Adobe Photoshop Training with Dan Margulis

I've read the many comments on proper photography and scanning. Since some of this group include people who either own or work for service bureaus, you may be interested in another viewpoint that directly affects your business.

In dealing exclusively with the color correcting of fine art (which is a whole new world) I've had a devil of a time trying to find anyone who does decent 8 x 10 color transparencies, and an equally difficult time finding anyone who can do a proper scan. Sure, go to a professional lab. Go to a lab that large companies use. Etc. I have.

I've also gone to places where most of the work is done by the owner who is the only one in the place with the required skills. I've yet to find a place that does consistently decent work. The transparencies are either washed out, excessively dark, or more usually contain creative new color schemes. The scans have ranged from some that were almost black to some that were too washed out to contain any detail. Let's not even talk about moires. The last place gave me a strongly worded lecture about how there were no moires in the scan, that it was just a function of my monitor screen or something of the sort. All I had to do was look at the image at 100% and all would be well. It wasn't well and the initial printing looked like an image with a coarse weave intermingled with checkerboard patterns.

Fortunately Dan wrote Professional Photoshop. The moires could be touched out with careful blurring of individual channels and the remarkable new colors could be changed back to the original colors and to the original color intensity by applying channel blending (and masking) with the aid of Apply Image. So much for using proper photographic exposures and proper scans to save time working in Photoshop.

So how does this affect you if you work with a service bureau? Simple. First I got a Nikon 8000 film scanner and found that I could do better with a 35 mm transparency properly exposed than with an 8 x 10 transparency that required a major overhaul in Photoshop. Instead of scans whose histograms occupy only the shadow or the highlight end, I get scans that contain a reasonably complete range of values. So I can't do larger pieces with 35mm? Right. That's why I'm going to invest in a top quality 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 medium format camera (the Nikon handles this size). As the last service bureau's owner said, it's hard work learning how to use a film scanner properly. And it's even harder to learn how to do good photography. But it's a whole lot harder having to work extra hours seven days a week trying to work around other people's inadequacies.

Please try to avoid scathing comments in reply. Just like all of you, my primary goal is to be able to make a living doing work I enjoy. If you can overlook my aggravation and offer some suggestions for finding a place that does quality work in lieu of talking about how good they are, I will certainly appreciate it. Scanning and photography are not my first loves.

Howard

_______________________________________________________________________

I don't understand why you cannot get a properly exposed 8" x 10" trany, when you can get a properly exposed 35mm trany.

With respect to repoducing art, have you considered using a high end digital camera rather then going through film and a scanner? There are a number of digital cameras that will give you better results than 2 1/4" film.

Ray

Creo

Ray Maxwell | Senior Color Systems Engineer, Inkjet Printing

4225 Kincaid Street | Phone (604) 451-2700 ext. 2004

Burnaby, B.C.

Canada V5G 4P5

IMAGINE CREATE BELIEVE

_______________________________________________________________________

Howard:

Why not consider going directly to a digital camera. There are 35mm DSLR's that now rival or exceed medium format film "Hasseys".

There are now available digital backs for the "Hasseys" in medium format.

This eliminates one step in the reproduction process where detail and color are lost. Direct digital gives you a file that is ready for PS and minor corrections. (NO DUST AND SCRATCHES TO CONTEND WITH - NO FILM SCANNER EITHER)

With the new digital cameras, custom white balance is easy and a near perfect photo is attainable. This requires proper profiling of the camera, computer monitor and printer if you are going that far. At the least, proper monitor profiling is a must.

I routinely print 12 x 18's direct out of my Fuji S2 35mm DSLR. 24 x 30 is no problem either.

Michael Demyan

Photography & Digital Graphic Design

http://www.mikedemyan.com

http://www.upbeat.com/pc-setup

http://www.pbase.com/mdemyan

_______________________________________________________________________

Thanks for your comments, Ray. Your interest is certainly appreciated. It might or might not be possible for me to get a properly exposed 8" x 10". Don't know as I've never had any real interest in pursuing the use of the larger format cameras. My problem is that I do have a 35 mm camera but must depend on others for anything of a larger format. When I have problems, I can keep repeating the process until I get it right. When someone else is doing it, it's a real problem because the good photographers have a way of leaving their employers just when we understand one another's needs. Scans are less of a problem when I can do them myself, but without a medium format camera there's no choice. It's a commercial shop or nothing.

The digital camera is an excellent suggestion, but it brings back memories of considering buying one of the $30,000 models a couple of years ago--one of those supplanted by considerably more superior models at a fraction of the price. It would be painful to pay $5000 for a 12 meg model now when next year will no doubt

I see the introduction of a $2000, 25 meg model. The alternative of buying a medium format camera is that I can indulge my fantasy of being a nature photographer while having something useful for producing large enough transparencies for good scans. Film cameras are not as likely to drop in price as will be the case with the digital cameras. By the way, one of the best service providers I have worked with recently went out business (bankrupt). His people made excellent use of a digital camera for producing my scans.

