On 1/18/2012 6:37 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Better comparisons for sure than the first one mentioned by Darren.
Thanks
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.
Agreed. But some photographs only work when presented at large scale.
They rely on visual elements like detail, texture, and pattern; not just
simple graphic forms. In order to print those photos at a large size you
need that data. Examining the photos at a detailed level gives you an
idea of whether they can be printed at 24 x 30 or larger, and still
communicate effectively. I've had some very successful photos that look
terrible on the web, uninteresting at 11 x 14, but really stunning at 20
x 20 or larger.
A couple examples -
http://www.markcassino.com/newsite/portfolios/landscapes/pages/67_504.htm
http://www.markcassino.com/newsite/portfolios/landscapes/pages/67_355.htm
Both of those are drop dead gorgeous (if I say so myself) at 24 x 30,
but really not effective at smaller sizes. And I'll add the large prints
were very successful on display - i.e. sold and sold for a very high
prices. I can offer many other examples.
I have on shot from the K7 that I blew up to 16 x 32 (cropped in the
vertical dimension) and while it is OK and the subject matter (a misty
morning) masks a lot, it does not have the detail that a 6x7 shot has.
It all depends on the size of the print and the visual content in the
image. I would not dream of shooting macros or snow crystals with
anything but digital. I see very little application for medium format
even in cityscapes or many natural landscapes, where the degree of
visual detail is really quite small.
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.
I agree - I'd love to be able to just sling the K5 and take photos with
the resolution needed to blow up to that size - and someday I'll surely
be doing it with a digital camera that will probably look and operate a
lot like the K5. But for now, if I want to do something - like take
photos that I intend to print large - and the only way to get it done
(within my budget, at least) is with film, I'll do it. Film is a tool
that still has a niche, but a shrinking niche.
I'll refrain from philosophizing about the contemplative nature of
shooting with film, process vs product, and the value of the inherent
artifact that is the exposed bit of film. That's all squishy and hard to
quantify.... :-)
--
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.
