This argument has been going on for ever. With film it was the difference between 10x8 and 4x5 or 35mm and 120. Being able to stop down to f64 and light a 10 x 8 at 2x extension was open to very few. The harsh realities of high end advertising.
However I'll stick my neck out and say that 35mm bodied digital cameras like the 1ds produce better quality than the 10x8 E3 film I used to shoot. For a start the colour accuracy is far easier to achieve. Until lazer scanners appeared even a 10x8 trannie had no chance of the sort of USM control that all of us practice daily on our Macs.
Apart from a small handful of labs in London and NY you were at a real disadvantage even when using E6 in most cities in the world. I have had assignments from places as far apart as Barcelona and Kuwait based on little more than London film processing quality. Many photographers around the world are not comparing with top London quality but with the lousy processing they have always got in Sydney, Las Vegas and Lagos. To them a prosumer digital is a near miracle.
Bob
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 10:54 am, Bob Marchant wrote:
How much pro stuff is shot on MF/5x4 digital backs simply to convince the client it's worth all that money and to polish the photographers ego?
A very seductive argument that willl appeal to all owners of 35mm bodied
digital cameras.
Back in the real world however ...... it's all a matter of sophistication
, expectation and the harsh realities of high end advertising.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
