| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 16/05/2008 09:42 |
|
In the good old day's
|
Which O.K probably weren't, the technical piece of gear that ultimately decided the final print resolution was the enlarging lens. For 35mm I always used Leitz lenses because for me it was a little pointless taking snaps with their lenses then projecting them through lenses like bottle bottoms made by the likes of Nikon and Schneider.
Now moving away from the dark ways when alchemy was practised and we weren't Europeans I have a question. Digital cameras improve in leaps and bounds. Photographically I am partially housebound and refuse to lug a camera around when I do go out. But I have always enjoyed portraiture and architecture. I could revive my 'church' period and I have plenty of room to install a studio. then camera size wouldn't come into it, in the past I used to enjoy using Nikkor perspective control lenses Yes O.K. the first remark was a bit of poetic license) on my R3. So why not a D3 if it's as good as claimed? Only one niggle. Film output was controlled by the enlarging lens, so do printers such as the Epson R2400 out perform even the D3, are they capable of resolving all that information and getting it down on paper? If they aren't and the printers bring everything down to their level any ideas where that level is?
Or as usual am I barking up the wrong tree and it doesn't work that way?
If anyone replies please remember. I only reached the point where Hawkins explains how simply it would be to understand his " Brief History of Time"
| Malcolm_Stewart |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 16/05/2008 13:00 |
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
Which O.K probably weren't, the technical piece of gear that ultimately decided the final print resolution was the enlarging lens....
From memory, I think resolution depended on one of those reciprocal equations, like
1/RF = 1/RTl + 1/REl
where
RF = Final or overall resolution
RTl = Resolution of taking lens
REl = Resolution of enlarger lens
What is missing in the above, is contrast, without which the resolution can not be seen, so I'm not sure if there's any value in it anyway!
I've had commercial 20x16 Cibachromes made (optically, I believe) from very sharp 5"x4" trannies which were clearly of a significantly lower resolution than A3+ prints made on my Epson 1270 from scans made on my Epson 4870. Needless to say, I have not given any more business to the well known lab which made the Cibachromes! Just wish I could improve the colour rendition from my scans!
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 16/05/2008 16:21 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
What's that got to do with the price of chips.
Can a printer such as a Epson 2400 printer actually print the information contained within a file produced from a Nikon F3?
| Malcolm_Stewart |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 16/05/2008 16:41 |
|
Re: In the good old days
|
I don't have a D3, I do have two F3s and I do have an EOS 5D which has roughly the same MP as a D3.
I also know that in my hands, the printed results from my 5D are far superior to anything I've printed from a scanned slide, but then I don't have one of those "dedicated to 35mm" scanners.
(I've just had a quick look at the review of the R2400 and it looks as though the reviewer was well satisfied. But where will you find one to test?)
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 16/05/2008 16:54 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Malcolm I appreciate what you are saying but my question is. Can the Epson R2400 reproduce the detail/ tonality etc contained within the files produced by the D3? I've got an R2400, it's a good printer but does it match the performance of the D3?
It has always been the thing with photographers, enlargers have come second , now with digital the printers seem to occupy the same secondary lower position in the pecking order.
| Roger_Provins |
| (Made-it Man) |
| 16/05/2008 17:26 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Download a full resolution file from here print it out - then you can tell us
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 16/05/2008 17:36 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
I have and at A3 I can see no difference from a D200. There has to be a scientic way of equating camera file to printer capacity.
So which is playing catch up?
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 16/05/2008 18:48 |
|
Re: In the good old days
|
My experience tells me that resolution is unlikely to be an issue as, even with my close-up glasses on, I can't see any limitations in my prints. The colour range of all current inkjet printers, on the other hand, is significantly less than the camera will have captured and this sometimes is noticeable.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 16/05/2008 19:04 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
So are you of the opinion that inkjet printers cannot exploit the image capabilities of cameras such as the D3? If this is true then why are we all so concerned with ultimate camera quality when we cannot utilise that quality in a tangible form and print it?
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 17/05/2008 07:07 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Funny this but traditionaly. ask a question re cameras, lenses or add ons and the experts arrive in droves. Ask a question which is fundamental to the whole digital thing and it is another matter.
Whatever the capabilities of a camera it is the ability of the printer to reproduce that capabilities. Just as in the old days, the enlarger lens was the deciding factor now that lens has been replaced with an ink distribution system. Does that ink distribution system match the pixel performance of the D3 sensor with it's ink nozzles?
As far as I know the Epson R2400 has been around since the D200, now are we saying that printer was so far ahead of it's time that it will match or equal the output of the D3?
Or is it another case as of old when people spent a fortune on cameras etc then scimped in the darkroom where their mates couldn't see it.
As I say I might be wrong and it might not work like this but to little old me if the printers not up to the camera what's the use of spending for the sake of it.
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 17/05/2008 19:40 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
I think my answer would go something like this...
It's never a good idea to throw away quality at any point of the process but, if you at least capture images with the best quality you can, there is always the option of re-printing them with increased quality as technology evolves. On the other hand, if the captured image has avoidable shortcomings, then you're always going to struggle to overcome them.
Another point is that my Samsung GX-10 with the twin zoom lens kit (i.e. not the expensive lens options!) regularly exceeds the quality I used to get with my Canon T90 and a good range of Canon prime lenses. I suspect that printing is currently my weakest area, although my A4 HP7960 got rave reviews, especially for mono work, when it came out. I think the issue is work-flow rather than hardware... I had a custom profile made for me (for free!) by PermaJet because I use their paper, but my monitor is uncalibrated and, being LCD, is very viewing angle dependant which makes it hard to place tones exactly where you want them to be. And, when reading the above, can you bear in mind that I won "Print Of The Year" for my camera club when using film and the T90... so things have definitely moved onwards and upwards.
The guy that runs the photo-i website, that does, perhaps, the most in-depth reviews of printers, now often says that prints from the current crop of A3 printers exceeds what he used to achieve in the darkroom, and this is how I feel. Is it perfect? No! But is it as good and more repeatable and easily controlled than the wet process? Yes!
Another thing is this... at my current photographic society I can never tell (unless they're really badly done!), whether a print is film or digital, much less what camera or printer has been used to make it.
And what makes a picture stand out? The camera, the printer? Of course not, it's the vision of the photographer. And, to always have the camera under your control when instants matter, is it the resolving power of the lens that tips the scales? No! It's how 'right' it feels for you. Having said that, would I want to take my images at the best possible quality? Of course! And that's where the compromise comes in.
So my advice would be this... use the camera that you enjoy the best - that way I think you'll capture the best images. Use any of the current crop of leading A3 printers and enjoy the results. If you think you could produce better, use a print specialist such as http://www.theprintspace.com/ (who do great C-type [i.e. wet prints] prints from digital files), and see whether they can do better than you.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 17/05/2008 20:00 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
can you bear in mind that I won "Print Of The Year" for my camera club when using film and the T90... so things have definitely moved onwards and upwards.
Yep, but modesty forebears me to mention.......well just say I've been around the block a few times.
And yes I can produce b/w prints at least to the technical quality of wet processed 35mm. I think now a camera such as the D200 combined with the R2400 is approaching if not equalling M/F within certain parameters. But this isn't the question.
Thanks for the your efforts but my question really is so simple.
Can an inkjet printer, that is a good printer such as the Epson R2400 actually put down on paper the information contained in a file from, as an example a Nikon D3? Surely it's a question that can be answered with certainty rather then speculation.
And Shoreditch, please, who on earth would be seen in such a place?
| SqueamishOssifrage |
| (veteran) |
| 18/05/2008 09:05 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
Can an inkjet printer, that is a good printer such as the Epson R2400 actually put down on paper the information contained in a file from, as an example a Nikon D3? Surely it's a question that can be answered with certainty rather then speculation.
My (probably worthless) take on this is that a good printer can not only reproduce all the detail in a D3 file, but can, in fact, reproduce a much higher level of detail. I am still living in the ‘good old days’, in as much as take on film and scan on a dedicated film scanner at 5400 dpi, and print to A3+ at 360 dpi. This gives me a 39 megapixel file of about 220 megabytes, which I print on an Epson R1800.
I posted some details a year or so ago of an experiment I did with a friend with his Nikon D2xs, a comparable pixel-count to the D3, albeit on a smaller sensor. We both took a picture of some large potted plants against a stone wall, in hazy sunlight. I used a Zeiss 50mm/1.4 lens, and my friend used the Sigma 30mm/1.4, both at f8 and tripod mounted. We then processed our images to our personal satisfaction in CS2 with minimal sharpening, and printed them on my printer at the best print resolution appropriate to producing an A3+ print.
