directly by the
lens or the final print.
That's why I said that definitions are important.
Todd E. Maurer
Todd
Joseph O'Neil wrote:
> Hi John;
>
> >Seriously, your point is well taken. But the impact of a high grade digital
> >chip (whenever it happens) will eventually restrict the avalability of your
> >"traditional" materials due to eventual lack of demand.
>
> Well, now that you mention it, I notice there is a bit ofa a
> revival int he past few years in such medium as platinum.palldium
> printing,a nd other more esoteric methods. Personally myself I find
> experimentation with PMK pyro developer quite rewarding. Maybe wet
> plates are not far behind. :)
>
> >The there is the time thing. It is becoming more difficult to find time for
> >darkoom work. I can shoot digital, crop and adjust tones with PhotoShop,
> >and upload my final images to printroom.com and get back 8x10 glossies for
> >$3.50.
>
> Ah, there in lies the difference between "fine art" and
> commercial application. I have aboslutely no doubt that the majority
> of people will move into silicon,a nd if I had to make a living from
> my photography, hey, it will not be long before all commercial apps
> are digitial, if not already.
> The only "holdout" I can see is the use of film, scanning the
> negative, then making the print. As valued as CCDs are, I notice
> under harsh weather and other demanding conditions film still has much
> advantage for durabily, no need for electricity, etc. Try using
> digital cameras is -30C weather, or on location in war zones, far away
> from any source of new batteries. Film will have advantages for a
> long time yet.
>
> >But for those of use who would love to work with high-quality images without
> >the liquids, this is good news. It's the evolution of the artistic process
> >that does not negate the "old" ways of doing it. However, it may make it
> >more difficult (and expensive) to find your materials.
>
> yes and no., Personally already I use mostly FB paper, which
> might be considered "expensive", but you know something? Some of the
> best "photo grade" paper for inkjet prints I find, priced per square
> inch around here, is actually more expensive than than Ilford Galerie
> for example.
> then you have smaller companies picking upt he slack. case in
> point - Maco IR 840. Very nice 4x5 IR film form Germany, less
> expensive than Kodak HSI, and I think, nicer to use.
>
> There is also the "hidden" cost of digital imaging that I
> seldom see addressed. Obsolete equipment. I can still get my 25 year
> old Nikom FM serviced, but ever try to get parts for a computer more
> than 5 yers old? I have. Not fun. I tell you right now, today,
> it is easier for me to find 11x14 sheet film if I wanted to, than find
> parts for a 5 year old computer. While the rate of technological
> growth is wonderful in both terms of advancement and lowering costs,
> there is a false economy to the digital era when replacement costs of
> equipment and suppleis is taken into account.
> I can use my 25 year old enlarger as good as if it was new,
> but I had to replace my 5 year old HP Laserjet last year with a
> better, newer model, even though when I bought my laserjet it was top
> of the line, cutting edge technology. Now it's behind the times.
> Not so my Componon enlarging lens. :)
> Same for my old HP ScanJet. Bought it a few years back, cost
> me an arm and a leg, now it is a boat anchor (no drivers for Win 95/98
> made for it). A so you see, I am there on both sides, I am not
> just talkign out of the top of my head to rasie cain. For business
> use I have invested litterally tens of thousands of dollars into
> desktop publishing & imaging, only to find my gear defunct and
> redundant after a 3-4 years. In the meantime, I could probally sell
> my LF lenses and cameras for at least the same amount of money I paid
> for them.
>
> It is almost as if everyone is deliberately trying to ignore
> the obvious drawbacks to digital imaging and publication, kinda like
> the old fable of the "Emporer's New Cloths."
>
> Finally, I was at an antique steam show this past weekend, old
> steam tractors and the like. I just had a small tripod and my crown
> Graphic, with a couple of lenses. People all over the place had
> cameras, many of them quitce fancy digital cameras (both still and
> motion), but whenever I set down my Crown Graphic, well, you shoudl fo
> seent eh reactions of the owners. Couple of them litterally stopped
> dead in their tracks and posed for me with thier giant machines. You
> don't get that kind of respect from a $10,000 digital camera.
> :)
> joe
>
> http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca
Brian Ellis
Techniques" a few months ago correctly, the color negative film in
disposable cameras is the largest source of 35 mm color negative film sales.
>
> > From time-to-time this group has discussed how soon (or ever) a computer
> > chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
> > Photokina digital photos will be displayed that deliver this quality (>
16
> > million pixels) and from a much less expensive chip technology. The
> > inventor even compares the quality to that of Ansel Adams! Personally,
I'm
> > doubtful (I still have BOTH my record and CD players) -- but thought you
> > might want to read it for yourself.
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2626502,00.html
> >
> > BTW, if you're into computers at any level, this is a great news
service -
> > and it's free (and I'm not connected with it in any way :-).
>
pragmatic.
>
> When I read the original post (attached here) my reaction was: How does a
chip
> which can produce a 48MB (16MB x 3) file compete with a 200MB to 600MB
file
> obtained from a film scan of 4x5? From what I have read just recently
these
> size files are required to produce first class large prints (on Crystal
Archive
> paper).
>
> A second thought after reading the comments about sticking with film as a
> separate, but parallel medium, is the following. Will the companies
producing
to
> mix their own chemicals and coat their own (here fill in your personal
choice
> of substrate) plates. Since my goal is almost always a print, I use color
> negative film primarily. This seems like the first candidate to disappear
for
> the reasons stated in one of the notes in this thread (massive amateur use
)
for
> inexpensive cameras would keep color negative film alive. I disagree - it
is
> only a matter of time until a mediocre 3MB digital point and shoot will
become
> cheap enough. Then the inexpensive point and shoot, APS, etc will bite
the
> dust just as quickly as long-play records. Want to buy a really nice XR
> turntable? Is this too pessimistic?
>
> Since I am already well past retirement age I'm confident that the quality
and
> cost factors will keep film alive and well for my useful lifetime. But my
> heirs may have a lot of expensive camera and darkroom equipment to use as
boat
> anchors.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
Brian Ellis
a burden on Kodak? Kodak has certainly shown no reluctance to discontinue
products that don't sell in sufficient volume to make continued production
worthwhile.
"john" <staf...@vax2.winona.msus.edu> wrote in message
news:8pooao$61v$1...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU...
>
> "John Costello" <jcos...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:39BFAE3...@home.com...
> from the emotional to the pragmatic.
>
> > A second thought after reading the comments about sticking with film as
a
> > separate, but parallel medium, is the following. Will the companies
> producing
> > films and photo chemicals today continue to do so?
>
> Frankly, I think the first company to discontinue many films will be
Kodak.
> They don't inspire any confidence by their (apparent) behavior to behave
in
> short-term market-driven ways. If they don't osolete a lot of film, then I
> am afraid they will raise the prices to prohibitive levels to force
> obsolescence. All this depends, of course, on how certain Kodak can be
> certain the own a big part of a proprietary chip patent.
>
> > [...] Since my goal is almost always a print, I use color
> > negative film primarily. This seems like the first candidate to
disappear
> for
> > the reasons stated in one of the notes in this thread (massive amateur
Frank Calidonna
with a straight digital print or negative?
Frank Rome,NY
John Andrewjeski wrote:
> >
> >As much as most of us may not wish to hear such things, it is an absolute
> >fact, and only a matter of months, before my 8x10 (and yours) is outclassed
> >or at the very least matched by CMOS imaging technology. I work in the
> >semiconductor industry and one of my company's off-shoot is a CMOS imaging
> >start-up (www.symagery.com ) and what they do is along the same line as the
> >company profiled in the news clip below. I see daily evidence that indeed
> >film is just about to be outperformed!!! Do I want to sell my 8x10? Will I
> >end-up with a CMOS-imager based camera? Don't know yet. In any case, there
> >is no doubt in my mind that Ansel Adams would embrace this warmly. After
> >all, what matters is the end product (the print) - not the tools to produce
> >it (camera type). Doesn't it?
> >
> >Check back with me in a year. I may have an 8x10 system for sale.
> >
> >Regards - Daniel G.
> >
> >
> >
> >Brian Downey <brian....@stratcomm.com> wrote in message
> >news:Ggzv5.193649$i5.27...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> >> From time-to-time this group has discussed how soon (or ever) a computer
> >> chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
> >> Photokina digital photos will be displayed that deliver this quality (> 16
> >> million pixels) and from a much less expensive chip technology. The
> >> inventor even compares the quality to that of Ansel Adams! Personally,
> >I'm
> >> doubtful (I still have BOTH my record and CD players) -- but thought you
> >> might want to read it for yourself.
> >>
> >> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2626502,00.html
> >>
> >> BTW, if you're into computers at any level, this is a great news service -
> >> and it's free (and I'm not connected with it in any way :-).
> >>
>
> Bring on the digital.
>
> Soon, every man and woman on the earth, with a computer and decent printer,
> will be printing grossly and weirdly manipulated images. These will be a
> dime-a-dozen.
>
> It will be as easy as child's play.
>
> My darkroom prints, and darkroom prints of this newsgroup community, will
> proudly display a "NON-DIGITAL" sign, making them TEN times more valuable than
> a (soon to be) run-of-the-mill digital print.
>
> Which do you think people will admire the most- a picture heavily manipulated
> in
> Photoshop, or a genuine representation of what was really there?
>
> If one buys into the "Digital will be /is superior" line of thinking, then I
> suspect that within a few years, we should be able to do away with the
> picture-taking apparatus (i.e. camera, be it digital or film-based). Since
> images will be so heavily changed in Photoshop, why even bother taking the shot
> in the first place?
>
> Soon, we should be able to construct an image from scratch by using the
> computer, thus doing away with even going outside of the computer room in our
> house. It will be so easy , why bother leaving your seat to capture an image?
> Sit, relax, think of your subject, input to the computer, manipulate, then
> print.
>
> Voila,
>
> Virtual Photography!!!!
>
> John
> please remove KILLSPAM from address
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
Ellis" <belli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Cheaper than disposable cameras? Come on.
Here, here! I mean, those gas Nixie( ) displays and their attendent high
voltage power supplies are expensive enough alone that a digital clock
will NEVER be cheaper than an analog one! And how do you think they're
gonna get all that into a wrist-sized package?
Things change...:-)
Michael C. Daily
characteristics of the two media! Digital media seem to have a straight line
relationship between input and output--little shadow detail and little highlight
detail. The sinusoidal curve of photographic systems expands the tonal separation of
just these areas. Both are of use and interest--simply different. Trying to make one
medium imitate the other is like the problems of the pictorialists trying to make
photographs look like paintings. If one looks at a lot of portraiture today, one sees
that pictorialism is not yet dead either. With the introduction of new media the
number of niches expands, making more opportunities for all. Remember: a good
photographer can make a good photograph with whatever is at hand. A bad photographer
can't!
mcd...@iquest.net
liv...@my-deja.com
and 4) price (I mean, how much are these backs? last I looked $16-
25,000? and how much film would I have to burn before I got into cost
bennifit trade off teritory?) then, and only then we will be talking
about film like we do about things like wet plate etc. And we will be
complaining about the "new" technology that will be taking digitals
place and getting over the archival probs associated with digital
captures. I mean, remembering to back them up every few years so you
dont lose the image.....
Think I'll be using film for a while yet.......
In article <20000913010116...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
wi...@aol.com (Wilt W) wrote:
> >From time-to-time this group has discussed how soon (or ever) a
computer
> >chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
> >Photokina digital photos will be displayed that deliver this quality
>
> Not everything boils down to simply quality, in the comparison. A
few years
> ago a commercial photog friend compared 4x5 with digital back to
film...quality
> was high enough for print media. The downside then was how LOOONG of
an
> exposure time it required in the studio...MINUTES.
>
> Admittedly the new chip sounds like it can rival film now in
quality. CD-R at
> less than $1 per disk makes cost in the ballpark with conventional
film and
> processing. A stack of 9 CD-R is somewhat comparable in size to 36
mounted
> slides. What's the exposure time of this chip?
>
> --Wilt
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joseph O'Neil
>Absolutely NOT ! What matters is the act of creating . The end product
>is simply the final result. Thats why people choose different arts to
>practice. Who would make a pot when you can buy one at K-mart . Who
>would make a print when you can buy an Adams calender. Why would anyone
>study dance when there is no end "product". Its only in the practice
>of a process that we appreciate , that we find enjoyment.
-snip-
to add to your argument, have you been in an art store lately?
It would seem despite the wide abundance of film and CCD chips, oil
painting, water colour painting, charcoal sketching, and other art
forms are verymuch alive and well.
I even seem to remember reading some where that in pure,
brute numbers, there are actually more people oil painting today than
at any other period in history.
No matter how good CCD chips becoem, i coudl never reproduce
the results i get with my view camera on any computer? why? The way
my mind works, the setting my brain takes when I pull out the camera
is as very much important to the process of creating the image as the
film, lens, etc.
I think that all this "film vs CCD" talk is a bunch of crap.
Technology can replace film for commercial needs, but it cannot
replace the artistic process. CCD's can introduce a whole new
artistic process for certian, but saying CCDs will replace film in the
area of art is just as silly as saying CCD will replace oil paints or
wood carving tools. Electronic organs have not replaced traditional
pianos or string violins, have they? We have guns, but fencing and
martial arts techniques are still taught, and are very popular, if
not downright admired in modern media such as movies.
People who keep screaming film is dead, just don't get it.
joe
SE
computer>>
This is already possible.
Go to http://www.raph.com/3dartists and have a look at the gallery.
Creating complex images from scratch is a lot of work though. It takes days
or weeks for a single picture. This won't change for the next few years.
Regards,
Stefan
John Andrewjeski <jcj...@aol.comKILLSPAM> wrote in message
news:20000913002527...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
jjs
Joseph O'Neil <jon...@multiboard.com> wrote in message
news:39bf6d71...@news.multiboard.com...
> [...] (snip good article)
> People who keep screaming film is dead, just don't get it.
They don't, but perhaps the manufacturers of film are worse - they get it
but don't care! What of these manufacturers of film? Kodak is clearly
de-emphasizing B&W as evinced by their not advertising it, even in the
excellent publications such as View Cameras n CameraArts, and the decline of
their B&W film offerings is daunting. Will the price of film become so high
that we are forced to be paupers for our art again? Will a sheet of Plus-X
be $5 in 2010? I predict - yes.
c._downs
results too. 35mm? well as far as resolution is concerned OK I'll
agree that there is a close resemblance but....
You will have to find a program for manipulating images that can do
much better than Photoshop. 24 bit processing is all it is capable of
at this time and 24 bit color or the 8 bit B&W that is the monochrome
equivalent is just not close to what is possible in silver.
You will have to use something other than current storage medium as
the 8x10 I shoot already produces an image too large for a single CD
and writing time for a file of this size will not work at all in the
field ....probably not that well in the studio either.You will have to
use Computers faster than the best G4's today as using a g4 now still
takes far more time to reproduce an 8x10 image to print and do much
work on it compared to common darkroom work. I'll agree that there
might come a day that Dig. could rival or surpass silver but it's not
even on the table so far. For commercial purposes digital is already
fine for many purposes but in the absolute terms of image quality
there is still not much of a real match for even small format and not
a chance to reach the quality and depth of tonal range that can be
produced by silver. I attend the large printing and graphics shows and
the overwhelming thought there is that the money to drive the digital
revolution will push it forward until it reaches the level needed to
solve commercial purposes......not fine art quality. . Not that in the
future it couldn't match silver but that there is no drive to match
the finest silver prints as the home and studio use just doesn't need
that kind of quality and the money to produce Large Format quality
would be only a fraction of 1% of the users interested. NO sales NO
money spent.
Even if the revolution is moved leaps and bounds forward it will
still have prohibitive costs for a while.
John
> I think that all this "film vs CCD" talk is a bunch of crap.
> Technology can replace film for commercial needs, but it cannot
> replace the artistic process. CCD's can introduce a whole new
> artistic process for certian, but saying CCDs will replace film in the
> area of art is just as silly as saying CCD will replace oil paints or
> wood carving tools. Electronic organs have not replaced traditional
> pianos or string violins, have they? We have guns, but fencing and
> martial arts techniques are still taught, and are very popular, if
> not downright admired in modern media such as movies.
> People who keep screaming film is dead, just don't get it.
> joe
Just for fun, Joe:
I think all this talk of dry film plates replacing wet plates is a bunch of
crap.
Dry film plates can replace wet plates for commercial needs, but they cannot
replace the artistic process. Dry film plate cameras have not replaced
traditional wet plate cameras, have they?
Seriously, your point is well taken. But the impact of a high grade digital
chip (whenever it happens) will eventually restrict the avalability of your
"traditional" materials due to eventual lack of demand.
The there is the time thing. It is becoming more difficult to find time for
darkoom work. I can shoot digital, crop and adjust tones with PhotoShop,
and upload my final images to printroom.com and get back 8x10 glossies for
$3.50.
This is not to say that the fine art photographer, or the person who really
enjoys the tactile process of developing and printing is wrong. (I happen
to fondly associate the smell of fixer with my early experiments in
photography!)
But for those of use who would love to work with high-quality images without
the liquids, this is good news. It's the evolution of the artistic process
that does not negate the "old" ways of doing it. However, it may make it
more difficult (and expensive) to find your materials.
John
> Bring on the digital.
>
> Soon, every man and woman on the earth, with a computer and decent
printer,
> will be printing grossly and weirdly manipulated images. These will be a
> dime-a-dozen.
>
> It will be as easy as child's play.
>
> My darkroom prints, and darkroom prints of this newsgroup community, will
> proudly display a "NON-DIGITAL" sign, making them TEN times more
valuable than
> a (soon to be) run-of-the-mill digital print.
>
> Which do you think people will admire the most- a picture heavily
manipulated
> in
> Photoshop, or a genuine representation of what was really there?
Shame on you for resenting that fact that a new technology is making "finer
art" photography more available to the sweaty masses. Why I agree that
putting party hats on zebras and nudes walking on water are pretty crappy,
they will go away just like all those Polaroid SX-70 prints mushed around
with a coin.
Lots of "finer art" photographers are using PhotoShop to adjust tones, dodge
and burn and make very standard print enhancements. Giving them an easier
way to do it is not bad.
Perhaps we should restrict photographic tools only to those phototogs who
pass a test that proves they are true artistes? While we are at it, why not
restrict word-processors ONLY to those who can write professionally?
Just 'cause someone doesn't do it the way YOU do it doesn't make them a
hack.
John
Marc Banik
marc
geod
Very well said. I'm sure quite a few painters sneered at early
photographers.
In the end, it's about the vision and the end-result, not the technology.
To process an image one way rather than another so that it will be
"valuable" is not art -- that's business, and typically the business of
people shooting boring-as-hell pictures of El Cap and slot canyons that
we've all seen too many times.
I could care less whether an image is produced digitally or traditionally.
Remember, "traditionally" refers to techniques less than a hundred years old
-- often substantially less! By photographers who squeal for the latest in
lens and *film* technology, at that.
As for the poster who equated a hand-made image with reality...please.
Ansel himself said something to the effect that the image and reality have
little to do with themselves. After developing, enlarging, dodging,
burning, toning, bleaching, etc., etc., how is a "traditional" image somehow
closer to "reality" than a digital one? News flash: it's not.
That isn't to say there there is a craft out there which I enjoy and which,
in one way or another, is bound to remain, probably mostly in the hands of
advanced amateurs and some professionals. And that's fine and I will be one
of the traditional practitioners. But you can bet I use digital if and when
it's appropriate, too -- what I care about is making images, not applying
snob value to how they are made.
> From: "John" <see...@bottom.org>
> Organization: www.acpress.com
> Reply-To: see...@bottom.org
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:46:44 GMT
> Subject: Re: New Chip "better than film"?
>
>
Brian Ellis
19th century, said "from this day on, painting is dead?" IMHO, if film dies
it won't be from a lack of persons who want to use it but rather from
continued discontinuing of film and film based products by manufacturers as
the digital money machine rolls over everything in its way.
"Brian Downey" <brian....@stratcomm.com> wrote in message
news:Ggzv5.193649$i5.27...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> From time-to-time this group has discussed how soon (or ever) a computer
> chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
Dan Smith, Photographer
shooting away and a magnetic anomaly or an electrical storm comes by and all
your wonderful digital files go nuts.
Meanwhile, the damnable old dinosaur nearby with his laughable old view
camera and that silver wasting film in the holders gets the photo.
dan smith
Brian Ellis
in these interesting discussions people speak of "film" as a generic
product, all of which will be displaced by digital more or less at the same
time. Well, there's slide film and there's color negative film and there's
black and white film. Given the fact that the color negative film market is,
by a wide margin, made up of amateurs taking pictures on vacation and
holidays, most of whom are using disposable cameras and who think that $100
is too much to spend on a camera, I don't think digital will replace color
negative film any time soon. Transparency film is a different matter. That's
primarily a professional market, and a very small segment of the market at
that. I could see it disappearing pretty soon (whenever that might be).
Black and white film took a lot of the hit it was ever going to take when
color film dispalced it for most users so it may be around for quite a
while.
I think the important point with digital vs. film isn't the quality of the
digital product compared to film, it's the fact that there's a whole lot
more money to be made with digital products than there is with analog.
Almost everyone has some kind of a camera, if nothing more than a disposable
camera, that takes 35 mm film, relatively few people yet have digital
cameras. So the market for digital is much bigger and the profit margins are
much greater there than with film based products. I think that for this
reason alone, digital will replace all film some day regardless of quality
but I can only guess at which films will go first and when they will go.
<C. Downs> wrote in message news:39bf741b...@news.mindspring.com...
Andrew Koenig
photographers, and that I have not seen discussed so far on this
newsgroup. I guess the most succinct way to put it is
Size _does_ matter.
Image size, that is.
The typical consumer digicam has a chip, and therefore an image, less
than 1 cm square. The smallest of the large-format cameras have images
about 9x12 cm.
Now, we can argue all day about whether it is possible to cram enough
information into a 1-cm-square image to make a large print, but I
claim that's a different argument entirely. The argument I want to
make is this:
If you use a camera that makes a tiny image, and you
photograph the same subject with a camera that makes a
large image, the results will be different.
I am not making any claims of better or worse -- I am making claims of
different. That is, one medium can _never_ be an exact replacement
for the other.
The reason is that a larger image requires a larger lens for a given
field of view. The larger lens, in turn, will have less depth of
field, because it will subtend a larger angle as seen from the
subject. Even if you stop way down to maximize depth of field, the
large-format image will not have as much depth of field as the digital
image. Back-of-envelope calculation: Digicam focal length of 6mm,
wide open at f/2, gives a lens diameter of 3mm. 4x5 camera with 120mm
lens (about the same angle of view), stopped down to f/22, gives a
lens diameter of more than 5mm. 8x10 camera with 240mm lens, even
stopped down to f/64, will not have as much depth of field as digicam
wide open.
Of course, if your aim is to get everything sharp, the differences
between large-format and teensy-format become less evident. On the
other hand, consider the 8x10-format portraits by Nicholas Nixon,
which make extreme use of selective focus. I cannot think of any way
to obtain the same effect on a smaller image. (Well, I suppose you
could obtain a similar effect by hand-blurring, but it wouldn't be the
same. The information you'd need to get it right is already gone by
the time the exposure is made).
So my conclusion is that it is possible to make images with
large-format cameras that no digital camera can imitate, unless the
digital camera has a sensor (be it CCD or CMOS) that's as large as the
film in the large-format camera. That may happen eventually, but I
don't think it will be any time real soon.
It really is a different medium.
Andrew Koenig
Brian> quality of the digital product compared to film, it's the fact
Brian> that there's a whole lot more money to be made with digital
Brian> products than there is with analog.
Really? Even if sales of expendables go away? I understand that's
a major problem for companies such as Kodak already.
Joseph O'Neil
>Seriously, your point is well taken. But the impact of a high grade digital
>chip (whenever it happens) will eventually restrict the avalability of your
>"traditional" materials due to eventual lack of demand.
Well, now that you mention it, I notice there is a bit ofa a
revival int he past few years in such medium as platinum.palldium
printing,a nd other more esoteric methods. Personally myself I find
experimentation with PMK pyro developer quite rewarding. Maybe wet
plates are not far behind. :)
>The there is the time thing. It is becoming more difficult to find time for
>darkoom work. I can shoot digital, crop and adjust tones with PhotoShop,
>and upload my final images to printroom.com and get back 8x10 glossies for
>$3.50.
Ah, there in lies the difference between "fine art" and
commercial application. I have aboslutely no doubt that the majority
of people will move into silicon,a nd if I had to make a living from
my photography, hey, it will not be long before all commercial apps
are digitial, if not already.
The only "holdout" I can see is the use of film, scanning the
negative, then making the print. As valued as CCDs are, I notice
under harsh weather and other demanding conditions film still has much
advantage for durabily, no need for electricity, etc. Try using
digital cameras is -30C weather, or on location in war zones, far away
from any source of new batteries. Film will have advantages for a
long time yet.
>But for those of use who would love to work with high-quality images without
>the liquids, this is good news. It's the evolution of the artistic process
>that does not negate the "old" ways of doing it. However, it may make it
>more difficult (and expensive) to find your materials.
Paul Butzi
<excellent reasoning snipped>
>So my conclusion is that it is possible to make images with
>large-format cameras that no digital camera can imitate, unless the
>digital camera has a sensor (be it CCD or CMOS) that's as large as the
>film in the large-format camera. That may happen eventually, but I
>don't think it will be any time real soon.
So far sensors are small because smaller sensors mean cheaper
sensors, with higher yield in the manufacturing process.
But now, the 1.2cm sensors have pretty much reached the limit of
how many pixels can be profitably crammed into the sensor. That
limit is imposed by the limit of resolution of the lens. At a certain
point it becomes cheaper to make the sensor larger than to make
the lens better.
Consider, for instance, the 'last years model' Olympus C-2000
I own. The sensor size is approximately 1cmx1.3cm. The
maximum image resolution I can get is 1600x1200, which means
that on the sensor, the pixel packing density is about 120
pixels/mm. If we use the Nyquist criterion, that means we can
resolve something like 60 line pairs/mm. Let's be charitable
and assume that the zoom lens on this camera can actually
deliver this to the sensor.
Now we wish to build NEXT years camera - it will have,
instead of a 2.1 megapixel sensor, a 8 megapixel sensor.
Now, instead of 1600x1200, we get an image of 3200x2400.
We need to increase the pixel packing density by a factor
of two. If we keep the 1cmx1.3cm format, the linear pixel
density will be 240 pixels/mm, and all of a sudden we're
asking the lens to deliver 120 line pairs/mm. Uh, oh.
The alternative is to increase the size of the sensor.
My conclusion is that sensors will get larger until resolution
demands are met. For very large resolution demands,
the image plane will probably always be scanned with
a smaller sensor (the way flatbed scanner cameras
currently do).
John Costello
> From time-to-time this group has discussed how soon (or ever) a computer
> chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
> Photokina digital photos will be displayed that deliver this quality (> 16
> million pixels) and from a much less expensive chip technology. The
> inventor even compares the quality to that of Ansel Adams! Personally, I'm
> doubtful (I still have BOTH my record and CD players) -- but thought you
> might want to read it for yourself.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2626502,00.html
>
> BTW, if you're into computers at any level, this is a great news service -
> and it's free (and I'm not connected with it in any way :-).
This thread has been interesting, ranging from the emotional to the pragmatic.
When I read the original post (attached here) my reaction was: How does a chip
which can produce a 48MB (16MB x 3) file compete with a 200MB to 600MB file
obtained from a film scan of 4x5? From what I have read just recently these
size files are required to produce first class large prints (on Crystal Archive
paper).
A second thought after reading the comments about sticking with film as a
separate, but parallel medium, is the following. Will the companies producing
films and photo chemicals today continue to do so? Or will everyone have to
mix their own chemicals and coat their own (here fill in your personal choice
of substrate) plates. Since my goal is almost always a print, I use color
negative film primarily. This seems like the first candidate to disappear for
the reasons stated in one of the notes in this thread (massive amateur use)
geod
INTERESTING and good observation. Little story: I was at a high-end digital
lab in my area the other day and another customer came in, bearing
resolution targets. He wanted the things scanned and enlarged. Why...?
Let's just say that he works for an important San Jose player in the digital
imaging world and the standard lens resolution targets were *too small* to
adequately gauge the new digital camera they're working on.
Of course, if you're working with a Better Light back and a Rodenstock
digital lens, that's a whole 'nother story. But in the 35mm world, film
still trumps dig. up and down the block...
...except for when you're on deadline!
> From: Paul Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com>
> Organization: Northwest Link
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:34:01 -0700
> Subject: Re: New Chip "better than film"?
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:39:00 -0700, "john"
> <staf...@vax2.winona.msus.edu> wrote:
>
>> As an acceptable Circle of Confusion becomes smaller and smaller thanks to
>> Digital, DOF will become greater.
>
> My understanding (perhaps limited, since I made a fairly major math
> error in the post to which you're responding) is that as the circle of
> confusion gets smaller, the depth of field gets smaller, too.
>
> In any case, I don't see what using CMOS or CCD sensors has to do with
> the size of the circle of confusion. Optics is optics, and doesn't
> much care about how the image is recorded.
>
>> Digital will be so vastly superior that
>> your Digtal Camea will probably have an optional "Old Fashion Mode" to
>> degrate the resolution.
>
> Perhaps digital will one day be vastly superior to silver film. But
> I fear it won't happen nearly as soon as people (including I) might
> hope.
>
> Let me give an example of the state of the art one year ago. A friend
> of mine and I did some simple lens tests using a test target, a Leica
> M6 and four different lenses, and a Canon Eos-1n RS and two different
> lenses. Examining the negatives (done on, if I recall correctly,
> Kodak Royal Gold 100) with a microscope, we could quite easily resolve
> the lines in the test patches down to 70 lp/mm. Pretty good.
>
> We repeated the test some short while later with what was then a top
> of the line digital camera, my Olympus C-2000z, thinking it would be
> interesting to compare the lens in the Olympus to the Leica and Canon
> lenses. But the resolution (at 1600x1200 uncompressed) was so poor
> that you couldn't even make out the test patches, let alone resolve
> lines. I'm sure the lens is doing 52 lp/mm but the problem is that
> the frame size is 10mmx13mm, so if you scale it up to the equivalent
> on a 35mm frame it's more like 41% of that, or about 22 lp/mm.
> There were no 22 lp/mm patches on the test chart.
>
> So I'm still waiting for digital to outstrip the least of my current
> film formats, let alone render it so obsolete that emulating the film
> is an 'old fashioned' mode.
>
> To put it another way, if all we had was the current crop of digital
> imaging, and no silver imaging, and someone invented silver
> based film, it would be heralded as a breakthrough invention that
> would soon supplant digital imaging, because of the ten to 100 fold
> improvement in resolution, the possibilty of very large, very fast
> image recordings, etc.
>
c._downs
wrote:
>> Well I got lost on that last exchange so will only say that :
>> Lenses of different focal lengths have the same depth of field when
>> used at the same F/stop to produce the same size image......
>
>Whether or not that is true depends on how you define depth of field,
>and whether you define `image' to be the image made directly by the
>lens or the final print.
>
>That's why I said that definitions are important.
As far as I know the only relistic way to define DOF is by size of the
Circles of Confusion produced by a point at any given distance in the
subject. If this is accepted then any way you want to define the image
it always holds true - Aerial image , film image or print image
regardless of size .
c._downs
I guess I can see your point if I look at it another way in which you
are measuring the size of the point without reguard of image size but
we will always have to use similar image sizes for compairisons or you
would have to shrink the 300mm's COC size to the same as the smaller
format's in which case you still get the same DOF as measured by COC
size.
Andrew Koenig
C> the Circles of Confusion produced by a point at any given distance
C> in the subject. If this is accepted then any way you want to define
C> the image it always holds true - Aerial image , film image or print
C> image regardless of size .
Only? I don't think so. From a practical viewpoint, I want to know
the range of distances that will appear sharp in the final print,
which will depend among other things on the print size.
I'm perfectly happy to adopt another term for that if you can think of
one.
c._downs
wrote:
>C> As far as I know the only relistic way to define DOF is by size of
>C> the Circles of Confusion produced by a point at any given distance
>C> in the subject. If this is accepted then any way you want to define
>C> the image it always holds true - Aerial image , film image or print
>C> image regardless of size .
>
>Only? I don't think so. From a practical viewpoint, I want to know
>the range of distances that will appear sharp in the final print,
>which will depend among other things on the print size.
>
>I'm perfectly happy to adopt another term for that if you can think of
>one.
I'm sorry but there is a loss of communication here. The facts I'm
stating are straight from text books.
Dance around it all you want but if you compare the same size prints
then: DOF is a function only of F/stop and lens length has no effect.
This is why we shoot Large format!
The fact that lens length has no effect on DOF at the same distance
with the same F stop is the crucial thing I think you are missing. I
know it may be a popular myth in the small format circles but this
does not mean that it is true. You can not get better DOF with a 150mm
lens on 4x5 than you get with a 300mm lens on 8x10 at the same F/stop
if the same size print is compared. This is not opinion it is optical
law.
All of this relates to the real reason that until sensors for digital
get to the same size as the film they want to replace you will not get
any improvement over the best resolution of the lens. In B&W the
ability to control development means also that huge contrast ranges
can be brought under control where the digital is stuck with at best a
4.2 contrast range. This is from the best drum scanners and the
cameras available are no where near. The color range is close to the
same as the color film range { I'll agree } as color film is set in
its contrast range basically but B&W done with Digital is at best
primitive.
Ian Dodd
Wow! Who'da thunk such a post would generate such a thread? After having
waded my way through all of them, I'm going to weigh in with my $0.02 worth.
Forgive me for not quoting from specific posts.
My sense is that digital will, indeed, supplant photochemical technology for
the vast majority of uses, both commercial and amateur. As one poster put it,
it will make handmade silver gelatin prints valuable in the eyes of the buying
public, just like a piece by an individual ceramist is valued more than a
mass-produced teapot from Target, though they are equally utilitarian. My
concern is not whether digital will "equal" film. My fear is that BEFORE
digital has reached its techniological zenith that its quality will be
accepted as "good eneough". So, while CMOS technology may have raised the bar
for sheer pixels, I think the bar of aesthetics will come down several notches
as Kodak, Canon and all the others foist $100 digital point and shoots on a
bedazzled public.
Case in point from the world of motion picture imaging: A few months ago I
had the opportunity to shoot with the Sony/Panavision 24P High Def camera
(this is a camera that records 24 frames of Progressively scanned images per
second at 1080 lines of vertical resolution). The engineers brought the
camera to the set of a TV show where we were shooting on"traditional" 35mm
film and asked to shoot side by side with no change in lighting, filtration,
etc. They sat back and "oohed & aahed" over the quality of the image on their
professional 35 inch 16:9 monitor. Granted, it was some of the best
electronically-originated imagery I had ever seen. But when they asked my
opinion, they sat dumbfounded as I pointed out that in brightly-lit areas the
delicate skin textures of the (highly-paid, beautiful) actress were blocked up
and that when she walked into shadow areas where the film continued to define
details in her dark sweater that the digital video recorded her as a dark
mass, and that if I were a producer I would hate to see my investment (the
highly-paid, beautiful actress that attracts my audience) presented that way.
But apparently market forces will win out over those of us who care about
image quality. George Lucas is using this same camera to shoot his next "Star
Wars" episode and with all the attendant hype will pull the digital wool over
the unsuspecting eyes of the moviegoing public. Within a few years, I
suspect, the level of acceptable image quality will be lowered to that of "The
Blair Witch Project" except that then it will defined as a new aesthetic,
different from film, and not to be compared, just like photography should not
be compared to painting.
So when people ask me what I think about the digital revolution, I casually
smile and reply that for fun and relaxation I pack a wooden camera into the
back country of California and the Southwest and that my handmade B&W prints
are availbable if they would like. Besides, on a recent trip to Alaska there
just wasn't enough room in my backpack for a Powerbook and enough batteries to
last two weeks. ;-)
Ian Dodd
John Costello
> Cheaper than disposable cameras? Come on. If I remember a note in "Photo
> Techniques" a few months ago correctly, the color negative film in
> disposable cameras is the largest source of 35 mm color negative film sales.
> "John Costello" <jcos...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:39BFAE3...@home.com...
That's interesting. I never even thought of disposables. Do you mean like they
use at wedding? I only said "Then the inexpensive point and shoot, APS, etc
will bite the dust just as quickly as long-play records. " I meant actual
cameras made out of metal or plastic like Minolta, Fuji etc.
.
J
Dan Smith, Photographer
real girlfriend".
dan smith
"Brian Ellis" <belli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GbMv5.804$Mf5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Brian Ellis
digital will eventually replace film in the mass market as well as in the
professional market. I just think it will take some years before that
happens. John, I guess they use disposable cameras at weddings. The kind I
meant are the cardboard box kind that cost around $10 (I think), where the
film is removed after the roll has been exposed and the box /camera is
thrown away. According to the note in Photo Techniques, that is the largest
source of sales of 35 mm color negative film and I don't think a digital
camera will replace it for quite a while. As long as people like and buy
disposable cameras in the quantity they do, there will be a large market for
color negative 35 mm film, which is why I think that kind of film will be
around for quite a long time. But eventually, I'm sure it too will go away.
Of course eventually something will replace digital too.
.
"John Costello" <jcos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39C138DF...@home.com...
> Brian Ellis wrote:
>
> > Cheaper than disposable cameras? Come on. If I remember a note in "Photo
> > Techniques" a few months ago correctly, the color negative film in
> > disposable cameras is the largest source of 35 mm color negative film
sales.
> > "John Costello" <jcos...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:39BFAE3...@home.com...
> That's interesting. I never even thought of disposables. Do you mean
like they
> use at wedding? I only said "Then the inexpensive point and shoot, APS,
etc
Jeff Isaacs
C., Downs wrote:
> You will have to find a program for manipulating images that can do
> much better than Photoshop. 24 bit processing is all it is capable of
> at this time and 24 bit color or the 8 bit B&W that is the monochrome
> equivalent is just not close to what is possible in silver.
Actually, Photoshop has quite a large amount of 48-bit capability.
> For commercial purposes digital is already
> fine for many purposes but in the absolute terms of image quality
> there is still not much of a real match for even small format and not
> a chance to reach the quality and depth of tonal range that can be
> produced by silver.
Strictly speaking, a good digital capture (14 bit, cooled CCD) has more
tonal range than film. And there's something to be said for a quadtone
black-and-white image printed on good art paper...
- Jeff
Jeff Isaacs
at the high end these days. Sensitivity is said to be around ISO 100.
- Jeff
VILNTFLUID wrote:
>
> 1) What IS the exposure time of this chip?
>
geod
I recently saw a 30x30 black and white lightjet image. Beautifully taken
picture, actually, lots of tonal range, etc., etc. Image was made from a
304 MB file.
All I can say is, good as lightjets are, this picture was flat and boring.
Awful, really. For the expensive involved, I'd say it was a total waste of
money.
And this was at a high-end digital imaging lab in Santa Clara (silicon
valley).
No, good printing is here to stay, I think.
c._downs
wrote:
It might have a good bit of high bit capability but my 42 bit scanner
bombs it out constantly and the final output is almost always in 24
bit. Once you get it scanned how are you going to print it - Light jet
5000 .....not much better than standard commercial quality today. Not
in the league with Masked silver. Same for the Epson P pigment series
so far.{ I would like one of the Epson 9500P or Kodaks 7000 something
series that uses pigments though! } this is just an opinion but my
wife is quality manager for a printing company and we attend about any
demonstration that the manufacturers will put together - not even the
10 million dollar Komura with color separation looks as good as the
best silver. All this is just opinion.....everyone gets their on taste
to use for viewing so I don't want to sound absolute.
As far as the contrast range you seem to forget that B&W film can
record much more than anything but the best drum scanners can
reproduce just in a normal exposure but with B&W you can expose much
more depth and through development and masking compress the range to a
much smaller range. I have the ability to mask over 14 f/stops to the
same level that the best scanners can handle - maybe 17 to 18 f/stop
range according to many experts. The real factor here is not what a
drum scanner can do it is what a digital camera can do. I have seen
the best of what the 40 to 60 thousand dollar scanning backs can do
right now and they are a long shot from what I can easily do with an
8x10 and silver- color Dig. can approach roll film but Large format
--not even close.! In B&W there is not even a close match to what
scanners could do with silver film several years ago and the best of
what is being shown at the national shows is still a shadow of what LF
B&W silver can produce at this time. Commercial work...sure -
absolutely digital is fine and can take over at any time but for
absolute quality judged by resolution, tonal depth etc there is not a
dig camera out there that can compare. Just my opinion but I'll be
looking for the day when a digital camera will make a 30x40inch print
with the tonal depth and resolution of my 8x10 as 30 years of dragging
"the beast" around the mountains and I'm ready for a less than 50
pound way to produce top quality. Just make sure it will work on my
winter trips to Alaska and summer trips to the Grand Canyon floor!
Hope that it likes rain and constant humidity as I really like the
rainforest also. ...my wife's poor electronic 35mm bombs out long
before any extreme is reached :o)
I am talking Large format and fine art here. If I was doing commercial
work I'd be using digital right now!
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
>
> my 42 bit scanner
> bombs it out constantly and the final output is almost always in 24
Sounds more like a personal problem than an indictment of digital! :-)
(FWIW: my Mac-based scanners -- three of them -- almost never "bomb.")
> ...{ I would like one of the Epson 9500P or Kodaks 7000 something
> series that uses pigments though! }
I really hate it when people behave like Epson is the only printer company
in the world! If we're not careful, we're going to end up in printers with
Epson the way we've ended up in computers with Microsoft. Think different!
HP, Roland, Mutoh, and others have been making pigmented, long-lived
inksets for YEARS! Why are you waiting for the stupid pigmented Epson 9500
when you can go out and buy a Roland FJ-40 TODAY for about the same money?
Put these two puppies side-by-side -- I have. The Roland is hogged out of
a solid 5-foot block of aluminum and weighs a couple hundred. It is
rock-steady while printing. The Epson is made out of sheet metal screwed
together, and bucks like a bronco while printing. Which one is going to
last? I can't believe people who are seriously into the beauty of
photographic equipment -- as most LF photographers are -- would not
appreciate the Roland for its sheer construction alone, not to mention its
beautiful prints.
Besides, the new Roland now features EIGHT pigmented colors, while Epson
is still holding people captive with vaporware announcements of their
first six-color pigmented wide-format printer.
I do agree that B&W is another story, but I don't agree that it is
inherently *better* as much as it is *different* than digital. Some folks
still eschew CDs and listen to vinyl, but I don't think anyone would argue
that CDs have not supplanted LP records.
--
: Jan Steinman -- Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com
: Bytesmiths -- digital artistry <http://www.bytesmiths.com/Art_Gallery>
: +1 503 635 3229
c._downs
-- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]) wrote:
>In article <39c38e81...@news.mindspring.com>, C. Downs wrote:
>>
>> my 42 bit scanner
>> bombs it out constantly and the final output is almost always in 24
>> bit...
>
>Sounds more like a personal problem than an indictment of digital! :-)
>
>(FWIW: my Mac-based scanners -- three of them -- almost never "bomb.")
>
>> ...{ I would like one of the Epson 9500P or Kodaks 7000 something
>> series that uses pigments though! }
>
>I really hate it when people behave like Epson is the only printer company
>in the world! If we're not careful, we're going to end up in printers with
>Epson the way we've ended up in computers with Microsoft. Think different!
>
>HP, Roland, Mutoh, and others have been making pigmented, long-lived
>inksets for YEARS! Why are you waiting for the stupid pigmented Epson 9500
>when you can go out and buy a Roland FJ-40 TODAY for about the same money?
>
>Put these two puppies side-by-side -- I have. The Roland is hogged out of
>a solid 5-foot block of aluminum and weighs a couple hundred. It is
>rock-steady while printing. The Epson is made out of sheet metal screwed
>together, and bucks like a bronco while printing. Which one is going to
>last? I can't believe people who are seriously into the beauty of
>photographic equipment -- as most LF photographers are -- would not
>appreciate the Roland for its sheer construction alone, not to mention its
>beautiful prints.
>
>Besides, the new Roland now features EIGHT pigmented colors, while Epson
>is still holding people captive with vaporware announcements of their
>first six-color pigmented wide-format printer.
>
>I do agree that B&W is another story, but I don't agree that it is
>inherently *better* as much as it is *different* than digital. Some folks
>still eschew CDs and listen to vinyl, but I don't think anyone would argue
>that CDs have not supplanted LP records.
Thanks for the new info on printers ...I have been talking to a Roland
dealer about their 40 inch web printer and also To Imacon about their
new Scanner that has Drum capabilities at a fraction of the cost.
The problem with both is price!
The Roland with 6 color technology is $13.995. and the 8 color head
with variable drop size is around $17,000.
This is quite a bit ....in fact two to three times the price of the
Epson. Also the Roland is based on Epson technology and according to
them actually uses a modified Epson head in, as you say, a much better
case!the 8 color head does have the variable drop size so is touted to
be an improvement!
I'm on the list for the next round of demos but it will have to be
quite a change over the same head in the Epson case for me to double
or triple the price.
I can't sell Pigment prints....Yet! I'll agree that for color I may
be headed that way in the future but am tired of beating my head
against patrons preferences. When the Fine art world goes this way
I'll be there for color but The best B&W pigment print I've heard of
is still a long way from the quality of Silver B&W. Kodak is
supposedly working { and others too I'm sure } on an ink set that has
at least 6 shades of black for the B&W prints. Might just work. But
after 34 years of doing silver B&W prints I doubt that Digital will
ever have much of a lure to me unless it somehow surpasses Silver
prints or they quit making B&W materials. For the price of one Roland
Printer I can make several years worth of 40 inch silver prints and
have the hands on pleasure of doing it the same way I've done it since
a kid. In recent years I've found that I really like the long hours in
the darkroom!
Roy Harrington
C., Downs wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:40:44 GMT, Andrew Koenig <a...@research.att.com>
> wrote:
>
> >C> As far as I know the only relistic way to define DOF is by size of
> >C> the Circles of Confusion produced by a point at any given distance
> >C> in the subject. If this is accepted then any way you want to define
> >C> the image it always holds true - Aerial image , film image or print
> >C> image regardless of size .
> >
> >Only? I don't think so. From a practical viewpoint, I want to know
> >the range of distances that will appear sharp in the final print,
> >which will depend among other things on the print size.
> >
> >I'm perfectly happy to adopt another term for that if you can think of
> >one.
>
> I'm sorry but there is a loss of communication here. The facts I'm
> stating are straight from text books.
> Dance around it all you want but if you compare the same size prints
> then: DOF is a function only of F/stop and lens length has no effect.
> This is why we shoot Large format!
> The fact that lens length has no effect on DOF at the same distance
> with the same F stop is the crucial thing I think you are missing. I
> know it may be a popular myth in the small format circles but this
> does not mean that it is true. You can not get better DOF with a 150mm
> lens on 4x5 than you get with a 300mm lens on 8x10 at the same F/stop
> if the same size print is compared. This is not opinion it is optical
> law.
C. Downs,
This discussion comes up a couple of times every year. You really
ought to check back with the text books. You'll find that whenever
they talk about DOF depending only on image size and f/stop, they
mean image size on the negative NOT image size on the print. The
enlarging of the print from the negative has a linear effect on
DOF whereas the larger image size on the negative from larger formats
has a squared effect on DOF.
Andrew Koenig posted a very simple experiment to try. I know its a
hassle to try it, especially, if you don't believe it's true. But,
I did try something similar a while ago and it does illustrate the
facts quite dramatically.
Roy
--
Roy Harrington
r...@harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com
c._downs
<r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>
>
>C., Downs wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:40:44 GMT, Andrew Koenig <a...@research.att.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >C> As far as I know the only relistic way to define DOF is by size of
>> >C> the Circles of Confusion produced by a point at any given distance
>> >C> in the subject. If this is accepted then any way you want to define
>> >C> the image it always holds true - Aerial image , film image or print
>> >C> image regardless of size .
>> >
>> >Only? I don't think so. From a practical viewpoint, I want to know
>> >the range of distances that will appear sharp in the final print,
>> >which will depend among other things on the print size.
>> >
>> >I'm perfectly happy to adopt another term for that if you can think of
>> >one.
>>
First enlarging the print size is a function of the square area given
in relation to the diameter of the circle of confusion as is the same
function in enlarging the image size on film. I only quoted the exact
statements found in numerous text books. There is a very detailed
discussion on this subject found at Deja.com with the same formulas
that I quoted given. This is way too much time on a simple subject.
I'll leave it to you to win, loose, or draw. The same statement I made
at the begining still holds true despite what you may think and I'll
dirrectly quote it from a college text on lenses and camera work. {
Amphoto 2109 }
" Depth of field computations are made on the basis of a fixed circle
of confusiom or on a circle of confusion equal to a fraction of the
focal length. Lenses of different focal lengths used at the same
F/number have the same depth of field for equal image sizes."
I'll let it go at that and you can believe, doubt, or modify all you
please.
Roy Harrington
C., Downs wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:57:40 -0700, Roy Harrington
> <r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >C., Downs wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:40:44 GMT, Andrew Koenig <a...@research.att.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >C> As far as I know the only relistic way to define DOF is by size of
> >> >C> the Circles of Confusion produced by a point at any given distance
> >> >C> in the subject. If this is accepted then any way you want to define
> >> >C> the image it always holds true - Aerial image , film image or print
> >> >C> image regardless of size .
> >> >
> >> >Only? I don't think so. From a practical viewpoint, I want to know
> >> >the range of distances that will appear sharp in the final print,
> >> >which will depend among other things on the print size.
> >> >
> >> >I'm perfectly happy to adopt another term for that if you can think of
> >> >one.
> >>
The quote is made in the context of a certain film format size, so
"equal images sizes" refers to both negative size and print size.
Comparing different format sizes breaks many of the assumptions made
in well-known DOF equations. Its not that the equations and quotes
are wrong, its just that they don't apply when comparing different
film sizes. I suspect this won't convince you, so as you say we'll
have to "let it go at that" --- let's just go take some pictures :)
Paul Butzi
>I believe that something is missing here. Print size. Given the same
>print size the enlargement factor to make , for example, an 8x10
>image from the smaller lens and receptor will loose the same or more
>info than the same angle of coverage on an 8x10 camera at the same
>F/stop. You do not for instance get more depth of field by using a 150
>mm lens on a 4x5 camera than you would by using a 300mm lens on an
>8x10 at the same F/stop if equal print sizes are compared.
This whole discussion has confused the living bejeebers out of me.
My calculations of this situation are as follows, with nomenclature
(and formulae) shamelessly stolen from David Jacobson's Lens
FAQ (at http://www.photo.net/photo/optics/lensFAQ.html).
That is,
f focal length
So distance from front principal
point to object (subject)
Sfar distance from front principal
point to farthest point in focus
Sclose distance from front principal
point to closest point in focus
Si distance from rear principal
point to film (image) plane
N f-number or f-stop
CoC diameter of largest acceptable
circle of confusion, or the
diameter of the circle of confusion
h hyperfocal distance
Given those definitions, and using the formulae in the Lens FAQ
I get the following table. I computed the depth of field for
various formats, labeled here "8, 4, 2, 1" and intended to
correspond (roughly) to 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, and 35mm. Note that, in order
to account for the differing degrees of enlargement of the negative to
get the same size print, I have made it so that with each format
size (which drops by a factor of two) the CoC gets smaller by
a factor of two. That is, I assume that the 8x10 negative will be
contact printed, the 4x5 will be enlarged by a factor of two to
reach the same size print, the 120 negative by a factor of 4
to reach the same size print, the 35mm by a factor of 8.
The relevant formulae from the lens FAQ are:
Hyperfocal distance: h = f^2/(N*c)
Hyperfocal ratio: hr = h/(So - f)
Closest 'in focus' distance: Sclose = h * So / (h + (So - f))
Farthest 'in focus' distance: Sfar = h * So / (h - (So - f))
Depth of Field: DoF = Sfar - Sclose
This gives the following table:
N 5.6
So 10000
format f coc h hr Sclose Sfar DoF
8 300 0.2 80357 8.3 8923 11373 2450
4 150 0.1 40179 4.1 8031 13248 5217
2 75 0.05 20089 2.0 6693 19765 13071
1 37.5 0.025 10045 1.0 5021 1222826 1217806
All linear measurement is in millimeters. It appears to me
that depth of field is smaller for the larger formats, with
the depth of field for this situation for the 8x10 being 2.45 meters
and the depth of field for the 35mm being 1217.81 meters, quite
a substantial difference. Based on this, I'd conclude
that depth of field at the same f-stop, same distance, and adjusting
the circle of confusion to account for the differing degree of
enlargement, is much smaller for larger formats than for small ones.
Am I missing something? I don't claim to be conversant with the
formulae, so it's possible I've misconstrued something. But if so,
I'd like to be straightened out.
c._downs
wrote:
>
>This whole discussion has confused the living bejeebers out of me.
>
Me too!
the real problem is communication and the meanings of what is DOF in
relation to the original post.
What I'm talking about is maximum resolution { read DOF }in regards
to a fixed print size. My premise is that using a 150 lens to achieve
a given DOF for 4x5 and then enlarging the 4x5 image to the same size
{ say 8x10 - the smallest format we will be discussing } will in
actuality not give any more image detail { DOF }than shooting a 300 mm
lens on the 8x10 and using a contact print off of it to keep all
things equal. Ah, Yes the real important factor here...the same f stop
is used.
{I could be entirely wrong here but if I am we better contact the
guv. as millions of dollars are being wasted in large format use for
high level surveillance ...my old job. :o)
My point here is that using different lenses for different formats
always results in the same size circles of confusion no matter what
lens length is used as long as the final evaluation size of the
circles of confusion are used. one way to look at it would to be just
evaluating the results from using the 4x5 format and using a 150 and
300 mm lens on the same camera back. you will gain a two fold increase
in the image size by using the 300 mm lens. So you must double the
magnification size for the 150 lens or half the magnification size of
the 300 mm lens to arrive at the same size image on the 4x5 film.{ you
could move the camera out until the 300mm produced the same size
object in the image gaining greater DOF at the same F/stop......but
this is confused enough as it is} Either way you are dealing with the
diameter of the COC of each lens in the same way. this is what
matters. Shoot the 150 on the 4x5 and you get twice the DOF that you
would with a 300mm lens....but you then have to double the image size
of the 150 image to arrive at the same magnification size as the 300mm
lens and you just lost the DOF{ due to loss of the COC size in
enlarging}. If you were to leave out the change in magnification size
you would always achieve better DOF by using a smaller format. The
real problem is that you need to compare the actual coc size at the
same magnification. What has been done in most cases is that the final
size has been left out. We all may be saying the same thing but using
different criteria to judge the results. A simpler way to look at this
would be to think about using a wide angle lens and a telephoto on 35
mm. You will have greater DOF with the wide angle if you keep the
whole size of the image it forms on the film. But if you enlarge it to
the size needed to match the object size that the same objects have in
the telephoto image you blow the DOF due to the loss of resolution in
enlarging the image. We can look at it this way. Given a tree 100 feet
away the actual resolution of the leaves of the tree are determined by
the length of the taking lens if the camera can't be moved. using a
shorter lens will make the COC of each point in the picture shrink by
the magnification factor of the lens {with the diagonal of the format
as the given #1x magnification } longer lenses greater mag factors and
greater COC size.Shorter lenses and Smaller COC size. This holds true
for all of the points in the picture near or far{ DOF again}. What
happens in essence is that since resolution has to be judged by using
a set criteria then the best we have to do this is final print size.
Set up a final height for the tree { in the final print } and you will
have to change the magnification ratios of the images produced by
different lenses used for taking pictures with different formats. In
the end you will have the different image sizes multiplied by
different factors to achieve the same size image. As you change the
magnification factors for the different lenses you will change the
COC's that they produced on their individual film formats.In the end
you will have the same size COCs for each of the lenses when they are
compared at the same final size.
A simple check of this is to use a 50mm lens and a 100 mm lens to
photograph the same portrait subject from the same camera position at
the same F/stop. Let us then compare the DOF. If the whole neg is used
for both - the 50mm will have a greater DOF but when you blow up the
50mm lens image to achieve the same size object { the person being
photographed } as the 100 mm lens produced you loose the same amount
of sharpness in the enlargement in the near and far distances as was
recorded in the first place by using the 100mm lens. For years I had
students and other photographers try to tell me that to get more depth
of field in their portraits they used normal lenses and just blew up
the images to the size of a normal portrait length lens. I tried for
years to show this relationship and why this won't work and it looks
as if I'm not doing any better here. I was trying to get away from
this and was hoping that someone with better math skills and lens DOF
definitions would jump in but since you have helped me so many times I
thought that I'd try it one more time....I've either lost you forever
or maybe just maybe shed some light on this subject. I'm really
looking for Richard or some of the more easily understood folks to
jump in here and help but I guess this has been done so many times
folks are put off or have lost interest.
Sorry I can't help more!
Whew,
Chuck
geod
And, again, there is output quality. Personally, I think black and white
lightjet prints are lifeless and boring. I mean, real boring. Flat.
Sharp, yes, precise, yes, but lacking in character. Iris prints can be
beautiful but also have a faddish quality to them, I think.
> From: C. Downs
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:44:09 GMT
> Subject: Re: New Chip "better than film"?
>
Andrew Koenig
> to a fixed print size. My premise is that using a 150 lens to achieve
> a given DOF for 4x5 and then enlarging the 4x5 image to the same size
> { say 8x10 - the smallest format we will be discussing } will in
> actuality not give any more image detail { DOF }than shooting a 300 mm
> lens on the 8x10 and using a contact print off of it to keep all
> things equal. Ah, Yes the real important factor here...the same f stop
> is used.
> {I could be entirely wrong here but if I am we better contact the
> guv. as millions of dollars are being wasted in large format use for
> high level surveillance ...my old job. :o)
I believe that you are entirely wrong.
What I think is true is that if you use a 300mm lens with the same
_physical_ aperture size as the 150, then the resulting 8x10 contact
print will be identical to what you would get if you enlarged the
4x5 negative. That is:
Take an 8x10 negative with a 300mm lens at f/22.
Make a contact print of the 8x10 negative.
Take a 4x5 negative with a 150mm lens at f/11.
(of the same subject, from the same camera position)
Enlarge the resulting negative to 8x10.
The resulting images will be identical.
In both cases, you are looking at the subject through a lens
that is 13.6mm in diameter, and making an 8x10 print of the
same amount of the subject. Therefore, the side of the intermediate
negative won't make any difference.
However, if you were to use the 150mm lens at f/22, then the lens
itself would be a different size, and the result would be that
the two images would be different at any magnification.
I'll let the group know when I have some sample photos on my website.
Paul Butzi
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:33:52 -0700, Paul Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>This whole discussion has confused the living bejeebers out of me.
>>
>
> Me too!
> the real problem is communication and the meanings of what is DOF in
>relation to the original post.
>
> What I'm talking about is maximum resolution { read DOF }in regards
>to a fixed print size. My premise is that using a 150 lens to achieve
>a given DOF for 4x5 and then enlarging the 4x5 image to the same size
>{ say 8x10 - the smallest format we will be discussing } will in
>actuality not give any more image detail { DOF }than shooting a 300 mm
>lens on the 8x10 and using a contact print off of it to keep all
>things equal. Ah, Yes the real important factor here...the same f stop
>is used.
> {I could be entirely wrong here but if I am we better contact the
>guv. as millions of dollars are being wasted in large format use for
>high level surveillance ...my old job. :o)
I think that you're mixing two unrelated terms: 1) resolution, and 2)
depth of field.
> My point here is that using different lenses for different formats
>always results in the same size circles of confusion no matter what
>lens length is used as long as the final evaluation size of the
>circles of confusion are used.
I'm not clear on what you're saying, here. The diameter of
the acceptable circle of confusion is set by the judgement of
the photographer - you decide what is 'in focus' and on that
basis select a diameter for the circle of confusion. That's what
I've done in my table - I selected .025mm for the 35mm frame
(based on what seemed reasonable for Zeiss) and then
increased it for each larger format to match the reduced
need for magnification.
>Shoot the 150 on the 4x5 and you get twice the DOF that you
>would with a 300mm lens....but you then have to double the image size
>of the 150 image to arrive at the same magnification size as the 300mm
>lens and you just lost the DOF{ due to loss of the COC size in
>enlarging}.
No, that's not right. If you shoot the 150 on the 4x5, you get *four*
times the depth of field of the 300 on the 8x10. Then you double
the circle of confusion to get the same magnification size in the
print and you're still ahead by a factor of two.
Try the math. Or put two lenses on a camera and try it.
I don't much like it, but that's really the way it it appears
the math works. To get the same depth of field on a larger negative,
you need to stop down more, even when you allow for enlarging the
smaller negative more.
c._downs
G.'s post or any of the hundreds of post about this in the past. If
you trust Richark K or someone else please ask them or anyone that is
an expert on this - I can tell that you will never understand me so
will just quit. If this matters to you please keep on until you under
stand. you keep loosing the fact that it is the diameter of the COC's
that matter and when i say double I'm talking about the doubling of
the diameter of the COC's and this is where the doubling and halving
results. I can't explane it but will just use a John Shaw reply. Go
ahead and use what you want.... I'll do what I like and the picture
buyers will sort out what they want.
Roy Harrington
Chuck,
You've written a good description of the claim you are making, so
I'll try once more.
First, you may be mixing Resolution with Depth-of-Field. They are
different, but since you do talk about circle-of-confusion I think
we agree on what the issue is.
Second is the main issue. This statement is really the source of the
problem:
> Shoot the 150 on the 4x5 and you get twice the DOF that you
> would with a 300mm lens...
DOF varies as the SQUARE of the focal length, so shooting with the
150 gives you FOUR times the DOF. Check the formulas and text books
or setup the math yourself.
Your following description of loosing a factor of two when you
enlarge is correct, so the overall result is twice the DOF by
using the 150mm on 4x5 instead of the 300mm on 8x10.
C., Downs wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:33:52 -0700, Paul Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >This whole discussion has confused the living bejeebers out of me.
> >
>
> Me too!
> the real problem is communication and the meanings of what is DOF in
> relation to the original post.
>
> What I'm talking about is maximum resolution { read DOF }in regards
> to a fixed print size. My premise is that using a 150 lens to achieve
> a given DOF for 4x5 and then enlarging the 4x5 image to the same size
> { say 8x10 - the smallest format we will be discussing } will in
> actuality not give any more image detail { DOF }than shooting a 300 mm
> lens on the 8x10 and using a contact print off of it to keep all
> things equal. Ah, Yes the real important factor here...the same f stop
> is used.
> {I could be entirely wrong here but if I am we better contact the
> guv. as millions of dollars are being wasted in large format use for
> high level surveillance ...my old job. :o)
I'd love to save the guv and therefore all of us the millions of dollars
but I doubt DOF is their primary interest. :)
> or maybe just maybe shed some light on this subject. I'm really
> looking for Richard or some of the more easily understood folks to
> jump in here and help but I guess this has been done so many times
> folks are put off or have lost interest.
> Sorry I can't help more!
> Whew,
> Chuck
I'm sorry I don't have the posting credibility of Richard but I think
you really need to convince yourself with some more investigation.
If you are mathematically inclined check out the formulas or better
yet work them out. If you are more "show me" inclined, try some
pictures. You mentioned comparing 50mm versus 100mm on 35mm for
for portraits -- the factor of two here may be hard to recognize due
to grain and other things. Try 35m versus 4x5 or 8x10, with a factor
of 4 or more the results will be obvious.
Roy Harrington
Chuck,
I'm sorry you seem to have taken offense with this discussion. I
think you'll find that I and the others really do believe in the text
books, Michael's and Richard's posts and many other experts. I also
think I understand what you are saying, I just think what you are
saying is not the same as the text books.
Over and out.
pst...@my-deja.com
next, will continue to improve because of just that. 6 mega pixels is
better that 8 mega pixels and people (consumers) understand that concept
and will always want the higher number. For the public, 8x10 vs 4x5 vs
120 vs 35mm vs aps, doesn't really mean anything, the number's are not
comparable. 6 megapixel vs 12 megapixels is understandable to all. This
digital revolution is forcing the camera manufactures to make better
cameras in terms of higher resolution, capitolism at its best, where in
the past they (kodak, fuji, agfa) controlled the market and progressed by
making camera formats that were worse, in terms of resolution (aps), bad
capitolism. I love it. I look forward to the day I don't have to carry
around a 90lb pack up a mountain side to get the image quality that I'm
looking for. Hopefully it will come sooner than later because my knees
deserve it. PS. I have not seen a digital black and white or digital
color print that comes close to a contact print. cone-editions quad black
inks are amazing printed on epsons, lightjet color prints are mind
blowing but nothing holds a candle to contact prints YET. When/if
something does come out that is as good and if it's affordable, I'm
buying it.
