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 » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #13  
Old March 4th 04, 12:37 PM
Tom Phillips
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 ;-)
  #15  
Old March 4th 04, 08:59 PM
Tom Phillips
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 4th 04, 09:53 PM
Gregory W Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 5th 04, 04:30 AM
Tom Phillips
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 8th 04, 01:15 AM
Norman Worth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.