Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I'm happily sloshed. Amazingly, my spelling is okay, so far. Stills, video. Video, stills. Inseperable. ^^^ Well, that didn't last long ;-P Morning all. Sheesh, I'm paying for it now. Cotty Seltzer Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I've heard many pros say that they've switched to digital never looked back. Who are WE going to believe Harumph. Believe your own eyes. Wanna know what swayed me in one go? I went to DPReview, downloaded a straight image, a 2.5 MB jpeg camera original. Once it was on my computer, I tweaked it as I do with any image, bumped it up to 300 ppi at 11X8 (A4), and printed it out. As soon as the print was in my hand, my decision was made. In fact, it was quite the simplest decision I ever took. Getting Her Indoors on board was much more difficult. I had to give a 20 minute presentation with written evidence, supporting eBay witnesses, and swear an oath incurring bloodletting penalties, but it got the rubber stamp ;-) Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Bill wrote: I'm not trying to be a smartass, but sounds to me like the BG-10 grip would soon pay for itself in using AA's instead of CR-2's If I want to use a bulky outfit using AA batteries I'll take the 645. The idea of spoiling a compact camera with a bulky battery grip is rather pointless to me. I use the MZ-S when I want to minimize size and weight. Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike wrote: Second, I'll provisionally believe someone who's actually made firsthand comparisons with THEIR own eyes, like Michael R. and Ryan. But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving that digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but this isn't true at all. He is not providing any such tests and the empirical data these persons claims are nowhere to be found. Michael R is really saying that he is getting better prints from digital than from film, and nobody is protesting about this, while he claims that digital is better than film, something thats a completely different issue. Then theres the question of hyping something the very same person is prone to. Another guy, Bjørn Rørslett, was one of the early proponents of the original Nikon D1. Not surprisingly he also claimed that it was better than 35mm film and approaching medium format. He also provided empirical tests and even put them up on a web page. Funnily enough, the Norwegian association of nature photographer released a book last year with the members best works. Bjørn Rørslett was the only photographer with digital images in this book shot with the D1. The images are easy to spot. They are significantly worse than anything else in the book in terms of image quality, even if they aren't reproduced large. They are less sharp, less saturated, less detailed than any other images in the book and it's easy to even see that they are digital. Hence, we've heard all this before and until someone actually compare film with digital, as oposed to comparing scanner quality with digital camera quality judged from a copy from both, I continue being sceptical if not downright rejective to all these claims. Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
on 17.01.03 13:08, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving that digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but this isn't true at all. I agree with you Pal. There is more than costs in comparison between analogue and digital. Let's take projection presentations. Using ~200$ class dia-projector, you can achieve almost full resolution and optical density etc. of your slides on the screen. To do this with digital you have to buy ~1500$ LCD projector, which will give you only about 80 pixels (1024x768 resolution). And we can not forgive that CCD and CMOS sensor has very narrow exposure latitude - worse than slide film, not to mention negatives, so you have more problems to take properly exposed photos with digital in difficult lightning. These two technologies has their pros and cons, you can not simply say digital is better!. You just buy what is better suited for your needs. As a wedding photographer I would afraid to buy digital, because of the narrow exposure latitude - too much risk of getting unproperply exposed shots - and you can't simply repeat wedding... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Just got to second Pål on this, as I have discussed the D1 with Bjørn Rørslett in person. I've also got the book Pål speaks about, and I have had the same thoughts about Bjørn's images as Pål mention here. Just for the record :-) Jostein === At 2003-01-17, 13:08:00 you wrote: === Mike wrote: Second, I'll provisionally believe someone who's actually made firsthand comparisons with THEIR own eyes, like Michael R. and Ryan. But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving that digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but this isn't true at all. He is not providing any such tests and the empirical data these persons claims are nowhere to be found. Michael R is really saying that he is getting better prints from digital than from film, and nobody is protesting about this, while he claims that digital is better than film, something thats a completely different issue. Then theres the question of hyping something the very same person is prone to. Another guy, Bjørn Rørslett, was one of the early proponents of the original Nikon D1. Not surprisingly he also claimed that it was better than 35mm film and approaching medium format. He also provided empirical tests and even put them up on a web page. Funnily enough, the Norwegian association of nature photographer released a book last year with the members best works. Bjørn Rørslett was the only photographer with digital images in this book shot with the D1. The images are easy to spot. They are significantly worse than anything else in the book in terms of image quality, even if they aren't reproduced large. They are less sharp, less saturated, less detailed than any other images in the book and it's easy to even see that they are digital. Hence, we've heard all this before and until someone actually compare film with digital, as oposed to comparing scanner quality with digital camera quali! ty judged from a copy from both, I continue being sceptical if not downright rejective to all these claims. Pål = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Best regards. Jostein http://oksne.net 2003-01-17
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Oh good lord! 1980's the stone age... 35mm took over for publication in the late 50's early 60's. Before that the Rolleiflex was king for a few years and for decades before that the Speed Graphic was the camera of choice. Since the 40's, at least, 35mm was adequate in quality but required very good technique to get the best out of it. By the 70's it was all automated and you had to screw up to make a technically unacceptable image with 35mm. All the above refers to film technology. With modern films even the 35mm cameras made in the 30's, except the very cheapest, produce adequate images. Very good photography has been done since at least the 1890's, prior to that it was a pretty inconvenient process. It always amazes me that people seem to think no one could produce a decent photograph before cameras did their thinking for them. But then, I have met people who think no one could add and subtract before they invented the pocket calculator. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Peter Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Funny thing about this whole digital camera quality thing is that when I recently looked back at John Shaw's first How To book published in 1984, I marvel at the incredible sharpness grain-free images he produced with 35mm equipment film old manual equipment. Incredible quality by ANY standard. And get this, this book was printed in the 1980's!!
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Of course, you could always have threatened to buy a new video camera instead grin. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:21 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes I've heard many pros say that they've switched to digital never looked back. Who are WE going to believe Harumph. Believe your own eyes. Wanna know what swayed me in one go? I went to DPReview, downloaded a straight image, a 2.5 MB jpeg camera original. Once it was on my computer, I tweaked it as I do with any image, bumped it up to 300 ppi at 11X8 (A4), and printed it out. As soon as the print was in my hand, my decision was made. In fact, it was quite the simplest decision I ever took. Getting Her Indoors on board was much more difficult. I had to give a 20 minute presentation with written evidence, supporting eBay witnesses, and swear an oath incurring bloodletting penalties, but it got the rubber stamp ;-) Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
We though out. However, on your wedding photography comment, I would point out that digital seems to work for Monte Zucker. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] These two technologies has their pros and cons, you can not simply say digital is better!. You just buy what is better suited for your needs. As a wedding photographer I would afraid to buy digital, because of the narrow exposure latitude - too much risk of getting unproperply exposed shots - and you can't simply repeat wedding...