Howard

_______________________________________________________________________

Whether or not a newer, cheaper, or even better back comes along a year from now has nothing to do with securing an imaging solution that truly meets your needs now. Digital imaging will always continue to improve and become less expensive - that is not a reason to use something today that produces the results that one needs at a pricepoint that delivers a solid ROI.

Confusing a "nature fantasy" with specific business requirements is probably not the most sensible method of choosing an imaging solution. You're right - plunking down $5 - $30k is serious business. As many can attest here, a digital back gives you grain free images with dead-on color accuracy (with a little practice) without the hassles of film, scanning, and numerous trips to those vendors. You may want to rethink your real needs - whether business or otherwise.

=====

Stuart Simons

Commercial Photography, Illustration, & Digital Imaging

Studio - 914.764.9424

Fax - 914.764.9433 Cell - 914.643.2292

http://www.stuartsimons.com

_______________________________________________________________________

Howard,

I agree, this shouldn't be so hard.

What are you using the 8x10 for ??? This is fine if you need huge mural size outputs but for most other sizes its overkill.

Here's 2 suggestions:

1)-- to reduce moiré have the scans oil mounted.

2)-- have the photographer include color control patches.

Other suggestions:

Unless I was in a city that had a large advertising and fashion market I wouldn't expect to find labs that routinely process large format transparencies. In my area (southeastern PA) I have 3 labs that do this and all are assuming the market will end soon.

For fine art photography I'd look for a photographer rather than take this on yourself. Assuming the images are used in fine art publishing at a variety of sizes I'd ask the photographer for digital files (from a 2-1/4 camera if I had a say in it).

And if you want to take this on yourself, a camera with a digital back would fit both your needs.

Lee

_______________________________________________________________________

Howard, you are correct. Limited edition work from 8x10's is a pain. Yet, for many many years was the only way to go, and is still a viable and proven method for limited edition art reproduction. The size format is a necessity for the reproduction sizes of artwork, to be able to carry the detail from the original art. A limited number of labs can shoot and process 8x10's, the cost is high, the time is long. I don't know that we ever got one back that really matched the original or was shot "square." Correction time for scans from these 8x10's was up there. It would take about 3 to 4 hours to color correct, clean up, and build the spot channels.

We did enough artwork reproduction, that finally about 4 years ago we made the decision to go digital, and made a substantial investment in a Betterlight 4x5 scan back, and HMI lighting. We stepped into a whole new world. Set-up and image captures in under 30 minutes. Resolution exceeds that of scanned film, No trash clean up required... and color correction times down to 15 minutes or less. We are capable, and do regularly produce limited edition artwork for artists in less than 8 hours, printed cut and out the door. That includes showing one or two rounds of either Epson, or Indigo proofs, and some Photoshop tweaking, which in many instances is not required at all. I realize that someone would need to do enough of this to justify the digital investment, but there is no other way to do it right.

I question the size limitations that using 35mm would impose for final reproduction. Although you can scan up as many thousand percents as you want, a 35mm just want support much decent resolution over 1500% and that's pushing it. In my opinion, I'd stick with the 8x10's, or pay someone to do a capture for you.

John Rawlins

_______________________________________________________________________

Oil mounting has no bearing on Moiré patterns, it only eliminates Newton's rings !!

Regards

Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Rd, Ketley, Telford, Shropshire. England .TF1 5DJ

44 (0) 1952 618986. www.infocus-photography.co.uk

_______________________________________________________________________

John,

Thank you for the excellent suggestion. Hadn't considered using a digital back for a medium format camera. I'll definitely have to look into this, unless those digital backs rival the costs of current top of the line digital cameras.

The 35 mm scans work well for inkjet printing, but probably wouldn't be as good for offset lithography.

The Nikon scanner wrings every pixel out of the film, leaving the major limitation that of the amount of detail that can be captured in the first place. It takes some pretty careful focusing and repeated shots, re-focusing each time in the hopes that one will be better than the others. Images up to 18" x 24" are excellent in quality, but it gets trickier when you go up to 20" x 30". Depending upon the critical detail in the subject matter, the final printed images may or may not be good enough. With any affordable film scanner other than the Nikon 8000 it is unlikely that this would work. From what I understand, this model get maximum information from film.

Howard Smith

_______________________________________________________________________

Lee

I really wasn't expecting so much really useful advice, but all of it is appreciated. I've often suspected that the medical profession would benefit greatly from a discussion group like this. One doctor might be totally familiar with a set of symptoms that baffle others. But doctors will have to fend for themselves. We've got more important things to talk about...

