rdeloe Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Dan, we do get obsessed about minutae on forums like this, so I took your challenge seriously! I processed the same RAF using my IXT+LR workflow, and a LR only workflow that many consider to be optimum (for sharpening, Amount: 33, Radius: 1.1, Detail: 85, Masking: 10). I then printed the same sample region from both finished images at 24”x36”. To be sure it was a fair test, I did the test blind (in other words, I mixed up the prints so I wouldn’t know which was which, and then chose the one I thought was best).
I can easily tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison of these prints, and so could you if you had the prints in front of you. At this size, the IXT+LR workflow I'm using squeezes a bit more detail out of the image than the LR only workflow.
But… would the differences I can see in these prints matter? I think that’s basically what you’re arguing, and on that point you’re absolutely right. They wouldn’t matter.
As I type this, I have a copy of Eliot Porter’s book Intimate Landscapes open in front of me. Relative to today, the equipment Porter used to make these images, and the 1970s technology the publisher used to print them in this book, would be considered totally inferior by many. Nonetheless, his photographs are exquisite, and really, there’s nothing at all wrong with the printing quality. I have no desire to pull out a magnifying glass and study the detail (although there actually is plenty of detail). Instead, I want to immerse myself in Porter’s vision.
Am I wasting my time by trying to squeeze the most detail out of my Fuji RAFs using my IXT+LR workflow? I suppose I am. Still, I get some satisfaction from knowing that I squeezed my RAFs for every bit of detail they can produce. And honestly, it doesn't get in the way of what actually matters -- the photographs.
Rob
|