On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Bob Marchant wrote:
As I said , so many times before , the Canon is a fine camera, and youI did a comparison shoot between the Kodak 14n, 14 mpixel, the phase one Lightphase 6mpixel, and the phase one H20 16? mpixel, same set up same lighting and most importantly the same lens. The Kodak was ever so, ever so slightly sharper (more info) than the 6 mpixel Lightphase, interpolated to 16 bit 70 odd meg in the latest capture one software. The colours would have needed a lot more work with the Kodak, which is slower to operate.
can put it into a small bag and carry it easily up a mountain etc etc.
But for many advertising shoots , it just doesn't do tthe business in the
same way as a back with movement , multishot , digital lenses and
cooling. And that's one of the harsh realities.
They both looked superb until compared with the H20. It contained far far more detail (sharper) than either. If you think 35mm type digis are good enough, do not go near a high end back, you will only upset yourself. This is single capture, no active cooling, standard 120 Hasselblad lens.
Why bother with the extra �15,000? High end back or 35mm digi and at least the hull of a serious boat?
A client commissioned me to shoot an ad for an A4 brochure. A full frame person against a background. No probs for pretty much any half decent digi camera. They then decided for a sales conference to have a one off print made 4m x 3m, at 500 dpi. This made the model about 50% bigger than life size. It was necessary to retouch the slight clotting of the make up on the downy hairs on her face!
It was the clients first digital shoot, he now refuses film.
Matthew Ward
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