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi! I think I'd like to respond to one particular paragraph from Sylwester modulo Mike's initial posting (the capitalization is mine): SP These two technologies has their pros and cons, you can not SP simply say digital is better!. You just buy what is BETTER SP SUITED FOR YOUR NEEDS. As a wedding photographer I would afraid to SP buy digital, because of the narrow exposure latitude - too much SP risk of getting unproperply exposed shots - and you can't simply SP repeat wedding... It seems to appear that for steadily growing number of people some of which are professional photographers or even photographers doing very fine art, the digital cameras are preferable to film cameras. Naturally, it seems to irritate (had to look up the Russian-English dictionary to find the most proper word I thought would apply here) some other professional or very fine photographers who seem to prefer film cameras to digital cameras. That's why this thread seems to going on. Now, the interesting question would be: am I any close to being right and could it perhaps, just perhaps, help this thread to conclude... Really, there is no need to argue here. Indeed one may take a look on the whatever media suits one to make a decision, add to that a look to their pocket and make ultimate decision as to what kind of camera to choose. Then, hopefully, one would share their photography with others, including people on this forum, allowing us to feel a little better every time we look at fine photograph, no matter digital, analog, or hybrid. Peace! --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
on 17.01.03 14:12, T Rittenhouse at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We though out. However, on your wedding photography comment, I would point out that digital seems to work for Monte Zucker. Yes, that's true. But the results? At least in Canadina magazine of pro wedding photographers (Vision, published by Fujifilm Canada) there is still little about the ones making their work using exclusively digital... I suspect that many of these cheaper photo-journalists went digital to went even cheaper... maybe in terms of picture quality too :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
on 17.01.03 14:30, Boris Liberman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, there is no need to argue here. Indeed one may take a look on the whatever media suits one to make a decision, add to that a look to their pocket and make ultimate decision as to what kind of camera to choose. Then, hopefully, one would share their photography with others, including people on this forum, allowing us to feel a little better every time we look at fine photograph, no matter digital, analog, or hybrid. Peace! AMEN! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Pal: until someone actually compare film with digital, as oposed to comparing scanner quality with digital camera quality judged from a copy from both, I continue being sceptical if not downright rejective to all these claims. Cotty: Harumph. Believe your own eyes. Wanna know what swayed me in one go? I went to DPReview, downloaded a straight image, a 2.5 MB jpeg camera original. Once it was on my computer, I tweaked it as I do with any image, bumped it up to 300 ppi at 11X8 (A4), and printed it out. As soon as the print was in my hand, my decision was made. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Meant Well thought out, of course. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes We though out. However, on your wedding photography comment, I would point out that digital seems to work for Monte Zucker. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] These two technologies has their pros and cons, you can not simply say digital is better!. You just buy what is better suited for your needs. As a wedding photographer I would afraid to buy digital, because of the narrow exposure latitude - too much risk of getting unproperply exposed shots - and you can't simply repeat wedding...
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
There are forums that only pros participate in (http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html). You can go there and draw your only conclusion about what they really think about digital. Very, very few pros are given equipment or sponsored by camera companies. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's be clear. Some pro-photographers want to make you think they like digitals because they are being paid for to say so.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
What was the misinformation about Pentax and Casio? I think I missed that. At 08:55 AM 1/17/03, Rick Diaz claimed: Let's be clear. Some pro-photographers want to make you think they like digitals because they are being paid for to say so. Much like some pros who claimed that APS format is much superior than 35mm, because of the grain size? And what's this thing about APS SLR? There are many claims out there, but most of it are BS. Yes it's B**ls**t. It's too bad that people are constantly being misinformed by the media. Just like the misinformation about Casio and Pentax working together with the Optio S. The story that was translated by someone on this list was not true. It was misinformation.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Doug Brewer Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes What was the misinformation about Pentax and Casio? I think I missed that. Something about Pentax calculators and holographic technology for virtual paper printouts. Hopefully, available for this years tax deadline. William Robb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
You are a Camera Purchase Consultant? What a cool job. Does it pay well? At 09:07 AM 1/17/03, Rick Diaz claimed: Then theres the question of hyping something the very same person is prone to. I have to second that.. Unfortunately in my consulting business, my people who came to me for advise on digitals did so because they heard from the pros they read from the magazines saying that results from digitals are better than 35mm. They take that as if a digital camera will not make the same photographic blunders just because it is digital. That is simply not true. Many people who went digitals simply went because of the attractive cost of savings in film development and filing. Companies use them to enhance the bottom line. People sometimes get very enthusiastic, or too enthusiastic I say. Just looking at the recent stock market rise and crash, we see that people are easily tricked into all the hype and glory, only to be told the truth after they are bought into the hype itself, just like whoever bought into Nortel or Enron. Rick..
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
three-dimensional evidence of further debt. What a novel concept. Good thing it was misinformation. At 09:38 AM 1/18/03, William Robb claimed: - Original Message - From: Doug Brewer Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes What was the misinformation about Pentax and Casio? I think I missed that. Something about Pentax calculators and holographic technology for virtual paper printouts. Hopefully, available for this years tax deadline. William Robb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I didn't mention it first: Mike did. The D1 was a typical Red Herring thrown in by Pal. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was it? Must have missed the post you first mentioned it in, then. The issue brought up to Pål was, if you noticed, not considering Canon D1s specifically. Jostein
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Bruce wrote: I didn't mention it first: Mike did. The D1 was a typical Red Herring thrown in by Pal. It was not a red herring. It was example that every digital slr manufactured, without any exception whtsoever, has been described in the same way as the 1Ds by self proclaimed authorities. It was used as an example as to why theres no reason whatsoever to take such statements seriously, particularly when the same proponents claim evidence they have yet to provide. Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Of course, you could always have threatened to buy a new video camera instead grin. LOL. Mercifully, my employer provides that. 20K GBP for the camera and another 6K for the lens... But it's gotta last about ten years! Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Digital is catching up, and fast but at a price, I don't doubt that very soon 24+ mp cameras will be here that really and truely beat 6x7 and go after 4x5, but the price it still outrageous. The point many are missing is that the hi end digital is for those who can afford it, mere motrals will still be using film due to cost ( that and I don't see a digi cam replacing my mz-3+film scanner ). --- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce wrote: I didn't mention it first: Mike did. The D1 was a typical Red Herring thrown in by Pal. It was not a red herring. It was example that every digital slr manufactured, without any exception whtsoever, has been described in the same way as the 1Ds by self proclaimed authorities. It was used as an example as to why theres no reason whatsoever to take such statements seriously, particularly when the same proponents claim evidence they have yet to provide. Pål __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Is for instance D100 equipped with the cord to have batteries under a jacket? Alek Uytkownik T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Hi, You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a question. What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)? Does digital camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power etc.Everybody knows how for instance calculators/watches behave at such temperatures. So please write any comments/experiences. Alek Uytkownik Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Mike, I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography). Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile. Not only that, we live in a good enough society right now, where price/cost is more important than quality. I believe that for many uses, 6MP D100 and D60 quality is good enough and that most won't want to pay much more than that. One more interesting note: I have watched a few photographers shooting digital and talked with a few, who indicate that they shoot more frames per session/subject than they did with film. The usual cited reason is lack of cost to shoot the frames. By shooting more, they insure/improve the likelihood of getting the shots they need. Doesn't seem to be that much different in mindset than taking a video camera and just let it run and then pick the best frame out of it. One starts to wonder if that will occur (whether with a vidcam or digicam). It would certainly change the style and role of the photographer. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 3:18:47 PM, you wrote: MJ Can digital beat 6x7? MJ I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments MJ from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website MJ and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have MJ Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: MJ I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've MJ ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not MJ to sound too enthusiastic about it. MJ I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. MJ I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with MJ every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always MJ came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. MJ So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going MJ to be selling it for me. MJ I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that MJ I'm now all digital. MJ MJ Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has MJ used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 MJ system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. MJ By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side MJ shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the MJ results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. MJ Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. MJ --Mike ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On 17 Jan 2003 at 13:46, Brendan wrote: Digital is catching up, and fast but at a price, I don't doubt that very soon 24+ mp cameras will be here that really and truely beat 6x7 and go after 4x5, but the price it still outrageous. I think that you'll find that the optical limits imposed on sensor density will peak a 14MP or so for a 35mm frame, higher densities will lead to degradation of performance in other key areas such as noise and dynamic range etc. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
