Photobitstream you truly are a pompous ass and blowhard with more equipment than knowledge. Anyone can hang put out a shingle and call theselves a pro which I find is the case with you. As you are too incompetent to field an answer a question I'll go.
ASA: Arithmetically progressive rating of the senstivity of film to light (American Standards Association).
As it is the light sensitive crystals and their application to the substrate that affects the ASA rating the printed image is then affected. If the the crystal is the printing dot then there is a direct correalation to the printed "dot." As a photographic print is a continuous tone print there is not a true printed "dot" but the size of a crystal is the determinant of grain. There is a reason that ASA is set on cameras or light meters to correspond with the film.
I don't have a digital camera that has ASA settings on it so I don't know how it is done. You are the one that stated ASA is the same in digital as it is in film. There are reasons for using film of different ASA ratings. So, there should be a reason for it to be changed on a digital camera. You are also the one that continuously harps on grain and 35mm. I have seen some rather stunning 16x20 photographs and myself have produced modeling prints where a stray thread on the model's blouse looked as if it is laying on the surface of the print. This without the use of a grain focuser. If you have been unable to do so then it sounds like a personal problem to me. Going past this ASA non-issue and to review your last post I find you offer nothing except, "I am a pro."
Due to your pomposity you missed what I said in my original post regarding thought before releasing the shutter. There are a number of variables film type, film speed, light, shutter speed etc.. And, guess what all these affect this grain that you seem to have a problem with handling. Let's not forget about film size but to keep on track limit discussion, or as you like to say, arguement to 35mm. You state that a digital image is "cleaner." Being such a "pro" it appears that you skipped the article I provided (actually from your continued pomposity and buffoonery I don't think you read the article at all) and the talk of digital interpolation wherein a 5.9mp image can be interpolated up to 10mp (if you don't understand interpolation let me know and I will hand walk you through it). No data avaiable to interpolate on a continuous tone print.
In getting to the meat of my original post I brought up processing. I am assuming (oh,oh) you know what that is. Since there is no digital film to be "processed" then I will assume (again oh,oh) that this is the corresponding digital step: "As with all things, there ain't no free lunch. Because a 6MP digital file contains less information than a drum scanned 35mm original you have to be careful how you enlarge the image. Changing the image size in PhotoShop works well enough for non-critical use, but can introduce visible artifacts. I've found that changing the image size incrementally, 10 percent at a time, works much better than ging straight from 3072x2048 pixels to 9000x6000 pixels. Note this is a 3x enlargement to get the digital file from 6.8x10 inches to 20x30 inches (printing at 300 dpi). An 8x12 print from 35mm film is an 8x enlargement." Well, golly gee, it appears to me that there is some thought needed to get the desired result. Guess you don't do this with film.
And, let's take a look at this: "Then there are the other problems associated with film. Where do you get your film processed? If you use a cheap local lab you will regret it eventually. I've seen roller marks on emulsion, boogers from contaminated chemistry, stains from exhausted chemistry, and all manner of vile crap on my film over the years." You rather missed my Sav-on analogy due to your pomposity and inability to reference matters on a point by point basis. You posit yourself as such a "pro" I thought you did it all yourself. If not, then it is up to you to find the best film lab and colour house otherwise— "If the files "look digital" to you I submit it is because the person doing the preprint work did not know how to prepare the files properly. Judicious use of sharpening is essential for maximum quality. The truth is digital files are cleaner than film. Less grain. >>>Less dirt if you keep the sensor clean<<<. Fewer enlargement artifacts." Whoops!!! Someone said that about digital. Get the impression that there is dust and dirt only a film lab for some reason. But, from the sound of it no one is as good or conscientious as you and it has been impossible for you to produce an acceptable large print as a result.
