On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Mark C <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's a third one, can't vouch for the author: > > http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php?s=film+vs+medium+format&sentence=AND
Better comparisons for sure than the first one mentioned by Darren. Is it really worth all the effort though? Examining photographs at this microscopic level is a fascinating technical endeavor, but it's no way to appreciate a photograph. I stopped shooting 35mm film and went to medium format when I saw that for my work a 5Mpixel pro-sumer class digital camera produced superior results for the modest sized prints I tend to prefer (6x8 to 11x17 inch). I dropped medium format when I bought a 6 Mpixel DSLR as it again produced prints in those sizes that were preferable. Now I shoot a little film now and then to supplement primary use of digital capture. Why? simply because it's a different medium, not because it resolves more or less, is sharper or whatever. It images differently, and I like the difference. Frankly, working with film is a pain in the tookus and a massive lot of tedium, the editability of the images produced with it is much smaller than that of working with digital capture, but it has some charm that I like to exploit occasionally. The game's all over, however. Film is dead, Long live Film! ;-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