When you proceed with an attempt to debunk someone else's claim, you really ought to provide evidence of some sort, don't you think? Instead of just saying, It ain't necessarily so! keith whaley One way is to get confirmation from Pentax themselves. Pentax has always denied that they worked with Casio on the electronics part of the camera. They may look the same, but they are not identical cameras. I'm sure that during PMA, this very question will be asked by many attending dealers. If you want prove, ask your dealer to confirm with his or her Pentax US rep about this. If you can attend the upcoming PMA, ask the Pentax rep there. He or she would probably give you the same answers as did I.. Rick.. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
--- Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are forums that only pros participate in (http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html). You can go there and draw your only conclusion about what they really think about digital. Very, very few pros are given equipment or sponsored by camera companies. Commercial photography is a very competitive business. Unless you carved out a niche for your own, most photographers are your usual working people who work to put food on the table and pay their mortgages. It's really nothing glamorous about being a professional photographer at all.. In fact, I admit to seeing some very very good work done by amateur photographers who can blow the gun barrels of the many so called pro-photographers. Really, the difference between an amateur and a pro is that, you make a transition from being a hobby to a money making profession. But it's a cut-throat business and you've got to have good salesmanship to survive in this business. I had personally seen too many great talented photographers who had a gift of art but not a gift in business. So what do this have to do with digital photography? Well, it is a new medium where no famous names have been carved in stone yet. We know Ansel Adams and we know of Anne Geddes, but these are film legends and not digital. Digital is a wide open frontier, so like a camera maker who wants to be first and grand in the digital market, any photographer also wants that same name recognition. Name recognition carries a very high price tag, and in the end, it's really all about making a buck or errr a new legend. Pros don't usually get sponsored only by getting free equipment. I mean, how many cameras do you need to make a good picture? Just one.. What they want to get is some free publicity and that sells their name and hence their reputation. And I think they are getting it, thanks to us. Rick... __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I talked to a friend with Pentax this week. He confirmed Casio's involvement. I'd guess you've been fed some misinformation. Doug At 9:40 PM -08001/17/03, Rick Diaz wrote, or at least typed: One way is to get confirmation from Pentax themselves. Pentax has always denied that they worked with Casio on the electronics part of the camera. They may look the same, but they are not identical cameras. I'm sure that during PMA, this very question will be asked by many attending dealers. If you want prove, ask your dealer to confirm with his or her Pentax US rep about this. If you can attend the upcoming PMA, ask the Pentax rep there. He or she would probably give you the same answers as did I.. Rick.. -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote: Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate as the original. as if a print isn't. Herb That's not the point here. Comparing a print made from a digital scan of a negative with a print made from a digital file captured by a digital camera is comparing a 2nd generation copy with a first generation one, which is hardly a valid process. You have negative--digital file--print versus digital file--print. If you compare prints from the digital camera file and from a negative, you're at least comparing the same generation of copies: digital file--print versus negative--print. Sure, an enlarger will affect the print in some way, but that's the whole point of this comparison... to see how a traditionally produced wet print compares to a digitally produced print. chris
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Let's look at it this way. If tomorrow you and another photographer shoot the same subject. Which one of you gets paid for it depends on whose shots are delivered to the customer first, which camera would you chose? About a year back I met a fine arts photographer. He showed me 30x40s that were shot on 8x10 transparency film. He pointed out the differences between the digital prints and the Ilfochrome prints, saying, As you can see the chemical prints are still a little better. I would not have noticed the subtilities if he had not pointed them out, and at normal viewing distance for 30x40 prints I doubt anyone else could either. He was only scaning at 1200dpi so his files were only in the 115 megapixel range. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:27 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our local pro types has sold off his 6x7 in favour of the D60. He says he just can't justify shooting film anymore. He is primarily a wedding photographer. I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner.. If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc), and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose to buy today? Kind regards Kevin -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Once again, I say the issue is moot. For a pro the only requirement is the customer happy with the results. Actually, come to think of it, it is exactly the same for the amateur, only he is his own customer. This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The real question is, can we still have fun with our film cameras? I think the answer to that is a resounding YES! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:54 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote: Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate as the original. as if a print isn't. Herb That's not the point here. Comparing a print made from a digital scan of a negative with a print made from a digital file captured by a digital camera is comparing a 2nd generation copy with a first generation one, which is hardly a valid process. You have negative--digital file--print versus digital file--print. If you compare prints from the digital camera file and from a negative, you're at least comparing the same generation of copies: digital file--print versus negative--print. Sure, an enlarger will affect the print in some way, but that's the whole point of this comparison... to see how a traditionally produced wet print compares to a digitally produced print. chris
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
At 06:12 16.1.2003 -0500, Graywolf wrote: This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The real question is, can we still have fun with our film cameras? I think the answer to that is a resounding YES! I'd be buying the 14Mpix Kodak if I could buy it with the same money as I can buy the MZ-S (or LX) plus 2-5 years worth of film and processing. With the amount of shooting I do, I am more happy to go and buy a new car instead of the DSLR body (about the same cost). If I were shooting professionally the above equation would be the same but the result would be different. I'd most propably buy the DSLR. For quality digital today, I shoot 4x5 slides and scan them at 1600dpi (or higher) and get about 150-200MB files. The resulting printed images are pretty impressive. (It will take quite some time to get this kind of landscape prints with affordable digital) Digital is starting to be comparable with 35 or 120 but with a lot higher price tag (at the moment). Digital or film.. choose as you like but remember to enjoy yourself. Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I believe these types of statements are really at the best based on poor investigative techniques. Reason for using larger formats like 6x7 is that you get a much improved picture compared to 35 mm in terms of resolution, color gradation.. simply much more information. people who hope for a digital small format camera who can better large format gear will have to wait long time. The same underlying resolution problems with optics are present with digital as well as analog cameras leaving a maximum resolution above which nothing can be done so small format vs larger formats will always have the same basic differences optically!!! Are these guys who tout these truths that digital outbeat any medium format gear paid by the manufacturers? What can be improved from digital then with respect to analog: Lenses - no Recording - maybe?? Analysis in your own darkroom - yes. As Paal says comparing scanned media (with what type of scanner) with medium format analog prints vs digital - do that properly... Cheers, Ronald
