Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. That is so true. I recently had some prints done from 35mm negatives shot on superia reala 100. I knew the negatives were good because I had previously scanned them and was happy with the results. One of them had bagged me a number of acceptances and hon mentions in a few competitions. Well to cut a long story short I took these negs to the last remaining lab who still does colour printing the traditional way using a colour enlarger, obviously this is low volume work and it is'nt cheap but the resulting prints were just amazing. The detail and tonal quality of the print were so much better than the scanned version. There was detail in the print that I had never seen before. It is as shame that such skills are being lost.. This guy does hand printing more as a passion for the art because commercially it is not viable any more. Regards Patrick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
This seems to be more of a scanner test.(?) My experience has been the complete opposite. Obviously, personal impressions, also, play a roll. Jack --- Patrick Genovese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. That is so true. I recently had some prints done from 35mm negatives shot on superia reala 100. I knew the negatives were good because I had previously scanned them and was happy with the results. One of them had bagged me a number of acceptances and hon mentions in a few competitions. Well to cut a long story short I took these negs to the last remaining lab who still does colour printing the traditional way using a colour enlarger, obviously this is low volume work and it is'nt cheap but the resulting prints were just amazing. The detail and tonal quality of the print were so much better than the scanned version. There was detail in the print that I had never seen before. It is as shame that such skills are being lost.. This guy does hand printing more as a passion for the art because commercially it is not viable any more. Regards Patrick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
It is true, all labs now print on some Noritsu machine. And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process. This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it to that size to get A4 (20x30cm) image. Print was good, much better than most of other pics, and i managed to get 1st place in competition :) But i know, that it was not good enough. Even if you want to print some hi-detail picture in small size, it is not so easy to do it... Gasha Patrick Genovese wrote: I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. That is so true. I recently had some prints done from 35mm negatives shot on superia reala 100. I knew the negatives were good because I had previously scanned them and was happy with the results. One of them had bagged me a number of acceptances and hon mentions in a few competitions. Well to cut a long story short I took these negs to the last remaining lab who still does colour printing the traditional way using a colour enlarger, obviously this is low volume work and it is'nt cheap but the resulting prints were just amazing. The detail and tonal quality of the print were so much better than the scanned version. There was detail in the print that I had never seen before. It is as shame that such skills are being lost.. This guy does hand printing more as a passion for the art because commercially it is not viable any more. Regards Patrick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes. Reference photo: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm 100% view of a single person: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm -- Bruce == Nice shot Bruce. Really nice. I've been wondering if I would see a resolution improvement from 6mp to 10mp. Yup, I do. I don't care about the film/digital debate (since I won't be doing film again) , but I do care about that. Informative. Thanks for sharing. Still a tad too busy to make PESO comments yet. Got back on list about four days ago and, boy, mailbox is getting filled already. Had forgotten how, when going strong, hard it is to keep up with the list. Later, Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Hi Bruce the resolution of the single person looks good enough for me. It seems that perfect exposure and lightning is an important factor. What I would like to know: While the skin tone on the single shot looks natural for me, the skin of the men are quite brown/reddish. Would you say that your photo just reflects reality or is there some partly color cast despite studio lightning? In some ouf my photos with flash people faces often look a bit too reddish for me, that's why I ask. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:33 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes. Reference photo: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm 100% view of a single person: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm -- Bruce == Nice shot Bruce. Really nice. I've been wondering if I would see a resolution improvement from 6mp to 10mp. Yup, I do. I don't care about the film/digital debate (since I won't be doing film again) , but I do care about that. Informative. Thanks for sharing. Still a tad too busy to make PESO comments yet. Got back on list about four days ago and, boy, mailbox is getting filled already. Had forgotten how, when going strong, hard it is to keep up with the list. Later, Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Hi Gasha didn't they crop parts of your photos, the A4 prints described as 20x30 are more like 20x27cm here? Or can you choose if you want the photos scaled down with a border? greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gasha Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:31 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion It is true, all labs now print on some Noritsu machine. And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process. This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it to that size to get A4 (20x30cm) image. Print was good, much better than most of other pics, and i managed to get 1st place in competition :) But i know, that it was not good enough. Even if you want to print some hi-detail picture in small size, it is not so easy to do it... Gasha Patrick Genovese wrote: I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. That is so true. I recently had some prints done from 35mm negatives shot on superia reala 100. I knew the negatives were good because I had previously scanned them and was happy with the results. One of them had bagged me a number of acceptances and hon mentions in a few competitions. Well to cut a long story short I took these negs to the last remaining lab who still does colour printing the traditional way using a colour enlarger, obviously this is low volume work and it is'nt cheap but the resulting prints were just amazing. The detail and tonal quality of the print were so much better than the scanned version. There was detail in the print that I had never seen before. It is as shame that such skills are being lost.. This guy does hand printing more as a passion for the art because commercially it is not viable any more. Regards Patrick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
