Professional Web Applications Themes

Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints - Photography

Doug, Today, as promissed by you, I received two large prints that you made. (For bystanders, these are ~35.5" x 24" (900 x 610mm) which comes to a sensor to print 'up' ratio of 40:1) They are gorgeous in color and detail and as large prints they are great. Regarding the D20 print: ======================== 1) The detail in the middle of the flower is very good. But I know a good 35mm film shot* will get as much 'detail' esp. in the center. Where this image BEATS 35mm hands down is the absence of grain / noise. It is clean ...

  1. #1

    Default Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Doug,

    Today, as promissed by you, I received two large prints that you made.

    (For bystanders, these are ~35.5" x 24" (900 x 610mm) which comes to a sensor to
    print 'up' ratio of 40:1)

    They are gorgeous in color and detail and as large prints they are great.

    Regarding the D20 print:
    ========================

    1) The detail in the middle of the flower is very good. But I know a good 35mm
    film shot* will get as much 'detail' esp. in the center. Where this image BEATS
    35mm hands down is the absence of grain / noise. It is clean and contrasty (for
    the subject).

    (Great lens, Velvia/Provia 100, good light).

    2) In some areas where the color is continuous, there is a seemingly artificial
    look to the print (for example the yel/grn areas in the leaves that are out of
    focus; and in the deep area of the flower where the salmon color blocks up to
    orange). But if one stands back 24" or so, it is not an issue. In a film
    version that area would have had a texture as a result of grain and it would
    have looked grainy even standing back.

    3) Fine-fine detail. Where there are fine hairs on the edges of the flower
    petals there is a 'glow' in between the fine hairs. It's impossible to say if
    this is from the lens, the sensor or your process.
    In the flower, the 'veins' are clear and discernible. The real 'win' here
    is the lack of noise allows that detail to clearly show.

    So far I have found nothing printed here above 1-2 lp/mm, but I'll keep looking.
    (I don't have a proper loupe for measuring this but I can get a good feel with
    a ruler and mag glass).

    4) Compared to a Cibachrome from a MF slide: My initial impression is that
    similar sized Cibachrome from Velvia (Pentax 6x7) shows more detail than your
    prints (But I don't have one right here). For noise (grain) I have the
    impression your shot has less noise (OTOH, the noise on Cibachromes from a
    couple feet back is not discernible at all which is not the case of a large
    print from 35mm).

    I should be seeing my P67 shooting friend at the end of March (he is away from
    the city most of the year). I'll bring your prints with me when I go see him
    and I'll report then on comparing with his C'chromes and scan/prints.

    In summary, this photo shows that a digital image can printed very cleanly. It
    also illustrates the value of the low noise of digital sensors v. film grain
    (which I've stated many times in any case).

    PS:There is a streak on the lower most petal that is definitely artificial).

    Regarding the 10D print.
    ========================

    While overall very impressive as a print, esp. from 4 MPix, even a second not
    particulalry close glance shows large continuous tone areas. IOW, it's n up
    and filled, there is no detail in the filling. The low noise helps hold it
    together of course. A 35mm with a good lens and film can beat this in
    detail/resolution, but again, the low noise in this print makes it work. Edge
    detail is artificial looking. (eg: where the carb manifold ducks under the
    exhaust manifold; where the fuel line contrasts against black, heads, many
    others). I've seem smaller prints exhibit this same edge detail failing, so no
    surprise here.

    From 3 feet back, looks great.

    Your claims are in the main true and valid with respect to print quality from a
    digital camera v. a 35mm. But it's mainly about low nouise, not about resolution.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Alan Browne wrote:
     
    Where do we get to see these prints?

    JD
    --
    EOS my GOD,
    Give me ISO for I have not yet seen the light.
    Take away my grain, give me colour and you
    shall have given me the edge!
    Deciple Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Deciple of EOS wrote: 
    > Where do we get to see these prints?
    >
    > JD[/ref]


    Ryadia has the flower picture on his web site but the full crop doesn't
    show any of the patented enargement, just a regular crop from a 6MP pic.
    I'd like to see a full crop of the enhanced digital version or a scan
    from the print... anything.
    paul Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints



    Alan Browne wrote: 
    <snip>
     

    Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where
    does film come in? 
    <snip> 

    A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
    if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
    then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
    claims.

    Colin
    Colin Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Alan Browne wrote: 
     
    Lets not lose track of the comparison criteria, Alan. A film (6x7 if you
    wish but the deal was 'medium format' which could just as easily be 645)
    scanned on a Nikon 'Coolscan'. This carries with it the presumption the
    whole process is one which can be afforded by a lone (professional)
    photographer. The compared print will also be from an inkjet printer.

    You can't make a Cibachrome (llifochrome now) prints from a scanned
    image in an affordable for one person lab so you can't really compare
    the digital prints I gave you to Ciba with any degree fairness to either
    source but I'm willing to go along with someone scanning a 6x7 trannie
    on a Nikon Coolscan and using a digital laser printer to hit some
    ilfochrome paper if this is what you want.

    I've had a print lab since 1983. I really don't recall the date I
    started making monochrome masks to control the contrast of Ciba printing
    but it was in the '80, to be sure. I also used to make 'unsharp masks'
    for Ciba printing to enhance the sharpness of transparencies when the
    mirror slap of a RB67 at anything under 1/250th shook the out of
    the camera.

    The flower print I gave you would not have printed directly on Ciba
    ....had it been taken on trannie film, without a contrast mask. I doubt
    many people still able to make them, are not going blind from exposure
    to Ciba's chemicals or the constant bright to dark lit world we used to
    live in. But none the less, some still might exist and still have the
    gear to make them. Let me know if you find one.

    I'm please you agree that my "claims are in the main true and valid".
    Quite a long way from being "full of ". Does this mean we can be
    civil again?
    Ryadia Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Colin D wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where
    > does film come in?
    >
    > <snip>

    >
    >
    > A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
    > if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
    > then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
    > claims.
    >
    > Colin[/ref]

    He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing a
    final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live with it
    mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image resolution. 240
    megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably more detail in it
    than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of it is digital noise,
    either.

    How you derive your calculations is beyond my comprehension. But then so
    is your navigation so I shouldn't be surprised what you come up with,
    should I? Are you sure you have the right bait this time? Lures are said
    to be better for trolling.

    Now about that Velvia... How much of it do you need for your dslr? Can
    you Email me a cheque for it?

    Doug
    Ryadia Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Colin D wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where
    > does film come in?[/ref]

    a discussion about where film would would not be able to print to a large size.
    Basically what I've said holds: the low noise of the digital allows one to
    make a large print, but the resolution is not up to the size of the print.
     
    >
    >
    > A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
    > if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
    > then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
    > claims.[/ref]

    Yes. I have to go compare these with detail from Cibachromes which I won't have
    access to until late March.
    Caveat, I have to sit down with the 20D print and really search, there may be
    detail above what I stated.

    Cheers,
    Alan
    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Ryadia wrote: 
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Lost me here. I thought you were looking at a digital image? Where
    >> does film come in?
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >> 
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
    >> if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
    >> then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
    >> claims.
    >>
    >> Colin[/ref]
    >
    >
    > He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing a
    > final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live with it
    > mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image resolution. 240
    > megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably more detail in it
    > than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of it is digital noise,
    > either.[/ref]

    I'm not sure how you set your printer but surely it was at at least 100 dpi,
    probably higher?



    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Ryadia wrote:
     
    >

    > Lets not lose track of the comparison criteria, Alan. A film (6x7 if you
    > wish but the deal was 'medium format' which could just as easily be 645)
    > scanned on a Nikon 'Coolscan'. This carries with it the presumption the
    > whole process is one which can be afforded by a lone (professional)
    > photographer. The compared print will also be from an inkjet printer.[/ref]

    Indeed, recall where you brought up Pentax 6x7 which cooincidently is what a
    friend of mine uses.

     

    I'll be looking at the Ciba's that my friend made. The other point here is that
    his Ciba's are about 24" at their largest, so I'll be looking for detail
    approaching 5 lp/mm at minimum on the print. I don't recall him stating if he
    made masks. I understand that is a very tedious process.
     

    My friend is a very slow photographer and he shoots for color, contrast and
    detail.
     

    As prev. stated, my friend wants to get away from Ciba as the process is long
    and expensive.
     

