Deaner From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 42 posts, RR: 7 Posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1480 times:
...of all this digital RAW talk. We have "raw" photos too, though we usually have to work on 'em for a while to make 'em acceptable. This is what one of my good old 150mm as-usual-not-flying shots looks like fresh out of my scanner. I scanned the underside of the Prime Minister's wing at 600 DPI and compressed it to jpeg level 8 in PShop to bring it down a little from 18 meg. I envy those RAW digicam files for their smaller (yet lossless) sizes. There is next to no dust visible here because I was using Astia Quickload. No curves. No levels. No adjustments. Just Nature's remedy. The depth of field was wonderful.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
Deaner - the small RAW files is a little misleading ... afterall you can't DO anything with a RAW until you convert it - a 16 bit TIF extraction of a D60 RAW actually comes out at 36mb.
No question (in my mind) that slide film is still a superior medium to digital in absolute terms ... the problem is that a slide by itself is of limited use (for me anyway) - I have to scan it or print it to get a useful finished item. So much is lost in this interim process that the DSLR, in my opinion, can hold its own or even get the advantage over film.
Of course I'm talking about 35mm here ... I think you're moving the goal post just a tad with your steup !
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2538 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1185 times:
All I can say is poor digital guys. I have a drum scan of a Velvia transparency that is 9000 x 6000 pixels. This is a 154 meg file size and when printed on glossy photo paper at 150 dpi on a high resolution commercial printer gave me a print of 40" x 60" and the quality is awesome. It looks stunning on my living room wall.
Maybe someday digital will catch up. But for now, top quality demands transparencies, at least if you plan to go big.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1175 times:
Steve, in absolute terms you are correct - but life is full of compromises. I'm happier with D60 output than 35mm up to around 8x10in. Things even out at around 11x14in. Beyond this, given optimum processing, film still outperforms (latest Kodak and Canon may change this).
But, being realistic, I considered how many really large prints I make (or perhaps more to the point sell) - the answer, very few. My work tends to centre around the 8x10.
If I were regularly working with large prints, I probably would have opted for medium format rather than digital.