DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax ND

Dear Michael,

Thank you for sending the digital prints for me to look at.

I have to say that first impressions were very favourable. You must be commended on the quality of your work and of your eye for composition.

On looking at the photographs initially I found that both the Chevvy & Flag at Parade photos leapt out as being obvious digital images. There is a plastic, sterile feel about the vehicle’s paintwork and nothing in the whole image strikes me as being particularly sharp. The blown up version displays zig-zags between the door and body which is typical of digital images. In respect of the vehicle body I have an image of poppies taken using a Pentax Optio 330 GS digital camera last month which has a similar ‘blocked out’ effect of the red. At first I thought it was just the LCD screen that was failing to display tonal differences, but on transferring the image to my PC I still found a total red block. Perhaps this lack of tonal nuance is a trait of digital cameras?

Going through them carefully using a loupe I found that in the above photos and in particular the Paul Forgey, Horses & Rooster Still Life, Michael Hahn with Postcards and the Janet Hahn photographs there is grain, noise or whatever you want to call it obvious in all areas which detracts from the quality of the images. This grain means that the fine detail of skin, hair and cloth is lost beneath the weave of the inkjets. For ex&le the glazed white area of your still life should have absolutely no detail showing yet it has as much detail as some of the textured surfaces. You may think that using a loupe is strange yet we met on a Zeiss forum, and most people who graduate to Zeiss glass do so for ultimate image quality. I did!

Recently I had a 35mm slide taken on a Contax G2 & Sonnar 90mm lens printed up using professional digital image technology. To say that I was disappointed with the result is an understatement. The print bears no resemblance to Cibachromes and actually appears to be a digitally captured image. More and more processors are using this type of printing and I believe that the expectations of photographers are being eroded to the point where inferior prints are being accepted as the norm.

To test this theory I scanned a slide into Adobe at a file size of 6" x 9" @ 1850 ppi then made two images from half size crops – one at 600 ppi and one at 300 ppi. I printed both at full size ( 4 1/2" x 6") onto Epson photo quality paper using an Epson Photo 700 printer at best quality. The detail in the skin of the subject that is clearly visible on the lightbox and even on screen when enlarged is sw&ed by the inkjet pattern and there is no discernible difference in the printed images. In contrast a Cibachrome of the same slide shows every pore, hair and clothing texture. I also have a 9" x 6" print taken on an old Olympus XA compact of a fishing scene where by you can actually see the knit of the angler’s cardigan and the freckles on his head even though he takes up no more than 10% of the image area. I will forward these images to you for your consideration.

An editor of a popular British photo magazine states that his Canon digital SLR produces A3 images equal to an inkjet print from any film camera. But that is not the same as saying that his digital prints are equal to a proper photograph is it? During the course of this debate I made the assertion that any compact camera would produce a better image than any digital camera. I stand by that opinion provided that the film image was printed using conventional ‘wet’ methods. I hope that the prints that I shall forward to you will show why I hold that opinion. Perhaps you have some old prints of your own that you may want to closely examine? I am sure that if you did you would see the difference.

I will also include a copy of Practical Photography that includes an article where three photographers have taken similar shots on film to the Pro’ who used a digital Canon. I think that the photographs illustrate my point about digital images being plainly obvious in magazines.

When affordable digital cameras get to around 10 megapixels or more and when each pixel accurately records all the colour spectrum, and when the issues relating to processing speed are addressed, and when the medium for printing these images is equal to the quality of those images, then I shall convert entirely to digital. At the moment the only cameras with anything like adequate resolution have CCDs that only record 1 of the 3 primary colours per pixel. The only camera that has a CCD that records all three colours per pixel has inadequate resolution. Put the two together on a full size chip and with a faster processor and decent printer and my RTSiii, G2 and Mamiya RB67 will be history.

Thank you once again for sending the prints to me. I shall return them as soon as possible. Once I have received a couple of Cibachromes taken from slides from my little XA I shall mail them back to you.

Best wishes,

Clive
 
Clive,

I am forwarding our correspondence to the users group for their comments. I simply don't agree with your analysis of the prints. Look at the "Michael with Postcards", the detail is easily equal to or exceeds the of most 35 mm prints!

I think that you are up against the wall and are trying to defend an absurd claim of the $70.00 compact vs the Digital cameras. What really irritates me is that your website is partially based on what you claim to be an analysis of my prints! What you are seeing is not what I am seeing ... and really the only "fair" comparison would be to place the digital prints next to your "compact camera" or any 35 mm camera's prints for an analysis by several people ... not just an analysis by either you or by me ... who obviously are at oppositie ends in our opinions.

Another HUGE error in your argutment is that while you state no digital camera is equal to a $70.00 35 compact, you go on and on about the lack of quality of the inkjet printers! Is your argument with the camera or the printers? I used the Epson 2200 which has received numerous rave reviews. I know ... all the "experts" and "analysis" of that printer are incorrect and your OPINION is of course correct. Hmmm.

And I am still waiting on an answer on my cibichrome questions. Costs? Realistic likely hood of photographers using them for every shot? Etc.

Your site idea is a good one ... unfortunately, the content needs to be corrected!

michael.

Please note: The name of the site Clive is writing to support his "absurd" claim has been withheld only since Clive has indicated that it is "under constuction" ... but he may want to release the address to this users group!

And ... please know that while I humour Clive's opinions ... I also respect them.

michael.
 
