Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,011   Posts: 1,524,663   Online: 819
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 63 of 63
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    I though that real world issues, like lens field flatness and fall-off, general lens quality issues and film plane flatness in its holder pretty much negated the size difference so that an 8x10 didn't actually capture 4 times more information.
    Lens performance really isn't an issue, and hasn't been for a good long time. Film flatness and proper filmplane location are real issues. The rest is up to the photographer.
    When I made my first few 8x10 negatives with a good lens, I spent hours peering at them through a low power dissecting microscope, just picking out different details and gloating over the fact that I had 80 sqare inches of this stuff.

  2. #62
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,590
    Look at the tank with the letters 'AGR' on it. Look at the jagged edges. Those are not on the film originals. The scanning removed information, homogenizing fine detail into single-tone squares. It's not like the full image information from the film is somehow "compressed" into the smaller format's scale.

    How can you expect a roughly 35 micron pixel to match a 5.2 micron pixel? It might seem that a 6 times larger pixel of the same scene on a format about 5X larger on the short side would make for a good comparison, but it does not, because the film resolves much smaller than 35 microns.

    The fault is in trying to shrink the 8x10 to "match" the smaller digital through a low-res scan. A correct test would have enlarged the digital to match the 8X10. A comparison of more or less equal file sizes is meaningless, because full-information files are not equal-sized. Comparing equal-sized full-information prints from the originals would have been meaningful. Pixel-peeping one full-information image against one part-information image proves nothing.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #63
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Hey guys, you can read all about it over at LFPF. One thread ran 32 pages.....
    And a good one on the LuLa forum, too.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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