Chris, A nice synopsis. I was shooting two 67ii's before moving to digital. I know what medium format looks like and 35mm film. I concur that for very fine detail, that film holds an edge.
What many fail to realize is that for the buying public (largely weddings/portraits) they are not looking for fine detail. They don't want to see skin imperfections and don't really want to view 20X30's from a few inches away. The lack of grain and color vibrancy of the digital images gives them a wonderful look even when blown up to large sizes. If I was shooting landscapes for a living, I would either be using a medium format digital back or medium format/large format film. Since the money that I make from photography (part-time work only) is purely from people shots, 6mp dslr is serving me very well. My clients are just as happy with the product as they were when I was shooting 67. Thanks for such a clear description of what is going on. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, November 18, 2004, 8:30:00 AM, you wrote: CB> I don't own a DSLR, but I own 35mm and MedF bodies, and I work at a CB> camera store/lab, so I've seen countless enlargements from all CB> formats, including DSLRs. I've noticed that film, even 35mm, seems CB> better able to capture really fine details. If I want a print I can CB> examine extremely closely, I'm going with film, even if it's only CB> 35mm. CB> However, for some reason, possibly the complete lack of grain, DSLR CB> prints enlarge much nicer than 35mm and, if you go large enough, even CB> better than MedF. Sure the prints begin to fall apart if you walk CB> right up to them, but at a reasonable viewing distance, DSLR prints CB> look amazing. I'm so used to seeing grain on enlargements bigger than CB> 20x30 that it's mindblowing to see its absence. CB> MedF, which is all I shoot now, is a good compromise right now between CB> the complete lack of grain of digital and the smaller negative size of CB> 35mm. It looks pretty good when enlarged to poster size (the grain CB> isn't usually too objectionable), and it holds fine detail CB> exceptionally well. Of course MedF kits are not as cheap, portable or CB> feature-laden as 35mm or DSLR bodies, so there's definitely a CB> downside, but it works for me right now. CB> Chris CB> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:19:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton CB> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Bill, >> >> From his previous posts, I get the feeling that he is a strong film >> advocate who is trying to prove that digital (DSLR -35mm) isn't good >> enough yet. Seems that I remember that he doesn't have a DSLR yet and >> is going through the math calisthenics like many others. >> >> I can say, that I am having better luck blowing up *istD shots of >> portraits, families and weddings than I ever had shooting 35mm with >> equivalent best glass from Pentax. My clients are plenty happy with >> the last eleven 20X30's that I have delivered. >> >> Bruce
