If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
HI,
I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for a high pixel digital camera. I know most of you here would argue you could never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model cameras are concerned? Apkesh |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
I would get the MF camera. Of course 4x5 gives an order of magnitude improvemet
over MF. :-) I know a number of people that use film (MF & LF) for image capture and then scan, process and print digitally. In rec.photo.darkroom apkesh wrote: : HI, : I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to : just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for : a high pixel digital camera. I know most of you here would argue you could : never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital : picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model : cameras are concerned? : Apkesh -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
I disagree I was sworn to my Canon 35mm. I recently baught a Minolta
Dimage A1. 5 megapixal with the software I'm using I can either blow up a small portion of the picture and still have great detail or use the actual picture and go up to about 24 x 36. That is the size listed on the software. Also the retouching features are blowing me away the more I learn. As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones. Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:07:48 GMT, "apkesh" wrote: HI, I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for a high pixel digital camera. I know most of you here would argue you could never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model cameras are concerned? Apkesh |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format whenusing a digital camera and imaging software?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
Your right, I had to go find my light meter it has nine zones. :-)
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:15:17 +1300, nicholas wrote: wrote: As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones. Seven zones?? I thought there were more than that... :-) Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:07:48 GMT, "apkesh" wrote: HI, I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for a high pixel digital camera. You do realise that no-one will answer your questions here or involve you in discussions from now on if you go digital. ;-) That's a very big *wink* just in case some of you missed it... FWIW I find alot of the pleasure (and pain) in b&w in working in the darkroom and mucking around there. I find the pain is in dealing with the nature of analogue processes (read fickle (not to say digital isn't fickle, but a different kind of fickle - if that makes sense)). In some ways the manual nature of the process imbues itself in the actual article (read print). What I am trying to say is that, even though you might be able to dial in B&W mode into you digicam you might find yourself left wanting... Perhaps an essential aspect of B&W, which many of us enjoy aesthetically, does lie in it's process and an artificial version, even though it might superficially look the same, will not--in fact--be the same. Sorry to cross post, not sure of the etiquette here? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
apkesh writes:
... I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for a high pixel digital camera. Medium format will provide the higher image quality, by a large margin, and without question. This is especially true for black and white, since you can shoot films with practically no grain and sky-high resolution, such as Technical Pan. I know most of you here would argue you could never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model cameras are concerned? The future, perhaps, but we are in the present for now, and 35mm digital is not a competitor to medium-format film. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when usinga digital camera and imaging software?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: One assumes you mean 24x36 cm, not inches, which would be ludicrous in 5 mp. It depends on the camera and how one is utilizing it. For scenic, products and other detail oriented applications your correct. For soft, portraiture head shots etc, I tend to disagree as I have seen images in this size range of quite acceptable quality, done with small format digital. Recently,.... like Monday ! -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when usinga digital camera and imaging software?
Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: One assumes you mean 24x36 cm, not inches, which would be ludicrous in 5 mp. It depends on the camera and how one is utilizing it. For scenic, products and other detail oriented applications your correct. For soft, portraiture head shots etc, I tend to disagree as I have seen images in this size range of quite acceptable quality, done with small format digital. Recently,.... like Monday ! 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I believe.) Certainly nowhere near MF. If you are seeing what appears to be good or acceptable quality likely it's due to interpolation/software enhancements, not straight pixels. Also depends on what you mean by "soft." Some never notice the fuzziness in a typical 8x10, 35mm head portrait. But compare it with the same shot in MF... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I believe.) Certainly nowhere near MF. If you are seeing what appears to be good or acceptable quality likely it's due to interpolation/software enhancements, not straight pixels. Also depends on what you mean by "soft." Some never notice the fuzziness in a typical 8x10, 35mm head portrait. But compare it with the same shot in MF... You may be correct about the file threshold, in terms of raw data of course film is going to transend a capture in fine detail, in terms of turn around and ability to record the tonality of color film, the digital is here.... provided, the system is calibrated. Like I stated if one is shooting soft portraiture there really is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. Besides what the difference between a MF camera and a digital if you have to retouch the MF image to soften it down for those old ladies you shoot ;-) -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|