While this was hardly a ‘scientific’ experiment, it did throw some light on your question. Viewed at a distance there was no discernable difference, other than colour rendition (I use Reala!), but on close examination there was a considerable difference. There was a coarseness in the D2xs image, due to the fact that it was printed at 220 dpi (see note below), rather than the 360 dpi on the scanned image, but the most obvious difference was that the fine hairs on the stem of the plants just weren’t there on the D2xs print. Whether they were present in the raw image, I don’t know (didn’t look!), so they could have been lost at any stage of the process, but the point is that the printer could produce a much higher level of detail than the D2xs could produce. I cannot see this changing with the D3, as the maximum resolution of the printer is stated as 1440 dpi, so printing at a fraction of this should preserve all the detail in the image.
Note: The unusual resolution of 220 dpi was used to fill an A3+ print. The print was redone at 240 dpi, a whole fraction of the 1440 dpi stated max of the printer, with no discernable difference in the detail shown, only a change in overall size.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 18/05/2008 09:56 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
I do find it very difficult to reply to somebody without using a name so.
SqueamishOssifrage
Thanks for the trouble you have taken with your reply. So it woud seem that in terms of resolution you are saying that an Epson R1800 is more capable than a D2xs. Now we would be led to believe that the D3 is on another planet to the D2xs so maybe the gap has narrowed, maybe the camera now is better, I just wonder. And would it be fair to expect a Sigma 30mm F1.4 a rather eosoteric lens to have the equal or higher resolution to your Zeiss 50mm F1.4.? It could be that you were testing lenses rather than cameras/printers.
The only thing is I have just printed a D3 file from the Nikon site to A3 and WOW to all intents and purpose this ain't a substitute for 35MM it's M/F at it's best.
If only the D3 wasn't such a clumsy lump.......Oh dear. But I am sure the D300 ain't that far behind although at present I can't find a decent sample to download....American football piccies BAH.
Note to AP.
Would a head to head article, Nikon F6 with 105mm macro or something similar against D3 with ditto, both printed on an Epson ( or whatever is considered best) printer to A3 ? And for the purpose of the test both film and digital set at 200-400 ISO. Because over that I'm sure the film fans would shout foul.
To my mind that would show the average guy what he would get from FF and £2000 over the D300 if any. Obviously only in terms of image quality
You don't know if they did I might even buy a copy.
| NorthernNikon |
| (Bulls Hitter) |
| 18/05/2008 23:51 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
The only thing is I have just printed a D3 file from the Nikon site to A3 and WOW to all intents and purpose this ain't a substitute for 35MM it's M/F at it's best.
Shhhhhhhhhhh! Brian, don't say it too loudly, you'll wake the dead.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 19/05/2008 07:26 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
Shhhhhhhhhhh! Brian, don't say it too loudly, you'll wake the dead.
That might be a good idea.
But I am truly impressed with the A3 print from the D3. And as those on this forum who know where I am coming from will know I am not easily impressed with things photographic.
I would dearly love to see a straight level playing field shootout between the D3 and D300 at 200ISO- 400ISO ( plenty fast enough for me) printed to A3 with an Epson R2400 as per my other post in the digital forum. I suspect that to all intents and purpose the resulting differences if any would be of no consequence whatever.
If only the D3 was stripped of all the unnecessary gimmicks and reduced to half the size it might provide the basis for a long term relationship. Now what a novelty that would be in this digital world.
| NorthernNikon |
| (Bulls Hitter) |
| 19/05/2008 09:04 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
Quote:I would dearly love to see a straight level playing field shootout between the D3 and D300 at 200ISO- 400ISO ( plenty fast enough for me) printed to A3 with an Epson R2400 as per my other post in the digital forum. I suspect that to all intents and purpose the resulting differences if any would be of no consequence whatever.
Shhhhhhhhhhh! Brian, don't say it too loudly, you'll wake the dead.
In all seriousness we could always do that. If I can hook up with Fen the next time I'm in London I don't see why we can't bring our kit along and do a comparison shot. Of course the major issue will be the crop factor on the D300 and how you want to equalise the shots to compare resolution. I'd suggest lengthening the distance to the subject so that we can retain the same lens, however it might prove difficult to line up the shot.
| Fen |
| (BAD WOLF) |
| 19/05/2008 09:09 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
In all seriousness we could always do that. If I can hook up with Fen the next time I'm in London I don't see why we can't bring our kit along and do a comparison shot.
I'd be up for that.
Quote:
Of course the major issue will be the crop factor on the D300 and how you want to equalise the shots to compare resolution. I'd suggest lengthening the distance to the subject so that we can retain the same lens,
Easiest way would be to increase the size to the D3 files to match the magnification of the D300 wouldn't it?