Actually, I've had professional photographers in several cities do work for me. Some are very good, others obviously don't enjoy their work. The major advantage in doing it yourself is that you have no excuses if things don't work, so you just have to buckle down and figure out what went wrong.

You're no doubt right about the 8 x 10 being overkill. Somehow, back when I was depending on others to do my thinking for me someone said that commercial printers need 8 x 10's for reproduction of fine art. It does look now like they're only necessary for billboards and for people who have been told that 8 x 10's are the only way to go.

Several folks have suggested digital photography. As mentioned earlier I've held off until resolution is near that of film and prices are closer to that of desktop computers. Maybe a digital back really is the best solution.

Color control patches are almost always included with the transparencies I get, but they aren't all that useful.

Every time I fall back on Dan's approach. I don't know if he ignores control patches or not, but his use of curves and channel blending always get the job done. Not without some effort, sometimes a lot of effort. When a color originates on an artist's palette, passes through the photographic and scanning processes, and ends up in the form of numbers, it's sometimes quite a hassle to correct one without having the others scatter like a covey of startled quail. Surely photographs aren't that difficult to work with, but they probably are.

If this profession wasn't so much fun it could be a lot of work.

Howard Smith

_______________________________________________________________________

Michael,

I agree. But newton rings seemed like what he might be seeing, especially on an 8x10 piece of film.

Lee

_______________________________________________________________________

They more than rival the price. A good scanning back can be quite dear and you will need good lighting (like scandles or HMI).

If you are doing a large quantity - go for it. Elsewise pay someone to do it. Expect to pay for good work.

PhaseOne is one maker, I believe Imacon also makes one. Then there is the camera body to purchase as well. Try B&H photo to get pricing - they carry most of it.

Regards,

Loring Palleske

Creative Imaging

1.877.279.2441

905.666.6647

_______________________________________________________________________

on 5/29/03 6:59 AM, Loring Palleske wrote:

Imacon (and PhaseOne) make multishot backs so strobe is OK but there is a delay in time as the back is moved. Phase and Betterlight make true scanning cameras that fit on 4x5 bodies. These are the real 3scanners on a stick2 (trilinear CCD1s). The multishot backs do make a nice file but not as big as say the top of the line Betterlights. There1s a trade off in speed and ability to use something like strobes to light verses file size. The Betterlight product is excellent.

Andrew Rodney

_______________________________________________________________________

Dear Howard

OK I will take the bait!

Right...the first point is that photographing fine art (paintings) is specialised work if the best results are to be obtained. Why someone who operates a large format camera cannot produce a first rate and well exposed transparency suggests a low level of competence .....better to find a competent photographer.

Point two is more understandable because the folk who generally have the drum scanning kit are the pre-press houses and they are not geared to producing the sort of results many photographers seek, and they are often stuck in their own world of CMYK scanning and output for print. You will want to start with an RGB scan in a genuine wide colour space, with no USM to get in the way of your work. This is why we offer our own drum scanning facilities to other photographers and designers.

If you are prepared to pay a fair price for your work you should surely get a reasonable job from a well set up outfit, and that includes consistent work. No point having good results one day and not the next....suggests something amiss in the way they work.

Crazy!

Absolute nonsense to get work like that!

Even drum scanners can exhibit a fault, its up to the scanning operator to thoroughly check every scan and not let out faulty work. We run a pair of matched and profiled drum scanners and if one has a problem can move the work across to the second one.

Whilst Dan can help you put some things right, I am sure he will agree that if your start point is a competently shot transparency, then it's far better and very likely far cheaper to have a scan that is not needing remedial work to make it usable!

Good drum scans from good originals should match and you should never have to patch up a faulty scan....throw it back and demand your money back and don't bother using them again! More time available to find a good place!

Its a shame when you have to resort to this for capturing quality images of pictures. A camera with movements is far more suitable than one without, and I suggest that if you do not want to use the best scan backs then you are better off with large format film correctly scanned. Don't compare film scanned with a CCD scanner to film scanned in a drum scanner profiled to get the best from it and well operated!

OK I have spent a lot of time photographing important fine art and do know what its all about, right down to altering the contrast of the film with flashing appropriate to the subject being photographed, hand colour retouching on large format film, in house processing the film and now we are drum scanning. I think I can safely say I do understand your problems and requirements.

Hope the above gives you some hope in your quest for competent help, if you wish feel free to contact me off list to talk over your problems.

Best of luck

Richard Kenward

_______________________________________________________________________

John Wrote:

Right! Digital capture can't save a bad photographer, but good ones are increasingly hard to find.

I've been photographing fine art for most of my adult life. If you can't square up a camera to shoot an 8x10 trans, you certainly can't do it with a digital setup either. Focusing for digital captures is demonstrably more critical than for film and so is the lighting. Color matching is a little bit easier than for film with a drum scan. There's certainly no dust or grain with digital, but isn't that one reason why we shoot large format anyway?

