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_pixel&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=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 [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
