On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:22:03 +1000, r m wrote:

"Stefan Patric" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:53:32 -0700, toucky70 wrote:

Hi everybody,
I know is two very different concepts but maybe explaining my doubt
someone could open up my mind...

I've never had a MF camera.
I have an important photographic project to carry on consisting in
portraits of interiors with no artificial lights.

By "...no artificial lights...," I'm assuming you mean lighting that
you would bring to supplement the existing ambient light.

the first part of these pictures were made with a Digital Nikon D70,
this year I have bought a D300 lens 12-24 (18-35 35mm)

Some experts photographs who saw this pictures suggest me to use a MF,
specifically MAMIYA 7 with 43 lens.

As this choice would be very expansive either for the camera costs,
the negatives and scans shoud I afford it? The result have to be
professional. Could someone give an opinion?

Whether you should go with the Mamiya 7 or stay with the D300 entirely
depends on what the end use of the photographs will be. Web,
brochures, publication in magazines, prints no bigger than 11x14 inches
or so? The D300 is more than sufficient. For very large prints? The
Mamiya has the advantage, but only if the prints are made directly from
a negative and not from scanning a transparency first.

The primary advantage of digital these days compared to film is that
digital images have considerably more dynamic range making them far
easier to produce good images under bad or marginal lighting
conditions. Plus, the added ability to adjust contrast, saturation,
sharpness, etc. "in camera" or post production. To do the same with a
film image, whether printed directly or scanned, would require
considerable added production time and a person who knew what they were
doing, and you still might not get a satisfactory image.

If you really think that the D300 images just aren't suitable, I think
you'd be better off getting a full frame digital like the newly
announced 21 megapixel Canon 5D Mark II. Even with a suitable lens,
the combination would be cheaper (and much more versatile) than a
Mamiya 7 with a 43mm.

How does post-production times, image storage, and printing procurement
compare between the two media?

Digital is a lot faster. About 3 times, based on my production schedule
for commercial work--architectural, industrial, corporate--to get a
finished product to the client. Just considering the time it takes to
get to the "editing" point with chromes: the next day, if you have a lab
do it; about 4 hours, if you process "in house." With digital: I finish
the shoot and in a couple minutes, I'm editing.

Image storage? Properly produced and stored b&w prints and negatives
should last a couple hundred years. Color--negatives, chromes? A lot
less. Prints? If they are dye transfers or Cibachromes, a hundred
years, maybe, longer. Digitals? Depends on the storage media. Magnet
domains fade over time. Optical storage? Until the media (plastic
mainly) degrades. Jury's still out on that one.

From memory, a lot of commercial assignments demanded trannies, but I
dare say they would probably want digital files as well these days.

Trannies? Not so much these days. With most "normal" commercial work,
digital files (12 megapixels [equivalent] and higher) are fine, and most
times, requested. Pro Stock Houses that I'm familiar with seemed to be
mostly requesting 18 megapixels and higher resolutions. Some aren't
accepting film anymore.

Would he need a pro lab for the final deliverables?

Based on a later post by the OP on the end product--very large prints--a
pro lab, whether from film or digital. In the long run, it would be more
cost effective.

Stef