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
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