Here is a telling statement: "I switched to digital largely for economic reasons (I was shooting 2,000 images per day" Wowee!! Don't know what you are doing but it seems to go along with my statement about firing off a couple dozen digital shots in hopes of getting a good one. Goes along the lines of a "Snapshooter,"— hey didn't that other knothead ProAc use that term? They are the hoi polloi among those considered to be "pro." The time needed to take 2,000 shots sure eats into prep time (I do know that sports/action photographers do this but for a reason). At least it would for me—but, then I don't refer to myself as a "pro." I would be embarrassed showing 2,000 images to a client. Actually, I do recognise your inability to define parameters and to just throw things out so I know the 2,000 shots are not of one subject (I, hope) but still uninformed as to how many assignments this entails.
Let's now take a look at this statement: "The bottom line is I can pull killer 20x30 prints out of my humble Canon EOS 10D. I've never seen a 20x30 print from a 35mm original that impressed me." I can't definitely say that I remember seeing a 20x30 (I have seen some large prints perhaps this size maybe from a 35mm) photo print pulled from a 35mm and I am unable to guess the photographer's intent. Must be some reason. The ones I recall are fashion shots and hot developed for the desired result-very impressive (maybe you should define "impressed"). Now pulling a 20x30 from a digital sounds to me as if it would take some special equipment. Myself, I would need to find someplace to do anything over 8x10. Now, if I am too incompetent to find the right place, or do it myself, should I say it can't be done? Without any thought, arriving at the final printed image is a crapshoot and reflects incompetence. Would I take a printing plate off a newspaper press and mount it on a magazine press and then bitch about the quality (you, should know the answer)? Now, in going from an 8x10 digital print to a 30x20 is the same data used in both and all that is required is to tell the printer to output a 30x20? >>>I have no experience with this<<<. "Incremental steps" leads me to believe this is not the case.
Finally, let's refer to your opening statement: "Hakka26, you remind me of myself 25 years ago. Intelligent, uneducated, and sure you know everything. Well, after making my living taking photos for almost three decades, and have processed more than 30,000 rolls and sheets of B&W film, I've learned a thing or two about what makes a good print. Now, if you're through attacking me, sit back and learn a thing or two." A prime example of your being a pompous ass with a non-justified ego and the ignorance to match. What is the relevance of stating 30,000 rolls and sheets? You do know the adage regarding a monkey and a typewriter, don't you? Maybe not, so here it is: It's been said that if you sit a monkey down in front of a typewriter that he/she will eventually hunt and peck out a novel. Took 30,000 for you to learn one or two things? Have a long way to go. "Uneducated"? Here is where you become a dumbass as only a dumbass would attempt such a statement without relevant fact. I will match you point by point any college credits awarded and I will venture a guess and state that around 140 all you'll is ass and elbows as I go by picking up speed. Or, is there another parameter that you are again too ignorant to define by which you want to measure? It is your lack of your own intelligence and boorish manner reflected in your posts. What a dumbass to say shut up and listen and then follow it with...blank space (a reflection of what is between you ears?). You openly exhibit your lack of culture and refinement in telling me to shut up and listen leaving me waiting with nothing except past reference that you are a "pro." Despite your opening volley I read your post. Something a pompous ass as you fails to do. I said preparation must be taken to produce a film shot you said the same about digital, I said care must be taken in film processing and printing, color is usually done and out of house, and you said the same about digital. Agreeing that the "lab" choice is a big factor. You said I was wrong but didn't state why only that you are a "pro" and say so. All you did was take what I said about film and apply it do digital and act in a more responsible manner (what sort of dumbass continually uses a bad or cheap colour house?) So what did you state? Apparently, there are steps to take in producing a quality large digital image and you will take them. Well, you know what—it's the same with film.
Beyond the ASA and grain non-issue you harp about you exhibited nothing except that you're a "because I am a pro and say so" pompous ass. No reason is given to deride film or my thoughts on it and digital. Apparently, you couldn't get an acceptable 16x20 with film but given the time and effort can do so with digital. What does that say? Given your failure to offer true insight and knowledge beyond "I am a pro" it is nothing but a circular arguement and as such I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Goodbye
###
ASA: Arithmetically progressive rating of the senstivity of film to light (American Standards Association).