This makes no sense at all, digital capture has exposure latitude just like film does which means BOTH overexposure or underexposure will noticably degrade the image at some point with most subjects and the widest exposure latitude digital is still not as wide as the widest exposure latitude films at this point. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposure is the enemy of good digital photography On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: No, not really. Digital images of this sort must be underexposed, in order to avoid burned out highlights, to which thery are more prone than film images. regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul Stenquist Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant, because underexposure causes image degradation. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the highlights. You are correct to expose accurately for both ends of the spectrum. The issue with digital, I think, is that the shadow areas tend to show noise more - so it is really best to expose for the highlights without blowing them out and then darken later, if necessary. -- Bruce Monday, January 22, 2007, 8:56:41 AM, you wrote: JCOC This makes no sense at all, digital capture has exposure latitude JCOC just like film does which means BOTH overexposure JCOC or underexposure will noticably degrade the image at some JCOC point with most subjects and the widest exposure latitude digital JCOC is still not as wide as the widest exposure latitude JCOC films at this point. JCOC jco JCOC -Original Message- JCOC From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JCOC Paul Stenquist JCOC Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM JCOC To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JCOC Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JCOC No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposure is the enemy of JCOC good digital photography JCOC On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: No, not really. Digital images of this sort must be underexposed, in order to avoid burned out highlights, to which thery are more prone than film images. regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul Stenquist Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant, because underexposure causes image degradation. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JCOC -- JCOC PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JCOC PDML@pdml.net JCOC http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Hmmm...as to color cast, in this shot, the men are somewhat that way already. I do notice that color correcting for flash shots can be somewhat like you say. When they are wearing Black and white clothing like in this shot, you can reasonably correct any color cast. The other thing that I have found to improve the look sometimes is to knock the saturation down a bit. It is almost like the extra light punches the colors up too much. You might try that sequence. First correct for white balance. Once you have that, then try dropping saturation until the skin tones look more natural. As always, a properly calibrated monitor makes a lot of difference too. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, January 22, 2007, 8:36:20 AM, you wrote: MM Hi Bruce MM the resolution of the single person looks good enough for me. It seems that MM perfect exposure and lightning is an important factor. MM What I would like to know: While the skin tone on the single shot looks MM natural for me, the skin of the men MM are quite brown/reddish. Would you say that your photo just reflects reality MM or is there some partly color cast despite studio lightning? MM In some ouf my photos with flash people faces often look a bit too reddish MM for me, that's why I ask. MM greetings MM Markus MM -Original Message- MM From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MM [EMAIL PROTECTED] MM Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:33 PM MM To: pdml@pdml.net MM Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion MM In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, MM [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MM Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200, MM 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes. MM Reference photo: MM http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm MM 100% view of a single person: MM http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm MM -- MM Bruce MM == MM Nice shot Bruce. Really nice. I've been wondering if I would see a MM resolution improvement from 6mp to 10mp. Yup, I do. I don't care about the MM film/digital debate (since I won't be doing film again) , but I do care MM about that. MM Informative. MM Thanks for sharing. MM Still a tad too busy to make PESO comments yet. Got back on list about four MM days ago and, boy, mailbox is getting filled already. Had forgotten how, MM when MM going strong, hard it is to keep up with the list. MM Later, Marnie aka Doe :-) MM -- MM PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List MM PDML@pdml.net MM http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the highlights. You are correct to expose accurately for both ends of the spectrum. The issue with digital, I think, is that the shadow areas tend to show noise more - so it is really best to expose for the highlights without blowing them out and then darken later, if necessary. Proper digital exposure should be biased to come as close to saturation as possible due to the nature of the sensors' linear capture and the mathematics associated. Bruce Fraser illustrates this well in Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2, pages 6-8. So the best methodology is to set exposure for a scene's Zone IX highlights to capture the highest valued detail that you want to retain in the final image. That brings in the greatest amount of data and exploits the sensor's analog dynamic range to maximum, minimizes noise at the blackpoint threshold after gamma encoding and bayer demosaicing. Of course, proper RAW conversion for such an exposure may not be at a RAW converter's default settings ... it often takes customization of the gamma encoding curves to express all the tonal values that were captured in RGB channel space. Current digital sensor maximum dynamic range, after gamma encoding and demosaicing, is right around 10 stops with the K10D, which surpasses most film emulsions handily. Measurements I made with my *ist DS body showed that it could manage 7-9 stops (RAW format capture, dependent upon ISO setting). Some (a very few) BW emulsions can manage between 11-13 stops of DR at the limit. No color emulsions that I know of can handle more than 8-9 stops, transparency emulsions in particular are hard pressed to handle 5-6. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I think you are mistaken about the K10D or any digital camera for that matter being able to match or surpass the dynamic range of all color films. Most of them are rated in the linear range but the color neg films do have a useful knee that still captures highlights without blowing them out and this can be post processed (expanded) to give more useful dynamic range than any digital capture currently available. There are also low contrast films especially designed for widest possible dynamic range for use with extremely contrasty scenes or situations. Lastly, with film you dont get the noise (you get grain instead) on the shadow end you do with digital but if you go to larger film formats, this grain becomes invisible which further increase the useful dynamic range of film vs digital. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the highlights. You are correct to expose accurately for both ends of the spectrum. The issue with digital, I think, is that the shadow areas tend to show noise more - so it is really best to expose for the highlights without blowing them out and then darken later, if necessary. Proper digital exposure should be biased to come as close to saturation as possible due to the nature of the sensors' linear capture and the mathematics associated. Bruce Fraser illustrates this well in Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2, pages 6-8. So the best methodology is to set exposure for a scene's Zone IX highlights to capture the highest valued detail that you want to retain in the final image. That brings in the greatest amount of data and exploits the sensor's analog dynamic range to maximum, minimizes noise at the blackpoint threshold after gamma encoding and bayer demosaicing. Of course, proper RAW conversion for such an exposure may not be at a RAW converter's default settings ... it often takes customization of the gamma encoding curves to express all the tonal values that were captured in RGB channel space. Current digital sensor maximum dynamic range, after gamma encoding and demosaicing, is right around 10 stops with the K10D, which surpasses most film emulsions handily. Measurements I made with my *ist DS body showed that it could manage 7-9 stops (RAW format capture, dependent upon ISO setting). Some (a very few) BW emulsions can manage between 11-13 stops of DR at the limit. No color emulsions that I know of can handle more than 8-9 stops, transparency emulsions in particular are hard pressed to handle 5-6. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant, because underexposure causes image degradation. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ The luminous landscape article does something thing I disagree with, which is to compare scanned film to a digital capture. As soon as that is done, you are no longer comparing digital to film. I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. For the application you are discussing, I would still use MF film and scan (Ya I know, but try to get an optical print done these days), rather than a small format digital. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I respect your depth of knowledge in regard to optical printing, but I have to say I've never seen an optical print that resolved as much detail as a superb scan. Of course most scans are not superb, and most optical prints are not perfectly executed. This, of course, makes the comparison difficult. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ The luminous landscape article does something thing I disagree with, which is to compare scanned film to a digital capture. As soon as that is done, you are no longer comparing digital to film. I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. For the application you are discussing, I would still use MF film and scan (Ya I know, but try to get an optical print done these days), rather than a small format digital. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabilities to the direct digital capture more than the actual image on the film. I think I could easily skew a test into the 6x7 column by shooting a nice fine ISO 100 BW film and printing in a darkroom say an 11x14 print on a good paper with a nice Rodenstock lens @ say f8.0 and comparing it to a BW conversion of the 1Ds output printed on say an Epson 2200. I'm betting the Wet print wins hands down, for detail at least. You can say it's not a fair comparison, but neither is his test. I'm not talking religion here either. Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I completely agree. I've compared a number of images which were pro lab scanned and LightJet printed to prints which had been previously pro lab optically printed. In each case, the scanned image carried more fine detail. Didn't always require a loupe to determine either. Difference was great enough that I re-framed a few. Jack --- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I respect your depth of knowledge in regard to optical printing, but I have to say I've never seen an optical print that resolved as much detail as a superb scan. Of course most scans are not superb, and most optical prints are not perfectly executed. This, of course, makes the comparison difficult. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ The luminous landscape article does something thing I disagree with, which is to compare scanned film to a digital capture. As soon as that is done, you are no longer comparing digital to film. I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. For the application you are discussing, I would still use MF film and scan (Ya I know, but try to get an optical print done these days), rather than a small format digital. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
In stead of arguing this and that; show me your digital group images. Crop out one face covering 5-10% of the frame. Lets see and judging for ourselves. Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af P. J. Alling Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:41 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabilities to the direct digital capture more than the actual image on the film. I think I could easily skew a test into the 6x7 column by shooting a nice fine ISO 100 BW film and printing in a darkroom say an 11x14 print on a good paper with a nice Rodenstock lens @ say f8.0 and comparing it to a BW conversion of the 1Ds output printed on say an Epson 2200. I'm betting the Wet print wins hands down, for detail at least. You can say it's not a fair comparison, but neither is his test. I'm not talking religion here either. Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
No, not really. Digital images of this sort must be underexposed, in order to avoid burned out highlights, to which thery are more prone than film images. regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul Stenquist Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant, because underexposure causes image degradation. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposure is the enemy of good digital photography On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: No, not really. Digital images of this sort must be underexposed, in order to avoid burned out highlights, to which thery are more prone than film images. regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul Stenquist Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant, because underexposure causes image degradation. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical print beats even a drum scan. Evan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
On 22/01/07, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml There are also plenty of tests which prove the contrary too and in each case the difference is small enough to be irrelevant at the end of the day. But from an equipment cost perspective it's probably still better value to shoot MF film and scan than to buy a full frame body. That said my SO recently returned from a business conference with a USB memory stick full of shots from the proceedings. A couple of group shots were made using a Canon 5D and they looked good though the faces didn't show quite the level of detail that I would expect from similar shots made using my Mamiya 7. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce in the past 30 years. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion In stead of arguing this and that; show me your digital group images. Crop out one face covering 5-10% of the frame. Lets see and judging for ourselves. I wouldn't consider shooting a group that large on anything other than medium format, so I can't argue anything. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Evan Hanson wrote: My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical print beats even a drum scan. I have found just the opposite to be true: I've rarely seen an optical print that can compare to a well-done scan and print. Oh, certainly the *resolution* and fine detail will be better on the optical print (at least at large sizes). But that is, IMO, a very superficial way of evaluating print quality. The control you get from levels and curves adjustment is just an overwhelming advantage for digital output. In fact, my dissatisfaction with optical printing is what got me started into digital image technology long before digital cameras of reasonable quality were available for less than five-figure prices. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. I did sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. That's not a lot, is it? Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, I believe. Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a 58x58mm slide. I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group shot like this either. I will, however, try to make group shots with the K10D, just to see how much difference 66,7% more pixels will actually make. I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 camera with a Xenotar lens too. Just in case :-) Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce in the past 30 years. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this link sums up where I finally wound up: http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php?title=stuff_per_pixelmore=1c=1tb=1pb=1 Medium format and certainly large format still excel at capturing scenes that require very high resolution, and still do a better job than digital. But, most folks never shoot stuff that really calls for high resolution, so this is a moot point to them. I don't think a group portrait is a particularly high resolution challenge, unless you need to see individual eyelashes. As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. There is just gobs of data in that image - branches upon branches upon branches. I've tried various raw interpreters but at the end of the day - the data just was not captured on the sensor, so I get jaggies and a loss of detail in the most intricate parts of the image. On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. It was shot on Classic Pan 200. But the detail in the enlargement is outstanding. Here's an actual pixels sample: http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/media/67_504_detail.jpg The detail in the enlargement far exceeds the detail in the shot taken with the K10D. I mean - comparing a 12x18 to a 28x23, the latter has more detail. There is no way I could print the K10D shot at that size and get anything but an artifaced mess. On the flip side - I would never try to take snow crystal shots with the 6x7 - trying to enlarge a 5mm snow crystal up to 6 cm would be almost impossible - just enlarging them to fit an APS sensor will capture all of the availble detail. And I have some excellent 28x28 inch enlargements of snow crystals shot with the *ist-D. So - it all boils down to what tool is right for the job. The folks at luminous landscape defined the job a certain way, and came up with their results. It's useful as a benchmark of where digital is in relation to film - I've been surprised at how much more detail the K0D can capture vs the *ist-D. But it's also a bit of a tautology in that if you know the state of current photographic tools, what is right for the job is obvious. - MCC Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
As always Mark, you make a great point. On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this link sums up where I finally wound up: http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php? title=stuff_per_pixelmore=1c=1tb=1pb=1 Medium format and certainly large format still excel at capturing scenes that require very high resolution, and still do a better job than digital. But, most folks never shoot stuff that really calls for high resolution, so this is a moot point to them. I don't think a group portrait is a particularly high resolution challenge, unless you need to see individual eyelashes. As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. There is just gobs of data in that image - branches upon branches upon branches. I've tried various raw interpreters but at the end of the day - the data just was not captured on the sensor, so I get jaggies and a loss of detail in the most intricate parts of the image. On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. It was shot on Classic Pan 200. But the detail in the enlargement is outstanding. Here's an actual pixels sample: http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/media/67_504_detail.jpg The detail in the enlargement far exceeds the detail in the shot taken with the K10D. I mean - comparing a 12x18 to a 28x23, the latter has more detail. There is no way I could print the K10D shot at that size and get anything but an artifaced mess. On the flip side - I would never try to take snow crystal shots with the 6x7 - trying to enlarge a 5mm snow crystal up to 6 cm would be almost impossible - just enlarging them to fit an APS sensor will capture all of the availble detail. And I have some excellent 28x28 inch enlargements of snow crystals shot with the *ist-D. So - it all boils down to what tool is right for the job. The folks at luminous landscape defined the job a certain way, and came up with their results. It's useful as a benchmark of where digital is in relation to film - I've been surprised at how much more detail the K0D can capture vs the *ist-D. But it's also a bit of a tautology in that if you know the state of current photographic tools, what is right for the job is obvious. - MCC Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Have you ever done any contact printing? All you have to do is match the correct paper contrast and density of a decent negative and you can get fantastic results without the need for any curves adjustment, the density and contrast adjustments ARE your levels adjustments. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:35 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Evan Hanson wrote: My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical print beats even a drum scan. I have found just the opposite to be true: I've rarely seen an optical print that can compare to a well-done scan and print. Oh, certainly the *resolution* and fine detail will be better on the optical print (at least at large sizes). But that is, IMO, a very superficial way of evaluating print quality. The control you get from levels and curves adjustment is just an overwhelming advantage for digital output. In fact, my dissatisfaction with optical printing is what got me started into digital image technology long before digital cameras of reasonable quality were available for less than five-figure prices. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Does anyone here honestly believe that a optimized 6MP APS digital image is going to resolve as well as an optimal 6x7 image wet printed or well scanned optimal 6x7 image? Its not even close, do the math, and get your glasses checked if you think they are the same. Maybe if you go to full frame digital and 16 MP, you might start to get very close but that's not the comparison asked about. Regarding group shots and faces, This is an ideal test of resolution and it really matters because faces are important in a group shot and a large print that resolves them well is so much more satisfying to observe than one that doesn't do as well. There is a restaurant near me that has a group shot of the 1988 Chicago Bears on the wall printed about 4 feet by 5 feet size. The details in every single face of the 60 or so faces is amazing. It certainly wasn't shot on digital and most likely was done on 8x10 based on the quality. Group people shots are extreme resolution hogs jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:13 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce in the past 30 years. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I dont agree that the higher resolution that medium and large format photography provides is moot or unnecessary in typical photography unless you never print anything bigger than 4x6 or never make a web image display larger than 1200x800 (both being rough numbers). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Cassino Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this link sums up where I finally wound up: http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php?title=stuff_per_pixelm ore=1c=1tb=1pb=1 Medium format and certainly large format still excel at capturing scenes that require very high resolution, and still do a better job than digital. But, most folks never shoot stuff that really calls for high resolution, so this is a moot point to them. I don't think a group portrait is a particularly high resolution challenge, unless you need to see individual eyelashes. As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. There is just gobs of data in that image - branches upon branches upon branches. I've tried various raw interpreters but at the end of the day - the data just was not captured on the sensor, so I get jaggies and a loss of detail in the most intricate parts of the image. On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. It was shot on Classic Pan 200. But the detail in the enlargement is outstanding. Here's an actual pixels sample: http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/media/67_504_detail.jpg The detail in the enlargement far exceeds the detail in the shot taken with the K10D. I mean - comparing a 12x18 to a 28x23, the latter has more detail. There is no way I could print the K10D shot at that size and get anything but an artifaced mess. On the flip side - I would never try to take snow crystal shots with the 6x7 - trying to enlarge a 5mm snow crystal up to 6 cm would be almost impossible - just enlarging them to fit an APS sensor will capture all of the availble detail. And I have some excellent 28x28 inch enlargements of snow crystals shot with the *ist-D. So - it all boils down to what tool is right for the job. The folks at luminous landscape defined the job a certain way, and came up with their results. It's useful as a benchmark of where digital is in relation to film - I've been surprised at how much more detail the K0D can capture vs the *ist-D. But it's also a bit of a tautology in that if you know the state of current photographic tools, what is right for the job is obvious. - MCC Jens Bladt wrote: To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right gear for the job. Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan from a Pentax 6x7. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. But what can we do, really? Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or Full Frame? If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see one face croped out of it. A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. Just to see if you can do this better than me. So, for staters I made a small comparison here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ Comments are most welcome Regards Jens Bladt -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Hello Jens, Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped from full size original) http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. JB I did sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. JB That's not a lot, is it? JB Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. JB More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, I JB believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a 58x58mm JB slide. JB I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group shot like this either. JB I will, however, try to make group shots with the K10D, just to see how much JB difference 66,7% more pixels will actually make. JB I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 camera with a Xenotar JB lens too. Just in case :-) JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB Nytarkort / Greeting Card: JB http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey JB DiGiorgi JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13 JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips JB up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double JB the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce JB in the past 30 years. JB G JB -- JB PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB PDML@pdml.net JB http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JB -- JB No virus found in this incoming message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 JB 22:31 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 JB 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My conclusion is that its not very good in absolute terms and even in a medium size print like 8x10 or 11x14 much improvement could be seen in the print at higher resolution capture. For RESOLUTION reference only (not technical or artistic merits, it has little actally, but I already had it scanned on hand) , Here's an example of how single person's face CAN be resolved, even in a fairly large group shot - overall shot : www.jchriso.com/temp/group1.jpg a single face in the group : www.jchriso.com/temp/head1.jpg My overall conclusion is that a really well done group shot should look like a collection of single portraits to really be fully appreciated...Thats how that old Chicago Bears team shot I mentioned earlier impressed me as looking jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:50 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Hello Jens, Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped from full size original) http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. I did JB sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. That's not JB a lot, is it? Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. JB More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, I JB believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a JB 58x58mm slide. I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group JB shot like this either. I will, however, try to make group shots with JB the K10D, just to see how much difference 66,7% more pixels will JB actually make. I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 JB camera with a Xenotar lens too. Just in case :-) JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB Nytarkort / Greeting Card: JB http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af JB Godfrey DiGiorgi JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13 JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips JB up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double JB the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce JB in the past 30 years. JB G JB -- JB PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JB -- JB No virus found in this incoming message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I'm not particularly defending small frame digital, but your example is a much smaller group. I have shots of smaller families on the K10D, of about 10-12 people and a single crop comes much closer to your example. I guess I could pull out my shot of a group of 200 kids that I did on my old 67 and see how well it resolves. -- Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 6:53:59 PM, you wrote: JCOC My conclusion is that its not very good in absolute terms and even in JCOC a medium size print like 8x10 or 11x14 much improvement JCOC could be seen in the print at higher resolution capture. JCOC For RESOLUTION reference only (not technical or artistic merits, JCOC it has little actally, but I already had it scanned on hand) , JCOC Here's an example of how single person's face CAN JCOC be resolved, even in a fairly large group shot - JCOC overall shot : www.jchriso.com/temp/group1.jpg JCOC a single face in the group : www.jchriso.com/temp/head1.jpg JCOC My overall conclusion is that a really well done group JCOC shot should look like a collection of single portraits JCOC to really be fully appreciated...Thats how that old Chicago JCOC Bears team shot I mentioned earlier impressed me as looking JCOC jco JCOC -Original Message- JCOC From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JCOC Bruce Dayton JCOC Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:50 PM JCOC To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JCOC Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JCOC Hello Jens, JCOC Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens JCOC ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 JCOC Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: JCOC http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm JCOC Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped from JCOC full size original) http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm JCOC I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. JCOC -- JCOC Best regards, JCOC Bruce JCOC Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. I did JB sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. That's not JB a lot, is it? Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. JB More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, JCOC I JB believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a JB 58x58mm slide. I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group JB shot like this either. I will, however, try to make group shots with JB the K10D, just to see how much difference 66,7% more pixels will JB actually make. I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 JB camera with a Xenotar lens too. Just in case :-) JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB Nytarkort / Greeting Card: JB http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af JB Godfrey DiGiorgi JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13 JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips JB up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double JB the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce JB in the past 30 years. JB G JB -- JB PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JB -- JB No virus found in this incoming message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 JCOC -- JCOC PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JCOC PDML@pdml.net JCOC http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
true, thats all I had scanned to show, go ahead and display one face of the same size group from the k10D. I dont think you are going to get very close to that with any aps image due to simple lens physics limitations on that small of a format. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:04 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion I'm not particularly defending small frame digital, but your example is a much smaller group. I have shots of smaller families on the K10D, of about 10-12 people and a single crop comes much closer to your example. I guess I could pull out my shot of a group of 200 kids that I did on my old 67 and see how well it resolves. -- Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 6:53:59 PM, you wrote: JCOC My conclusion is that its not very good in absolute terms and even JCOC in a medium size print like 8x10 or 11x14 much improvement could JCOC be seen in the print at higher resolution capture. JCOC For RESOLUTION reference only (not technical or artistic merits, JCOC it has little actally, but I already had it scanned on hand) , JCOC Here's an example of how single person's face CAN be resolved, JCOC even in a fairly large group shot - JCOC overall shot : www.jchriso.com/temp/group1.jpg JCOC a single face in the group : www.jchriso.com/temp/head1.jpg JCOC My overall conclusion is that a really well done group shot should JCOC look like a collection of single portraits to really be fully JCOC appreciated...Thats how that old Chicago Bears team shot I JCOC mentioned earlier impressed me as looking JCOC jco JCOC -Original Message- JCOC From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On JCOC Behalf Of Bruce Dayton JCOC Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:50 PM JCOC To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JCOC Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JCOC Hello Jens, JCOC Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 JCOC lens JCOC ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 JCOC Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: JCOC http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm JCOC Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped JCOC from full size original) JCOC http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm JCOC I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. JCOC -- JCOC Best regards, JCOC Bruce JCOC Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. I did JB sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. That's not JB a lot, is it? Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. JB More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, JCOC I JB believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a JB 58x58mm slide. I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group JB shot like this either. I will, however, try to make group shots with JB the K10D, just to see how much difference 66,7% more pixels will JB actually make. I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 JB camera with a Xenotar lens too. Just in case :-) JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB Nytarkort / Greeting Card: JB http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af JB Godfrey DiGiorgi JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13 JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips JB up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double JB the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce JB in the past 30 years. JB G JB -- JB PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JB -- JB No virus found in this incoming message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 JCOC
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My conclusion is that in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing even a small-frame 6MP DSLR is more than capable of delivering the results. I'm not surprised that someone who is used to group photography can come up with an example like this. Of course that's not going to stop the endless hand-wringing, comparisons of poorly-exposed (or poorly scanned) images, etc. It's a lot easier to blame the equipment ... On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 05:50:17PM -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Jens, Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped from full size original) http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. JB I did sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. JB That's not a lot, is it? JB Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. JB More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, I JB believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a 58x58mm JB slide. JB I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group shot like this either. JB I will, however, try to make group shots with the K10D, just to see how much JB difference 66,7% more pixels will actually make. JB I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 camera with a Xenotar JB lens too. Just in case :-) JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB Nytarkort / Greeting Card: JB http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey JB DiGiorgi JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13 JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips JB up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double JB the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce JB in the past 30 years. JB G JB -- JB PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB PDML@pdml.net JB http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JB -- JB No virus found in this incoming message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 JB 22:31 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 JB 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant. G On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Jens, Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped from full size original) http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. JB I did sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. JB That's not a lot, is it? JB Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. JB More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, I JB believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a 58x58mm JB slide. JB I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group shot like this either. JB I will, however, try to make group shots with the K10D, just to see how much JB difference 66,7% more pixels will actually make. JB I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 camera with a Xenotar JB lens too. Just in case :-) sagt digiorgi: JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips JB up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double JB the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce JB in the past 30 years. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I dont agree that the higher resolution that medium and large format photography provides is moot or unnecessary in typical photography unless you never print anything bigger than 4x6 or never make a web image display larger than 1200x800 (both being rough numbers). jco What about a 9938x2651 image? (~3M) http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/images/Container-Ship_2_2lrg.jpg Pretty good detail for a piddly APS-C sensor. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same as producing a group photo for the web. The right tool for the job is essential. For what Jens is doing, the *ist D would suffice, the K10D will do even better. Godfrey On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. ... On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
- Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. For myself, that's not good enough. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes. Reference photo: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm 100% view of a single person: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm -- Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 7:47:22 PM, you wrote: GD Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high GD frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means GD Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same GD as producing a group photo for the web. GD The right tool for the job is essential. For what Jens is doing, the GD *ist D would suffice, the K10D will do even better. GD Godfrey GD On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. ... On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
HAR! It's a tiny web image:-). You're obviously pulling our legs. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:14 PM, William Robb wrote: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Whats your point here? That higher resolution is or isnt useful? There are no 25Mp aps format SLRS are there and even if there were they would be lens limited compared to larger film or digital formats... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I dont agree that the higher resolution that medium and large format photography provides is moot or unnecessary in typical photography unless you never print anything bigger than 4x6 or never make a web image display larger than 1200x800 (both being rough numbers). jco What about a 9938x2651 image? (~3M) http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/images/Container-Ship_2_2lrg.jpg Pretty good detail for a piddly APS-C sensor. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Illustrates what exactly? Unless he compares to his best 6x7 or larger results what is there to see? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant. G On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Jens, Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped from full size original) http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. JB I did sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. JB That's not a lot, is it? JB Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm afriad. JB More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still not enough, I JB believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to a 58x58mm JB slide. JB I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a group shot like this either. JB I will, however, try to make group shots with the K10D, just to see how much JB difference 66,7% more pixels will actually make. JB I will, however, certainly bring some Velvia, a 6x6 camera with a Xenotar JB lens too. Just in case :-) sagt digiorgi: JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips JB up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double JB the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to produce JB in the past 30 years. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I dont think the discussion was limited to results needed only for the web. If it was, hell a good point and shoot is good enough for only that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same as producing a group photo for the web. The right tool for the job is essential. For what Jens is doing, the *ist D would suffice, the K10D will do even better. Godfrey On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. ... On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail than that. You can get it, but you don't need it for a group photo. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes. Reference photo: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm 100% view of a single person: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm -- Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 7:47:22 PM, you wrote: GD Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high GD frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means GD Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same GD as producing a group photo for the web. GD The right tool for the job is essential. For what Jens is doing, the GD *ist D would suffice, the K10D will do even better. GD Godfrey GD On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. ... On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Your mistaken here, even the worlds greatest technical and artistic photographer cant polish a turd. If the camera/lens combination doesnt have high enough resolution you simply cannot achieve the results in large prints you can with higher than 6MP aps formats.