So you think and have seen that for intance images about 50x70cm made using Canon 1Ds are sharper that those made of slides or enlargers?My friend use also his Nikkor na Pentax 67 through some adapter what allows him to make really big ones. And based on your experience one can have more than 1x1m pictures obtained with 1Ds with very good sharpness? What about for instance Canon 10D, Nikon D100 etc. Is 20x30cm better than from negative or scanned on drum or at least Nikon Coolscan 8000 scanner in terms of sharpness etc? What max enlargements have you done from 6M pixels cameras of very good quality? Sorry for many questions but if it is your everyday work you have better experience. Thanks in advance Alek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester
> i have seen exhibition prints from a Canon 1-Ds quite a bit larger than 50x70cm, almost double the dimensions. no pixellation visible or any of the ordinary digital artifacts from using JPEG files or anything like that. that's easily handled by shooting in raw mode and rezing up in Photoshop. some color noise was visible but less than using typical print film. even that could have been reduced a lot by a color noise filter in Photoshop. a 4000 dpi scan is only 24 megapixels and most of what i see at 400dpi from scanning Provia and Velvia is film grain. > > apparent sharpness, just from looking and not measuring, is higher on all of the digital cameras i have worked with, than their resolution implies, while staring at 4000dpi scans of Provia 100F all the time has me convinced that apparent sharpness of film is less than the measured sharpness. at least on 11x14 prints, 10 megapixels looks sharper than a 4000 dpi scan on Provia 100F. i don't shoot a lot of Velvia and haven't done any macro shots where i can compare 10 megapixel digital camera images. where i have compared is on landscapes. leaves in the middle distance appear more sharply defined in the digital versions than the film versions. > > incidentally, Dave asked how long it would take to pay for a $1500 DSLR. it costs me about $15 each to buy and process a roll of Provia 100F. 100 rolls of film lasts me 6-8 months. i print about 1% of my images. i scan 25% or so of my slides and net about 15-20% into my stock pile. this ignores my digital camera shots which add up to about 40% of my film total. the digital shots are about 1/4 recording shots not duplicated on film, 1/4 panoramas meant to be digitally stitched, and the remainder backup shots of what i shoot on film. if i went completely digital for my editorial stock, which i could do with the *ist-D, i could easily pay for the camera, spare batteries, and a couple of memory cards in less than a year in saved processing. i shoot less than 1/3 what is typical for a full time editorial stock photographer. a busy one would be able to save the cost of a Canon 1-Ds in well under a year. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alek Kozak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 04:35 > Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > > > > But I have seen photos taking with Nikkor 105/2.8 micro lens about 50x70cm > > made using enlarger and wonder if you could receive such format of the same > > quality based on your even Canon 1Ds. In Cracow there is an exebition of > > photos of French who used Canon 1n with L lenses and shot Velvia and then > > made photos in size higher than 2x2 meters and of course there is some > > unsharpness but when you come close. > > Cheers > > Alek > > > >