We invested in a BetterLight 8k Pro back last year, and while I can easily sing praises about all the advantages of shooting direct digital capture, I still find myself going back to 8x10 film with polarized light and drum scans to get the best capture for a great many images.

Good digital is as demanding as good film capture and in many ways more difficult. The real problem is finding people who know what they're doing or who even care. Or maybe people can't afford to care at the prices we're forced to compete with when the new standard is "just throw it on a big flat bed and hit the auto-scan button".

john castronovo

tech photo & imaging

_______________________________________________________________________

LIke John I have been photographing fine Art for all of my working life having worked in two major Australian Art Museums I use a PhaseOne Fx with North-Light florescent lighting and have shoot everything from old master oils,prints, drawings and watercolours to large contemporary paintings and installation work . When it is necessary to use Polarising filters on both lights and lens the digital scan offers so much more than film. A correctly profiled digital capture solves all of the problems of polarising with film i.e. bad colour, massive contrast buildup, no shadow detail etc. I know all of these issues are correctable to a point with film and drum scanning but just so much easier with digital. You know if you have got the image you require no waiting for labs and Pre press houses to finish with your image . if you need it you have an approximately 380 MB file good enough for most uses.Don't really want to make the shift back to film.

One added advantage of digital over film is as an infrared capture back to allow the investigation of under-drawing and changes in paintings that are not seen when viewed under normal gallery type illumination.Scan backs capture out to approximately 1200 nanometers well past the 900 limit of film( not strictly to do with colour theory but interesting any one interested in this please feel free to contact me off list) Digital focusing is also so much more accurate with this type of capture

Garry Sommerfeld

_______________________________________________________________________

From: Howard Smith

I wouldn't bet on that! I predict that price-performance parity between 35mm film and digital will happen within 18-36 months. At that point, I expect prices of most film cameras (except "collectables") to crash -- you'll hardly be able to give them away. Medium format will follow within 3 more years.

If you are committed to MF and for some reason I don't understand, are concerned with deflation, I'd recommend spending a bit more to get one with "collectable" status.

But really, the obsession with price is not particularly useful. Get something that will meet your needs for a reasonable period of time, and pay no attention to falling prices. Count on EVERYTHING that is high-tech deflating! It's simply part of the technology adoption life-cycle.

It would seem you've gotten over buying a computer and having it be obsolete and overpriced in a few months, so why should you feel different about photography? For one thing, a few-year-old computer is probably still doing the job you bought it for -- the same will be true if you invest in a digicam.

To summarize: if you have a compelling need, buy something according to the value it provides you, without regard to future prices. (Geoffrey Moore* would call you a "gazelle".) If you don't have a compelling need, sit on the fence and wait for prices to stabilize, then buy whatever everyone else buys. (Geoffrey Moore's "lemmings.")

--------

* from "Crossing the Chasm" and "Taming the Tornado". Geoffrey Moore is a leading author/expert on what he calls the "technology adoption life-cycle." Good reading for techno-nerds!

--

: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http: //www.Bytesmiths.com>

_______________________________________________________________________

From: "Michael C. Demyan"

This opinion is not unchallenged. Most objective comparisons I've seen show the newest digital/SLR hybrids as attaining performance parity with better 35mm film, but not with medium format for perhaps 2-3 more years.

This is not to say that the other 35mm digital/SLR hybrid advantages you cite may not make it more attractive than MF, but as far as objective quality comparisons, it ain't quite there yet.

--

: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http: //www.Bytesmiths.com>

_______________________________________________________________________

Jan writes,

I certainly wouldn't expect any sort of major price drop for film cameras, probably the opposite. What has been happening, and what will happen, parallels closely the digital revolution in music of the 1980s. CDs did not suddenly one day replace LPs, in fact a sizable number of folks thought the LPs sounded better, and God knows they had better liner notes. But, as time went on, as digital prices came down, more and more people shifted, to the point that it became difficult for the LP aficionado to feed his habit because the vendors were no longer interested in his tiny market niche.

Similarly: even today there are many occasions when film has become inconvenient. As time goes on, there will be more and more such occasions. This is not to say that film is better or worse than digital, only that it will become harder and harder to find equipment, film, trained people, and sufficiently skilled photo labs. And every year more and more photographers will conclude that it's no longer worth the bother.

No, shooting film won't go away altogether for a long time. But catering to the relatively few who do it will become somewhat of a boutique industry. The LP is not dead yet. But, if you want to buy reasonable quality new equipment that will play an LP, you'll find it vastly more expensive in comparison to its digital counterpart than it was 15 years ago. The same will happen with film cameras.

