Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,685   Posts: 1,548,578   Online: 1148
      
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 155
  1. #81
    Slixtiesix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    735
    Images
    21
    I must say that for me, one of the main advantages of using MF is not more picture quality, but the larger and brighter view finder/waist level finder. They make it much easier for me to compose my pictures. Especially todays DSLRs have awkwardly tiny and dark finders, so I find it difficult to judge every detail when taking a capture.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    This idea of "quality" is rather silly and pointless. Film possesses many qualities, even 35mm film - that digital does not. Sure digital has its own qualities inherent too, but to simply say "digital has higher quality" is nonsensical and misleading.

  3. #83
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,917
    It's not nonsensical. What people usually mean by comparisons of quality are easily measured, quantifiable things like resolution and color fidelity. Resolution is pretty easy to measure, color accuracy only slightly more difficult.

    Now which one actually looks better, well, that's a lot more subjective.

  4. #84
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,750
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    It's not nonsensical. What people usually mean by comparisons of quality are easily measured, quantifiable things like resolution and color fidelity. Resolution is pretty easy to measure, color accuracy only slightly more difficult.

    Now which one actually looks better, well, that's a lot more subjective.
    The "qualities" that are normally measured though are arbitrary and measured in in non-native terms.

    Instead of lp/mm, dpi or ppi is used.

    There are "generational" changes that scanning imparts and different scanners, settings, and software imparts differing changes, and differing printers or monitors or projectors add generational changes yet again.

    As to color measurement, there is no point in measurement because it is purely subjective.

    If I want someone under tungsten lights to look like they are under tungsten lights that's cool because that's the way it looks.

    If I want the color in a face under tungsten light to look as if they were lit by the sun, that's fine too, even though it doesn't look that way in real life.

    Heck I know people who swear Velvia looks real/normal/right/the way they saw it. Who am I to argue with them?
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #85
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Advantages of MF over 35mm

    [QUOTE=georg16nik;1410897]You scan 135 format and then join APUG to tell us how low quality the format is?



    Lol! No I just mean that if we are talking of the advantages of Medium vs. 35mm, I'm saying the Medium is still higher resolution than 35mm digital images, where 35mm film can be beaten in the resolution arena between digital and film. And it's become cost prohibitive (at least for me) to spend about $100-$150 per image to have them scanned to the quality that would match the resolution of digital if I were printing large prints. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, if I could have my local lab scan my film at high rez for $2 per roll, it would be great but that's not the case, so IMHO the advantage of Medium format is that it can still beat out digital in the resolution arena, that's all, I still prefer film, but this is also a business and cost vs benefit is a factor for me.


    ~Stone

    http://www.stonenyc.com
    http://stonenyc.tumblr.com
    http://www.modelmayhem.com/stonenyc
    http://www.facebook.com/stonenycphoto
    http://www.twitter.com/StoneNYCphoto
    http://pinterest.com/stonenycphoto
    stone@stonenyc.com

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    13
    Usually "high quality" means " high fidelity" in photographic context. Linearlity. 35mm film has its own style, and I think film is always more interesting than super clean digital images, but 35mm can't be considered as a linear representation of the reality any more.

    MF film still has the edge over digital in many areas in terms of the quality, and it has film texture that everyone loves (at least here in apug).
    Last edited by Endo; 10-26-2012 at 07:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    684
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    You scan 135 format and then join APUG to tell us how low quality the format is?
    Lol! No I just mean that if we are talking of the advantages of Medium vs. 35mm, I'm saying the Medium is still higher resolution than 35mm digital images, where 35mm film can be beaten in the resolution arena between digital and film. And it's become cost prohibitive (at least for me) to spend about $100-$150 per image to have them scanned to the quality that would match the resolution of digital if I were printing large prints. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, if I could have my local lab scan my film at high rez for $2 per roll, it would be great but that's not the case, so IMHO the advantage of Medium format is that it can still beat out digital in the resolution arena, that's all, I still prefer film, but this is also a business and cost vs benefit is a factor for me....
    You don't print optically, I see.
    Same as the other poster who wrote that 135 is "LoFi"....
    Such uninformed statements are usually made by folks without proper darkroom experience, knowledge and equipment.
    Scanner and ink jet and rest of the "HiFi" kids tools are not darkroom tools in case You wonder.

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    684
    Images
    15
    and something especially for the LoFi theme

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    I've been playing with some alternative films to see just how much detail you can get using the Mamiya 7 system. This followed on from the Big Camera Comparison

    http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12...ra-comparison/

    .. that I ran last year. Well having read about Adox CMS 20 I thought I'd give it a go with the same target. The results were quite dramatic. Here's the big picture showing that the result is definitely 'pictorial' and not just a lith film (developed using the Adotech II developer recommended by Adox).

    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...cms20-full.jpg

    Excuse the scratches - I wasn't particularly careful with this as I was only interested in a small section.

    Well the film outresolved 4x5 delta 100 (oh, and trounced the IQ180 on the way there) and started on toward 10x8 - didn't get too close but it was definitely trying.

    The amazing thing about the film that I was stunned by was the fact that it has almost zero grain and also no halation. To give you an idea of just how much detail it shows - you can read the engraving on the watch strap of my colleague Mark Banks..

    Here's a comparison of various microscope shots and scans..

    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cms20-vs.jpg

    Tim

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/1...her-stuff.html

  9. #89
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Advantages of MF over 35mm

    George,

    Yes this is true, I don't have the room for a full darkroom, I do all my own processing in tanks and then have to resort to scans, but even the labs don't print from an enlarger any longer, I've tried finding that, so they end up scanning my film unbeknownst to me and then print from scan anyway.

    However to your point, scientifically speaking grain-to-pixel a 20-25mp image vs 35mm film are on par with each other, I've read and researched this extensively because I prefer film but clients comment on how sharp the digital is and how unsharp the film (in comparison) and so I read up on it. The fine grain might be there, but as you said an enlarger print might take advantage but a scanner just doesn't have the ability to see it all, so the end result is that the 35mm is a little less crisp looking than the digital.

    I don't want to get into a war over digital vs film, if I didn't love film I wouldn't be on this forum.

    So please understand it's not that I wouldn't love to own an enlarger that would print me a beautiful 2'x3' print from film, but I don't and probably never will, and I'm not new to film, I've been shooting with an SLR for ..(does math) ...18 years ...

    Anyway to get back on point, there are OTHER advantages to medium format, like the few cameras that have tips/shift capabilities that mimic large format (limited of course). So there's that.

    It can also be less expensive to buy high end film equipment as the prices have dropped off a lot recently. You can get a full RZ Pro II with 3 lenses, a pelican case, a few backs, a viewfinder and a light meter all for under $1,000, it's silly...

    The Haasy's haven't dropped AS much, but still you get my point I think.

    You can also impress your friends and random people on the street with your fancy 1910 foldie camera for $50 or less! Haha

    Umm OH when you are older and half blind you'll still be able to see your medium format film hehe

    Cheers , and sorry if I offended anyone by bringing up digital, I just felt the question was broader than just film.


    ~Stone

    http://www.stonenyc.com

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #90
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Back on topic please. Seriously.

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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