Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,537   Posts: 1,646,122   Online: 743
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    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.

  2. #32
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    903
    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.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    163
    Images
    9
    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.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,458
    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

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    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.

  6. #36
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,449
    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.

  7. #37
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    903
    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!

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,268
    Images
    3
    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?

  9. #39
    mweintraub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    791
    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.

  10. #40
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    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?
    A chasm of appreciation, by others! Gone is the appreciation of the fact that 4-6 decades ago the photographic greats and the iconic images that they produced were done with using only the 5-6 lenses offered by the manufacturers for that SLR or RF body or 4x5 camera, using 'fast enough' film to capture the image.

    Instead, with the endless search of more pixels, sharper images at 100%, and more detail resolution, this spills over from the 'which digital camera sensor' obsessive search into the 'which XXmm lens is best' obsessive search discussion, too.
    It is oddly ironic that a generation that is so readily satisfied by the lower audio fidelity of MP3 played thru 3" dock speakers is also so obsessive of the optical quality of their photographic gear! Even more ironic in view of the fact that the modern digital 4K cinema screen shows such easily seen pixels -- and the best home digital projector is only half of that resolution! -- that cannot even begin equal what the digital SLR can capture!
    Last edited by wiltw; 12-06-2013 at 10:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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