Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,211   Posts: 1,531,997   Online: 1156
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,359
    Hey guys, you can read all about it over at LFPF. One thread ran 32 pages.....

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    428
    Working with marketing in a similar industry selling gadgets to professionals and wanna-bee professionals, this is how it works; You pay for some kind of advert plan (x months reoccurring) included in the price you get some kind of editorial material about your product/company published, sometimes you just get a slot for an editorial and you produce it yourself (of course in collaboration with the publisher, but the less work for them, the better they like it...).

    Go figure.
    Last edited by Felinik; 09-27-2012 at 05:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    http://street-photos.net/ | http://felinik.com/ | http://www.facebook.com/jf.felinik

    "The one with the most stuff when he dies wins"

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    IMO scanning the 8x10 film makes this test pointless period. Once you do that, you're just comparing 2 different digital workflows. Assuming your final product is a print and not some kind of digital media, the only comparison I'm interested in is the final print. Make a couple of 30x40 or larger prints - use a fully wet process for the 8x10 film and a digital process for he digital image - ideally using an RA-4 paper based printer to avoid differences between Inkjet vs. RA-4.

    After all who cares which one looks better when you're pixel peeping on some computer screen. What matters is which one produces a better print.
    Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;None but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

  4. #44
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    I have to agree. I am concerned with a print, not a file.
    K.S. Klain

  5. #45
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,945
    Images
    6
    I would consider the source. I'm sure the writer is enamored with anything new. I would have to say there are people here that are anti-digital on this forum too. I would come to my own conclusion about the truth between digital and analog. Pardon the pun, but I'd be very wary of people with black and white views. The truth exist in shades of gray.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    999
    What I'd like to see is a film comparison between a 'well shot' 4x5 and a 'well shot' 8x10 at the same final print size. I suspect the 4x5 would be sharper because of issues like lens quality and film plane sharpness.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,342
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    In the test, any give area of the scene (like a license plate) is reproduced by approximately the same number of pixels with both systems.
    But this is precisely what I see as the most glaring error. In order to squeeze the license plate from the 8x10 down into the same number of pixels, they had to throw out (SWAG warning: Scientific Wild-Ass Guess coming) 90% of the data that represented the license plate. When the then they turn around and enlarge the license plates onto equally-sized printed areas, they compare a 10% sampling of the 8x10 data with 100% of everything else.
    All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. Choose the one that has heart.

    Don Juan

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    999
    > They had to throw out (SWAG warning: Scientific Wild-Ass Guess coming) 90% of the data that represented the license plate.

    Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,342
    Images
    58
    Prof_pixel, I'm open to being educated. I would love to know what's wrong with my image of the process. But that probably goes too far into hybrid workflow for this forumn. Is there a good single source I can use to do so?
    All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. Choose the one that has heart.

    Don Juan

  10. #50
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,228
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    What I'd like to see is a film comparison between a 'well shot' 4x5 and a 'well shot' 8x10 at the same final print size. I suspect the 4x5 would be sharper because of issues like lens quality and film plane sharpness.
    I have shots showing the two formats quality and the difference is quite distinct, the 10x8 shots are way ahead and that's despite the 5x4 images being shot with a modern 1980's MC 150mm Rodenstock Sironar N lens and the 10x8 with a pre-WWII 12" Dagor (factory coated after WWII). Same tripod.

    Every negative shot with my 10x8 cameras is higher quality than an equivalent made with one of my 5x4's. My normal print size is the same for both 5x4 & 10x8.

    Ian

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin