I just returned from the local color lab that I use where I picked up a print made from the photo below. All I can say is that I am stunned. The quality of the 16X20 print is absolutely amazing - much better than anything I have been able to get in the past from slide film and I have tried many different ways: Cibachrome, internegatives,you name it. I could never get a print to look as good as the slide. This print looks just as good as the image on my monitor - only better.
This is a real benefit of digital imaging that I did not fully appreciate. After seeing this I have to say my film days are history. I only wish I had some way to show you the print.
Larry
Is it a lightjet print?
That is a beautiful photograph. What did you use to take it?
Great Larry,
I had a couple 16 x 20's done from Fiji as well. Very pleased with the results.
Berkely White from Backscatter had an interesting story regarding digital vs film when it came to large prints, said digital beat the film shots hands down. Wish I could remember the details as it was quite interesting.
James, I wonder if you could get him to post it or forward it to you. I found the information surprising.
Rand
printing digital prints
Hello -
If you have not tried Pictopia.com services you may find them very useful for printing large prints in different sizes, borders, etc. My prints come back looking great using their Fuji crystal archive paper.
M.
Rand: I'll ask him.
Cheers
James
Oh, and I have selected a bunch of photos from Fiji to print also, but I have been waiting to finish processing them until I get my Spyder (hopefully on Tuesday).
Cheers
James
Herbko wrote:
Is it a lightjet print?
It was printed on an Epson 9600 Pro with Ultra chrome ink
DesertEagle wrote:
That is a beautiful photograph. What did you use to take it?
Berkely White from Backscatter had an interesting story regarding digital vs film when it came to large prints, said digital beat the film shots hands down. Wish I could remember the details as it was quite interesting.
I'd have to say that Berkely is right.
Larry
Larry,
Really really nice image. Even if we don't get to see it as a print, the online version is mighty sweet. I'll second recommendation for Pictopia as well, they do really good work (well, strictly speaking, I suppose that they just do very accurate output of the file that you have done all the work on...) and turn around time is pretty fast.
I think that digital produces awesome prints at 10 x 16. I got some recently (Fuji Pictros) and they were great - pretty hard to fault. But I have got just as good results from scanned film on Pictro. So I think it is a bit unfair to say that digital is better.
I would agree that it is easier to get consistently good results with digital printing rather that chemical printing. But I don't believe that digital cameras are better than scanned slides. Both produce great images when printed digitally at ths size.
Alex
p.s. I imagine, Larry, that your picture must look stunning at that size. A great reef scenic like your shot just needs to be printed big to be appreciated.
I think that digital produces awesome prints at 10 x 16. I got some recently (Fuji Pictros) and they were great - pretty hard to fault. But I have got just as good results from scanned film on Pictro. So I think it is a bit unfair to say that digital is better.
I don't think it's unfair at all. I've had prints made from slides just about every way possible and never once did I look at the print and say "wow, this looks better than my slide." Sometimes it would be close, but never better.
Larry
I'd have to agree with Alex; I think the difference is digital printing. The prints I have made at my local lab printed from digital files (scans) surpass what I've gotten from the original slides using chemical processes. And this is without alot of postprocessing of the scans. But between my digital images from sensor and those from scans, I don't see alot of difference in the prints.
Linda,
I've only had a few prints made from scans and I was not impressed. Of course, YMMV.
For me at least, I think it's a moot point. I don't think it's worth dragging both a film and digital system to remote sites for the few shots that I can't get with digital.