    Where, specifically (link), did I say you were "full of "? I can't find it.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Alan Browne wrote: 

    Maybe you used the word 'crap' and use of the word '' was aimed at
    one of my customers who replied to you. In any case, I don't keep
    records and the thread is out of my list now.
    Ryadia Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Ryadia wrote:
     

    To be specific there is 'digital noise' on the print. Look near the flower
    center, 3 O'clock position in the shaddow area. There are blocked up dark
    orange on salmon colored areas. This -is- noise. It's visisble from about 18
    inches away from the print.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Alan Browne wrote: 

    Would you like me to send you some freshly made Illfochrome prints
    (Cibachrome)from my RB67? I can scan the trannie on a Coolscan and use
    my digital laser with a different paper holder to make the print.

    I still have an old processing drum I can use to develop it. In fact the
    Hibiscus are still in flower on the very same bush I shot the digital
    pic on, I can't guarantee you the same flower but I sure as hell can
    find a similar one. Of course the spider and it's web might not be
    available.

    Doug
    Searching Google for the post you earlier asked for.
    Ryadia Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Ryadia wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Would you like me to send you some freshly made Illfochrome prints
    > (Cibachrome)from my RB67? I can scan the trannie on a Coolscan and use
    > my digital laser with a different paper holder to make the print.[/ref]

    Go ahead. Leave off the text. I'll sell them and send you a 10% commission.

    (Don't bother).

    By the above do you mean using a laser in lieu of a an ink print head to expose
    the Ilfochrome paper? Same printer?

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Alan Browne wrote: 
    Well almost. I have a laser (well actually an LED) head for my chemical
    lab printer. I could, in a pinch, use it to expose Illfochrome instead
    of RA paper and process it in an old drum affair I still have left over
    from the bad old days before I came out of the dark.

    The results may not be any better than the prints I sent you. Certainly
    there is no chance of the same consistency in the results.

    Doug

    Ryadia Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Alan Browne <ca> writes:
     [/ref]

    <snip>
     
    > > He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing
    > > a final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live
    > > with it mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image
    > > resolution. 240 megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably
    > > more detail in it than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of
    > > it is digital noise, either.[/ref]
    >
    > I'm not sure how you set your printer but surely it was at at least
    > 100 dpi, probably higher?[/ref]

    2 lp/mm -> 4d/mm = 101.6 dpi

    --
    -Stephen H. Westin
    Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
    represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
    westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints



    Ryadia wrote: 
    >
    > He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing a
    > final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live with it
    > mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image resolution. 240
    > megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably more detail in it
    > than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of it is digital noise,
    > either.[/ref]

    Lemme get this straight, Doug. You just said 'a 240 megabyte TIFF
    file...' you are saying that you have upsized a 4 megabyte file to 240
    megabytes, right? ok, lessee about some more math here. a 240 megabyte
    uncompressed TIFF file has, by definition (assuming 8-bit color depth
    at 3 bytes/pixel), 240/3 million pixels, that's 80 million pixels - up
    from a 1.33 million pixel original. That means that each original pixel
    has given rise to about 60 new pixels, and generated new detail as it
    went.

    Assuming for the sake of argument that is correct, then a 3:2 ratio
    image from 80 megapixels will be about 7,300 x 11,000 pixels. Printing
    this image at 600 x 900 mm will produce about 12 pixels/mm, or about 6
    cycles/mm, all with genuine detail.

    Forgive me if I say that I find this hard to believe, Doug. 
    The math is easy. If you mean by 'navigation' that I don't know where
    you reside, you're right - but it's a cheap shot because I said I
    believe you're in Melbourne. If you're not, then I was wrong, and it's
    nothing to do with navigation.

    Colin
    Colin Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Colin D wrote: [/ref]
    >
    >
    > Lemme get this straight, Doug.[/ref]
     

    Colin,
    Unfortunate you thought it a cheap shot but it seemed to fit the flavor
    of this group and the people who post here. Making assumptions without
    basis.

    The History of this thread goes back much further than just the first
    post. Alan Browne has in the past attempted to ridicule me. Has refused
    to accept anything I've said without backup evidence and told me I'm
    full of crap and now, you seem to be displaying his attitude. Is it to
    do with cold climates, by any chance?

    It's not my fault if you can't see the gallery of prints I have on
    display. I would have thought it was sufficient for a 3rd partys to have
    voiced their opinion after seeing them... Seemingly not for the very
    vocal Alan Browne so...

    I sent Alan (at my own expense) 2, 600x900 prints and a mini disc
    containing the original 20D file. I also sent a duplicate package to a
    photographer of his choice (Gordon Moat). One print from a 20D and the
    other from a 10D. To provide him with some visual evidence that I could
    in fact enlarge a digital image from one of these cameras *and* with a
    not so great lens and it would be at least as good as a print made from
    a medium format transparency scanned on a Nikon Coolscan.

    The reason for sending a duplicate to someone he had faith in was to
    keep him honest. It seems to me that this was a wise move now that he is
    is seeking to change the judgment criteria for comparing the quality of
    the print to an Illfochrome (Cibachrome) and now not just from a MF
    trannie but a 6x9 size too. No doubt about it, is there? Give some of
    you geeks an abacus and you'll try and compare it to big blue.

    One of the prints I sent him does indeed originate from a 240 meg file.
    I initially printed it 52 inches wide as a demonstration for a
    Government investigator. It is conceivable that the image underwent some
    unpredictable change when I simply resized it rather than recalculated
    the original file. I simply didn't feel like buggerising around with a
    $250 freebie, OK?

    Alan Browne would have more success counting the number of letters in
    his name than trying to figure out how many lines per millimeter the
    source file of a photographic print has. Certainly he might be able to
    measure the file I sent him, it is the original camera file but measure
    lpm of an image in a print made up of nano dots from a source I spent
    more time obfuscating the data on that interpolating it? I'd like to see
    that one happen.

    And incidently... If he has to use a loupe to check the detail, how good
    a print is it? You can't see all of a 900mm wide object at arms length
    so why would you try to view it through a loupe if it wasn't to find
    microscopic faults to criticize?

    The only purpose of sending a print instead of giving him a file is to
    prevent him or anyone else from closely examining the file and
    discovering a great deal of how my process actually works. Don't think
    I'm going to respond to your attempts to discover something I'm
    attempting to conceal anytime soon either.

    Doug
    Ryadia Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Ryadia wrote:
     
    >>
    >>
    >> Lemme get this straight, Doug.[/ref]
    >

    >
    >
    > Colin,
    > Unfortunate you thought it a cheap shot but it seemed to fit the flavor
    > of this group and the people who post here. Making assumptions without
    > basis.
    >
    > The History of this thread goes back much further than just the first
    > post. Alan Browne has in the past attempted to ridicule me. Has refused
    > to accept anything I've said without backup evidence and told me I'm
    > full of crap and now, you seem to be displaying his attitude. Is it to
    > do with cold climates, by any chance?
    >
    > It's not my fault if you can't see the gallery of prints I have on
    > display. I would have thought it was sufficient for a 3rd partys to have
    > voiced their opinion after seeing them... Seemingly not for the very
    > vocal Alan Browne so...
    >
    > I sent Alan (at my own expense) 2, 600x900 prints and a mini disc
    > containing the original 20D file. I also sent a duplicate package to a
    > photographer of his choice (Gordon Moat). One print from a 20D and the
    > other from a 10D. To provide him with some visual evidence that I could
    > in fact enlarge a digital image from one of these cameras *and* with a
    > not so great lens and it would be at least as good as a print made from
    > a medium format transparency scanned on a Nikon Coolscan.
    >
    > The reason for sending a duplicate to someone he had faith in was to
    > keep him honest. It seems to me that this was a wise move now that he is
    > is seeking to change the judgment criteria for comparing the quality of
    > the print to an Illfochrome (Cibachrome) and now not just from a MF
    > trannie but a 6x9 size too. No doubt about it, is there? Give some of
    > you geeks an abacus and you'll try and compare it to big blue.[/ref]

    Go read the excahnges Doug, 6x7 Pentax Cibas was the mentioned a long time
    ago... stop changing history.

     

    So much for civility, eh Doug?
     

    The printed image does have more "fill" information than the original sensor
    could possibly take. That's a result of your patented technique filling in all
    those megs for the printer. That does NOT give you any more resolved detail
    than the original image. You do have a relatively smooth and low noise result,
    but the detail remains limited by the original sensor.

    Your technique also reveals its limitations in the other image with its crappy
    edge definition and contrast. On a 'soft' image like the flower, fine, on hard
    details like the engine photo, not so great.
     

    Doug, Doug, Doug, Stop putting the wrong motive to an action. I was using the
    loupe to look for actual printed line resolution, not as a means of looking at
    the photo proper. And, as stated, I don't need a loupe to see the noise that is
    present in the image.
     

