Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions

[byard pidgeon <bluedove@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harvey, the digicams were both "better than average" "consumer" cameras,
analogous to consumer P&S cameras...but two to three times as expensive,
natch.
One image was with on-camera flash, by an admittedly unskilled photog...a
good painter, however.
The others (there were 3, not 2) were also by a painter, who has better than
average photo skills, though not a pro.
Her pics were definitely better than the other fellow's, copy work of a
couple of paintings...but there's no question that the scans from the 4x6
prints were better...sharper, better tonal range, less pixel stairstepping.

I was surprised...well, I shouldn't be, I suppose, considering that my
original photos are so great even a quick and dirty scan is
superb...actually, the conditions I was shooting in were almost
perfect...natural lighting that was balanced for contrast as one would do in
the studio, with the exception of needing some slight fill in the deepest
shadows.


 

on 06/09/2002 09:21 AM, SKID Photography at skid@bway.net wrote:

> byard pidgeon wrote:
> 
>> Well, as I started this thread (this time, anyway) here's some experience
>> I've had since the first posting.
>> 
>> I design/edit/produce a quarterly publication for the arts council here, and
>> do most of the photos...using film.
>> 
>> This week, I did the most recent issue. In it, I had a few of my own photos,
>> scanned quick and dirty, using 4x6 color prints, ganged on my flatbed at
>> 300ppi. Originals on Fuji 400 neg.
>> 
>> Also had two pics submitted, done with 3-ish megapixel digicams.
>> 
>> Now, the digicam pictures were completely usable for this
>> application...but...enlarge them to anything over 100 percent in photoshop,
>> and the pixelation is very apparent.
>> Also, even at the small sizes I used them, the sharpness isn't as good as a
>> scan from a print made using my old point&shoot film camera (which isn't
>> what I used on the pics in this issue).
>> 
>> This is really the first time I've made any side by side comparisons, but to
>> my eyes, film is vastly better.
> 
> Byard,
> I think the lack of quality of the digital images submitted to you were either
> caused by the technique of the photographer (using their digital cameras) or
> the
> crudeness of the digital cameras the people were using.
> 
> And while I still think film is 'king' at this point, digital captures should
> be
> just as good if not better given the way you are currently scanning your film
> images.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
> 

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.