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative. Bill, Well, consider a guy like Mark Roberts. As I understand his working method, he shoots 645 film, and then scans it to make digital inkjet prints as his final output. Considering he's not making wet prints in the first place, why would a guy like him be interested in comparing digital camera prints to wet prints? That's where Michael Reichmann is coming from. He was an expert Cibachrome printer for 20 years (that's how I met him--I commissioned him to write a Cibachrome article for a special issue of _Photo Techniques_) but he closed down his wet darkroom as soon as inkjet printing got good enough. He then made inkjet prints from scanned film for a number of years before gradually switching over to pure digital as the cameras got better. Note that even when he was using the D30 for wildlife shooting, he was still using a Rollei 6008 and scanned film for landscapes. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives. What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are incompetent. Bill, Michael R. was the furthest thing from an incompetent wet printer. Although I guess you'll have to take my word for that. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner.. If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc), and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose to buy today? Ha! That's like saying, if you had a twenty-mile hike to go on tomorrow, which new hiking boots would you buy today? I'd want the body I'm most familiar with, whatever it is. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On 16 Jan 2003 at 8:04, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: For those who shoot a lot, digital is good enough right now. For those who shoot a little, film is still better. That's what the pros are telling me. (And I can see the difference with my eyes. No math required.) Hi Collin, You've hit the mail on the head, there's far more to the film vs digicam comparison than the grain non-issue. There is no way that direct digital will come near 67 film for a long stint, all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope, there's more information there than a 4000dpi scanner can hope to resolve. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. Galen Rowell said the same thing, which i quoted here once, for justifying why he shot only 35mm. all i got were flames. Herb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] About a year back I met a fine arts photographer. He showed me 30x40s that were shot on 8x10 transparency film. He pointed out the differences between the digital prints and the Ilfochrome prints, saying, As you can see the chemical prints are still a little better. I would not have noticed the subtilities if he had not pointed them out, and at normal viewing distance for 30x40 prints I doubt anyone else could either. He was only scaning at 1200dpi so his files were only in the 115 megapixel range. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto the workshop i went to last weekend is the guy doing between 4000dpi and 8000dpi scans of his 4x5 slides. he said was absolutely certain two years ago that digital prints would never equal the quality of wet prints for reproducing his color slides. then he saw what a good drum scanner and Lightjet 5000 output looked like. he said the same things as Galen Rowell did, that people still doing wet prints of color work for exhibition are wedded to loss of detail, loss of saturation, and loss of contrast because that is the way it used to be and always will be with enlargers. as i mentioned in an earlier post, all of the guy's darkroom equipment is for sale and he has no intention ever of using it again. Herb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Read the title on your thread. You're being purposefully provacative and you know it! Well, no, because I don't think it's a provocative statement. I'm perfectly willing to believe it's simply a _true_ statement. Last summer I saw some prints from a Canon D60. They were clearly better than enlargements from 35mm. This isn't going to make me throw my 35mm cameras in the trash, or run out and buy a D60. It doesn't threaten my world, any more than the existence of 4x5 threatens my preference for 35mm. If anything, I don't really understand why anyone would consider this to be provocative...I'm not being coy, that's the truth. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print, viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8 lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a picture in a magazine for 3 seconds. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no way that direct digital will come near 67 film for a long stint, all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope, there's more information there than a 4000dpi scanner can hope to resolve.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at least in my experience. However, there are too may variables here to judge Reichmann's results as gospel. Here's Michael R.'s general response (again, this was an e-mail sent to me, repeated with permission): The problem is that most people have not seen output from the 1Ds, just as they hadn't seen output from the D30 when I first reviewed it and the D60 in its turn. In all cases I was one of the first people in the world to review the cameras and I didn't have the crutch of someone else's opinion. I had to form my own. At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now no one disputes this. When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that it bested 35mm film in every regard - no exceptions, and many disputed this. Now professional photographers by the thousands have switched to cameras such as the Canon D60, Fuji S2 and Nikon D100 because the image quality surpasses film in every respect. Anyone that thinks otherwise is almost certainly basing their opinion on belief rather than empirical tests. When I was the first person in the world to review the Canon 1Ds I wrote that it equaled and in many ways surpassed 645 medium format. Now, just a few months later I know at least a dozen professional photographers who are selling their medium format film systems because their hands-on experience has proven to them that in terms of resolution, grain, colour purity and every aspect that counts toward ultimate print quality, the 1Ds is superior. I can't convince anyone of this, and frankly have no interest in doing so. But, anyone that thinks otherwise without having a close look for themselves is living with blinders on.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope That seems like a rather impractical way to display your images. The real issue is how actual prints of a given size, from both 6 x 7 and full-frame-11-megapixel digital, compare. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi! What a wonderful thought(speech)-provoking question(thread)... You know, if you don't mind I'd post here an opinion of an amateur who just recently learned of Third Party Lenses Resource Megasite and who spent good part of past two days reading these pages and thinking them through. In no particular order and totally IMHO: 1. Michael Reichmann does very specific kind of photography. For example, for him ability to change ISO setting from one shot to another as a matter of course seems to be very important. This way he does not have to take with him several heavy bodies not to mention the agility of his work. Digital seems to have great convenience improvement for him. Therefore I suppose, foreseeing this, he was among the first who praised digital. 2. The quality comparison between 6x7 (insert your favorite film format here) vs digital depends hugely on the subject being photographed. As a medium that converts light through some process to image, digital is in a sense yet another kind of film. So, if you think you must change a film every now and then, you have to use film. Digital does not seem to be able to do good b/w by design. Again use film. Now to the Third Party Lenses Resource Megasite 3. To be able to extract the best out of your 11 MP DSLR, or your best film one has to use their best technique. That's why I am thinking of starting with buying a monopod. As Michael Reichmann also said in his talk about EOS 1Ds, this camera forces one to use only best lenses with only perfect technique. So with all due respect for quite some many people on this forum it has little advantage to shell out the big money and go digital. However indeed if by popular definition you're professional (making financial living out of) photographer, digital may be the way to go. 4. Really, let us not argue about Film-Scanner-DigiPrint vs DigiSensor-DigiPrint or similar matter. Come, if you take 30 cm x 40 cm print and look at it from the distance less than few meters, you got to be in pedantic mood at best. I've received my first such size print just few days ago. The picture can be found here: www.geocities.com/dunno57/out/photos/misc/galia-na-divane.htm As you can see it was made with simple film, old lens and so on. Still it is amazing to look at. Naturally if I come closer I see the imperfections, but why would I? I am aware that I have a huge amount of learning to do :). Ultimately the high megapixel DSLR is yet another tool that should be considered just as such. If you could afford it, take it for a test drive and just buy it. However, for very many people the discussion of digital vs film (even 6x7) is mainly theoretical. I immediately and in advance admit to whatever wrongness you find in my reasoning. That's simply because I've noticed an unusually high concentration of quite quality demanding photographers who are also quite active on this list. But then again, I am glad and honored that I can listen to what you have to say to each other and that I can even ask my amateur questions every once in a while. Mike, I think the new world would come in few years hence, when camera like EOS 1Ds would cost no more than $1000. Before then, we can argue and mostly drool... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
For once I agree with Bruce. After all, how many people view photos under a 40X microscope? Make your comparisons at a reasonable viewing distance. Bill - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print, viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8 lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a picture in a magazine for 3 seconds. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no way that direct digital will come near 67 film for a long stint, all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope, there's more information there than a 4000dpi scanner can hope to resolve.
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, tom wrote: I agree. A couple of years ago, the naysayers all provided faux mathematics to prove that digital would never compete with film. Now they're going to say digital costs too much. -shrug- Don't care, either way. Regardless of talent I may or may not have, I do it because I find it fun, and I find it to be my own artistic release. Part of that artistic release includes money on supplies, fingers in chemicals, and forumlas I don't fully understand to give me a prodct that in the end pleases me. Film gives me that pleasure, a digital camera turns, in my eyes, away from that. It makes it easier to preview and see. Makes it easier to complete what you need, and to me takes just a bit of that artistic approach out of it.. FIne, it makes it quicker, cheaper, faster which is all fine and dandy for those of you who rely on this to make your salaries. I do not, so I do not care. Not to mention, when digital becomes the common place, those of us who do continue to produce fine art (FWIW) on film will be that much more exotic, and hey, I'm all about the image of myself as some sort of artiste. ;) A computer can simulate almost any other musical insturment, too, but somehow people are still going to see orchestras and support muscians who use real insturemnts instead of a synth. Painters still paint. Hunters still shoot with bows and with blackpowder. People still buy vinyl. They all just get the term purist applied to them.
