[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
RE: [APML] Film: Begining of the End?
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the reply. That web page you referenced is very interesting. His
charts claim that the D70 offers 83% resolution compared to 35mm Provia 100F.
But he mentions that lower noise in digital results in a sharper-looking image,
so I guess my statement that they are roughly equivalent holds water. He
claims 11MP beats out 35mm, but not by too much.
Does Moore's law apply for digital cameras? We can get a 6MP DSLR now for
about $1000, how much did that cost 18 months ago?
It's obvious that medium format is safe, for now. Will sensors continue to
offer more megapixels, or will we see a stabilization at 11-20MP?
I can get an RB67 or Pentax 67 complete with accessories and maybe a lens or
two in the $1K range. Should be a safe bet for quality, weight and convenience
for at least a few years. Of course, my wife will continue to shake her head
when I agonize over ten shots on one roll of 120 film and wait a week for
processing, while she is happily processing and printing the best stuff from
hundreds of shots on the CF card.
EZB
--- Jeff Ball <jeffball@astro-photography.com> wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> I am no expert, but I believe Norman Koren really writes well on the
> topic of image sharpness and acutance. Here is a link to the
> information and I hope it helps.
>
> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
>
> I believe there are now analytical tools like DxO that should take
> viewer subjectivity out of the equation when measuring the "sharpness"
> of an image. It is a huge topic with countless variables from raw
> conversion algorithms to individual perception of "sharpness." What
> some consider sharp, I may consider "digitally overprocessed."
>
> Again the acceptable size of the print is going to vary from person to
> person. The size for me is limited by the file size I prefer to work
> with and the print size of my printer. I have a scan file size of 300mb
> with my 67 slides. That is 3000 ppi scan of a full frame. I then end
> up with a 100mb file size at 16 bits for a print size of 13x19 (Epson
> 2200 printer) at 300 ppi. If I want to send the print job to my local
> pro lab for larger prints, I just change the ppi for the size I prefer.
> I don't think I would have a problem printing 28x22" at 180 ppi. Don't
> forget print media. I have a 40x50" print coming out of the prolab on
> Epson Canvas. With canvas, you have a great amount of flexibility on
> ppi and resolution. It really becomes more than just resolution as your
> main artistic component.
>
> Anecdotally, I recently took a landscape photography workshop in
> Navajoland. I shot with my Canon 10D and Pentax 67. I used the 10D as
> my meter and as my pre-visualization tool. So that when I had a good
> image and exposure I would then image with the Pentax at roughly
> equivalent focal length. I prefer the final output of the 67 to the
> 10D. It takes more work to get the film image to where it surpasses the
> digital. The digital is ideal in wide dynamic range scenarios where
> digital blending is needed and in panoramic situations.
>
>
> I really find a quote by Ansel Adams to be as appropriate today as it
> was when he wrote it:
>
> "Photography is in a period of development where means and methods
> sometimes hold unbalanced dominance over creative effort." Examples,
> The Making of 40 Photographs.
>
> Best regards,
> Jeff Ball
> www.astro-photography.com
>
>
> But, I've done experiments with some of my sharpest images in both
> mediums, in
> which I take a crop of 1/9th of each image and then upsample it to an
> 8x10 at
> 314 dpi for my Kodak 8500 printer. I hate to admit it, but the digital
> files
> just barely edge out the scans. Even upsampling at more than 3x
> original size,
> the digital image still has that "critical" sharpness. Can someone
> explain
> this? Same lenses used for the tests, by the way, so optics aren't an
> issue.
>
> With the current offering of digital SLRs, I think the comparison with
> 35mm is
> close enough to call a draw, depending on your preference, but I'd give
> the
> edge to digital for convenience alone if money isn't an issue. For a
> beginner,
> you can't beat 35mm value, not to mention the fact that a binder full of
> slides
> can't crash the way a harddrive can.
>
> So I believe medium format is the place to be for film purists who want
> to see
> a definite improvement over digital. Of course, the people at the
> camera shops
> will swear up and down that the D70 will produce better enlargements
> than a
> 6x7, but I think they are thinking with their profit margins. I'm
> considering
> moving to 6x7, but I'd like to find out what the upper range is for
> print
> sizes. Any MF shooters out there making wall-sized prints, or is that
> the
> domain of view cameras?
>
> Clear skies and round stars!
>
> EZB
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
=====
Eric Z. Beard
http://www.honeydewphoto.com/eric
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo