39 megapixels vs. 4x5

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:53:17 -0500, rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net
wrote:

Examples ? I haven't seen any digital cameras that can eaqual a well
exposed TMX film yet.

Google is your friend, John. There are lots of
Canon 5D captures available for download off
the web. Several at Canon's website, for starters.

Let me try this again "I haven't seen any digital cameras that can
equal a well exposed TMX film yet."

Perhaps you could contrast the two ? Specifically I'm not talking
about color negative her.

John

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:29:49 -0500, rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net
wrote:

I probably missed your point in my first response.

Well, possibly ;)

If you're dedicated to shooting BW, then a Bayer-
based digicam is probably not for you.

Interesting. I'll look into the details

As dedicated BW shooter, you're well outside of
the mainstream and not really significant to the
bean counters at Kodak, Fuji, Nikon, or Canon.

Yep. Being different is a good thing.

That's not a value judgment, just a statement
of fact.

I'm sure. Reality can be a cold mistress.

It's a bit ironic, of course, since there's no
technological reason the same sensors
couldn't work for you -- you'd just need the
sensor without the Bayer filter, and of course
it would need very different (actually, much
simpler) post-processing.

So you believe that a sensor exists that can capture all of the detail
with the same sharpness and tonal scale a 35mm TMX negative exposed at
EI50 and developed in something like D-23 1+1 ??

There are some high-end backs by Leaf
that work that way, but again, mega $$$.

Yeah but then I'd switch to TMX 5X7 and blow them away !

Thanks for your response.

JD

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:


If you're dedicated to shooting BW, then a Bayer-
based digicam is probably not for you.

I don't know about that........I would say if you want
good silver prints that's the case but I have desaturated
rgb images that look quite good as - RC prints and on screen.



--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

The only thing stopping digital cameras from going to BW is there is
little market for BW.

Define the term market, most commercial publications want color = true
Most fine art buyers want silver prints.
There is no need if one can desaturate in photoshop to have a exclusively
B&W camera. Only foolish photographers would buy one.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

In article ,
"AH2" wrote:

Well, so-called B&W printing is far better on most consumer ink-jet printers
than it was only four years ago, but Yes, to get very good grey-tones one
has to resort so some spendy media and the public isn't interested.

Try this experiment, make two images one BW as a silver print the other
Color same subject, show them side by side- more people will like the BW.

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:10:11 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:


If you're dedicated to shooting BW, then a Bayer-
based digicam is probably not for you.

I don't know about that........I would say if you want
good silver prints that's the case but I have desaturated
rgb images that look quite good as - RC prints and on screen.


I can't believe I'm hearing you say that.

In any case, looking at it from a purist's
point of view, a Bayer sensor is a very
roundabout way of getting a monochrome
end result.

You're attenuating and band-splitting the
original image, only to recombine the
color channels arbitrarily into some
semblance of a wideband response.

And that's really all I'm saying. Certainly
*not* saying it can't be done, or yield
very good results.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

G- Blank wrote:
Define the term market, most commercial publications want color = true
Most fine art buyers want silver prints.
There is no need if one can desaturate in photoshop to have a exclusively
B&W camera. Only foolish photographers would buy one.
Market is the number of cameras you are going to sell, I believe you
view this market as very small yourself.

There would me some improvements in a strictly BW digital, higher ISO
as an example and a bit more resolution, an 8 MP BW would have about
the same resolution as a 11 to 12 MP color digital.

As for fine art, the number of cameras being sold to fine art
photographers is so small as to be close to non-existence.

Scott

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:02:08 -0600, John
wrote:


So you believe that a sensor exists that can capture all of the detail
with the same sharpness and tonal scale a 35mm TMX negative exposed at
EI50 and developed in something like D-23 1+1 ??

I'm not at all familiar with TMX, so I'm not in
a position to say any such thing.

Technically, I'd guess that, yes, such a sensor
exists. Whether it will ever appear in a camera
that you or I can afford -- is quite another matter.

I am saying that, as a BW shooter, have more
reasons than most to avoid digital capture, since
the market is almost exclusively oriented toward
RGB capture.

If we're talking regular old color, the answer
is a resounding yes. The Canon 5D blows
away anything you can capture on Velvia,
Provia, Sensia or what-have-you. 35 mm
has definitely met its match. Why do you
suppose Nikon gave it up?


There are some high-end backs by Leaf
that work that way, but again, mega $$$.

Yeah but then I'd switch to TMX 5X7 and blow them away !


That's still a strong point in favor of film, and why
I shoot LF. (When I'm not shooting MF or digital.)

Film is generally scalable in a way that digital
capture is not, and probably never will be.

4x5 film, even scanned on a $400 Epson 4990,
still yields far, more image detail than any
digital capture device that I can afford.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:
: On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:44:25 -0600, "AH2"
: wrote:

: "rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote
:
: [...]
: If you're dedicated to shooting BW, then a Bayer-
: based digicam is probably not for you.
:
: [...] you'd just need the
: sensor without the Bayer filter, and of course
: it would need very different (actually, much
: simpler) post-processing.
:
: At the moment I have to wonder if that's true. What is the naked spectral
: sensitivity of a sensor without a Bayer filter? Is it not dead straight,
: and extending much farther into UV and IR than film?

: Not sure about UV response, but yes, most CCDs
: respond readily to IR, and in fact require IR filtration
: for "normal" applications.

: IIRC, glass attenuates UV (unless it's quartz) so
: UV isn't going to get through the taking lens in
: any case.


: If it is, then I think B&W photographers would be very unhappy with a
: nonfiltered sensor. B&W is, truly, color without hue; that is, B&W
: photographers always have to deal with the modulation of colors by the film.


: The point is that the sensels for a BW imaging
: chip would not want the standard Bayer filtration,
: but a something that's the uniform over all sensels.

: Such sensors and filters certainly exist, but have
: no role in the consumer/prosumer market.

: This cuts both ways. It's not just the manufacturers
: unwilling to serve the BW market. It's that the BW
: market (such as it is) is unreceptive to digital capture
: in the first place. You can't serve high-tech to Luddites.

I was wondering how long you could go without trying to belittle
those of us that use film.


: There's a comparable issue with digital printing.
: Those desiring to print in monochrome with inkjets
: are pretty much ignored by the mass market, and
: left to fend for themselves. The market niche there
: has been picked up by expensive RIPs and share-
: ware products like Roy Harrington's QuadTone RIP.


: rafe b
: www.terrapinphoto.com

--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:
: On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:47:26 -0600, John
: wrote:

: On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:35:58 -0500, rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net
: wrote:
:
: The mass market is already well served with
: image sensors of 5x7mm. For a grand, you
: get 15x22mm, which easily beats 35mm.
:
: For three grand, you get 24x36mm, which
: begins to encroach on 645 film territory
:
: Examples ? I haven't seen any digital cameras that can eaqual a well
: exposed TMX film yet.


: Google is your friend, John. There are lots of
: Canon 5D captures available for download off
: the web. Several at Canon's website, for starters.

: I'm not familiar with TMX. Given a choice, I grab
: the slowest C41 film I can find and shoot with that.
: In MF, I use Reala. In LF, Portra 160.

: 645 scanned at 4000 dpi yields around 55-60
: million pixels, so this seems like an absurd
: comparison, right?

: But if you upsample to 5D image to match the
: scanned-645 dimensions, it holds its own. That's
: only 2:1 linear upsampling, 4x in terms of pixel count.

: This isn't only my conclusion, of course.
: It's one of the reasons high-end digital is
: already taking a toll on MF as well.

The only way you get digital capture using a dslr is to
bring the negative into the digital realm. Take an 11x14
inkjet print of an image captured by a dslr and place it
next to an 11x14 "wet" print made from a 6x4.5 negative
and show them both to the public and better then 99 of
100 people will prefer the "wet" darkroom print.
--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you