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: best ones in 35mm optics. In my experience, the biggest gains in medium format with film over 35mm with film is grain reduction, with the increase in overall resolution coming in second in terms overall visual improvement. Which brings a question to MY mind... Let's pretend that the 1Ds is everything that they claim it is, but will it still have the smoother tonality of a MF neg due to the amount of information on it, or will it be more akin to a 35mm neg (since the sensor is teh same size) and not as smooth? I wish I knew how to better formulate this question. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
William Robb said: Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives. What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are incompetent. From what I've read of APS, that problem is solved by encoding information on the film casettes that refer to developing instructions, so that the whole process can be automated and done right. In many ways, APS seems like a wonderful system. Seems like they could do much the same for traditional 35mm by putting a bar code on the film edge or something. If APS had a larger negative and was an SLR thing, I might want to use it. But I think it's mainly a PS thing.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I have issues with the pixel math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from equaling film. The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good. Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the calculations for ten years now. They're always all over the place, they're always assuming premises unproved, and the conclusions have a very poor historical track record. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
tom said: I wasn't disputing that it's cheaper, I have issues with the pixel math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from equaling film. The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good. Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels. But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit pixels with noise. And I think you can just have chunkier pixels and still get a pleasing picture if those pixels are close to the true color rather than a dither, like the distinct red and green spots I found when I enlarged a squirrel. Some digital cameras cool the CCDs to reduce noise, but I don't know if that's true of the snapshooting cameras or just of the fixed cameras in labs and observatories.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
. Seems like they could do much the same for traditional 35mm by putting a bar code on the film edge or something. There's already a bar code on the edge of 35mm film. It's read by mini labs to set film brand/type and to put the frame number on the back of the print. Bill
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed with a 40x microscope. g I'm glad somebody said that. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print, viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8 lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a picture in a magazine for 3 seconds. I used to have part of a slide lecture where I would show students a series of pictures. I would leave the slides up for a good long time, 30 seconds or a minute, and ask them to look at the picture carefully. Then I'd take it down and ask them if they had seen the X [some object they would invariably miss]. My favorite was a Mark Klett picture called Man Behind Creosote Bush. It was a 4x5 Polaroid Type 55 print of a spindly bush with a man standing right behind it. He's fully visible, and takes up most of the frame, but camouflaged by the bush. Invariably, most of the kids would miss the man until I pointed him out. It was fun--I'd say, so did you see the man standing there? and they'd all go, Get outta here! There was no man in that picture! and He must have been tiny! Then I'd show them the slide again. The purpose of the exercise was to prove to them how quickly we assume that we get all the contents of pictures, without really _looking_. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Is it legal to enlarge squirrels? Doug has nothing useful to say At 10:06 AM 1/16/03, Gregory wrote: Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels. But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit pixels with noise. And I think you can just have chunkier pixels and still get a pleasing picture if those pixels are close to the true color rather than a dither, like the distinct red and green spots I found when I enlarged a squirrel. Some digital cameras cool the CCDs to reduce noise, but I don't know if that's true of the snapshooting cameras or just of the fixed cameras in labs and observatories.
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi, You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a question. What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)? Does digital camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power etc.Everybody knows how for instance calculators/watches behave at such temperatures. So please write any comments/experiences. Alek Uytkownik Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Mike, I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography). Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile. Not only that, we live in a good enough society right now, where price/cost is more important than quality. I believe that for many uses, 6MP D100 and D60 quality is good enough and that most won't want to pay much more than that. One more interesting note: I have watched a few photographers shooting digital and talked with a few, who indicate that they shoot more frames per session/subject than they did with film. The usual cited reason is lack of cost to shoot the frames. By shooting more, they insure/improve the likelihood of getting the shots they need. Doesn't seem to be that much different in mindset than taking a video camera and just let it run and then pick the best frame out of it. One starts to wonder if that will occur (whether with a vidcam or digicam). It would certainly change the style and role of the photographer. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 3:18:47 PM, you wrote: MJ Can digital beat 6x7? MJ I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments MJ from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website MJ and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have MJ Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: MJ I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've MJ ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not MJ to sound too enthusiastic about it. MJ I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. MJ I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with MJ every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always MJ came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. MJ So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going MJ to be selling it for me. MJ I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that MJ I'm now all digital. MJ MJ Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has MJ used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 MJ system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. MJ By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side MJ shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the MJ results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. MJ Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. MJ --Mike ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative. William Robb i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect? Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative, methinks. William Robb
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Hi, You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a question. What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)? Does digital camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power etc.Everybody knows how for instance calculators/watches behave at such temperatures. So please write any comments/experiences. Alek Uytkownik Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Mike, I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography). Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile. Not only that, we live in a good enough society right now, where price/cost is more important than quality. I believe that for many uses, 6MP D100 and D60 quality is good enough and that most won't want to pay much more than that. One more interesting note: I have watched a few photographers shooting digital and talked with a few, who indicate that they shoot more frames per session/subject than they did with film. The usual cited reason is lack of cost to shoot the frames. By shooting more, they insure/improve the likelihood of getting the shots they need. Doesn't seem to be that much different in mindset than taking a video camera and just let it run and then pick the best frame out of it. One starts to wonder if that will occur (whether with a vidcam or digicam). It would certainly change the style and role of the photographer. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 3:18:47 PM, you wrote: MJ Can digital beat 6x7? MJ I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments MJ from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website MJ and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have MJ Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: MJ I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've MJ ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not MJ to sound too enthusiastic about it. MJ I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. MJ I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with MJ every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always MJ came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. MJ So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going MJ to be selling it for me. MJ I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that MJ I'm now all digital. MJ MJ Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has MJ used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 MJ system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. MJ By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side MJ shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the MJ results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. MJ Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. MJ --Mike ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect? Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative, methinks. William Robb that contradicts the experience of mine and every other photographer i work with. Herb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect? Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative, methinks. William Robb that contradicts the experience of mine and every other photographer i work with. No accounting for incompetent printing Herb. I realize that this reason alone will drive people to digital imaging, I know it is more a competancy issue with the wet printing process than any inherent technical advantages that scanning negatives has over wet printing. I also take issue with comparing Cibachrome prints to scanned from slide prints. The Cibachrome process is inherently flawed. I know a master Ciba printer, he too went digital. William Robb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike wrote: Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the calculations for ten years now. They're always all over the place, they're always assuming premises unproved, and the conclusions have a very poor historical track record. But the argument you are using is like stating that 35mm is as good as medium format because you can't see a difference in the small prints you get from the lab. Using print to evaluate tell you about the printing process. Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike wrote: At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now no one disputes this. Huh? Almost everyone dispute this... When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that it bested 35mm film in every regard - no exceptions, and many disputed this. Now professional photographers by the thousands have switched to cameras such as the Canon D60, Fuji S2 and Nikon D100 because the image quality surpasses film in every respect. Anyone that thinks otherwise is almost certainly basing their opinion on belief rather than empirical tests. Weird. I've read posts from owners all over the place who says the D60 isn't as good as film but thay use it for other reasons. Some are even so dissapointed that they switch back to film! Who are we going to believe? Pål
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Tom wrote: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. The problem for digital for me at least is the fact that it need to be used close to civilization. The battery/power consumption issue need to be resolved before it holds any interest to me. Even the MZ-S is borderline due to it's power consumption. Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Bill wrote: For once I agree with Bruce. After all, how many people view photos under a 40X microscope? Make your comparisons at a reasonable viewing distance. That was not the issue. If you want find out the amount of information in an original, yoiu'll have to find a practical way of assessing this. Or would you perhaps do lens tessting by viewing the results from 2 meters distance? Pål
Can't see the wood for the trees (was Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi, Thursday, January 16, 2003, 3:13:56 PM, you wrote: The purpose of the exercise was to prove to them how quickly we assume that we get all the contents of pictures, without really _looking_. there's a well-known photograph by HCB of a landscape in Brie, showing an avenue of trees curving away into the distance over a flat plain. I've known the picture for years but it never clicked until about 2 years ago that the crown of the trees forms a heart shape. After I realised this I wondered if I was stupid to have missed it, so I showed the picture to quite a few people and asked them to describe it. Nobody mentioned the heart shape, but when I pointed it out everybody immediately saw it and mentally kicked themselves for missing it! I wonder if HCB saw it... --- Bob
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm happily sloshed. Amazingly, my spelling is okay, so far. Stills, video. Video, stills. Inseperable. ^^^ Well, that didn't last long ;-P -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi I wasn't primarily thinking about the climate but the fact that I may not have a power outlet near for a week. Another issue is that only one shop in town stock the batteries for the MZ-S. They cost $30. He may be out of them and after closing time they are impossible to get. The batteries of the MZ-S last about 30 rolls at the most. Hence, batteries are a constant hassle to me. Pål - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Pål, I am hearing from both D100 and D60 owners that they are very pleasantly surprised out how good the battery life is on these. Just what are your requirements? How many images do you need/want to capture before recharging? We hear this argument for film cameras too, as opposed to all mechanical. I know that your climate is colder than many others, but it would be nice to hear your requirements. Thanks, Bruce Thursday, January 16, 2003, 11:06:34 AM, you wrote: PJ Tom wrote: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. PJ The problem for digital for me at least is the fact that it need to be used close to civilization. The battery/power consumption issue need to be resolved before it holds any interest to me. Even PJ the MZ-S is borderline due to it's power consumption. PJ Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but sounds to me like the BG-10 grip would soon pay for itself in using AA's instead of CR-2's Bill - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Hi I wasn't primarily thinking about the climate but the fact that I may not have a power outlet near for a week. Another issue is that only one shop in town stock the batteries for the MZ-S. They cost $30. He may be out of them and after closing time they are impossible to get. The batteries of the MZ-S last about 30 rolls at the most. Hence, batteries are a constant hassle to me. Pål - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Pål, I am hearing from both D100 and D60 owners that they are very pleasantly surprised out how good the battery life is on these. Just what are your requirements? How many images do you need/want to capture before recharging? We hear this argument for film cameras too, as opposed to all mechanical. I know that your climate is colder than many others, but it would be nice to hear your requirements. Thanks, Bruce Thursday, January 16, 2003, 11:06:34 AM, you wrote: PJ Tom wrote: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. PJ The problem for digital for me at least is the fact that it need to be used close to civilization. The battery/power consumption issue need to be resolved before it holds any interest to me. Even PJ the MZ-S is borderline due to it's power consumption. PJ Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Pål Wrote: Another issue is that only one shop in town stock the batteries for the MZ-S. They cost $30. He may be out of them and after closing time they are impossible to get. The batteries of the MZ-S last about 30 rolls at the most. Hence, batteries are a constant hassle to me. I assume these are for the tiny CR2 batteries? Why not get a BG-10 use AA batteries? You can get quite a few for $30... --- Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I wasn't primarily thinking about the climate but the fact that I may not have a power outlet near for a week. Another issue is that only one shop in town stock the batteries for the MZ-S. They cost $30. He may be out of them and after closing time they are impossible to get. The batteries of the MZ-S last about 30 rolls at the most. Hence, batteries are a constant hassle to me. Pål - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Pål, I am hearing from both D100 and D60 owners that they are very pleasantly surprised out how good the battery life is on these. Just what are your requirements? How many images do you need/want to capture before recharging? We hear this argument for film cameras too, as opposed to all mechanical. I know that your climate is colder than many others, but it would be nice to hear your requirements. Thanks, Bruce Thursday, January 16, 2003, 11:06:34 AM, you wrote: PJ Tom wrote: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. PJ The problem for digital for me at least is the fact that it need to be used close to civilization. The battery/power consumption issue need to be resolved before it holds any interest to me. Even PJ the MZ-S is borderline due to it's power consumption. PJ Pål __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Pål Wrote: I've read posts from owners all over the place who says the D60 isn't as good as film but thay use it for other reasons. Some are even so dissapointed that they switch back to film! Who are we going to believe? I've heard many pros say that they've switched to digital never looked back. Who are WE going to believe --- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike wrote: At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now no one disputes this. Huh? Almost everyone dispute this... When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that it bested 35mm film in every regard - no exceptions, and many disputed this. Now professional photographers by the thousands have switched to cameras such as the Canon D60, Fuji S2 and Nikon D100 because the image quality surpasses film in every respect. Anyone that thinks otherwise is almost certainly basing their opinion on belief rather than empirical tests. Weird. I've read posts from owners all over the place who says the D60 isn't as good as film but thay use it for other reasons. Some are even so dissapointed that they switch back to film! Who are we going to believe? Pål __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Pål Wrote: The problem, however, starts when this type of comparion is used to say something about the original. To take an example. If I compare a high-end turntable playing vinyl records with, say, a low resolution digital recording like minidisc, by taping both to a cassette tape and then say that minidisc sounds equally good as LP because I can't hear any difference on a tape, or perhaps even better because of lack of noise. Surely someone would say the whole setup was bogus. However, it may make sense from a pragmatic point of view if it turns out that I copy all my music to tape. Good analogy. I surpirsed no one had made the comparison of analog digital sound recording mediums to this whole film vs digital arguement. Most audiophiles agree that the analog sound is superior...providing you have a top-notch turn-table for example. Many music artists record on an analog equipment, and then may mix digitally, since they feel that recording digitally has a very cold sound does not pick up all the detail that analog equipment does. Analog recording sound much more warm. But for 95% of the population, a cheap CD player delivers great sound...and cheap to produce CD's that sell for 500 times the price make record companies more money than do producing records. Funny thing about this whole digital camera quality thing is that when I recently looked