Has digital photography reduced your use of tripods?

On 22-06-09 19:30, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article27idnQ0rmcclZ6LXnZ2dnUVZ_h5i4p2d@giganews. com,
Alan wrote:

I print quite large and you can be sure that fine detail at 12x8 can be
achieved with a Mpix camera. I haven't found the limit of the 24 mpix
I swear I typed "6 Mpix".

I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
printing from 6Mp.

No. 12x8 (sometimes 15x10) are about the limit of acceptable detail from
a 6 Mpix. At 15x10 and larger interpolation artifacts (softness or
excess sharpening) grow.

I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.

No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
than any portable view camera...

http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-...and-camera.jpg

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...


I print quite large and you can be sure that fine detail at 12x8 can be
achieved with a Mpix camera. I haven't found the limit of the 24 mpix
camera yet, but I assume it's beyond 24x16 inches (with tripod and best
lenses). This was not achievable with 35mm film.

Doesn't that exceed the resolution of most 35mm lenses.


--
Peter

On 22-06-09 19:44, Peter wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...


I print quite large and you can be sure that fine detail at 12x8 can
be achieved with a Mpix camera. I haven't found the limit of the 24
mpix camera yet, but I assume it's beyond 24x16 inches (with tripod
and best lenses). This was not achievable with 35mm film.

Doesn't that exceed the resolution of most 35mm lenses.

I don't have most 35mm lenses ;-)

6048 pixels on 36mm is 84 lp/mm which most good primes (and many fast
zooms) should handle well.

6048 pixels over 24" printed is 252 dpi at print, so that's no
particular limit. Prints down to 200 dpi (even 150) should look
acceptable for viewing from 40 - 60 inches away.

I posted a Mpix challenge here back before Christmas and nobody
participated except one film user. I posted my results and his and both
showed remarkable detail in fine print across the room. (The test was
too shoot at n inches from the target where n = the focal length in mm).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

In article , Robert Peirce
wrote:

I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
printing from 6Mp.

I have 16x20s from a Canon 10D. With care, 20x24 is possible.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.

No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
than any portable view camera...

http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-...and-camera.jpg

That appears to be larger than 4x5, which proves my point.

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp. OTOH,
4x5 cameras on sturdy tripods make fantastic images, maybe not as good
as 8x10 or 11x14 or larger, but still very good.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Robert Peirce wrote:

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.


In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very mad rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

Doug McDonald

On 2009-06-23 07:18:24 -0700, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
said:

Robert Peirce wrote:

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.


In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very
mad rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

Doug McDonald

Doug,
Will we find Walter Mitty somewhere in your family tree?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very
mad rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

Doug McDonald

Doug,
Will we find Walter Mitty somewhere in your family tree?


Indeed!!! I truly identify with dear Walter.

However, I have managed to actually do some of the things I dream
about. My camera tags along. On Friday I and my 30D are off to the Lost World aka
Mt. Roraima, in Venezuela/Brazil/Guyana.

Doug

mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can
carry around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have
never seen a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that
sharp.


In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very
mad rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember
that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

What is often forgotten is that the Speed Graphic was in its day a
photojournalist's camera.

On 2009-06-23 09:08:31 -0700, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
said:

Savageduck wrote:

In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very
mad rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

Doug McDonald

Doug,
Will we find Walter Mitty somewhere in your family tree?


Indeed!!! I truly identify with dear Walter.

However, I have managed to actually do some of the things I dream
about. My camera tags along. On Friday I and my 30D are off to the Lost
World aka
Mt. Roraima, in Venezuela/Brazil/Guyana.

Doug

Oh well! Enjoy.


--
Regards,

Savageduck