Slashdot Mirror

Just for the record, a lab print isn't ink-based, at least at the shop I go to - they use one of these suckers (maybe not that exact brand/model, but you get the point) to "paint" the image onto genuine light-sensitive color photo paper that's processed the old-fashioned way with chemicals. $1.99 for an 8x10, $2.99 for an 11x14. They look a hell of a lot better than any photo print I've ever seen, including dyesubs, and they last and last. When I do a print for my small photography side business, I do it this way...the client is almost always amazed with the result, and asks me what kind of printer I use, they just have to get one for themselves. I tell them "trade secret" :)

If you just have to use your printer, I'd suggest Ilford GALERIE Classic paper; it has an encapsulation system that soaks up the ink and mostly protects it from fading, It's pricey (enough so that there's NO economic advantage over a lab print) and takes a full day to dry out, but it is as close to perfect as you're gonna get from an inkjet. When I do prints for my own consumption, I ususally go this route for the convenience.

For all the information you could ever want to know about how the new 300D/Digital Rebel compares to the other DSLRs that are out there just go check out photo.net. There is a full review of the body, plus lots of discussion about it in the forums.

Your second question, about whether or not to switch to digital, is not a question that we can answer for you, especially with the amount of information that you gave us. Both film and digital have their respective advantages. Both will continue to exist for quite some time. For a well thought out examination of film and digital photography, see Ken Rockwell's article on the subject.

What most people don't realize is that digital and film have been working together quite well for some time now and that the digital revolution has already made a huge impact in the printing phase. Lightjet and Chromira machines enable the highest quality prints and Fuji Frontier machines create good quality prints quickly. The quality of these prints is not just the resolution, but the color reproduction and tonality as well.

What it all comes down to, though, is not the equipment. You have to be in the right place when the light happens. Mastering light is far more important than having a certain kind of camera.

The minilab system that is widely regarded as the best is the Fuji Frontier system. How does it work? By scanning film. Of course, it accepts files from digital cameras as well.

What is the best way to get large, "professional" prints? The Lightjet. How do these operate? Using very high quality scans! (See West Coast Imaging, for example). My point? You can already get digital images produced in the exact same manner as the best film prints.

There are already a lot of people who think digital photography has surpassed even medium format photography. See the Luminous Landscape, for example.

As for widespread adoption, photojournalists have all but abandoned film. The P&S crowd is already beginning to abandon film.

Actually, in a way I use both right now. I believe the Canon 1Ds will change that, the D-60 was close to what I needed, the 1Ds may be enough.

How does the contrast and detail of prints compare to both enlargments and contact print of standard film?

As far as color accuracy and tonality, while it's a bit of work (as I'll explain), digital actually gives me more control than a pure-film solution. As far as detail/resolution, 11MP should come in about break-even with 35mm film, the best lenses, etc. (My target is to be able to produce good prints up to about 16x24 inches.)

Prints from color film provide significant challenges. Color print film usually has to be hand-balanced to a particular color by a lab, color processing is tricky. Most professional photographers use slide film which provides a visible "reference" to what a picture looks like, but chemical printing of slides (via "type R" prints, Cibachromes, etc.) give you prints which much higher contrast than the original slide, there are techniques to mitigate this, but it's kind of a mess.

The best prints from slides made right now are made by making high-resolution drum scans of the slide, then making prints using a machine which exposes conventional photographic paper with digitally controlled laser beams, and controlled processing. With color management, I can actually send out for a print that matches what I see on my screen (although this also requires calibration of my monitor to a reference standard using a colorimeter.) This is a lot of work, and it gives prints that have better detail than darkroom prints (long explanation omitted), but it'd be better if I'd collected the digital image first rather than scanning the slide. 12MP (36MB) or so has been my "bar" for matching the resolution I can get.

Mind you, none of this makes any useful difference for prints 8x10 or smaller.

do you find using software ie photoshop is sufficient to make up for not being able to control the development/printing process?

Yes, Photoshop gives me much better control of things like this than the darkroom, and repeatability as well. (Once I've dodged/burned/color corrected a scan, I can have it printed multiple times and expect to get the same results, time and time again, which is essential. This is tricky to do in the darkroom.

What printer?...

The LightJet 5000, I don't own one (they're prohibitively expensive)--I use Calypso Imaging. This is a very cool hybrid digital/chemical machine, essentially a digital enlarger, exposing film with lasers, processing with controlled temperature and reagents, etc. This machine (and other similar models) are very commonly used by professional photographers these days.

since you take landscapes you probably wont be able to help me here but is there a way to get really fast exposures (equivalent to 1600 iso film or greater)?

Good question. I think the "1Ds" is reputed to offer up to ISO 1250 or so, but I usually live on the other end of the ISO scale (most of my work is done on Fuji Velvia, which is ISO 50.) I'm told that the D-60 at ISO 400 gives results which in some ways have lower noise than 400 speed film, but I can't speak to higher speeds.

And most importantly if you were given 10 prints would you be able to tell which ones are digital and which ones are from film?

For well-produced Lightjet prints it would be a little tricky. The final product of either appears on standard photographic paper, photographic images tend not to lend themselves to jaggies. I just checked a couple of my own prints and a similarly produced print of this image by Galen Rowell and I can't find jaggies with a magnifying glass on large prints.

What I think I could cue on easily is the excessive contrast of chemical prints from slides. So, "very probably," with the LightJet prints (assuming of course both were done very well) looking better (because they're more controllable by the photographer or printer.)

So I did step two, which is to sit down with the client and tweak the file out to his specs, since he was willing to pay *now* for the 'expert eye'. I asked just out of curiosity about what he used, and he said a "4 MP Fuji"...acting as if the amount of megapixels was all that mattered.

It comes down to the quality of the CCD itself, which is why a 6 MP Nikon D100 costs 2300, and a consumer 6 MP camera costs maybe half that.

The best hi-res printers on the market. The LightJets combine digital printing with the archival quality of printing on true photographic paper. Of course, you have to have $200K lying about to get one :)

It's called an "acoustic optical modulator", my old company uses them all the time in their laser photographic printers.

We modulate a laser beam on the order of 14 million times a second, actually a lot more than that. Check out www.cymbolic.com (LightJet / PlateJet products).

MadCow.

This camera will make a big change on the professional photo industry. Currently for a studio setting the sony studio camera 2560x2048 pixels (~$16K) is the best one out. A few web sites for interest are Sienna (Maker of the Mileca and mid format Fibre Optic CRT digital printers) and Cymbolic Sciences, makers of large format digital focrt printers. If this camera comes with a small price tag it will have a huge influence on professional photo labs converting to digital. It would also be a big plus if they could get the size down :-)