Photoclubalpha

I am relatively new to digital manipulation having confined myself in the past mainly to straight scanning of film negatives. I have used digital cameras in the main for snap shots and archiving / eBay photos, etc, preferring film for the rest. However, it is clear to me now that digital sensors are close up with film in resolution, certainly for my humble purposes, and the quality from the A900, exemplified by the stunning cover photo of the latest copy of Photoworld, is astounding.

However, I am not at all clear (a) whether images from such a sensor as in the A900 require further sharpening in the "development" phase in PS (or PSE, which I am using) and (b) if they do, how much needs to be applied and (c) why should this be necessary anyway when it is not so for film (or maybe it is now that labs use DP techniques)?

It is considerations such as these which make the continued use of film attractive for me when travelling because I can leave the laborious post-processing to someone else to do at what I think is a very reasonable cost of about £20 for 36 6x9 inch prints incuding cost of fim and postage. One can buy a lot of professionally processed prints for the cost uplift in moving from a Dynax7 to an A900.

artington wrote:... it is clear to me now that digital sensors are close up with film in resolution, certainly for my humble purposes ...

When considering image quality rather than resolution then APS-C-format digital has surpassed 35-mm film five or six years ago. Today, digital is much better than film in most aspects.

artington wrote:... and the quality from the A900, exemplified by the stunning cover photo of the latest copy of Photoworld, is astounding.

A modern 35-mm-format 20+ MP digital camera is at least as good as low-speed medium-format film and often even approaches 4" × 5" sheet film.

artington wrote:However, I am not at all clear (a) whether images from such a sensor as in the A900 require further sharpening in the "development" phase in PS (or PSE, which I am using) ...

Yes, they do. That naturally is inherent to digital imaging.

artington wrote:... how much needs to be applied ...

Depends.

artington wrote:... and (c) why should this be necessary anyway when it is not so for film ...?

Because with film, you never enter the digital domain when going from the real-world subject to the print.

artington wrote:It is considerations such as these which make the continued use of film attractive for me when travelling because I can leave the laborious post-processing to someone else ...

That's reasonable when projecting slides onto a silver screen or when making wet-darkroom prints directly from film. But when you need digital images then nothing is as laborious as scanning film. Shooting digital is much easier, quicker, and more comfortable than shooting film and then scanning it. And much better, too. Cheaper, too.

artington wrote:One can buy a lot of professionally processed prints for the cost uplift in moving from a Dynax 7 to an A900.

Just get a used Dynax 7D or Alpha 100, and you will enter a new world ... both in terms of usability and image quality, for the price of a few dozen rolls of slide film.

-- Olaf