Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,300   Posts: 1,535,867   Online: 951
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49
  1. #31
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,545
    Images
    15
    Interesting thoughts. I personally don't think there is any real benefit of 4x5 over e.g. 6x7 or 645 — the gain in resolution is very, very modest and does not for many people warrant the investment in equipment, time, skill and weight. It is the craftsman approach that sparks the imagination that gets people moving to LF. I concur with Polyglot re getting a better image from a format below LF; much of the technology that has been applied to MF lenses not carried over, or picked up by the stagnated design of LF optics. I recall meeting Peter Dombrovskis (late of Tasmania) in 1993 when he often bemoaned the carrying of his big Linhof on expeditions, stating ruefully he could do just about all of the work (save for movements, of course) with his battered Hasselblad 500C/M and two lenses (yes, he used a Hassy, and also 35mm on occasion). Digi is great for eBay and reference shots of locations that may hold promise for a return trip with analogue. I think in that way it has revolutionised the way many analogue photographers work, and there are a great many here using both digital and analogue.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  2. #32
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,093
    Quote Originally Posted by IanBarber View Post
    Moving from Digital to MF With Bronica ETRSi
    Smart move.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #33
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by spijker View Post
    I think that you're missing the point. The comparison is NOT 645 film versus 135 film but 645 film versus a flagship DSLR.
    Thanks for pointing out what I overlooked. The 'not enough of an improvement' nevertheless was used decades ago, before digital photography came about.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    151
    Images
    8
    No problem wiltw. This film size advantage debate still pops up every so often. In that respect I do agree with what you wrote. And as Polyglot pointed out, there's more to the image quality than just the size of the negative.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,931
    I wonder what the OP decided to do? As of his second and last post it seems he may have neither bought the MF film camera nor the scanner.

    It doesn't seem as if darkroom printing is "on his radar" either so I suspect he may have done neither and has now gone elsewhere.

    It would be nice to know but the ship may have now passed in the night,is now over the horizon and out of sight

    pentaxuser

  6. #36
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,545
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    I wonder what the OP decided to do? As of his second and last post it seems he may have neither bought the MF film camera nor the scanner.

    It doesn't seem as if darkroom printing is "on his radar" either so I suspect he may have done neither and has now gone elsewhere.

    It would be nice to know but the ship may have now passed in the night,is now over the horizon and out of sight

    pentaxuser

    I am a little thrown off by his overtures to digital comparisons in the last line re a Nikon D3S and a printer. It sounds to me there could well be quite a large chasm of knowledge and experience to be covered. I am sure others here would validate that a crisp, well exposed analogue image will always win over a digital image.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  7. #37
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,226
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    I am a little thrown off by his overtures to digital comparisons in the last line re a Nikon D3S and a printer. It sounds to me there could well be quite a large chasm of knowledge and experience to be covered. I am sure others here would validate that a crisp, well exposed analogue image will always win over a digital image.
    Ah yes, chasms of knowledge. Don't we all.

  8. #38
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by spijker View Post
    And as Polyglot pointed out, there's more to the image quality than just the size of the negative.
    Well, just look at the 'not much better resolution' as one example of the oversimplification of 'better IQ' discussion in this very thread. What we used to talk about decades ago was the increased tonality and color gradation that could be captured with more film area per subject area, and NOT about more detail resolution!

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    The reduction of the aesthetics of a photograph to "IQ" is what has driven me from the digital forums, where all that seems to matter about an image is how "sharp" it is at "100%"; this thread appears to demonstrate an (alarming?) drift towards the same thing only with film as the subject matter rather than sensor output.

    I really don't give a damn for "sharpness", grain, 100% crops or even whether it's created on film or electronically; the question for me is "what does this photograph do?" not "what's the resolution of this image?"

    Or perhaps I just have a chasm in my understanding?

  10. #40
    mweintraub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Well, just look at the 'not much better resolution' as one example of the oversimplification of 'better IQ' discussion in this very thread. What we used to talk about decades ago was the increased tonality and color gradation that could be captured with more film area per subject area, and NOT about more detail resolution!
    I think those who buy Hasselblads and smash Mamiyas do.

    Hey, I like sharp photos as much as the next guy, but I don't lose sleep over it.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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