Re: Quality of prints from digital files on photo paper

[Curt Miller <cmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Curt Miller wrote:

 Hi Bill -
 
 I really do have high hopes for digital for the future.  The costs are
 high right now but will come down.  I think digital and silver will be
 parallel media in the future.  What really galls me is the arrogance of
 some of these folks like the rest of us are hiding under a rock.  I live
 with computers by day and have - nearly full-time - for 16 years, doing
 such things as mutivariate simultaneous equations and inferential
 statistics.  I had the head of our computer department the other day say
 "computers will NEVER replace film."  Even I wouldn't say that.
> 
 Quite frankly, unless digital becomes better AND cheaper than silver, I'm
 inclined to spend my nights and weekends bathed in the soft yellow light
 of the darkroom.
 
 Regards,
 Curt
> 
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Bill Glickman wrote:
> 
> > Curt, very well said!....Ditto my thoughts!   I drum scan my 8x10 chromes
> > and I quite often use 1gig files, so I too wonder what all the hoopla over
> > 20MB files is all about?
> > 
> > Bill G
> > 
> > > I think Zonghou is correct in many ways, particularly with regard to image
> > > quality.  And here I'm talking objective quality (what the image
> > > qualities - grain, gradation - are), not subjective(or, how
> > > an image "feels").  I'm a longtime "fine art" photographer, having shot
> > > film for 40 years now and making enlarged prints using traditional
> > > opto-chemical technology.  I have a problem I need to solve digitally:
> > > putting credible copies of my images on my web page.  I'm no luddite but I
> > > am skeptical about substituting digital for anything more demanding than
> > > this project at hand.  So, I went to a digital imaging meeting last night,
> > > hosted by an Apple techno-geek/salesperson.  There were lots of what the
> > > gurus of the medium were calling top quality digital photographs on
> > > display for all to see...
> > >
> > > the stuff was OBJECTIVELY mediocre at best.  To compare this output to
> > > film prints is like comparing a Yugo with a Mercedes.  And, yes, this was
> > > touted by all these folks with their (I won't mention the name of the
> > > national photography organization here) medals dangling from their necks
> > > as being the greatest of the state of the art.  As an economist by day, I
> > > tried to put the digital revolution in its perspective as appropriate for
> > > news and wedding work (with a Phase One equivalent back - very high
> > > quality capture).  For purposes of the 100 roll per year amateur, it makes
> > > no sense and can't be written off on taxes.  But, for me, the stunning
> > > reality was how crude the digital image quality really was. It's really
> > > still in its infancy and far too expensive for the average photographer,
> > > particularly where OBJECTIVE image quality is concerned.  Now, where you
> > > want to talk about Tango drum-scanned 4x5 negatives output to a $300,000
> > > LightJet printer, I agree.  The results may even be said to be better
> > > than can be produced through opto-chemical means. Still, remember, this is
> > > hybrid technology.  While everyone is touting the
> > > quality of output from a 18 MB file from a Nikon D1, I am reminded that my
> > > 8x10 negatives would require a 2 GIGABYTE file to give me the
> > > equivalent to film quality.
> > >
> > > The price/performance ratio of digital imaging compared to film is still
> > > way too high.  It will probably take 5 to 10 years for the curves to
> > > cross.  While the purchaser of $10,000 woth of digital imaging equipment
> > > watches their investment decline to $zero over the next five years, the
> > > Leica buyer can watch that investment remain stable - or even grow.
> > > Doesn't make any sense to me.  But it does make sense for my phot-editor
> > > buddy who shoots 15 rolls of film per day for the newpaper and can write
> > > down the cost of the equipment while saving a ton on film and processing.
> > > We just need to accept the appropriate uses for this stuff and discard the
> > > rest until the technology goes from the equivalent of a Model T Ford to a
> > > year 2000 Taurus.  And the dawn of that day is certainly not upon us.
> > >
> > > Curt
> > > Curt Miller, MPA
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Xiong, Zonghou wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it is important to say the advantages of digital photography are
> > > > digital manipulations on a computer.  You achieve this either by
> > > > film+scanner
> > > > or by a digital camera.  Having seen a few local people struggling
> > selling
> > > > fine
> > > > art photos using digital cameras,  I wouldn't recommend this option.
> > The
> > > > advantage of digital cameras is speed, not image quality. One photo
> > > > journalist
> > > > I met thought everybody was using Nikon D1 at the Olympics.  However,
> > for
> > > > fine
> > > > art prints, a cheap point & shoot plus a consumer scanner would beat D1.
> > > >
> > > > Zonghou Xiong
> > > -
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
>