Dan Margulis

_______________________________________________________________________

Jan writes,

Dan writes,

Probably both true, depending on the timeline. Once digital capture achieves mass adoption, I would suspect a dumping of traditional camera inventories. Once that inventory is depleted, finding and purchasing a traditional camera will likely be more difficult and expensive, as Dan parallels with vanishing LP's and equipment. That period of time between dumping and depletion would be the time to purchase your "collectable" film camera before it commands a collectable price.

Les De Moss

_______________________________________________________________________

Dan opines:

A very likely more pertinant relationship existed in the switch from 8mm movies to videotape, than from LP to CD. The videotape change occurred virtually overnight. That probably won't happen here because the printed output must match the monitor display (and the display of what the user thinks the shot looks like when viewed on the back of the camera). If consumers get immediate satisfaction from the digital stuff, film will dissappear quite quickly. If they stuggle with getting decent looking prints at home, film will continue on for awhile longer. Price and ease of use will govern the transition. Epson could help by making their technology a little easier to purchase, but I wouldn't expect a drop there until they get some serious competition.

Richard Chang

_______________________________________________________________________

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 08:56 AM, Dan Margulis wrote:

The reason for this is mostly because only the high end stuff is still being made for vinyl aficionados. Perhaps eventually only the pro level film cameras will be available, however the real cost is in the lenses and this isn't likely to change any time soon.

Likewise I truly doubt you'll see many pro level (film) camera bodies exceeding the 6k mark. The high end digital stuff tends to be in that area (and on up).

.

Regards,

Loring Palleske

Creative Imaging

1.877.279.2441

905.666.6647

_______________________________________________________________________

People will need to print these photos from electronic media. Right now, printing from storage media is just too expensive compare to emulsion. The average price for a 4"*6" print is roughly $0.13 compared to $0.29 (best I've seen so far). This is either price gouging (there is no developer costs, as with emulsion) or lack of a widely distributed system.

1. Archival of photos, or the storage media will need to be addressed. Sure, emulsion costs more via film and development, but you have a stable storage medium that lasts several hundred years. Chances are you can take a 60 year old negative from Aunt Irene's Kodak Brownie and get a decent quality enlargement made. Removable media (CD or DVD blanks) have not proven to be reliable long-term storage media. Storage tape is extremely costly to set up and cumbersome to use.

2. Digital cameras will have to become several factors cheaper, as computer systems have. When PC's were first coming into use, the average cost per workstation was on the order of $3000, laptops could easily top $7000. Today, a comparable workstation costs no more than $1000 and laptops rarely top $3000. The future Canon EOS-1Ds should cost no more than $2500, not $6500. A prosumer level digital camera should cost no more than $300, not $1000, and an average digital camera should cost no more than $75, not $200.

I do agree that emulsion is at the end of it's lifecycle, unless they pull off some amazing chemistry in the next two years. I also would not expect the Medium Format market to "collapse" for the simple reason that they have removable film backs. It would be a simple matter to house a CCD sensor in a modified film back. You still would use the camera body as the light box and the collections of lenses. Rollei has shown some progress in this already and Hasselblad most certainly will.

I've read on the http://www.digitaljournalist.org that a lot of pros are grumbling about buffer overflow issues with top end cameras. Once the CCD buffer becomes full (usually 8 frames), it can take up to 1 minute per frame to write the 25 Mb RAW files to the media card. One of the photogs in the articles commented that in sports photography, he could shoot more frames of action, even with rewinding and reloading film, than with dealing with buffer problems. The digital camera he was shooting was a top of the line Canon EOS-1Ds (11.1 Mb CCD) so it is the bleeding edge of digital. Little usability issues like this will need to be ironed out before digital is king, IMHO.

_______________________________________________________________________

Dan writes

Maybe a similar example is the home super 8 movie camera. Trying to find a film cartridge for my 25 year old camera a couple of years ago was nearly impossible. Never persued it enough to get some. Camcorders killed this market quickly.

Pete Merck

_______________________________________________________________________

I think the same thing happens with human beings. To day, a guy who can develop and print in a darkroom but can't use a computer has little market: but in maybe twenty years, you never know...

--

Claudio Corvino

Florence, Italy

_______________________________________________________________________

From: Dan Margulis

I'm sorry, I should have more strongly qualified my statement.

The price of your nondescript point-n-shoot, or even your low-end SLR with a no-name zoom lens will most certainly crash.

I agree that, let's call them "highly serviceable" film cameras (as well as "collectable" film cameras) will hold their price better.

I wouldn't argue that point! In fact, you indirectly make my point that all but the highest-end film cameras will disappear!

Think of all the "consumer" record players that are long in the trash. Think even of the higher-end consumer record players seen at the end of a garage sale with the label: "$100 -- xxx -- $50 -- xxx -- $10 -- xxx -- FREE TO GOOD HOME!"