As it is the light sensitive crystals and their application to the substrate that affects the ASA rating the printed image is then affected. If the the crystal is the printing dot then there is a direct correalation to the printed "dot." As a photographic print is a continuous tone print there is not a true printed "dot" but the size of a crystal is the determinant of grain. There is a reason that ASA is set on cameras or light meters to correspond with the film.
I don't have a digital camera that has ASA settings on it so I don't know how it is done. You are the one that stated ASA is the same in digital as it is in film. There are reasons for using film of different ASA ratings. So, there should be a reason for it to be changed on a digital camera. You are also the one that continuously harps on grain and 35mm. I have seen some rather stunning 16x20 photographs and myself have produced modeling prints where a stray thread on the model's blouse looked as if it is laying on the surface of the print. This without the use of a grain focuser. If you have been unable to do so then it sounds like a personal problem to me. Going past this ASA non-issue and to review your last post I find you offer nothing except, "I am a pro."
Due to your pomposity you missed what I said in my original post regarding thought before releasing the shutter. There are a number of variables film type, film speed, light, shutter speed etc.. And, guess what all these affect this grain that you seem to have a problem with handling. Let's not forget about film size but to keep on track limit discussion, or as you like to say, arguement to 35mm. You state that a digital image is "cleaner." Being such a "pro" it appears that you skipped the article I provided (actually from your continued pomposity and buffoonery I don't think you read the article at all) and the talk of digital interpolation wherein a 5.9mp image can be interpolated up to 10mp (if you don't understand interpolation let me know and I will hand walk you through it). No data avaiable to interpolate on a continuous tone print.
In getting to the meat of my original post I brought up processing. I am assuming (oh,oh) you know what that is. Since there is no digital film to be "processed" then I will assume (again oh,oh) that this is the corresponding digital step: "As with all things, there ain't no free lunch. Because a 6MP digital file contains less information than a drum scanned 35mm original you have to be careful how you enlarge the image. Changing the image size in PhotoShop works well enough for non-critical use, but can introduce visible artifacts. I've found that changing the image size incrementally, 10 percent at a time, works much better than ging straight from 3072x2048 pixels to 9000x6000 pixels. Note this is a 3x enlargement to get the digital file from 6.8x10 inches to 20x30 inches (printing at 300 dpi). An 8x12 print from 35mm film is an 8x enlargement." Well, golly gee, it appears to me that there is some thought needed to get the desired result. Guess you don't do this with film.
And, let's take a look at this: "Then there are the other problems associated with film. Where do you get your film processed? If you use a cheap local lab you will regret it eventually. I've seen roller marks on emulsion, boogers from contaminated chemistry, stains from exhausted chemistry, and all manner of vile crap on my film over the years." You rather missed my Sav-on analogy due to your pomposity and inability to reference matters on a point by point basis. You posit yourself as such a "pro" I thought you did it all yourself. If not, then it is up to you to find the best film lab and colour house otherwise— "If the files "look digital" to you I submit it is because the person doing the preprint work did not know how to prepare the files properly. Judicious use of sharpening is essential for maximum quality. The truth is digital files are cleaner than film. Less grain. >>>Less dirt if you keep the sensor clean<<<. Fewer enlargement artifacts." Whoops!!! Someone said that about digital. Get the impression that there is dust and dirt only a film lab for some reason. But, from the sound of it no one is as good or conscientious as you and it has been impossible for you to produce an acceptable large print as a result.
