A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #721  
Old June 29th 04, 03:01 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default real photography only 30 lpmm?


"nobody nowhere" wrote:

The amount of sharpening I apply has been
monotonic decreasing over the two years I've been scanning MF. It's
simply not a panacea.


Would you please elaborate on "monotonic", what it is/does (in simple
words please).


Sorry, "monotonic decreasing" just means always getting less without ever
increasing. Just me being pretentious and too lazy to come up with a better
turn of phrase.

Some people advocate no sharpening at all, but this
seems to me impossible, one surely needs a certain amount of sharpening
to correct the softness that comes from scanning. Would you agree?


Yes. Some sharpening is required. It's just that the amount of sharpening I
use has decreased over time.

Sorry to repeat myself, but when people look at the images, they see near
645 quality, not 35mm quality, images.


When I scan my 27 years old 35mm slides with a Nikon 8000, I get
digital files which often yield acceptable A3, prints. This size would
have been out of the question "in the old days", with a traditional
enlarger/chemical system.


No! Don't say that! The digital naysayers depend desperately on the Nikon
8000 being _worse_ than wet chemical projection printing for their claims to
hold up, since the people doing 1Ds vs. 35mm comparisons (and finding the
1Ds better) are scanning their slides with 4000 dpi film scannersg.

Seriously, though, 4000 dpi scans of ISO 100 or slower slide films will make
fairly nice 12x18 prints from 35mm, as long as you keep them at arms length.
Not particularly sharp, but grain's not a major problem. But I'd be
surprised if it really were impossible to do at least nearly as well with
projection printing.

What I am trying to say, unless I am wrong,
is that the 645 image quality might be inherent in the digital process,
rather than a special quality of the Canon 1Ds and its much praised
sensor. If one accepts this, for the moment at least, the combination
film + scanner would make more sense than Canon 1Ds (for some, or most
amateurs).


I don't agree with the theory you're presenting (but the conclusion's right,
albeit for other reasons). At least for the sorts of prints I like, any
frame size/pixel count has its limitations. The question here is what
metric/theory predicts those limitations best. The "film "resolves" 100
lp/mm" theory seems disproved by the existence of a better technology that
clearly relies on a lot less than 100 lp/mmg.

So maybe true "1Ds quality" images requires Bobm's and my mythical 16MP
full frame sensor.


When this mythical thing is on the shelves, wake me up! but not before!
:-).


Yup. That's my line. But I won't be sleeping. Until then it's 645 and a big
tripod for me.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #722  
Old June 29th 04, 04:12 PM
Robert Feinman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default real photography only 30 lpmm?

In article , says...


When I scan my 27 years old 35mm slides with a Nikon 8000, I get
digital files which often yield acceptable A3, prints. This size would
have been out of the question "in the old days", with a traditional
enlarger/chemical system.


I've given up using mathematics to explain what's happening with the
film - digital workflow, but some of my recent practical experiences
seem to almost do the impossible.
My rule of thumb (even mentioned in one of my tips) is you can expect
a 6-8x enlargement from film under most normal situations. If you want
to justify it using math assume the image resolves about 65 lpm and an
8x enlargement would give around 8 lpm on the print. This ignores
enlarging losses, etc. but is close enough for a 'rule of thumb'.

Anyway, if you look at my results with the Minolta 5400 scanner I was
able to get 12-18x enlargements which look much better than would have
been done with a wet darkroom.
I think it may be a combination of new lens design, improved film and
much better detail capture when using a scanner. So I revise my
estimate upwards to about 12x when everything works optimally.
When using my Pentax 67 and the Epson 4870 scanner the overall results
don't appear any better than what I got with 35mm. Perhaps older lens
design, more camera vibration (even with mirror up) and a much lower
resolution scanner (in spite of advertised numbers).
So depending on the workflow, medium format may not be noticeably better
than 35mm.
You can see the samples in the tips section of my web site.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:
  #723  
Old June 30th 04, 12:34 AM
Raphael Bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default real photography only 30 lpmm?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:12:21 -0400, Robert Feinman
wrote:


Anyway, if you look at my results with the Minolta 5400 scanner I was
able to get 12-18x enlargements which look much better than would have
been done with a wet darkroom.
I think it may be a combination of new lens design, improved film and
much better detail capture when using a scanner. So I revise my
estimate upwards to about 12x when everything works optimally.



Yep, this is what a lot of us have seen.
Film scanning and digital darkroom
making sharper prints, and with better
tonality, than a wet darkroom.

When using my Pentax 67 and the Epson 4870 scanner the overall results
don't appear any better than what I got with 35mm. Perhaps older lens
design, more camera vibration (even with mirror up) and a much lower
resolution scanner (in spite of advertised numbers).
So depending on the workflow, medium format may not be noticeably better
than 35mm.
You can see the samples in the tips section of my web site.



I suggest it's the 4870 that's the weak
link here. Have you had one of your
good MF negatives scanned on a top-
notch film scanner? I think that might
cause you to change your tune.

I see noticeable differences between
35 and 645. But that's because I scan
both of them on the same 4000 dpi
scanner.

How does your scanner hold up against
comparable samples at my site below?

Back when I was scanning MF on an
Epson 1640 (supposedly 1600 dpi, but
seemingly half of that) I was somewhat
disappointed with MF.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
scan samples site:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

  #724  
Old June 30th 04, 01:33 AM
Hemi4268
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default real photography only 30 lpmm?

Not without aliasing, and the real resolution is limited to 56.82 cy/mm.

I disagree, the actual figure is 56.873654895418745834587492 lp/mm.

Larry
  #725  
Old December 7th 04, 10:58 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.zared.com/Business/Arts_a...and_Editorial/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Formula for pre-focusing Steve Yeatts Large Format Photography Equipment 9 June 22nd 04 02:55 AM
zone system test with filter on lens? Phil Lamerton In The Darkroom 35 June 4th 04 02:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.