Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
And to make it relevant to the MF group, you have to have 4X again for
MF's advantage in film, which is why a 64 MP sensor will be needed to
equal mid-speed films in MF (6x6cm). Right?

Without thinking about it very deeply, the same 4x we talked about before
should scale. If anything, optical enlargement resolution at 6x6 should
degrade relative to 35mm, while digital would scale linearly. 24 MP (4 *
6.3) digital should be a fairly good match for 6x6's 64 MP.

This is why I object to the claims that the latest 8.2 MP DSLRs are
"medium format" killers. Now 8.2 MP is nowhere close to 64 MP in my book

You won't get an argument from me. My expectation is 16 MP will more than
equal 645 in 11x14 prints.

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets.
That is okay
for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing.

Yeah, just check out this cheap amateurish desktop inkjet stuff:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-update.shtml

Fairly small compared to a Roland or Encad, or even the larger Epson Printers.
Still inkjet, so what is your point?

My point is that I'd find it difficult to accept that anyone could suggest
that Epson have targetted that printer at the "amateur" market whilst
keeping a straight face.

Indeed, if you look at Epson's promo page for said printer:

http://www.epson.co.uk/graphicart/pr...et/stypro4000/

....you'll see that the commercial sector is precisely its intended market
segment. With all due respect, I think you might be demonstrating a teensy
bit of snobbery here.

Just one question - how many amateurs have their own forklift, do you suppose?

Yeah, I would term Michael Reichmann and Luminous Landscape examples of the
typical amateur.

I don't think they put the palette on the bottom just for him...

In article ,
Fil Ament wrote:
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:
In article ,
Bob Monaghan wrote:
hi again rafe; to quote RWR, "there you go again" ;-)

What's wrong with 40 MP for film?

Assuming you're talking about 35mm, then what's wrong with it is that it
doesn't come close to describing the results people are getting.

Son how much 35mm film have you shot ?

Dad? Is that you? Looks like you've been busy with that EOS 6000!

Maybe if you shot the
10,000+ pictures I have on 35mm film you would see it differently.

If you genuinely feel that you're getting 40 million "10D quality pixels"
from 35mm film, then I'm genuinely happy for you. Over the Moon, in fact.

The rest of us mere mortals will just have to accept that we're going to
need to continue to lug at least medium format cameras around if we want
that sort of image quality. Perhaps we can all one day aspire to match your
level of darkroom skill/discerning eyesight (delete as applicable).

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:37:27 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

I don't hang any prints from my Epson on the wall. I use it to proof
edits, period. It's great for that.

Well, la-de-da, Neil. I'm glad my tastes aren't as
refined as yours, or I'd not be able to indulge in
this hobby/business.

Look... it's just a matter of preferences. I also don't care much for
posters, and have none of those hanging on my walls, either. Some people
love them. Whatever floats your boat.

Honestly, this comment would be laughed at
by dozens of fine artists I know and admire.

Just as yours would be laughed at by dozens of fine artists that I know
and admire. So, what's your point?

In any case you're not inclined to defend
the claim with a print of your own, because
by your own estimate, your optical print
would cost about ten times what mine does,
at 20x20".

What is your resistance to using prints of YOUR OWN to establish the
difference in quality? It would be a much better objective test, and it
would enable you to fully assess the level of quality needed to match your
level of skills and the capability of your system. You'd know all there is
to know about those two images. I do that for myself on a regular basis
(testing films, output devices, etc.), and would find no value at all in
trying to reach a conclusion based on a print from someone else.

Do you get what I mean by irrelevant?
I couldn't afford this hobby (or conduct
my business) if big prints cost $100 apiece.

Well, you are making such decisions based on cost, not quality. That's
fine, but you're arguing apples and oranges.

Has it been 30 years since you last
looked at a good one? ;-)

It may well have been... I haven't seen
photos in museums for a while, and on
the last visit... they were Piezo prints, as
I recall. Most of the galleries I visit are
selling Epson prints.

My gosh... Boston has sunk to hanging Piezo prints in its museums? That
wouldn't happen around here. As for the choices that galleries make...
yes, I see a some Epson prints around here, too. Mostly in the galleries
near college campuses. I wouldn't pay much for one for archival reasons,
but others love them. Some subjects will work well as inkjet prints with
their lower contrast and color rendition. That's not to say that all
subjects will. OTOH, those images that work well as inkjet prints will
also work well as photo prints.