    This is strange Doug. You claim the technique is patented which requires that
    you divulge how it is done publicly. So why are you "attempting to conceal" it?

    Quote:
    "Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a portion of
    a file my patented algorythm has altered." --From: Ryadia (com)
    Subject: Re: Finally did it! Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    Date: 2005-01-21 15:58:10 PST

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

    Alan, Alan, Alan...
    -------

    Civility? Since when have you ever shown anyone any? Tell me I'm full of
    crap because I contradicted your claim a print from MF film, scanned on
    a Nikon scanner could not be equaled by a digital and then sent you the
    evidence it can. Nice one Alan.

    So now the prints I sent you which "are gorgeous in color and detail"
    (your words)have suddenly become crappy and full of digital noise? You
    should buy some toilet paper Alan, it's much softer than photo paper.
    The A model ford engine you said was "gorgeous" must have been printed
    with morphing ink, for it to become a "crappy" picture so soon eh? Hey,
    maybe I used morphing noise too? Better keep your eye on the loupe.

    The bit I have never figured out about you is how you can so forcefully
    make such outrageously wrong statements about a subject you have no
    experience with and then gain enough knowledge of it along the way to
    argue out of the bog you got yourself into in the first place. It
    doesn't work when you come against the developer with your totally wrong
    and baseless bull.

    Get a digital camera Alan, learn about it's data handling and take some
    pictures with it before you start telling experienced users what they
    can and cannot do with one.

    How can you goad someone with the statement of a medium format film
    scanned on a Nikon Coolscan being able to produce "better prints" than a
    digital SLR and then when confronted with proof you were wrong, try to
    change the comparison to a Cibachrome print and 6x9 Transparency film?
    What happened to the Nikon Scanner? Maybe it was a morphing scanner?
    Changed into Durst enlarger perhaps? You think I'm strange. Looked in
    the mirror lately?

    My stance on secrecy is no different to Microsoft's or any other
    developer with work in progress. Finding the balance between proof and
    protection of IP is and never will be easy.

    Doug



    Alan Browne wrote:
     
    Ryadia Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints



    Ryadia wrote: 
    Ok. I guess it's not hard to amalgamate variable attitudes between
    posters into a composite attitude against you, but although I have never
    had any personal problems with Alan, that doesn't mean I parallel his
    views. I try to work in a non-judgmental manner. I will say what I think
    about a subject, but I don't denigrate the subjectee (if that's a
    word). My original mistake about your domicile was made in a genuine
    offer to come and view your prints when my wife and I will be in
    Melbourne, Australia, from 27 March to 10 April. However, your reply
    about needing a big bus ride of about 500k's, without specifying where
    to, I found a bit flippant and somewhat evasive, given that you had said
    you would welcome visitors, so the idea was dropped. 
    Refer remarks about composite attitudes above. I have not said that you
    are full of crap, or anything like it What I have said is, I find it
    hard to believe, a genuine remark pending further information in the
    form of seeing a print (which Alan has done). To clarify further, Alan
    is free to say what he wants, but remember he said it, not me. 
    Again, don't confuse me with Alan. It's nobody's fault that I haven't
    seen your gallery. I would like to see your gallery. I made an
    international offer to visit your gallery, but you replied evasively, in
    my estimation. 
    I'm not too happy about the 'geek' epithet, the rest does not apply to
    me or my previous post. 
    Doug, I took your statement about a 240 MB file at face value. I did
    some simple, non-geek calculations about pixels and cycles/mm, and
    concluded that I found it hard to believe. That doesn't mean I think
    you're lying, or mistaken. It means I don't have sufficient information
    to justify a belief in something I haven't seen. 
    <snip irrelevant material> 

    Your imputation that I'm attempting to discover your secret process is
    unwarranted and argumentative. I have expressed a difficulty in
    believing what you say you can do. On the face of it, inventing new
    detail in 59 times the pixels from the detail in an original image file
    sounds impossible. Every rational person would adopt that initial
    stance, until they saw for themselves.
    Unless something new arises in this thread, I have no more to say.

    Colin
    Colin Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. large prints from digital file?
    By Dr. in forum Photography
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 20th, 07:25 AM
  2. large prints, HELP!
    By not in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 7th, 03:34 AM
  3. Largish prints from digital in NYC?
    By Duke in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 23rd, 01:12 PM
  4. Making large prints from small digital files
    By Tony Whitaker in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 11th, 11:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139