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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:54:53 GMT, wrote:
I disagree I was sworn to my Canon 35mm. I recently baught a Minolta Dimage A1. 5 megapixal with the software I'm using I can either blow up a small portion of the picture and still have great detail or use the actual picture and go up to about 24 x 36. That is the size listed on the software. Also the retouching features are blowing me away the more I learn. As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones. So you have traded quality for convenience. A tradition in many cultures. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when usinga digital camera and imaging software?
Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I believe.) Certainly nowhere near MF. If you are seeing what appears to be good or acceptable quality likely it's due to interpolation/software enhancements, not straight pixels. Also depends on what you mean by "soft." Some never notice the fuzziness in a typical 8x10, 35mm head portrait. But compare it with the same shot in MF... You may be correct about the file threshold, in terms of raw data of course film is going to transend a capture in fine detail, in terms of turn around and ability to record the tonality of color film, the digital is here.... provided, the system is calibrated. Like I stated if one is shooting soft portraiture there really is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. True there's not such great detail to worry about and commercial portrait photographers like the convenience of instant digital capture and output, but at the expense of tangible and permanent images on film. Besides what the difference between a MF camera and a digital if you have to retouch the MF image to soften it down for those old ladies you shoot ;-) If they don't like seeing their wrinkles, they'd better not come to me for a portrait. I shoot in 4x5 ;-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when usinga digital camera and imaging software?
John wrote: On 3 Mar 2004 14:38:33 -0800, (Dan Quinn) wrote: Consider the focal length of the normal lens used on a digital camera. When that normal equals that of a 35mm camera's normal then the sensor is equall in size to the frame of a 35mm camera. At my last look sensor sizes on under a few thousand doller cameras were running apx. 2/3 of 35mm. Optics can only be so good. Lines per/milimeter are just that. At normal setting of the zoom on my Oly. 2040, coverage is about that of an 8mm movie camera and I think a little less than a Minox. Sensor sizes and resulting focal lengths are incredibly small with under one thousand dollor cameras. Makers of digitals are packing on the pixels but are not doing much for the focal lengths, the size of the sensors. Dan Also note that the more pixels in the CCD/CMOS, the greater the noise and therefore the lower the SNR. Not to mention photodetector sites can only get so small, since as you say noise becomes a problem and at minimum you need enough electrons to actually produce a usable signal. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when usinga digital camera and imaging software?
Tom Phillips wrote: Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I believe.) Certainly nowhere near MF. If you are seeing what appears to be good or acceptable quality likely it's due to interpolation/software enhancements, not straight pixels. Also depends on what you mean by "soft." Some never notice the fuzziness in a typical 8x10, 35mm head portrait. But compare it with the same shot in MF... You may be correct about the file threshold, in terms of raw data of course film is going to transend a capture in fine detail, in terms of turn around and ability to record the tonality of color film, the digital is here.... provided, the system is calibrated. Like I stated if one is shooting soft portraiture there really is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. BTW, re-reading this I'm not sure what is meant by digital ability to "record the tonality of color film." Digital color space cannot match/equal the color gamut of photochemical color. Digital may be 'good enough' for soft focus subjects, but color-wise and detail-wise (whether you "enlarge" output by changing image size or reducing lpi resolution, you lose information. True there's not such great detail to worry about and commercial portrait photographers like the convenience of instant digital capture and output, but at the expense of tangible and permanent images on film. Besides what the difference between a MF camera and a digital if you have to retouch the MF image to soften it down for those old ladies you shoot ;-) If they don't like seeing their wrinkles, they'd better not come to me for a portrait. I shoot in 4x5 ;-) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: ly is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. BTW, re-reading this I'm not sure what is meant by digital ability to "record the tonality of color film." Digital color space cannot match/equal the color gamut of photochemical color. I disagree completely. -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when usinga digital camera and imaging software?
Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: ly is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. BTW, re-reading this I'm not sure what is meant by digital ability to "record the tonality of color film." Digital color space cannot match/equal the color gamut of photochemical color. I disagree completely. But there is nothing to disagree with, Gregory. Fact: digital color spaces do not and cannot represent a full natural color gamut. Read your Photoshop manual. Photographic dye layers are much more representative of the wide variety of natural colors as seen by the human eye. Calibration has nothing to do with it, since all calibration does is address the issue of device color space differences (scanner, monitor, printer.) Calibration does not affect color gamut, but how images are converted between gamuts. Also, there is really no such thing as "color tonality." Colors are defined by saturation, hue, and brightness. Each component plays a role in the color as seen. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
I don't think so. I've been very impressed with the advances in digital
photography. My 5 megapixel Canon is certainly competitive with my 35mm film cameras, but I don't think the images are quite as good. The color is easier to handle and at least as good as with film, but the sharp edges of the pixels give a quality to the images that I do not find as pleasing as the smoothness of film. We are talking here about effects that are beyond what is normally considered to be viewable resolution, but you can definitely see it. With medium format, film resolution (in relative terms) is even greater, and the results even finer. It would take about a 16 megapixel image to be competitive with a 645 film image - and a lens to match it. Such things exist, if you have the money. That said, digital has some handling and production advantages that may outweigh any slight decrease in absolute quality for any given application. "apkesh" wrote in message news HI, I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for a high pixel digital camera. I know most of you here would argue you could never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model cameras are concerned? Apkes |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|