I think that's what they do in AP???
I'd suggest using a prime lens rather than a zoom lens. I've got the 100mm Macro, we could use that.
Quote:
however it might prove difficult to line up the shot.
One tripod. Take the shots with one camera and then swap cameras.
We could also both take the same shots using our own CF cards so we both have copies.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 19/05/2008 09:47 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
No the crop factor doesn't come into it. My question is do cameras such as the D3 and D300 out resolve printers such as the R2400 or are the printers still a step in front? It's basically whether the printers are up to the job of bringing the best out of the cameras or are things lost at the printing stage
I suppose if it could be demonstrated that all things being equal the D3 file had more detail than the D300 and that on actual inspection an A3 print from the former could be seen to have more detail than that perhaps would show at least the printer was up to the D300 in terms of output.
Another way is compare the D3 to the output from a Leaf and if the Leaf print is better then the D3 the printer is capable of out performing the D3. Confused? That make's two of us.
I expect it's me being thick but I think it's a fairly important consideration. If the printrs aren't capable of printing the files from top end cameras maybe we are wasting money paying for something we can't use. Mind you that makes my Ferrari 599 redundant.....I wish.
| Fen |
| (BAD WOLF) |
| 19/05/2008 09:59 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
I have an A3 printer, I could take home the photos with NN then process them, put them both onto on page with the image split into two (left half D300, right half D3) and then print it out.
After that, scan in the printed page and post 600px squares from the scan on here.
| NorthernNikon |
| (Bulls Hitter) |
| 19/05/2008 10:04 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
I have an A3 printer, I could take home the photos with NN then process them, put them both onto on page with the image split into two (left half D300, right half D3) and then print it out.
After that, scan in the printed page and post 600px squares from the scan on here.
Sounds like a plan Stan.
I only raised the crop factor because to compare detail on a like for like basis surely it should be the same size in the frame? Also, do AP enlarge the one file simply because it's simpler? I would ahve thought that having a subject the same size in both frames would prove a more accurate test, but to be honest, I usually glaze over when people start talking technically.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 19/05/2008 10:12 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Did our posts cross Fen?
The trouble is no way can an image be assessed to any degree on a screen. Just get an image taken from each camera at the optimum settings then print them side by side. If you can see a difference then it shows that the printer can out perform one of the cameras. If it can't then either the D300 is as good as the D3 at optimum settings or that printers have fallen behind cameras. Either way it makes one think.
A bit early for a G&T methinks...Oh bugger it.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 19/05/2008 10:20 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
but to be honest, I usually glaze over when people start talking technically.
Ditto on that.
But I think the only important thing here is a technical thing. I would suggest that in the real world of A3 prints hanging on the wall nobody would be able to pick a winner.
But it doesn't stop me from thinking about when photographers took piccies with Leitz/ Zeiss/ Schneider etc lenses then enlarged them through a Photax bit of plastic.
| NorthernNikon |
| (Bulls Hitter) |
| 19/05/2008 11:21 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
But it doesn't stop me from thinking about when photographers took piccies with Leitz/ Zeiss/ Schneider etc lenses then enlarged them through a Photax bit of plastic.
No, and it's an asute observation, except now I don't believe the vast majority of photographers put the best lenses first as the hunt for the 'best' body tends to lead them onwards, and even when they think they are buying the best lenses, it's only because it has an 'L' in the name or becaue it's an f/2.8 Nikkor, without considering whther that lens will actually be the best lens for them. As for the printing stage, I suspect that 99.99% of digital images taken by members of online forums across the world are never printed at all.
| BrianT |
| (Old Hand) |
| 19/05/2008 14:31 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
I suspect that 99.99% of digital images taken by members of online forums across the world are never printed at all
So that means we spend all that dosh to produce 0.01% worth printing piccies. Blimey at this rate in ten years time I might have to get the printer out.
Lenses NN? No people never buy the lenses they need, where's the fun in that, it's want. Nowadays it would seem that your average photographer wants everything in 35mm terms from 15mm-600mm. Funny that. In nearly one hundred years of production without resorting to Meccano Leitz produced in R/F cameras lenses from 21mm-135mm. Nobody seemed to mind. during that period their users produced perhaps more memorable photographs than all the rest put together, funny that. And with only one point of focus and eleven measly shutter speeds.........well I don't suppose they were serious photographers.
| NorthernNikon |
| (Bulls Hitter) |
| 19/05/2008 15:45 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
well I don't suppose they were serious photographers.
