All I’m saying is comparing the optical prints (flash drive) on my computer screen is not as realistic as those from the SD card using the MD 262…!
As others have stated or asked, what sort of degeneration are you thinking about, loss of resolution, loss of apparent sharpness, increase in grain size? Then comparing digital to analog is sort of apples and oranges. With a high resolution digital sensor, low ISO, image taken in raw and viewed in raw on a properly calibrated monitor is going to have very highs resolution, at 11X14 good sharpness, and I doubt you see any pixilation. For detail work, hard to beat. On the other film, what film, B&W or color, what ISO, if color print or slide, if printed how, injet, R4? Then size, as this is a 35mm thread. In general using a ISO 100 speed film, properly developed, printed 11X14, camera on a tripod, remote or cable release good prime or high quality zoom, I don't think you could look at the negative and the print and say there was any loss. If using a slide film that is projected and compared to a 11 X 14 digital print made with a Fuji Frontier you would at least a subjective comparison.
All I’m saying is comparing the optical prints (flash drive) on my computer screen is not as realistic as those from the SD card using the MD 262…!
My guess is why the SD card to computer tends to be more faithful and realistic is it doesn’t suffer from generation loss…!If you're saying that the rendered image on the LCD of the camera looks better than that same image on a larger screen ... yup. The smaller image is going to tend to hide flaws and generally look snappier. Also, the comparison isn't really valid unless both the LCD and you larger monitor are fully calibrated. I'd guess (but do not know) that the Leica LCD is pretty close to correct (by some definition) but that your monitor is not.
If you're comparing viewing the image on a large screen directly from the SD card that was in the camera vs. a copy of that file on the flash drive and saying one is better than the other ... this makes no sense.
Digital does not have the generational degradation that analog does. Every time you copy/enlarge or even scan analog media, you loose some fidelity. A "perfect" 35mm negative, once enlarged will loose something in the process. By contrast, digital - absent a malfunction or bit rot - will faithfully and perfectly make generational copies of the original image file. Whether or not that file is as "good" as an equivalent analog image isn't for us to debate here...
My question is, during the film processing from negative to a 4x6 print, will result in a degradation otherwise absent from an SD card directly to the computer…!
If you are using an excellent enlarging lens, the loss in quality in the process of transferring the negative image to the positive image on the paper is negligibe.
You see that if you look at the negative with a 12-15 loupe or a microscope, and compare that to the positive on paper.
I have done that numerous times.
When you transfer your digital file to the computer and look at it on the computer monitor, you have of course the huge loss in quality caused by the extremely low resolution of the monitor.
Monitors have mostly only 2k (2MB) or 4k (8MB) resolution. Monitors are very low-resolving mediums.
So if you look at the file from your 24MB digital cam for example, you look at only an 8 MB picture on a 4k monitor, or only at an 2MB picture if you are using a 2k monitor.
If you are using an excellent enlarging lens, the loss in quality in the process of transferring the negative image to the positive image on the paper is negligibe.
You see that if you look at the negative with a 12-15 loupe or a microscope, and compare that to the positive on paper.
I have done that numerous times.
When you transfer your digital file to the computer and look at it on the computer monitor, you have of course the huge loss in quality caused by the extremely low resolution of the monitor.
Monitors have mostly only 2k (2MB) or 4k (8MB) resolution. Monitors are very low-resolving mediums.
So if you look at the file from your 24MB digital cam for example, you look at only an 8 MB picture on a 4k monitor, or only at an 2MB picture if you are using a 2k monitor.
Wow!
Not so bad from my 2K monitor…!
Weeeeelll, it depends on how much you magnify, your light source, whether the enlarger is aligned, and so forth. In theory your enlarging and printing process should be lossless, in reality, it never is.
Moreover, a well crafted negative can hold upwards of 15 stops of Subject Birightness Range, albeit the tonal relationships are not preserved faithfully. The best enlarging paper in the world is maybe good for 6 stops, if that.
A fairer point of comparison would be a digital file printed on some reflected medium like digital to RA4 or inkjet on paper.
I won’t use sandpaper anymore…!
Are you kidding? That picture appears at very low resolution here on my monitor. Much much less quality than all my prints and transparencies.
You cannot fool physics: A 2k monitor has only 2 MB resolution, and that is a tiny fraction of what we get with optically enlarged prints and projected slides.
It’s superb on mine…!
What I see from Airdrop on my phone and the monitor are completely different.As stated above, when I click on it, the quality is very low and not acceptable to my standards.
Anyway, it doesn't matter at all how it looks on anyone's computer.
Physics and mathematics cannot be changed: A 2k monitor delivers only 2 MB resolution. Period.
And that is only a tiny fraction of an optical print or a slide.
When you are satisfied with that quality - fine for you.
I am not.
Film has several characters, resolution, contrast, (tone), grain and apparent sharpness. Optical printing, enlarger, analog , from negative to print is one generation. With black and white film if the negative was developed to print on normal paper, (depending on the brand grade 2 or 3, most seem to use grade 2 as normal) a well made print should not lose much data. Resolution is all in the film, all papers can out resolve all films, grain size is dependent on the type of emulsion, Tgain or traditionally, developer and size of the print. R4 paper has only one printing grade, if properly printed and color corrected an optically printed negative should match the information contained in the negative. A minilab printed print is scanned then printed, either inkjet or R4, color, black and white, negative or slide film, so there is a scan between the negative and the print, the print is second generation. Is any information lost? I guess it depends on the quality of the scan.
I still don't understand. How can 'optical prints' = 'flash drive'? SD cards are flash memory too, are they not? Optical must mean there is a light path in the process. Do you mean 'optical prints' = image files obtained by scanning an analogue film negative? Because if so, then of course information is lost in the process of scanning. Even in professional labs the scanners have their limits. Read some of the threads on this forum about scanning, like this one. With care, the loss of information in making an enlargement on paper straight from a negative is negligible, as others have already stated. I'm sure the 262 must impress the pants off you if you only view the results on screen.All I’m saying is comparing the optical prints (flash drive) on my computer screen is not as realistic as those from the SD card using the MD 262…!
As stated above, when I click on it, the quality is very low and not acceptable to my standards.
the optical prints (flash drive)
I still don't understand. How can 'optical prints' = 'flash drive'? SD cards are flash memory too, are they not? Optical must mean there is a light path in the process. Do you mean 'optical prints' = image files obtained by scanning an analogue film negative? Because if so, then of course information is lost in the process of scanning. Even in professional labs the scanners have their limits. Read some of the threads on this forum about scanning, like this one. With care, the loss of information in making an enlargement on paper straight from a negative is negligible, as others have already stated. I'm sure the 262 must impress the pants off you if you only view the results on screen.
Flash Drive for the premium scans of the optical printing of film.
Congratulations. You've found the first lab that routinely optically prints negatives and then scans the prints.
Or, more likely, you're confusing scans from negatives with optical prints.
The fact that your lab apparently gives you scans + optical prints doesn't mean the scans are scans from the prints. They're not.
If you make inkjet prints from your SD card and have them premium scanned, maybe you'll have a more apples to apples comparison?
Edit: Or an optical print from the SD card, premium scanned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?