> I think that the Schnozz has been saying something like this
> for a year or 2, no?
> > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/
Yes, something like that. A handful of thoughts here:
I've been doing a little semi-scientific study on ultra-sharp
and ultra-detail prints. So far, in my preliminary testing with
"joe-consumers" (around 20 so far) is that the slightly less
detailed images with slightly softened edges is more
"comfortable" to most of the viewers.
My sample prints are the exact same images printed on identical
paper, but with slightly softened edges to mimick film/optical
prints. Actually, the second image is quite a bit dumbed-down.
One comment, from one person (who happens to have over a million
dollars worth of artwork in her home--including three of my
images) noted that the ultra-sharp images (which would be
considered "normal" these days--but had no USM applied, just
printed 300dpi pixel-for-pixel) made her "nervous". Her other
comment was that the sharp images all looked "flat".
BTW, just for a point of reference, my portraits taken with the
E-1 printed to 8x10 have ZERO sharpening applied. These still
come back sharper and more detailed than I'm really comfortable
with. 11x14s, from the E-1, have about the same sharpness as our
eyes are used to in high-quality half-tone on high-gloss
cover-stock.
DDD prints (Digital capture, Digital editing, Digital output)
generally lack some "organic" character to them and the ultra
resolution tends to overpower the subject or composition.
So much of print resolution is dependant upon the paper itself.
Anything over 11x14, in my world, is ALMOST ALWAYS bonded to
canvas or had a texture applied. With this kind of surface
treatment, there is essentially no quantifiable gain to
increased pixel-count beyond what 5MP gives. Seems like there
was a cross-over point, somewhere around 4MP, where increased
resolution doesn't really matter much. The proof to this is the
number of wedding/portrait photographers successfully shooting
with Nikon D2H(s) cameras. With these surface treatments, at
best, you get maybe 150 ppi resolution in measurable terms.
With a good RIP, you're not going to see any pixel blocks
either. (there are many reasons to pick a newer high-res camera
like the 5D, but printed output for portraiture isn't one of
them).
I pulled out some prints from portrait sessions done years ago
on 645, 6x6 and 6x7. I looked at the prints with a loupe and
found that there was actually quite a bit of blurring going on
and not a single image was as sharp and detailed as my E-1.
Only ONE picture from medium format really showed any facial
hair. EVERY E-1 picture shows facial hair! When looking at my
OM shots, I had to go all the way down to hand-printed B&W
images on ISO-100 film to see as much detail as the E-1 gives
me.
The film images, however, had a distinct "look" to them which
really is inviting and makes you just want to hug it.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link
Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr
MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Assoc
http://yahoo.degrees.info
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|