Have enlargers improved appreciably
since 1970? I mean, the optics or basic
mechanics?

While the hardware is pretty much the same, both film and print materials
have improved quite a bit since 1970. So, you should be able to get better
results with your same hardware.

Neil

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:32:50 +0100, Chris Brown
wrote:


...you'll see that the commercial sector is precisely its intended market
segment. With all due respect, I think you might be demonstrating a teensy
bit of snobbery here.


Often goes with the territory, Chris. Snobbery
and MF, that is.

You shoulda heard the clamor when I mentioned,
some months ago, that I had turned down the offer
of a free Hasselblad.

You could almost see the rage and disbelief
in their faces.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

It may well have been... I haven't seen
photos in museums for a while, and on
the last visit... they were Piezo prints, as
I recall. Most of the galleries I visit are
selling Epson prints.

That's the Photographers choice, galleries
only hang work they feel they can sell regardless
for the most part of how it was created.

Most galleries go for subject content versus process.
Although there are alt process galleries that only want
Platinum prints and the like.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

I have finally started to wear out some of my favorite lenses and replace
them. But then, I know of pros like Fred Whitlock wearing out three Nikkor
AF lenses. Since they are pro nikkors, they ain't cheapies, and since they
are AF lenses, they aren't ancient. And he specifically noted that they
weren't abused but just wore out ;-)

How in blazes does one wear out a lens?!

Dieter Zakas
Focus, NJ

because we've determined 35mm's not adequate quality.

Again film size has nothing to do with quality if quality is described as
detail.

Only three imputs to image detail

Focal Length
Distance
Resolution (ASA Speed)

So is 35 somehow doesn't measure up ie. showing detail in a wedding dress, it's
because of three things.

1. Your using the wrong focal length.
2. Your using the wrong distance.
3. Your using the wrong speed film.

Larry

In article ,
(Hemi4268) wrote:

because we've determined 35mm's not adequate quality.

Again film size has nothing to do with quality if quality is described as
detail.

Only three imputs to image detail

Focal Length
Distance
Resolution (ASA Speed)

So is 35 somehow doesn't measure up ie. showing detail in a wedding dress, it's
because of three things.

1. Your using the wrong focal length.
2. Your using the wrong distance.
3. Your using the wrong speed film.

Larry

Or you have applied too much light to the subject,...in this
case the dress,.....a prime example where digital is how shall we
say; somewhat problematic for the novice.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets.
That is okay
for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing.

Yeah, just check out this cheap amateurish desktop inkjet stuff:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-update.shtml

Fairly small compared to a Roland or Encad, or even the larger Epson Printers.
Still inkjet, so what is your point?

My point is that I'd find it difficult to accept that anyone could suggest
that Epson have targetted that printer at the "amateur" market whilst
keeping a straight face.

Indeed, if you look at Epson's promo page for said printer:

http://www.epson.co.uk/graphicart/pr...et/stypro4000/

Yeah, already saw that, already have a brochure from Epson, and already have read
two reviews in industry related magazines. You know, it comes in a few models. I was
investigating this for use as a proofing printer, not for final output.



...you'll see that the commercial sector is precisely its intended market
segment. With all due respect, I think you might be demonstrating a teensy
bit of snobbery here.

Just pulling your leg a bit. You should understand that I don't do one-at-a-time
prints for work. The only individual prints I do are used for proofing and/or
layout. I have a dye sub set-up with PostScript RIP specifically for that purpose,
and can place up to seven colours in that, including metallics and foils. However,
it does not do wide prints, which are something I still use a Fiery system for
through a few different output places.

The largest printing job I did this year involved 40000 copies, and that was a 32
page catalogue. The smallest printing job this year was a run of posters, and only
500 were done. If you consider what I need for work, an inkjet would only be a
proofing printer.

Now if you look at the fine art work I have displayed this year, maybe some of that
could be replaced by inkjet. I even display alongside others who use various inkjet
systems (mostly Epson). So this year, I have displayed four oil paintings, two
Polaroid lifts, and seven photographic prints. Maybe if I was selling more than the
occasional individual print, some sort of inkjet system might be a nice addition for
some of my work.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!