You both hit on two important points. The difference between hailod and digital imaging. First, fine art and hobby photographers will always shoot on some type of film stock. The need to preserve the tonality and quality just isn't there in the digital domain, yet. There is also the problem of obsolesce with digital formats. In the area of recording events, digital has the ability of seeing the captured image immediately. If all you want is to snap a photo of bobby's second birthday, digital is fine, same goes for the trip to wherever, because there isn't the dynamic need for absolute quality. finally, In the next few years this gap will widen to the point where many of us will own two different systems for two entirely different needs.
 
> Phil,

Ok, apparently, you agree with Clive. However; I have seen some very beautiful "fine art" digital photographs. The quality is there. If my prints really do lack "the sharpness detail" that Clive insist is missing, ok ... but I have also seen other photographers work where the prints are stunning!

michael.
 
Hi, I neither agree or disagree, since I haven't seen the results. However I have some 35 years of professional experience in photography, cinematography and Broadcast imagery and am involved in very high end imaging. I simply wanted to point out the divergence of the two media. Both are good, both serve different purposes. I've seen digital dye sub images that would blow one's socks off and 8X10 contact prints that looked like doggie doo. The point isn't superiority, rather applicability. just like when I golf, I carry 9 clubs because each tool has it's purpose. Just for the record I use BOTH technologies almost daily. Glad to have the opportunity to express my opinion.thanks.
 
> Great point Phil. That is one great thing about having available film and digital. You can use the right tool to achieve the right product!

Thanks,

michael.
 
> Ok, apparently, you agree with Clive. However; I have seen some very > beautiful "fine art" digital photographs. The quality is there. If my > prints really do lack "the sharpness detail" that Clive insist is > missing, ok ... but I have also seen other photographers work where > the prints are stunning!

Michael,

I have not seen your images. I would like to though. I scan B&W film using a Leafscan 45 (which scans in grayscale, NOT RGB) and I print on an Epson 3000 using quad-tone inks. The output is BETTER than any chemical print you can make, period. It has better tonality, and better resolution, so the prining systems ARE there, though they aren't for the "common folks" yet, as film scanning can very well be an art (as is getting the image on the film, and developing it as well SMILEY FACE GOES HERE BUT WAS REMOVED BECAUSE THIS LIST REJECTS POSTS WITH SMILEY FACES. I can easily print 24" x 24" images from 120, and 13" x 19" images from 35mm.

I have digital cameras that would shame ANY 35mm film camera. One is 7k x 7k full color. It's a scanning back for a Hasselblad though, but the point is, there is absolutely, unquestionably, no 35mm film camera that can touch it for resolution and color fidelity.

Having designed digital imaging equipment for some 25 years, and having used high end film cameras for the same amount of time, I can say that I know you can get great images from a 6M pixel Bayer pattern digicam, and that no film camera will give you a better image up to a certain point. What that point is, depends on the image, and the size of the enlargement, the digicam, lense and film, development etc. I'd say that point for a Contax N Digital is about 5x7+. For the new crop of 11M/14M pixel cameras, that is 8x10+. There are limits of resolution that more will not give you better results. Also, the processing of the digital images weighs heavily on the output quality, as it also does for film processing/printing.

Also, I find the "loupe" argument rather absurd. The image is the image, and what the impact of it is (how "successful" it is) is going to be different to different people. If someone wants to "grain sniff", then so be it, but that does not diminish the success of the image to others. I don't know many people who go around with a loupe to museums and photo exhibits to look at images, and base their opinion of the image on their examination of minute detail in the image. If you can't see it from a reasonable viewing distance, than to me, it's a so what.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin,

Thanks for your comments. I am very glad that you picked up on the loupe question. My photo class taught me to keep in perspective the viewing distance relative to the print size. When you print an 7.5 by 11 the viewing distance is 18 to 30 inches. While I can appreciate getting up close to the print to check for blemishes, or problems, I think it becomes "outside of the norm" to start inspecting the image with a magnifying glass (err.. loupe!).

Michael.
 
I agree with Austin. I also use both digital and film. This discussion has centered around viewed prints. No one I know examines prints with a loop...even critics. Most prints are mounted behind glass and are viewed from a reasonable distance. I'd hazard a guess that few if any could tell the difference in the real world.

Prints that display a digital characteristic usually do so because of the skill of the person doing the prep and printing.
If you spent as much time in a darkroom and at the lab as I have, you know what a print should look like and you avoid the so called digital look by developing new skills.

There is a reason digital has made such huge strides...and it isn't because of art prints or any other wall hanging image. Viewed prints make up a tiny % of the imagery seen everyday. Most are printed on the page. And all printing these days is done digitally. Shoot film and it HAS to be brought into the digital domain...at a huge cost for film, processing, scanning and post work. That fact is the great equalizer. That some printed pages feature images that look digital to the trained eye is because the communications industry doesn't have all this technology down pat yet . Most of you don't know what a long drawn out nightmare of a process that getting an image to the page once was....and that was after a century of practice. So, let's give digital it's due.

BTW, I use a Canon 1Ds and you can make a photo-realistic print larger than 8X10 from it.
 
>Posted by Andy Bennetts on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 10:05 am: > >I'm glad to see so many smily faces about the results they are getting >from their N Digital. The camera does produce superb results, but you >have to work at it. > >Have fun, > >Andy

Actually it would appear that it takes as much work deleting un-related messages as it would require to use the camera.

"You have to work at it."

I still continue to get messages on this topic even though I have changed my profile, as indicated below, to not receive Contax SLR N-System messages.

Apparently the profile editor doesn't understand or doesn't respond. It seems this specific subject is not on the list of items you can de-select in the profile setup.
 
Back
Top