back at John Shaw's first How To book published in 1984, I marvel at the incredible sharpness grain-free images he produced with 35mm equipment film old manual equipment. Incredible quality by ANY standard. And get this, this book was printed in the 1980's!! So does all this new digital equipment increase our enjoyment appreciation of photography? No, but it makes gear-hungry buyers buy more gear the camera companies fatter. The latest and the greatest sells. Period. Peter --- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark wrote: What I like about Michael Reichmann's approach is that he *doesn't* do this: He judges by the final results - he compares prints vs. prints, which is really what it's all about in the end. Nope. He is compariung the quality of two digital cameras; one of them capturing images of film. Now, I've nothing against this kind of comparisons from a pragmatic point of view. I mean, if the person in question let all his images through this process anyway he may be only interested in the end result. Mind you, this is an uncommon stance as hardly anyone use great lenses, fine grained film, or larger format primarily because the end result demands it (after all, in the final print you can hardly see the difference between a third party lens and top original lenses. Still many prefer the latter anyway), but because they want the best possible original so that they have larger freedom when it comes to end results. The problem, however, starts when this type of comparion is used to say something about the original. To take an example. If I compare a high-end turntable playing vinyl records with, say, a low resolution digital recording like minidisc, by taping both to a cassette tape and then say that minidisc sounds equally good as LP because I can't hear any difference on a tape, or perhaps even better because of lack of noise. Surely someone would say the whole setup was bogus. However, it may make sense from a pragmatic point of view if it turns out that I copy all my music to tape. Pål __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 01:36 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. In theory, the CCD should work better. In practice, it depends. My Olympus C-5050 goes beserk and hangs in cold weather. --jc
Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Can digital beat 6x7? I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not to sound too enthusiastic about it. I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going to be selling it for me. I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that I'm now all digital. Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi, I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner. I very much doubt that a 1Ds can resolve as much infomation as 6x7 film. Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:18 AM Subject: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Can digital beat 6x7? I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not to sound too enthusiastic about it. I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going to be selling it for me. I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that I'm now all digital. Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike, I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography). Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile. Not only that, we live in a good enough society right now, where price/cost is more important than quality. I believe that for many uses, 6MP D100 and D60 quality is good enough and that most won't want to pay much more than that. One more interesting note: I have watched a few photographers shooting digital and talked with a few, who indicate that they shoot more frames per session/subject than they did with film. The usual cited reason is lack of cost to shoot the frames. By shooting more, they insure/improve the likelihood of getting the shots they need. Doesn't seem to be that much different in mindset than taking a video camera and just let it run and then pick the best frame out of it. One starts to wonder if that will occur (whether with a vidcam or digicam). It would certainly change the style and role of the photographer. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 3:18:47 PM, you wrote: MJ Can digital beat 6x7? MJ I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments MJ from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website MJ and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have MJ Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: MJ I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've MJ ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not MJ to sound too enthusiastic about it. MJ I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. MJ I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with MJ every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always MJ came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. MJ So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going MJ to be selling it for me. MJ I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that MJ I'm now all digital. MJ MJ Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has MJ used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 MJ system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. MJ By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side MJ shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the MJ results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. MJ Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. MJ --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner. What I like about Michael Reichmann's approach is that he *doesn't* do this: He judges by the final results - he compares prints vs. prints, which is really what it's all about in the end. I very much doubt that a 1Ds can resolve as much infomation as 6x7 film. 'Information' doesn't have anything to do with art. - Mike Johnston -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
There's a reason why there has been all those good deals on MF gear on ebay starting last year. The empiricists don't give a hoot about what the theorists think on the subject of. BR
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike wrote: By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. He has been saying this about every digital slr since the D30. Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Paul wrote: I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner. He does. I very much doubt that a 1Ds can resolve as much infomation as 6x7 film. It can't. The person in question is also the one who is the most ardent hyper of everything digital on the net. Divide everything he says by four (at least). Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
--- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not to sound too enthusiastic about it. I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. One of the things I've read about the 1Ds has to do with chromatic aberations with wide angle lenses. Fred Miranda's site points this out: http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_fullframe.html The samples look awful in the corners. On the other hand, the night and long exposure results are simply amazing: http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_longexp.html I seem to recall tv saying something about switching to digital when he'd be able to shoot in low light with no noise. Time to pay the piper Tom! ; ) Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
About a week ago I was pondering 35mm digital vs medium format film. Assuming you get a killer 35mm digital sensor, the digital limit will be determined solely by the lens. say 100 line PAIRS / mm that equates to about 32Mpixel But with medium format, the lenses arent as sharp so they lose the edge there as well as the limits of the film resolution. I also calculated around 32Mpixel for 6X7 with film. My conclusion ended up being it's a toss up, 35mm digital, taken to the max will equal 6X7 with film. 6X7 with film gear is far cheaper at this point but depending on how much you shoot, high end 35mm digital could be cheaper in the long run and there are far more variety of smaller,lighter lenses avail. with 35mm. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Mike Johnston quoted Michael Reichmanm who wrote: I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. snip I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. I'm not buying it. Some of what he contends is technically impossible. I've read a lot of what Reichmann has written in the past. I have found him lacking. Paul Stenquist
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
-Original Message- From: Mark D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I seem to recall tv saying something about switching to digital when he'd be able to shoot in low light with no noise. Time to pay the piper Tom! ; ) I'd do it right now if I didn't have to pony up $10k to switch systemsnext year is the year for me to switch, Pentax or not. tv
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner. What I like about Michael Reichmann's approach is that he *doesn't* do this: He judges by the final results - he compares prints vs. prints, which is really what it's all about in the end. How is he making his prints from negative? If he isn't using a darkroom, he is testing his film scanner's sensor to his digital camera's sensor. William Robb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Paul Jones Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes The Flextight photo that the luminous landscape guy uses is actualy a lower end Imacon scanner and only 3200dpi, which is not the great. I think scanning on one of the high end Imacon scanners would be a fair comparison, as I doubt all the infomation is extracted from a 6x7 neg or slide at 3200dpi. I think getting the neg printed by a professional high end custom lab is the only fair comparison. It keeps the photographic process photographic. William Robb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike Johnston wrote: Fact is, MR's the guy with the $10,000 Imacon scanner, the $9,000 EOS 1Ds, the state-of-the-art Mac and PC on his desk, and the full P67 system. He can create results with the actual equipment and look at the actual results. Have you done that? Of course not. But I've watched his pattern of endorsements, and it's definitely a pattern. What's more, I don't know if the compared a wet print from his 67 to an inkjet from the digital. Perhaps he's right, but at this point he hasn't presented sufficient evidence to support his contention. Paul