Here is a telling statement: "I switched to digital largely for economic reasons (I was shooting 2,000 images per day" Wowee!! Don't know what you are doing but it seems to go along with my statement about firing off a couple dozen digital shots in hopes of getting a good one. Goes along the lines of a "Snapshooter,"— hey didn't that other knothead ProAc use that term? They are the hoi polloi among those considered to be "pro." The time needed to take 2,000 shots sure eats into prep time (I do know that sports/action photographers do this but for a reason). At least it would for me—but, then I don't refer to myself as a "pro." I would be embarrassed showing 2,000 images to a client. Actually, I do recognise your inability to define parameters and to just throw things out so I know the 2,000 shots are not of one subject (I, hope) but still uninformed as to how many assignments this entails.
Let's now take a look at this statement: "The bottom line is I can pull killer 20x30 prints out of my humble Canon EOS 10D. I've never seen a 20x30 print from a 35mm original that impressed me." I can't definitely say that I remember seeing a 20x30 (I have seen some large prints perhaps this size maybe from a 35mm) photo print pulled from a 35mm and I am unable to guess the photographer's intent. Must be some reason. The ones I recall are fashion shots and hot developed for the desired result-very impressive (maybe you should define "impressed"). Now pulling a 20x30 from a digital sounds to me as if it would take some special equipment. Myself, I would need to find someplace to do anything over 8x10. Now, if I am too incompetent to find the right place, or do it myself, should I say it can't be done? Without any thought, arriving at the final printed image is a crapshoot and reflects incompetence. Would I take a printing plate off a newspaper press and mount it on a magazine press and then bitch about the quality (you, should know the answer)? Now, in going from an 8x10 digital print to a 30x20 is the same data used in both and all that is required is to tell the printer to output a 30x20? >>>I have no experience with this<<<. "Incremental steps" leads me to believe this is not the case.
Finally, let's refer to your opening statement: "Hakka26, you remind me of myself 25 years ago. Intelligent, uneducated, and sure you know everything. Well, after making my living taking photos for almost three decades, and have processed more than 30,000 rolls and sheets of B&W film, I've learned a thing or two about what makes a good print. Now, if you're through attacking me, sit back and learn a thing or two." A prime example of your being a pompous ass with a non-justified ego and the ignorance to match. What is the relevance of stating 30,000 rolls and sheets? You do know the adage regarding a monkey and a typewriter, don't you? Maybe not, so here it is: It's been said that if you sit a monkey down in front of a typewriter that he/she will eventually hunt and peck out a novel. Took 30,000 for you to learn one or two things? Have a long way to go. "Uneducated"? Here is where you become a dumbass as only a dumbass would attempt such a statement without relevant fact. I will match you point by point any college credits awarded and I will venture a guess and state that around 140 all you'll is ass and elbows as I go by picking up speed. Or, is there another parameter that you are again too ignorant to define by which you want to measure? It is your lack of your own intelligence and boorish manner reflected in your posts. What a dumbass to say shut up and listen and then follow it with...blank space (a reflection of what is between you ears?). You openly exhibit your lack of culture and refinement in telling me to shut up and listen leaving me waiting with nothing except past reference that you are a "pro." Despite your opening volley I read your post. Something a pompous ass as you fails to do. I said preparation must be taken to produce a film shot you said the same about digital, I said care must be taken in film processing and printing, color is usually done and out of house, and you said the same about digital. Agreeing that the "lab" choice is a big factor. You said I was wrong but didn't state why only that you are a "pro" and say so. All you did was take what I said about film and apply it do digital and act in a more responsible manner (what sort of dumbass continually uses a bad or cheap colour house?) So what did you state? Apparently, there are steps to take in producing a quality large digital image and you will take them. Well, you know what—it's the same with film.
Beyond the ASA and grain non-issue you harp about you exhibited nothing except that you're a "because I am a pro and say so" pompous ass. No reason is given to deride film or my thoughts on it and digital. Apparently, you couldn't get an acceptable 16x20 with film but given the time and effort can do so with digital. What does that say? Given your failure to offer true insight and knowledge beyond "I am a pro" it is nothing but a circular arguement and as such I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Goodbye
###
Last edited:
