BebuLamar

Why inkjet prints are sharper?

srt101fan

I agree wholeheartedly, but please note that in my post I quoted from Jerry's post; he's the one who originated that thought!

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

A good (fine grained) film resolves about the same as a 150MP digital; if medium format (6X6, 6X7) the number of equivalent pixels is even higher (say about 250). Much, much higher if used with a "technical" B&W film. Kodak Technical Pan resolved about 125 - 150 LPM.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Add Acufine developer. It has a very distinctive smell. I still remember mixing it in my Mom’s kitchen sink! If I smell a similar odor, Acufine, circa 1970, comes to mind.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

You "got that right" !!!!!

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

I have also shot film for forty years and digital for about 20 years, since digital first came out. I cannot speak for the consumer market cameras, but the pro digital cameras, like Canon EOS pro digital cameras can CAPTURE an image as good as film transparencies. The trick is in the processing. Where film only had two white balances, daylight and tungsten, digital has an infinite range. And color gamut is a huge variation from computer to computer. Also things like monitors, printers, papers and processing software all effect the output of a digital picture. Matching the color profile of a certain paper to the data going from the computer to the printer will make a mountain of difference. So you need to get all of your ducks in a row.

Getting the picture to look as good as a great lab print from film is an art, just like getting a great print in the lab. Just as much to learn, just different kinds of stuff to learn. Also the price of good monitors like good enlargers and good software like clean chemicals makes a difference, as does a good printer. Cheap printers and cheap paper produce cheap looking results.

I have produced digital prints from digital cameras that were indistinguishable from lab prints, but it ain't easy, in spite of what you will hear others say. So I would tell you if you want professional results, it is just like the old days, spend and learn. The quality of the image sensor in the camera, the quality of the graphics card in the computer and the quality of the monitor and printer, all matter. Best of luck.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Pure Horse Pillocky!

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

To put that in context, recall this was a press camera, not a studio or other view camera. It was hand-held, designed for use with flash, had a "sport finder" for quick framing of action scenes, and you were using what I believe was the kit lens. Reporters and news photographers probably didn't worry a lot about soft corners but getting the main subject in focus for the newspaper. Interesting you mention about the D2 alignment needs. Was this a known problem with this enlarger?

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

You can always pour a bowl next to your computer.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

All of it or part of it? That's a bit dismissive. With what don't you agree?

Do you know anything about medium or large format film? Have you ever used it? Many of us here have used it for years.

Do you have something to add about the question of film vs. digital that has not already been posted here?

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Besides all the other useful feedback, my comment would be....Dispel yourself of the notion that you should be looking at "top" Nikon cameras, or Canons or any other brand. The super-expensive ones do not produce better pictures. The lens produces the picture, and there's a wide gamut of prices for lenses too. Oh, also, YOU produce the picture, by knowing how to manipulate the controls of whatever camera you have, knowing the basics of photography. Which having lots of film-camera experience should hopefully have given you.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I agree.

There is entirely too much emphasis on the technical aspects. All sorts of small format shortcomings can be overcome by using larger formats. Dynamic range can be addressed with HDR. Resolution (both kinds) can be increased with image stitching.

But nothing can make up for a dull subject captured by a photographer with little imagination using the most expensive equipment on the market.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Quality shots with film have more "enlargeablity" than digital files. For example, I've seen excellent 40x60" prints made from 35mm film, using internegatives. Most APS-C and "full frame" digital would struggle to make a print that large. Very high resolution full frame (same image size as most 35mm cameras produced) might manage it... such as Canon's 50MP 5DS models or Nikon and Sony's 46MP models. Medium format digital (Fuji, Leaf/Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax, etc.) can handle ultra large prints, too. Most of those are at least 50MP too, some are as much as 80MP now.

For prints of a bit more reasonable size, "lesser" and more affordable DSLRs and mirrorless can work. So called "APS-C" are mostly between 20MP and 24MP now, and can pretty easily produce images up to 16x24". For 24x36" and a bit larger, a "full frame" sensor camera in the 30MP to 42MP size would be preferable.

There are far more advantages to digital that make them worthwhile... besides the lower cost per image (no film to buy or processing to pay for... but digital isn't "free" as some people think... you still wear out the camera and need to replace it, plus need memory cards and hard drives to capture and store the image files).

With digital you can freely change ISO from shot to shot, if you wish. I.e., you don't have to change to a different roll of film with different ISO rating.

Also, recent DSLR and other larger sensor cameras allow use of ISOs far higher than was ever possible with film. For the last 10 years or so shooting film, I used a lot of Velvia 50, Ektachrome 100 VS and Ektachrome 200. That was the highest ISO slide film I'd use. If I needed faster color film I'd switch to color neg.... but usually no higher than ISO 400. Black and white I shot up to 800. In contrast, even with my earliest 8MP DSLRs I had no problem making quality 8x10 and 11x14 prints from ISO 800....


It's just gotten better with each new generation of cameras. I regularly use ISO 1600, 3200 and even 6400 now.... and with a bit of extra post processing, ISOs unheard of with film such as 8000, 12800....

even ISO 16000!


Try that with film!

The last couple generations of digital cameras have also introduced a new form of auto exposure. Set the camera to Manual mode and enable Auto ISO... you set the aperture and shutter speed, while the camera selects an appropriate ISO (handy, but vastly overused by folks these days, especially when they want to be able to say they're "shooting manual".... they're actually not, Manual + Auto ISO is another form of AE... along with Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority and Program AE). Of course, you can still you strictly manual settings, if you prefer. Generally speaking, the more entry-level/affordable digital cameras are geared more toward automation, less toward advanced users who want to control things themselves.... while more upscale and expensive models tend to have less automation, give more direct access to the various controls that experienced photographers might want to use. Entry level cameras also tend to be more lightly built, more plastic, lower specification shutters, DSLRs using "penta-mirrors" to save cost and weight... etc. Upscale models are typically more robust, have more metal construction, with higher specification and durability rated shutters, added sealing for weather and dust resistance, true pentaprisms that make for bigger, brighter viewfinders, etc.

Digital gives you immediate feedback too.... There's an LCD on the back of the camera where you can review the image immediately after it was taken, too see if you timed the shot and composed it well, check focus, exposure, etc. There's a graphical display of exposure called a "histogram" that's the best way to evaluate exposure accuracy, once you understand and know how to use it. With B&W film I processed myself, I'd have to wait at least some hours to see how I'd done, if I'd gotten all the settings right! Color neg film took as least an hour (when there were 1 hour labs everywhere). Slide film had to be sent of and would take days or weeks. Folks who have never shot film probably don't appreciate how big deal it is to be able to get immediate feedback! Heck, folks using mirrorless cameras or Live View on their DSLRs might even use Exposure Simulation to preview a pretty good idea how their image will look [i]before[i/] they even take it!

With digital you no longer need to reload the camera every 36 (or fewer) shots, like you did with film. The size files the camera produces and the size memory card you purchase to use in it determine how many shots you can take between needing to "reload". (Some people use huge cards that hold thousands of images.... I don't like to "put all my eggs in one basket", so tend to use cards that hold 250 to 500 images, though I have a few larger ones, too.)

And with digital you are no longer "at the mercy" of the film processing lab. With digital you do all your own processing on your own computer (though you can still send out digital files for printing, if you don't want to do it yourself at home). With a good "workflow" set up.... the right software, a reasonably fast computer, a calibrated monitor, and some practice using it all... this is a relatively fast process and pretty fully under your control. I took 2400 images at an event on Sunday Aug. 5, sorted and edited them, and had some up for viewing by Noon the next day, but had gone through them all and produced watermarked proofs of about 1400 "keepers" uploaded into 15 or 16 different online galleries for clients to view by end of day on Wednesday, Aug. 8. Some photographers shoot "tethered" and display images for clients to view within seconds after they were taken (I prefer to cull out bad shots and tweak the keepers a little, before showing them off.)

I shot film for 20 or 25 years (35mm, medium format, 4x5)... Ventured into digital with point n shoots in the late 1990s, but for my "serious stuff", continued shooting film then scanning it to work digitally until 2004. Then I got my first DSLR (Canon 10D) and have hardly shot any film since! I've now used a number of generations of digital cameras: primarily Canon 10D (6MP) > 30D (8MP) > 50D (15MP) > full frame 5D Mark II (21MP) > 7D (18MP) > 7D Mark II (20MP) .... and a few other models less frequently.

"Point n shoot" cameras you mention using mostly have very tiny sensors that seriously limit image quality and more. DSLRs and MILC ("mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras") mostly use APS-C or micro Four/Thirds size sensors, that are much larger and make for much higher quality images at the same time they allow higher ISOs to be used. Some digital use even larger "full frame" (24x36mm, like most 35mm film camera images) or medium format, for even higher IQ and enlargeability.

OTOH, using sub-full-frame sensors makes lenses "act longer" than they did on film cameras. For example, APS-C make a 300mm lens "act like" a 450mm to 500mm lens would on full frame/film. (It's even more extreme on the super tiny sensor point n shoots... Nikon has just intro'd a new model fitted with an approx. 500mm actual focal length lens that "acts like 3000mm"! There have been others with "1500mm" and "2000mm" equivalent.) The advantage of this "lens factor" is that you get "a lot more" out of moderate size/weight/cost telephotos. For example, a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens on an APS-C camera "becomes" a fast, short telephoto... a great portrait lens.

The disadvantage is that on APS-C and smaller format sensor cameras, wide angle lenses are "no longer very wide". Lens manufacturers have stepped up, though. There are now a lot of excellent zooms made especially for "crop sensor cameras", with focal lengths as short as 12mm, 11mm, 10mm and even 8mm, that aren't fisheye lenses. There also are fairly compact macro, mid-range and short telephoto "crop sensor" lenses. So-called "mirrorless" cameras take this even farther, the APS-C and m4/3 bodies and lenses made for them are even smaller and lighter than comparable DSLRs.

And, very few filters are needed for digital. You can set the camera's "White Balance" to accommodate almost any type of lighting... Even a very precise "Custom WB" can be set, by simply taking a "sample shot" of a plain white or neutral gray or black target. Lightly tinted targets (Warm Cards) can be used instead of warming filters. And digital is generally not overly sensitive to UV, the way film is.... so that type filter isn't needed. Special effects can mostly be done with software, too. Graduated ND filters can be replaced by taking two shots at different exposure settings, then combining them in post production (or by double processing a single image).

Even filter effects for black and white images can be applied digitally.... either in the camera or later in post-processing, with greater precision and control than was ever possible with filters for B&W.

The single most useful filter with digital is a Circular Polarizer. More specialized, but possibly useful are fairly strong Neutral Density (to allow long exposures and/or large apertures be used in brighter light). Some people like to put a UV or clear filter on their lens to "protect" it, too.

Where I used to carry roughly 40 different types of filters for film (in several sizes, too)... I now usually only carry three types (in four different sizes.... tho I do have a few specialized portrait filters, I don't use them much or regularly carry them).

So there are a lot of reasons to jump onto the digital band wagon. Most film shooters are more than happy with it and digital can be as good, better or even a whole lot better than film for most things.

If you still have some Nikon-mount lenses, you might be able to use them on a modern DSLR. Current Nikon can still accommodate most (check the compatibility charts on the Nikon website, as well as Nikonians.org). Current Nikon D3000-series and D5000-series cameras cannot autofocus some of the earlier forms of AF used on Nikkors... But D7000-series and higher models can. Or, if your Nikon mount lenses are manual focus and have a manual aperture control ring (i.e., aren't "G" type or some of the E type).... they also can be easily adapted to use on either Canon or Sony DSLRs and MILC.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I think mostly because of the extremely small droplet size some inkjet printers are capable of, just a few billionths of a milliliter.

My commercial printer had a big LightJet printer, probably the best enlarging system made, that he used to print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I always loved those prints. A few years ago he switched to a large (44 inch?) commercial Epson inkjet printer that he said was better than the LightJet. I didn't believe it until he showed me a comparison of two prints from the same file, one printed with the LightJet and one printed with the Epson. When comparing the extremely fine lines on the prints, the inkjet print was noticeably better. I think his printer prints at about 2880 x 1440 dpi with 3.5 picoliter droplets. I have always believed that with standard prints, at a microscopic or even atomic level, there is some bouncing around of light at the paper surface which could inhibit some sharpness, or maybe the optics of the projection systems just aren't capable of matching that level of detail.

Interestingly, moderately priced Epson home printers have even higher specs, at least 5760 x 1440 dpi with 1.5 picoliter droplets, just a little over one billionth of a milliliter.

BebuLamar

An inkjet printer with resolution of 5700x1440 and 4 inks can't really do better than around 300 ppi.