Of course they weren't, have you seen the size of the noise in some of their shots? What's that? Grain? What's grain?
| Monobod |
| ('Phantom' of the forum!) |
| 23/05/2008 09:40 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Brian,
Your D3 will use AdobeRGB colour space. Providing your printer can reproduce this and the r2400 and the Pro 3800 both can, you will not loose colour quality. The printers can also easily outperform the ppi to dpi resolution as the printer can handle 2880 dpi. There should be no problem at all.
If you take photos in sRGB, which has a much smaller colour gamut, then cheaper printers will reproduce this, but why would you do this and throw away the richer tonality??
You may need to check that your monitor can display AdobeRGB, or you will not see on screen what the camera has recorded or the printer can produce. This is probably the weakest link in the chain. My DELL 20" Ultrasharp will handle 90% of the AdobeRGB colours and my printer output is so close to my screen as to be nearly spot on.
In time, I will upgrade from the Pentax K10D to the K20D at 14.9Mp and I will still not exceed my printers capability at A3+
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 23/05/2008 19:45 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
Brian,
Your D3 will use AdobeRGB colour space. Providing your printer can reproduce this and the r2400 and the Pro 3800 both can...
I've always assumed that no current printer suitable for home use can reproduce the entirety of the AdobeRGB colour space, much less reproduce it accurately. Have I got it wrong? I've had a quick look for any evidence to show this, one way or the other, and have come up with the following test of Epson's K3 inks which appears to show them not even capable or reproducing the sRGB colour space, let alone the full AdobeRGB one, but I'd love to be proved wrong!
http://dpnow.com/1867.html
On the other hand, I'd very easily believe that current printer technology does trounce traditional wet processes... although I've no proof of that either!
| Malcolm_Stewart |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 23/05/2008 20:39 |
|
Re: In the good old days
|
dpnow seems to be more like dpnever...
I've tried several times.
| beejaybee |
| (Marvin) |
| 23/05/2008 21:10 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:
dpnow seems to be more like dpnever...
I've tried several times.
'Tis working fine for me
| digitravel |
| (I aint got nuffin) |
| 24/05/2008 00:50 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
While its true the K3s dont cover the whole sRGB they do show colour outside of that gamut as well which is why you should use the Adobe rgb colour space to achieve those colours.
| Seven.. |
| (...or maybe Eight) |
| 12/06/2008 23:03 |
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Just stumbled across this post and very interesting read. Has anyone found out if printers are keeping up with or overtaken the current high end cameras. It's an interesting thought, why buy the camera if the technology can't be matched on a print or perhaps it can, in which case can it get any better?
Anyhow did anyone ever get to the bottom of this?
Don't know if there are any mags out there that run articles on printers on a regular basis but I think with the current climate it would be good to hear as much about printing as the cameras themselves. After all tis the finished product that counts imo
| Monobod |
| ('Phantom' of the forum!) |
| 13/06/2008 00:22 |
|
|
|
Re: In the good old days
|
Quote:Quote:
Brian,
Your D3 will use AdobeRGB colour space. Providing your printer can reproduce this and the r2400 and the Pro 3800 both can...
I've always assumed that no current printer suitable for home use can reproduce the entirety of the AdobeRGB colour space, much less reproduce it accurately. Have I got it wrong? I've had a quick look for any evidence to show this, one way or the other, and have come up with the following test of Epson's K3 inks which appears to show them not even capable or reproducing the sRGB colour space, let alone the full AdobeRGB one, but I'd love to be proved wrong!
http://dpnow.com/1867.html
On the other hand, I'd very easily believe that current printer technology does trounce traditional wet processes... although I've no proof of that either!
John, I really think that you are missing the point of these tests. They are only taken at 3 levels, not over the entire brighness range. I am sure that they are also limited by being printed with a sRGB colour setting in the driver.
You need to add all of these colour gamut results as an overlay to get the total picture, then add in the extended brightness ranges below and above the levels tested. You can see thet the colours extend beyond the sRGB in the blues and cyans, even with this limited test.
I have a colour monitor that displays 90% of the AdobeRGB colour space and my prints from the Pro3800, when set to AdobeRGB are a match to the screen. If I load two versions of the same image side by side, one in sRGB and the other in AdobeRGB, I can clearly see the difference. This clearly indicates to me that the printed output is better than suggested by these limited test results.