: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http: //www.Bytesmiths.com>

_______________________________________________________________________

I forgot to mention how spoiled I was. We do our own E6 processing and drum scanning, so film is really convenient for us and often easier or better than a scan back.

john castronovo

_______________________________________________________________________

"john c." wrote:

Many would fight over this one. We find that scanned film cannot compare to high end digital. Not even close for resolutions and detail. The original film image itself may be superior in some aspects, but having to pass through that second set of optics to make the scan does it in every time. It doesn't make a difference how good a drum scanner it is.

If you are dealing with old, or low end backs, or inexpensive lighting, then yes... I'll take a scanned film image over digital. But the advances in digital in the past few years have changed everything. And, has been stated in previous posts, as the costs to go digital fall, they will consume most of what is left of the waning film & scanning industry. We went from having a full time scanner operator 5 years ago, to maybe lighting up the scanner once a week now.

John Rawlins

_______________________________________________________________________

Nearly all my work is in the 24" by 48" range. My file sizes are often 750 megabytes before I start adding layers. Are you talking about much smaller output? I would love to eliminate the scanning but I think you must be talking about 11" by 14" range.

Thanks

Pat

_______________________________________________________________________

on 6/6/03 5:21 AM, John wrote:

That1s been my experience too and it isn1t even limited to scan backs. The Canon 1Ds gives medium format film a real run for it1s money. The two don1t look the same (digital has it1s own look but with some techniques you can get it to look closer to scanned film. Some tricks with noise is key). The huge increase in dynamic range is really wonderful. The amount of shadow to highlight detail even a Canon 10D can produce is amazing compared to film. And no grain is so nice.

Now if we could get the workflow (editing and viewing images) as quickly using digital capture as working on a light box, I1d be very happy.

Andrew Rodney

http://www.imagingrevue.com/

_______________________________________________________________________

We're using a BetterLight 8kPro back with some very expensive full spectrum light banks, and we're getting stunning results for most subjects. Yet, I stand by my statement as an expert in this field that there are times when I must go back to 8x10 film to get the best results with the least amount of hassle. Of course, this may change at some time in the future.

For the moment, we're very fortunate to have great E6 processing and drum scanning in our shop as well as the scan back. We use what's best for the job at hand. Sometimes, I shoot digital and make LVT's for the artist or printer. Sometimes I shoot film and scan it, and sometimes it's either scan or shoot film only. Artists and printers from as far away as Philadelphia and NYC drive their work to my shop in northern NJ to have me make these decisions for them.

By virtue of the fact that I'm rather out of the way and surrounded by labs in these two major cities that say they can do this work faster, better or for less money, I think I must be on to something. I know they *don't* come here because of my good looks or winning personality!

john castronovo

tech photo & imaging

_______________________________________________________________________

Pat,

I also do a great deal of work for large repro. Most is in the 24x30 range but we have produced food shots for use as trade show booth posters at 60"x60".

The new Sinar backs can produce a 396 meg file for each photo. The images res up from there with no problem. Check out the Sinar 44 and the 54HR at: Sinar.com

Al MacDonald

Shaughnessy MacDonald, Inc.

_______________________________________________________________________

From: John Rawlins

I don't want to put words in his keyboard, but I don't think John was unequivocally saying film is always superior.

But neither should you say the same for digital! Last I checked, anything with more pixels than the 1D is a scanning back. These may provide better quality than film for things that don't move, but aren't they essentially unsuitable for things that do move?

Everything has advantages and disadvantages.

--

: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM)

_______________________________________________________________________

In message Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Jan Steinman writes

Morning All,

Well here in the UK being 2,20 in the morning perhaps it should be goodnight!

I greatly admire the technology of digital capture in camera and easily understand the various benefits, especially the removal of the lab in the equation.....not a factor here as we have in-house processing for all films.

What I particularly like about film capture is the tremendous flexibility and the pure simplicity of capture. Just a lens a box and a sheet of film. The only thing that mechanically can go wrong is the shutter, but hell if it does on a Sinar, it's a simple few minutes to sort that usually. If that's not possible, very often a lens cap exposure will save the day, and the client need never be aware of it if you are careful<BG>

Then back at base you have everything under your control for the digitization of the film. We all have our own reasons for working the way we do and for me, film and drum scanning is the right solution for the work I do.

Cheers

Richard

--

Richard Kenward

_______________________________________________________________________

Pretty much except the Kodak has 14 mega pixels and also makes a 16 mega pixel back for our hassy's (mamiyas, bronnys etc. - you can of course fit them on a large format too in lieu of a roll back).

The Canon is 11 megapixels.

Regards,

Loring Palleske

Creative Imaging

1.877.279.2441

905.666.6647

_______________________________________________________________________

There are larger digital chips on the market - the Sinar 54 is the largest CCD chip I know of - and fully capable of shooting moving objects.

There are other benefits to shooting digitally that may not be apparent up front. The freedom from chemical based imaging is one. Tremendous amounts of chemistry and other resources are required to support a film based workflow. When you factor in the downstream chemical path of a job going to print, the initial investment of silver and gelatin in our images is dwarfed.

I have to admit, I feel pretty good about not consuming resources in order to produce yet another image of a sports shoe or an air conditioner. We've seen the benefits of CTP technology in the printing industry. As a designer responsible for producing a lot of what rolls off the end of a press, you can tell me all day long how the CTP workflow has helped the bottom line with more efficient workflows, but I've seen the quality of my projects increase since most printers have adopted CTP. That's the real bottom line.

So for me as a photographer, I'm going to continue to exploit all the benefits a digital workflow as long as I can. The quality is excellent, and now that the equipment is paid for, its generating even more profit than it did when it was new. My clients are happier than ever. They get their work a little sooner (not much - good work still takes time), at the same price their used to paying, and the quality is better than ever.

This from someone who as always enjoyed darkroom work, and still looks forward to spending time there on his personal work.

--

Jeff Smith

Smith/Walker Design and Photography

P. O. Box 58630

Seattle, WA 98138

ph: 206-575-3233

fx: 206-575-3960

_______________________________________________________________________

From: Jan Steinman

You're right about prices, of course. In a few days, soon as time permits, I'll summarize information sent to me by a the manufacturer of Phase One digital camera backs (a little pricey--up to something like $23,000, but apparently both excellent for digital work and a foretaste of what's to come (hopefully at a little lower price).

For now I plan to settle on a soon-to-be-outdated? Mamiya 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 camera to produce transparencies for my film scanner. Based on the advice already given here, it'll be the model that takes a digital back. Apparently only of them is designed to accept the Phase One back. For those of you not familiar with the really high resolution camera backs (maybe all of them work this way), you have to carry along a laptop to plug it into while you shoot. Probably not too useful for safaris and mountain climbing.

Howard Smith

_______________________________________________________________________

There's been a lot said about this issue, but what the heck; here's my .02

I shot almost exclusively with a Hasselblad and Velvia for the past several years, scanning and learning the digital side.

This spring I bought a six megapixel Canon 10-D because I thought it *might* be good enough for some of my work and would be a big convenience and cost savings.

Boy was I wrong; it's good enough for ALL the work I do. No, I don't shoot billboards but I bet that most people don't either.

For work up to 9x12 inches (the vast majority of what I do) it is JUST WAY, WAY BETTER to have a digital original. It's revolutionized my photography and put the fun back into it. I now shoot much more than I ever used to before.

The real kicker is finding out just how few pixels you really need. It shocked me to find that I could make beautiful prints from a 2-3 meg. jpeg. camera capture.

Sure, I'd like to have a bigger sensor. But you know, right now I don't think it's really neccessary.

I encourage everyone who is on the verge of switching to digital cameras to try jump in. The idea of waiting for prices to drop or performance to increase is just not neccessary. I'm betting that if you're honest, you'll find that you don't need a 42mb capture, and you'd be amazed at what you can do with a 6mb one. You'll be glad you did.

Ron Kelly

_______________________________________________________________________

Ron,

Thanks for your input regarding your experience with digital capture. I have been sitting on the fence and your message has encouraged me to take the leap. To be able to get results that rival a Blad + Velvia is good enough for me! For most of my work, 9x12 is sufficient, and the ability to eliminate the scanning step is a big plus. For the times one might want a larger print, I was wondering if you have had any experience enlarging images from the 10D with Genuine Fractals? I've used it to moderately enlarge images with good results.

Thanks,

Dolores

_______________________________________________________________________

I have had some limited success with Genuine Fractals. I don't ever go beyond 200% original size.

Jeff Tytel

_______________________________________________________________________

You might want to try enlarging through the new Adobe Camera Raw plugin for Photoshop 7.01. Thomas Knoll rewrote the algorithms and they are supposed to be vastly superior to bicubic in photoshop.

The plug-in is does not directly support the 10D (it stops at the D60, but there is a hack that allows you to edit the source code to work with the 10D). The hack is pointed out by Thomas Knoll on the Adobe website, so, while not specifically endorsed, there is a wink and a nod.

If your using the Canon 10D, or most cameras capable of saving out a raw file, you really should look into the Adobe Camera Raw Plug-in if you haven't already. It's a lot faster at converting raw files and allows for corrections not present in the native Canon software

--

Jeff Smith

Smith/Walker Design and Photography

P. O. Box 58630

Seattle, WA 98138

ph: 206-575-3233

fx: 206-575-3960

_______________________________________________________________________

Thanks for the tip Jeff,

It's definitely worth checking out as I wouldn't characterize Genuine Fractals, which I have been using, as 'vastly' superior to bicubic in Photoshop - just 'nicely' superior, so I'm anxious to give the Adobe Camera Raw plugin a try as soon as I get my 10D.