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:26 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion My conclusion is that in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing even a small-frame 6MP DSLR is more than capable of delivering the results. I'm not surprised that someone who is used to group photography can come up with an example like this. Of course that's not going to stop the endless hand-wringing, comparisons of poorly-exposed (or poorly scanned) images, etc. It's a lot easier to blame the equipment ... On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 05:50:17PM -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Jens, Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11 Here is the full shot to give you some perspective: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214.htm Here is a crop of one person at 100% (no resizing, just cropped from full size original) http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 2:45:17 PM, you wrote: JB I must admit I haven't done much work to the digital files. I did JB sharpen them, though, but that didin't help much due the the low JB resolution. These crops were somthing like 100x100 pixel. That's JB not a lot, is it? Up rez'ing them wouldn't help either, I'm JB afriad. More exposure would perhaps have helped a too, but still JB not enough, I believe. JB Of cource it's not quite fair comparing af 16-24mm sensor image to JB a 58x58mm slide. I would certainly not have used 35mm film for a JB group shot like this either. I will, however, try to make group JB shots with the K10D, just to see how much difference 66,7% more JB pixels will actually make. I will, however, certainly bring some JB Velvia, a 6x6 camera with a Xenotar lens too. Just in case :-) JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB Nytarkort / Greeting Card: JB http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB +45 56 63 77 11 JB +45 23 43 85 77 JB Skype: jensbladt248 JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne JB af Godfrey DiGiorgi JB Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13 JB Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion JB You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for JB printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG JB clips up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at JB double the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here: This one wasn done with a Pentacon Six: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/images/Byraad-gruppe-20x30-web.jpg JB to say that it won't be good enough. That's just ridiculous, Jens. JB Learn digital exposure and rendering first. Then complain that it JB won't be adequate quality if it isn't for the purpose at hand. JB If I had the time, I would set up a test shot and let you be the JB judge. I have no photographs of 30 person groups to work with, JB unfortunately ... They're not something I've had occasion to JB produce in the past 30 years. JB G JB -- JB PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JB PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JB -- JB No virus found in this incoming message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 JB -- JB No virus found in this outgoing message. JB Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: JB 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My point is if you know what your doing and the subject lends itself to the process, an APS sensor can be used to create very high resolution images. BTW, That shot was 3 images captured with the K10D stitched together. I could just as easily used a longer FL taken 20+ shots to produce an even higher resolution image. The limitations of the APS sensor, force you to be a bit more crafty :-) Cheers, Dave At 02:08 PM 22/01/2007, you wrote: Whats your point here? That higher resolution is or isnt useful? There are no 25Mp aps format SLRS are there and even if there were they would be lens limited compared to larger film or digital formats... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I dont agree that the higher resolution that medium and large format photography provides is moot or unnecessary in typical photography unless you never print anything bigger than 4x6 or never make a web image display larger than 1200x800 (both being rough numbers). jco What about a 9938x2651 image? (~3M) http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/images/Container-Ship_2_2lrg.jpg Pretty good detail for a piddly APS-C sensor. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Its not nearly as crisp as the photo I posted (when matched for magnification) and dont forget that groups can get larger (see his first post) and the results were not good at all in that case and wouldnt look acceptable in a large print compared to nice clear faces. Group photos are not like typical photos, you really need to maintain resolution on the faces, so the larger the group the higher the resolution system you need. See my comments about the '88 Bears Team photo. That was about 60 people group shot and its really impressive when each face high resolution is maintained vs when it's NOT. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:04 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail than that. You can get it, but you don't need it for a group photo. Paul On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200, 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes. Reference photo: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm 100% view of a single person: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm -- Bruce Sunday, January 21, 2007, 7:47:22 PM, you wrote: GD Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high GD frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means GD Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same GD as producing a group photo for the web. GD The right tool for the job is essential. For what Jens is doing, the GD *ist D would suffice, the K10D will do even better. GD Godfrey GD On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote: As a practical example - I'm working today on an entry for an art show, hosted by the local at museum. I've been struggling all day to get a decent 12x18 print of this shot: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/stream/061201/_IGP0058.htm It was taken with the K10D. ... On the flip side, the other image that I plan on submitting is a 28 x 23 inch print of this framed out generously and sitting in my dining room: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm That was taken with a 6x7, 55mm f4, and scanned on a lowly Epson 3200. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I figured as much on the stitching but we specifically were discussing the need for high resolution imaging with group people photos and you simply cant do that with stitching I dont believe without extreme difficulty if at all. With medium and large formats you can achieve the same or higher resolution as your post in a single exposure which is what you are going to need in a natural group photo shot jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:35 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion My point is if you know what your doing and the subject lends itself to the process, an APS sensor can be used to create very high resolution images. BTW, That shot was 3 images captured with the K10D stitched together. I could just as easily used a longer FL taken 20+ shots to produce an even higher resolution image. The limitations of the APS sensor, force you to be a bit more crafty :-) Cheers, Dave At 02:08 PM 22/01/2007, you wrote: Whats your point here? That higher resolution is or isnt useful? There are no 25Mp aps format SLRS are there and even if there were they would be lens limited compared to larger film or digital formats... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I dont agree that the higher resolution that medium and large format photography provides is moot or unnecessary in typical photography unless you never print anything bigger than 4x6 or never make a web image display larger than 1200x800 (both being rough numbers). jco What about a 9938x2651 image? (~3M) http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/images/Container-Ship_2_2lrg.jpg Pretty good detail for a piddly APS-C sensor. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