In article <39C10914...@mediaone.net>,
> Brian Downey wrote:
>
> > From time-to-time this group has discussed how soon (or ever) a computer
> > chip will surpass film quality. It was announced this week that at
> > Photokina digital photos will be displayed that deliver this quality
(> 16
> > million pixels) and from a much less expensive chip technology. The
> > inventor even compares the quality to that of Ansel Adams! Personally, I'm
> > doubtful (I still have BOTH my record and CD players) -- but thought you
> > might want to read it for yourself.
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2626502,00.html
> >
> > BTW, if you're into computers at any level, this is a great news service -
> > and it's free (and I'm not connected with it in any way :-).
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pst...@my-deja.com
Paul Butzi
>I can tell that you won't believe any of the text books or Michael
>G.'s post or any of the hundreds of post about this in the past.
I think you've misunderstood the intent of my posts. I'm not trying
to prove you wrong, I'm trying to understand two things:
a) is our understanding of how depth of field varies with format
changes the same or different.
b) I have looked at the math, and it matches my experience. It
appears to NOT match what you are saying. It appears
our understanding does not match; I value your opinion,
so I would like to understand where the error lies.
> If
>you trust Richark K or someone else please ask them or anyone that is
>an expert on this - I can tell that you will never understand me so
>will just quit. If this matters to you please keep on until you under
>stand.
Well, I certainly hope someone will step in and help.
>you keep loosing the fact that it is the diameter of the COC's
>that matter and when i say double I'm talking about the doubling of
>the diameter of the COC's and this is where the doubling and halving
>results.
Well, I guess I don't get it at all, then. I'm discussing the
diameter of the COC, and when I'm talking about doubling
I'm talking about doubling the diameter of the COC as well.
> I can't explane it but will just use a John Shaw reply. Go
>ahead and use what you want.... I'll do what I like and the picture
>buyers will sort out what they want.
I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree but that leaves me with
this uncertain feeling that I'm misunderstanding something somewhere
and don't know it.
c._downs
<r...@harrington.com> wrote:
>Chuck,
>
>I'm sorry you seem to have taken offense with this discussion. I
>think you'll find that I and the others really do believe in the text
>books, Michael's and Richard's posts and many other experts. I also
>think I understand what you are saying, I just think what you are
>saying is not the same as the text books.
>
>Over and out.
>Roy
Not offended but disappointed.
I remember the same discussion was had last year with about the same
results. We both posted at that time.{ DOF Mess }..... there were some
very good post at that time and two thirds of the time folks were
saying the same thing and not understanding each other so I imagine it
to be the same now. Your opinions haven't changed and I guess I'm at
the same point.
I AM disappointed that when I quote directly from text I still have
the same problem that you say that I am not saying the same as the
text. I'm sure that my trying to explain it is a mess so I will just
quote the exact words again and let each of us do with it anything we
want.
"Lenses of different focal length have the same DOF when used at the
same F/stop when equal image sizes are compared."
This was taken directly from the optics section of Amphoto -optics
-Lab photo text O-ISBN:O-8174-209-2
referenced in:
Berg, W. F. Exposure Amphoto-Foeal
Dunn, 1. F. Exposure Manual Fountain Press
Conrady, A. E. Optics and Optical Design Dover
Cox, Arthur Optics Amphoto-Focal
Cox, Arthur A System of Optical Design Focal-Pitman
Hardy, Arthur C. and Perrin, Fred F. The Principles of Optics
McGraw-Hill
Focal Encyclopedia of Photography Focal-Pitman
Horder, Alan Ilford Manual of Photography Ilford
Langford, M. I. Basic Photography Amphoto-Focal
Lobel, L. and DuBois, E. M. Basic Sensitometry Amphoto-Focal
Since this is exactly what I quoted then however much I lack in the
art of explanation does not alter the fact that it is a direct quote.
Now since I like some of your images { Grand Canyon expressly} and we
both seem to be able to work independently and are happy with our own
interpretations of the same facts , it will best be left as a
disagreement as long as you realize that I was only quoting the text.
Roy Harrington
...
>
> Since this is exactly what I quoted then however much I lack in the
> art of explanation does not alter the fact that it is a direct quote.
> Now since I like some of your images { Grand Canyon expressly} and we
> both seem to be able to work independently and are happy with our own
> interpretations of the same facts , it will best be left as a
> disagreement as long as you realize that I was only quoting the text.
Well, I must admit that I am disappointed and frustrated, too. But,
you seem genuinely interested and I'd like to see if I can manage
to say all this understandably. So, I'll go at it again. This is
a three pronged approach: 1) the quote 2) an example with some math
and 3) an anecdote about previous discussions of DOF.
-------
First, take the quote -- it says "equal image sizes". Somehow we have
to decide what that means. I see 3 possible meanings:
1) equal image sizes on the negative
2) equal image sizes on the print
3) equal image sizes on both (or either) the negative and the print
The quote itself doesn't really tell which way to interpret it.
My contention it that the quote is true only if you use meaning (1).
I think you are using either meaning (2) or (3). The point is
we both accept and believe the quote but come away thinking
different things. All I'm asking here is to accept that there
may be different interpretations.
------
Second, I've got the simplest real example I could think off. This
really is the meat of my argument, so I hope it makes sense.
The setup I'm proposing is simply taking two pictures one with a
150mm lens on 4x5 and the other with a 300mm lens on 8x10. The
negatives are then enlarged to identical print sizes. The
subject runs from somewhere close to infinity. The cameras are
both focused to the hyperfocal distance and no movements such as
tilt are used. To make comparisons as simple as possible, the
idea is to make the two prints identical as far as DOF. They
both have the same acceptable sharpness from 0.5 * hyperfocal
distance to infinity. (I hope the hyperfocal distance concept
is an acceptable assumption). The point is that you've got to
have the same hyperfocal distance in both camera setups and
the required f/stop for the two cameras will be different.
Now, for the math and formulas. I think the very simplest DOF
formula is for the hyperfocal distance (HYP) in terms of the
lens focal length (FL), the f/stop number (FSN) and the
diameter of the circle of confusion (COC). This formula is
found in many photo texts, such as:
Ansel Adams, The Camera, in the appendix
Leslie Stroebel, View Camera Technique, chapter 8
I don't have the Amphoto book, but if it has formulas it
probably has this one.
HYP = (FL * FL) / (FSN * COC)
So with this formula alone we go back to the example. Let's say
we have the 4x5 set up and have appropriate values for all
the variables above. The real numbers don't really matter, we
just have to figure out the corresponding appropriate values
for the 8x10 camera.
We have:
newFL = 2 * oldFL
the 300mm lens instead of 150mm lens
newCOC = 2 * oldCOC
we only enlarge half as much so we can accept larger COC
newHYP = oldHYP
we have to require the same hyperfocal distance to get the
same DOF in both prints.
Solve the equation:
HYP = (2*FL * 2*FL) / (newFSN * 2*COC)
Rearranging and substituting the 4x5 values we get: -- obviously
there's a factor of 4 in the numerator so we need the same
factor of 4 in the denominator and the fstop is where has to be.
newFSN = 2 * oldFSN
so if the 4x5 used f/16 the 8x10 will have to use f/32 to get
the same DOF. If there's anything I glossed over here to
quickly, please let me know. The conclusion here is that when
you go to larger formats you inherently have less DOF so you
must use smaller fstops -- and the corollary is that if you
need more DOF than you can stop down for, put a wider lens on,
use a smaller part of the negative and enlarge the negative more.
------
Third and final are a few comments. Back awhile you made the
statement:
> Shoot the 150 on the 4x5 and you get twice the DOF that you
> would with a 300mm lens...
Turning this around a little I think you are saying the COC's
on the 300mm lens are twice as big as on the 150mm lens.
Intuitively, it seems that everything gets twice as big on
the negative when you go from 150mm to 300mm. Certainly all
the objects in the image do double in size, but the entirely
non-intuitive result is that "how much out of focus" or a
COC from an out-of-focus point doesn't just double, it quadruples.
(And I am talking about the diameter of the COC, not the area).
This really is very counter-intuitive but the way lenses work
nonetheless. In fact in the DOF mess discussion several months
ago I argued quite a bit with "one of the experts on the
newsgroups" (not any mentioned so far). Anyway after many
exchanges, he finally decided to try the numbers in his
own programs and then agreed.
Hopefully, I've done a better job this time.
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
> The Roland with 6 color technology is $13.995. and the 8 color head
> with variable drop size is around $17,000.
> This is quite a bit ....in fact two to three times the price of the
> Epson.
Woa, there! Let's compare apples to apples...
The Epson is $10 grand, WITHOUT any kind of RIP. If all you ever want to
do is print from Photoshop using Epson's lame driver, so be it. But if you
want to do anything serious, you'll need to add $3k to $5k for a software
or hardware RIP. The Epson-supplied RIP configuration is $14 grand, the
same as the Roland, which INCLUDES a software-based RIP.
It is true that the $14k Epson includes a Fiery hardware RIP, vs the $14k
Roland's software RIP. But keep in mind, you're stuck with that hunk of
metal from Epson, unlike software that is easily upgraded. Plunk that
Roland software on a used $500 PC, and there's little difference, since
the Fiery RIP is about a three-year-old design -- essentially 120MHz
Pentium performance. And tomorrow, I can run the Roland RIP on the latest
but-kick dual processor G4, where you'll still be stuck with your old
Fiery hardware.
> ...When the Fine art world goes this way
> I'll be there for color...
Well, pick up a copy of Digital Fine Art magazine. You'll see that
pigmented giclee is very well received and established. Discriminating art
buyers will pay double for a giclee reproduction over a lithograph these
days, and Graham Nash is reportedly keeping a half-dozen printers busy
WITH PHOTOGRAPHY 24x7.
It's largely a matter of public education and the market you're
addressing. I'll tell you this: when giclee is mainstream, I'll be on to
The Next Thing, because photography is EXTREMELY competitive, and you need
something to differentiate youself BESIDES sheer talent! (Which we all
have, of course! :-)
> ... For the price of one Roland
> Printer I can make several years worth of 40 inch silver prints and
> have the hands on pleasure of doing it the same way I've done it since
> a kid. In recent years I've found that I really like the long hours in
> the darkroom!
Hey, different strokes for different folks! More power to you! Just don't
confuse "I prefer" with "better." There's room for a lot of different
ideas in art, and putting down digital because you "like the long hours in
the darkroom" does all of us a dis-service.
Brian Ellis
the various types of film, color negative would be the last to go. He said
something to the effect that color negative film would soon die because
the digital cameras would keep getting cheaper and cheaper. I pointed out
that, according to a recent note in "Photo Techniques" magazine, the largest
market by far for color negative film (and the largest single market for any
kind of film for that matter) is in disposable cameras (the $10 or so
cardboard kind). So I thought that color negative film would be the last to
go (preceded by transparency and black, and white) because of this huge
amateur market and the extreme unlikelihood that digital cameras will every
be cheaper than disposable ones. I wasn't claiming that color negative film
would be around forever, just that other types of films would go before it
did.
"Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]"
news:Jan-130900...@c248527-c.potlnd1.or.home.com...
> In article <LBTv5.885$JT3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Brian> Here, here! I mean, those gas Nixie( ) displays and their attendent high
> voltage power supplies are expensive enough alone that a digital clock
> will NEVER be cheaper than an analog one! And how do you think they're
> gonna get all that into a wrist-sized package?
>
> Things change...:-)
stephen...@my-deja.com
> a scientist, I have noticed that old technologies may go out of
fashion,
> but they never _die_, and they often get resurrected in surprising
ways. In
> the area of photography, I can mention Lippmann photography (an early
> colour photography technique=, which went out of fashion around 1907
but
> formed the basis of reflection holography from the early 1960's
onwards.
>
Was this the system where the plate was exposed through the base with
the emulsion in contact with a mercury reflector in a leather bag, and
interference patterns were formed through the thickness of the
emulsion, depending on the wavelength of the light? If so, I once saw
an example, very strange, it sounds like the sort of thing which would
be ok in theory, but impossible to get to work in practice, but it did
actually work.
stephen...@my-deja.com
> No, but it is safe to say digital imaging will *supplant*
photochemistry,
> reducing it to a specialty niche player. Supplies and equipment will
be
> harder to obtain, and you won't see thousands of "Nikon vs Canon"
> newsgroup postings. Users will re-focus on art and technique, and
> recognize technology and equipment in its rightful place as a support
> role.
Why, surely the same people will just argue the merits of "Nikon vs
Canon" digital equipment in the same way as they do with the film
version.
Roy Harrington
Brian Ellis wrote:
>
> I have no here near the knowledge (or interest) that others participating in
> this thread have, but when I read the various mathematical formulas, and the
> scientific terminology that I don't understand, I keep thinking about Ansel
> Adams' statements in "The Camera," pp. 48-49, to the effect that three
> factors control depth of field, focal length of lens, distance from subject,
> and aperture. I've seen the same statements in various other places over the
> years. Is this too simplistic, or is it just wrong, or is it true only if
> you remain in the same format?
>
Brian,
I'd agree to Adams' statements and think part of their strength is their
simplicity. I.e. the three factors are exactly what a photographer
could change in order to take his picture. He can change what lens is
on the camera, walk nearer or farther from the subject or vary the
aperture dial on the lens. However if you talk about changing
the film format size, I wouldn't call the DOF statements wrong,
but they do get more complicated. The format size and the lens focal
length are interdependent -- for the same picture you must change the
focal length. If you keep the same focal length you get a different
picture. Another major gotcha is that usually a different size
film will imply a different enlargement to get a "standardized" print.
And finally DOF is based on a subjective "acceptable" sharpness.
When you keep the same format you can ignor most of this nitty
gritty stuff because it cancels out in the formulas, but with
different formats there are probably multiple but different
reasonable assumptions.
I guess what I'm saying is that Adams' statements really apply to
one format at a time. In this branch of the thread I tried to
get across the notion that smaller formats inherently have more
DOF and larger formats inherently have less DOF. Some people
seemed to agree and some seemed to disagree.
Brian Ellis
this thread have, but when I read the various mathematical formulas, and the
scientific terminology that I don't understand, I keep thinking about Ansel
Adams' statements in "The Camera," pp. 48-49, to the effect that three
factors control depth of field, focal length of lens, distance from subject,
and aperture. I've seen the same statements in various other places over the
years. Is this too simplistic, or is it just wrong, or is it true only if
you remain in the same format?
"Roy Harrington" <r...@harrington.com> wrote in message
news:39C3DE9D...@harrington.com...
>
> Chuck,
>
> You've written a good description of the claim you are making, so
> I'll try once more.
>
> First, you may be mixing Resolution with Depth-of-Field. They are
> different, but since you do talk about circle-of-confusion I think
> we agree on what the issue is.
>
> Second is the main issue. This statement is really the source of the
> problem:
>
> > Shoot the 150 on the 4x5 and you get twice the DOF that you
> > would with a 300mm lens...
>
> DOF varies as the SQUARE of the focal length, so shooting with the
> 150 gives you FOUR times the DOF. Check the formulas and text books
> or setup the math yourself.
>
> Your following description of loosing a factor of two when you
> enlarge is correct, so the overall result is twice the DOF by
> using the 150mm on 4x5 instead of the 300mm on 8x10.
>
> C., Downs wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:33:52 -0700, Paul Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >This whole discussion has confused the living bejeebers out of me.
> > >
> >
> > Me too!
> > the real problem is communication and the meanings of what is DOF in
> > relation to the original post.
> >
> > What I'm talking about is maximum resolution { read DOF }in regards
> > to a fixed print size. My premise is that using a 150 lens to achieve
> > a given DOF for 4x5 and then enlarging the 4x5 image to the same size
> > { say 8x10 - the smallest format we will be discussing } will in
> > actuality not give any more image detail { DOF }than shooting a 300 mm
> > lens on the 8x10 and using a contact print off of it to keep all
> > things equal. Ah, Yes the real important factor here...the same f stop
> > is used.
> > {I could be entirely wrong here but if I am we better contact the
> > guv. as millions of dollars are being wasted in large format use for
> > high level surveillance ...my old job. :o)
>
> I'd love to save the guv and therefore all of us the millions of dollars
> but I doubt DOF is their primary interest. :)
>
>
> > or maybe just maybe shed some light on this subject. I'm really
> > looking for Richard or some of the more easily understood folks to
> > jump in here and help but I guess this has been done so many times
> > folks are put off or have lost interest.
> > Sorry I can't help more!
> > Whew,
> > Chuck
>
> I'm sorry I don't have the posting credibility of Richard but I think
> you really need to convince yourself with some more investigation.
> If you are mathematically inclined check out the formulas or better
> yet work them out. If you are more "show me" inclined, try some
> pictures. You mentioned comparing 50mm versus 100mm on 35mm for
> for portraits -- the factor of two here may be hard to recognize due
> to grain and other things. Try 35m versus 4x5 or 8x10, with a factor
> of 4 or more the results will be obvious.
>
Helge Nareid
>As
>> a scientist, I have noticed that old technologies may go out of
>fashion,
>> but they never _die_, and they often get resurrected in surprising
>ways. In
>> the area of photography, I can mention Lippmann photography (an early
>> colour photography technique=, which went out of fashion around 1907
>but
>> formed the basis of reflection holography from the early 1960's
>onwards.
>>
>Was this the system where the plate was exposed through the base with
>the emulsion in contact with a mercury reflector in a leather bag, and
>interference patterns were formed through the thickness of the
>emulsion, depending on the wavelength of the light?
The leather bag is optional and the only vintage Lippmann plate holder I
have actually seen was made of wood with rubber seals, but the mercury
reflector was indeed part of it. The technique is indeed very difficult,
but I have recorded a few Lippmann photographs myself (albeit of pretty
poor quality), and there are a handful of people doing Lippmann
photography even today. One of them, Dr. Hans Bjelkhagen of De Montfort
University in Leicester, has even worked out that the mercury reflector is
actually superfluous, and uses only the reflection at the air/gelatin
interface. His Lippmann photographs are of very high quality.
>If so, I once saw
>an example, very strange, it sounds like the sort of thing which would
>be ok in theory, but impossible to get to work in practice, but it did
>actually work.
It does work, I can assure you - with sunlight exposures in the 1-5 minute
range.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
Joshua L. Wein
-Josh
--
-----------------------------------------
Look for me online using Microsoft MSN Messenger Service
Look for Jaye...@home.com
"Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]"
<J...@Bytesmiths.com.gov> wrote in message
news:Jan-180900...@c248527-c.potlnd1.or.home.com...
Dan Smith, Photographer
"Joshua L. Wein" <Jaye...@Home.Home.com.com> wrote in message
news:ZcFD5.47880$7W2.3...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com...
Pam Niedermayer
vector, or vice versa, or converts one bitmap image representation (such as on
the monitor) to another (such as on an inkjet printer). In an inkjet printing
context, it performs a conversion from CMYK color to the RGB that the printer
uses; and it will convert a vector image (such as that used in pdf, Illustrator,
Freehand, Quark) to a bitmap image suitable for printing.
There would be no RIP involved in printing from a vector image to a laser
printer using a pdl (page description language) such as postscript, as there is
no bitmap involved in the process, at least not directly, not in the interface
between software and printer driver.
Pam
"Joshua L. Wein" wrote:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, what is a RIP?
>
> -Josh
>
>
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
512-236-8143 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
Wein" <Jaye...@Home.Home.com.com> wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance, what is a RIP?
Raster Image Processor -- it's the software (and/or hardware) that takes
an computer file image and turns it into the proper printer dots for a
given resolulion, ink, media, etc.
> "Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]"
> <J...@Bytesmiths.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:Jan-180900...@c248527-c.potlnd1.or.home.com...
> > In article <39c46c7e...@news.mindspring.com>, C. Downs wrote:
> >
> > > The Roland with 6 color technology is $13.995. and the 8 color head
> > > with variable drop size is around $17,000.
> > > This is quite a bit ....in fact two to three times the price of the
> > > Epson.
> >
> > Woa, there! Let's compare apples to apples...
> >
> > The Epson is $10 grand, WITHOUT any kind of RIP... if you
> > want to do anything serious, you'll need to add $3k to $5k for a software
> > or hardware RIP. The Epson-supplied RIP configuration is $14 grand, the
> > same as the Roland, which INCLUDES a software-based RIP.
> >
> > It is true that the $14k Epson includes a Fiery hardware RIP, vs the $14k
> > Roland's software RIP. But keep in mind, you're stuck with that hunk of
> > metal from Epson, unlike software that is easily upgraded... Plunk that
Q.G. de Bakker
> There would be no RIP involved in printing from a vector image to a laser
> printer using a pdl (page description language) such as postscript, as
there is
> no bitmap involved in the process, at least not directly, not in the
interface
> between software and printer driver.
But since a laser printer is a raster output device, a RIP must be involved
somewhere in the process. When using Postscript, the RIP is in the device
(laserprinter), more specifically the device's Postscript interpreter
running in the, hardware, Postscript processor is the RIP.
Peter De Smidt
on an Epson 860 printer using Cone Piezography BW Quadtone (pigment) inks
and driver. The results are stunning. I hate to say it, but I may be
jumping on the digital bandwagon.
Peter De Smidt
c._downs
I have a smaller Dye sub printer but am thinking of moving up to one
of the Epson or Epson clones that are pigment based. { 2000P - 4500P }
My problem so far has been the quality of the B&W pigments.
Since you have been a silver printer how about a description of the
color quality of the B&W pigments. The ones I have seen are a little
too green or brown for my taste so far.