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
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
Dnia 3 Sep 2006 22:09:31 -0700, One4All napisał(a):
Any thoughts about this? http://www.gigapxl.org/ It's nice project. But impractical for me - where I make such big prints to see this quality? All what I need is HQ A4 (8x10") - this I have from 4x5" for reasonable costs. And I also don't need to know how many bricks are in house wall - too many details distract (and on small prints will not be visible). Greetings, Henry |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
Henry (k) wrote: Dnia 3 Sep 2006 22:09:31 -0700, One4All napisał(a): Any thoughts about this? http://www.gigapxl.org/ It's nice project. But impractical for me - where I make such big prints to see this quality? All what I need is HQ A4 (8x10") - this I have from 4x5" for reasonable costs. And I also don't need to know how many bricks are in house wall - too many details distract (and on small prints will not be visible). Well first off I agree that for the average photographer the camera is more then a little over kill and not needed. But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and dull, grass becomes a green blur. Not ever photo benefits from having enough detail to see the texture of surfaces but in many photos they definitely do. I was in a store and saw some poster sized print of photos taken at Arches National Park, whey looked very nice from 20 feet away but when you go up to them the rock had not texture to it, just all soft. The photos were missing an important dimension IMO because of this Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
Dnia 15 Sep 2006 07:57:18 -0700, Scott W napisał(a):
But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and dull, grass becomes a green blur. Of course you are right - this is why I left 35mm and now I make 6x9cm and 4x5" :-) Textures are a must. But with "to many details" I mean objects on photo. If you photograph a city then it's nice to see all buildings. But are you able to look in details at all of them? I prefer to see only a few - this I can reach with separate photos - so "overview" photo don't need so many details. Greetings, Henry |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
In article ,
"Henry (k)" wrote: Dnia 15 Sep 2006 07:57:18 -0700, Scott W napisał(a): But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and dull, grass becomes a green blur. Of course you are right - this is why I left 35mm and now I make 6x9cm and 4x5" :-) Textures are a must. But with "to many details" I mean objects on photo. If you photograph a city then it's nice to see all buildings. But are you able to look in details at all of them? I prefer to see only a few - this I can reach with separate photos - so "overview" photo don't need so many details. Greetings, Henry I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat the crap out of 4x5. (I am also curious how fonts get changed mid thread) This your post seem to go to a sans serif font versus my normal tomes roman. -- Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
Greg \"_\" wrote: In article , "Henry (k)" wrote: Dnia 15 Sep 2006 07:57:18 -0700, Scott W napisa3(a): But I have to take issue with your statement that too much detail is distracting, a comment I have heard from others as well. I think many people miss the point of getting very high resolution when making larger print. What bothers me when prints don't have enough resolution isn't that I can count pinecones on the trees or read the street signs with a magnifying glass but rather that many surfaces that should have texture are missing it. A sand beach just looks flat and dull, grass becomes a green blur. Of course you are right - this is why I left 35mm and now I make 6x9cm and 4x5" :-) Textures are a must. But with "to many details" I mean objects on photo. If you photograph a city then it's nice to see all buildings. But are you able to look in details at all of them? I prefer to see only a few - this I can reach with separate photos - so "overview" photo don't need so many details. Greetings, Henry I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat the crap out of 4x5. 8x10 offers greater detail. But I don't think one can have too much detail. The detail and resolution become evident in the enlargement. I once did a large print of a skyline for a client. He was impressed with the transparency (4x5) but was even more impressed when after it was enlarged to 50+ inches he could see people and office furniture in skyscraper windows... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
Greg "_" wrote:
I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat the crap out of 4x5. I am a bit surprised by this since 16 x 20 is only a 4X enlargement in which case the film size should not be limiting the print sharpness. Is it possible that you have better optics on the 8 x 10 camera, or that the enlarger used for making the print from the 8 x 10 was better? This would be somewhat like saying a 4 x 6 print from a MF would beat the crap out of a 4x6 print from a 35mm camera. (I am also curious how fonts get changed mid thread) This your post seem to go to a sans serif font versus my normal tomes roman. Odd, I don't see a font change. Scott |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
Scott W wrote: Greg "_" wrote: I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat the crap out of 4x5. I am a bit surprised by this since 16 x 20 is only a 4X enlargement in which case the film size should not be limiting the print sharpness. "Sharpness" is a very subjective term and relatively meaningless. Resolution is a far better way to describe the differences and any 8x10 (using same film, developer, subject matter, etc.) has greater resolution than 4x5... Is it possible that you have better optics on the 8 x 10 camera, The issue is format size. The bigger the format the greater the detail captured. With 16x20 you could (possibly) notice a significant difference between 4x5 and 8x10 negs. Or maybe not. Resolution depends on a number of factors, including the film type, speed, developer, enlargement, and MTF of the camera system being used. Also sometimes the subject matter. or that the enlarger used for making the print from the 8 x 10 was better? Insignificant... This would be somewhat like saying a 4 x 6 print from a MF would beat the crap out of a 4x6 print from a 35mm camera. Again depends on the above factors... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
In article om,
"Scott W" wrote: Greg "_" wrote: I think relative contrast also plays a part - for that matter having sharpness in some areas and not others can be nice, people always marvel at 4x5, I have a few 8x10 negatives printed to 16x20 that beat the crap out of 4x5. I am a bit surprised by this since 16 x 20 is only a 4X enlargement in which case the film size should not be limiting the print sharpness. Is it possible that you have better optics on the 8 x 10 camera, or that the enlarger used for making the print from the 8 x 10 was better? This would be somewhat like saying a 4 x 6 print from a MF would beat the crap out of a 4x6 print from a 35mm camera. 16x20 is only a 2x enlargement versus 4x for 4x5. One would expect all images in the 8x10 format to be sharper (not always so), but with a 8x10 camera the film plane must be aligned very perfectly- the bigger the camera the more a problem and if enlarging so true of the enlarger. I think my optics are relatively good, all modern lenses, I have schneider's and rodenstock on the 4x5 camera and the 8x10 enlarger and Fujinon on the 8x10 camera. (I am also curious how fonts get changed mid thread) This your post seem to go to a sans serif font versus my normal tomes roman. Odd, I don't see a font change. Scott Most be computer related because I went back to my reply and the font had changed back strange :^ -- Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Gigapxl Camera
Greg "_" wrote:
16x20 is only a 2x enlargement versus 4x for 4x5. One would expect all images in the 8x10 format to be sharper (not always so), but with a 8x10 camera the film plane must be aligned very perfectly- the bigger the camera the more a problem and if enlarging so true of the enlarger. Sure the 8 x 10 would be expected to be sharper but given the low enlargement needed for the 4x6 shot I was surprised that there would be a dramatic difference in the prints. I would have guessed that the difference between a 2X and 4X enlargement would have taken a very close look to see any difference. I could see if you were using something like an 400 ISO print film that there could be a big difference, but I don't believe you would use a film like that. Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seeking advise on good digital camera | aNdY | Digital Photography | 44 | June 11th 06 05:13 PM |
Kodak Z740 Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 9 | December 7th 05 07:49 PM |
Canon camera and service. | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital SLR Cameras | 45 | November 2nd 05 09:50 AM |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
Digital zoom camera & lots of selection questions | Lou | Digital Photography | 5 | November 12th 04 12:43 AM |