Thanks again,

Dolores

_______________________________________________________________________

For whatever it's worth....

I just attended an "Epson Print Academy" taught by Vincent Versace. One of the things he mentioned about Genuine Fractals over Photoshop/Bicubic interpolation was that bicubic was fine for enlargments like 100%, 200%, etc.... and Genuine Fractals was better if you wanted something like 137%.

MikeA

_______________________________________________________________________

As I understand it the plug in only works with Nikon and Canon raw files, am I wrong ?

Regards

Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Rd, Ketley, Telford, Shropshire. England

.TF1 5DJ

44 (0) 1952 618986. www.infocus-photography.co.uk

_______________________________________________________________________

It worked with the Fuji S2 files we tried, and I believe it supports some other formats as well, so best to check their site for specifics.

To bring this back to Color, I've used (and reviewed) quite a few Raw image processing tools and the only thing that every serious user/reviewer of these packages agrees on is that no single Raw processing tool is best for all images. Each one (Bibble, Nikon Capture, Phase One, Adobe, Bibble, Canon) seems to be preferable for certain images and certain operations (up-sampling, wb correction, etc.)

They also tend to leap-frog each other as new versions are introduced and each vendor figures out new tweaks.

Fortunately most of them offer 30-day trial versions so people can learn what they like and which gives them the colors they want the most often, but most serious Raw file shooters wind up owning more than one. Personally I really like the way ACR integrates into my workflow as a Photoshop plug-in, but for photographers who want to batch process Raw files and aren't Action wizards, then Nikon Capture (for NEFs) or Bibble (for NEFs or Canon Raw files) have built-in batch processing.

--David Cardinal

http://www.ikondigital.org

http://www.proshooters.com

_______________________________________________________________________

Dolores:

Good luck with your digital captures; you're in for a ton of fun. My only caveat is to remember to put a good piece of glass in front of your sensor; $100 zoom lenses are NOT going to rival Velvia on the Blad!

No, I haven't had experience with enlarging images via software. I reccommend that you don't, if at all possible. No matter what software you use, it CAN'T be as good as a "real" photograph.

Strive in your shooting to shoot "full frame" as much as possible.

This means that you must have the equipment to do the job, shoot it anticipating the final use and crop accordingly. Yes, I realize that it's not always possible to do so.

If you're worried about up-sizing your photographs for a very large print, well, don't forget that a larger print doesn't get viewed from as close a distance as a 4x6. You don't need 300 DPI; try it and see.

Shocking revelation: I haven't even made side by side comparisons between RAW captures and highest quality jpegs; the top quality jpeg is excellent for my purposes and is less than half the size of a RAW capture.

I'd be curious what others have found in this respect. Just how much, if any, do you get by shooting RAW on a 10-D or D100 as opposed to the best jpeg? How big a print do you need to make before you can see the difference?

Cheers,

Ron Kelly

_______________________________________________________________________

From: David Cardinal

Apparently however, Fuji has not released certain proprietary information concerning their unique CCD, and there is consequently no 3rd party raw processing software that does as good a job as Fuji's. Every test I've seen comparing Fuji to anything else reports the Fuji algorithms work noticeably better.

Dave King

_______________________________________________________________________

In case anybody had doubts about how fast digicams are moving in, here's some stats from Seybold.

They claim that the market for digicams grew 36% in 2002. Breaking it down by camera capabilities, anything under 2 megapixels lost market share, but 2-3 mp cameras increased sales 53%, 3-4 mp 87%, and >4 mp, gulp, 835%.

Remembering that digital captures don't need as much resolution as conventional film plus scan, 4 mp is enough for the overwhelming majority of professional applications.

It's fairly obvious that this growth isn't coming primarily from professional photographers, but rather from people who think that they are photographers, and now own equipment with which they can compete effectively with certain types of professional work. Food for thought.

Dan Margulis

_______________________________________________________________________

Greetings:

As the proverbial 'well'heeled' amateur, I have a 5mp Contax TVS that I carry with me everywhere, as well as a Kodak 14n. When I look at what I've spent to 'go digital', that is with a new computer, photo database software, mucho memory cards, spare batteries, a cute portable gizmo to suck the files OFF the memory cards so I can spend a thousand on 2-3 1gb memory cards, instead of the several thousand one would need to shoot a wedding with the 14n, card readers, photo printers, inks, and papers, it probably comes out to 10k or more--not including the glass that I already owned.

Of course it was always this way... buying an F5 or a 'Blad does not a professional make.

________________________________

Regards,

Denton Taylor

_______________________________________________________________________

Dan Margulis wrote:

Dan:

I don't believe I've heard this before. Why would that be so?

_______________________________________________________________________