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes There's a reason why there has been all those good deals on MF gear on ebay starting last year. The empiricists don't give a hoot about what the theorists think on the subject of. One of our local pro types has sold off his 6x7 in favour of the D60. He says he just can't justify shooting film anymore. He is primarily a wedding photographer. William Robb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How is he making his prints from negative? If he isn't using a darkroom, he is testing his film scanner's sensor to his digital camera's sensor. He shoots mainly slide film, Provia 100F I believe. And I'm pretty sure the prints are made on an Epson 2200 now. So yes, there are some generational issues. Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I do know however that if Michael Reichmann has that much money invested in digital equipment ($9,000 is the USD price - up here that EOS 1Ds is going for $13,000 CDN) it's easy for people to think that his viewpoint may be a bit skewed. It's a bit akin to stating that SUV's are the best vehicles on the road while being the owner of Exxon/Mobil. Just an opinion and nothing more, Dave This reminds me of the arguments some people have against owning a high end stereo music system. People buy particular equipment BECAUSE it's good, they dont buy it first and then decide it must be good because they bought it. I wouldnt doubt in the least that a high end 35mm digital camera can exceed medium format with film. The lenses in medium format are not as good in actual lines/mm as the best ones in 35mm optics. In my experience, the biggest gains in medium format with film over 35mm with film is grain reduction, with the increase in overall resolution coming in second in terms overall visual improvement. JCO
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think scanning on one of the high end Imacon scanners would be a fair comparison, as I doubt all the infomation is extracted from a 6x7 neg or slide at 3200dpi. The Flextight Photo Ithink is currently around $5000us. Regards, Paul i think that grain is mostly what is captured by 4000dpi. that is what i see on Velvia scans at that optical resolution. that is why digital doesn't need as high resolution to look smoother and sharper than film. it doesn't have any grain to break up the lines. Herb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike, Read the title on your thread. You're being purposefully provacative and you know it! Regards, Bob S. In a message dated 1/15/03 7:12:04 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are beginning to sound like Chicken Little. The sky is falling! The Sky is Falling! Digital is here! Sell your Medium Format equipment! Bob, I am? How did you get that? I said, I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments. The reason I said that is that I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in those comments. Draw your _own_ conclusions. --Mike
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
** Tech weenie responses interspersed. ** ]Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:43:42 -0500 ]From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] ]About a week ago I was pondering 35mm digital ]vs medium format film. Assuming you get a killer ]35mm digital sensor, the digital limit will be determined solely ]by the lens. say 100 line PAIRS / mm that equates ]to about 32Mpixel ** Don't forget that color gets the whole color spectrum @ each point. Double your equivalency to 64Mp that's closer. ** ]But with medium format, the lenses arent as sharp ]so they lose the edge there as well as the limits of the film ]resolution. I also calculated around 32Mpixel ]for 6X7 with film. ** Modern medium format lenses come pretty close to 35mm lenses. Commonly 90% as good. So, .9 * 64M * ( (2.65x1.75) / 1.5 ) (where 2.65x1.75 is 6x7 sq in. area that is approx the equiv 1:2 ratio of 35mm form factor and 1.4 is roughly the sq in area of 35mm) That would be rounded to 190Mp to equal 6x7 film results. When the larger sensors go into higher production, then a new Digital Brotherhood will be necessary. That's when we'll be picking up Pentax 6x7 67 67II bodies for $10 in thrift shops. ** ]My conclusion ended up being it's a toss up, 35mm ]digital, taken to the max will equal 6X7 with film. ]6X7 with film gear is far cheaper at this point but depending ]on how much you shoot, high end 35mm digital could ]be cheaper in the long run and there are far more ]variety of smaller,lighter lenses avail. with 35mm. ] ]JCO ** Just some thoughts. :) **
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
William Robb wrote: I think getting the neg printed by a professional high end custom lab is the only fair comparison. It keeps the photographic process photographic. But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at least in my experience. However, there are too may variables here to judge Reichmann's results as gospel. Paul
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
yawn More dubious math tv -Original Message- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes ** Tech weenie responses interspersed. ** ]Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:43:42 -0500 ]From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] ]About a week ago I was pondering 35mm digital ]vs medium format film. Assuming you get a killer ]35mm digital sensor, the digital limit will be determined solely ]by the lens. say 100 line PAIRS / mm that equates ]to about 32Mpixel ** Don't forget that color gets the whole color spectrum @ each point. Double your equivalency to 64Mp that's closer. ** ]But with medium format, the lenses arent as sharp ]so they lose the edge there as well as the limits of the film ]resolution. I also calculated around 32Mpixel ]for 6X7 with film. ** Modern medium format lenses come pretty close to 35mm lenses. Commonly 90% as good. So, .9 * 64M * ( (2.65x1.75) / 1.5 ) (where 2.65x1.75 is 6x7 sq in. area that is approx the equiv 1:2 ratio of 35mm form factor and 1.4 is roughly the sq in area of 35mm) That would be rounded to 190Mp to equal 6x7 film results. When the larger sensors go into higher production, then a new Digital Brotherhood will be necessary. That's when we'll be picking up Pentax 6x7 67 67II bodies for $10 in thrift shops. ** ]My conclusion ended up being it's a toss up, 35mm ]digital, taken to the max will equal 6X7 with film. ]6X7 with film gear is far cheaper at this point but depending ]on how much you shoot, high end 35mm digital could ]be cheaper in the long run and there are far more ]variety of smaller,lighter lenses avail. with 35mm. ] ]JCO ** Just some thoughts. :) **
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes William Robb wrote: I think getting the neg printed by a professional high end custom lab is the only fair comparison. It keeps the photographic process photographic. But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at least in my experience. However, there are too may variables here to judge Reichmann's results as gospel. Some things just can't be quantified with mere numbers. Scanning film is a bastard technology at best. Comparing a digitized negative to a digitized digital is flawed from the start. William Robb
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I do know however that if Michael Reichmann has that much money invested in digital equipment ($9,000 is the USD price - up here that EOS 1Ds is going for $13,000 CDN) it's easy for people to think that his viewpoint may be a bit skewed. He's what you might call a dot-com millionaire. He retired at age 46 or some such. He can buy any toy he wants, and believe me, he's bought _plenty_ of film-based toys. Plenty. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
William Robb wrote: Some things just can't be quantified with mere numbers. Scanning film is a bastard technology at best. Comparing a digitized negative to a digitized digital is flawed from the start. True. But comparing a wet print to a digitized digital is perhaps even more flawed. I guess it's a pointless argument. Although in my own experience, scanned color negatives printed on ink jet have replaced color wet prints. They're just better. Of course the same is not true of BW. Paul
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I still look at it as a good enough issue. If working pros can sell their work just as they did before using 6mp DSLR's then it is probably good enough. Doesn't matter quite as much as to which one is best. Right now cost is still the biggest issue. You can get reasonable quality (people willing to pay for it without questions), but you will pay more on the front end than with traditional film. You need to shoot in volume to make up for it. Some pros easily can, many of us part timers or pure hobbyists have a much harder time justifying the cost. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 6:42:10 PM, you wrote: t yawn t More dubious math t tv -Original Message- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes ** Tech weenie responses interspersed. ** ]Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:43:42 -0500 ]From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] ]About a week ago I was pondering 35mm digital ]vs medium format film. Assuming you get a killer ]35mm digital sensor, the digital limit will be determined solely ]by the lens. say 100 line PAIRS / mm that equates ]to about 32Mpixel ** Don't forget that color gets the whole color spectrum @ each point. Double your equivalency to 64Mp that's closer. ** ]But with medium format, the lenses arent as sharp ]so they lose the edge there as well as the limits of the film ]resolution. I also calculated around 32Mpixel ]for 6X7 with film. ** Modern medium format lenses come pretty close to 35mm lenses. Commonly 90% as good. So, .9 * 64M * ( (2.65x1.75) / 1.5 ) (where 2.65x1.75 is 6x7 sq in. area that is approx the equiv 1:2 ratio of 35mm form factor and 1.4 is roughly the sq in area of 35mm) That would be rounded to 190Mp to equal 6x7 film results. When the larger sensors go into higher production, then a new Digital Brotherhood will be necessary. That's when we'll be picking up Pentax 6x7 67 67II bodies for $10 in thrift shops. ** ]My conclusion ended up being it's a toss up, 35mm ]digital, taken to the max will equal 6X7 with film. ]6X7 with film gear is far cheaper at this point but depending ]on how much you shoot, high end 35mm digital could ]be cheaper in the long run and there are far more ]variety of smaller,lighter lenses avail. with 35mm. ] ]JCO ** Just some thoughts. :) **
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Sorry. I got interrupted. The missing word is resolution. In general, the photographers who have been using the digital cameras are a lot more impressed with what they are seeing than the view of things that theorists are coming up with based on numbers. Something that many here forget is that aside from wedding/affair work, most photographers have their work viewed after it comes of a printing press. While MF reproduces with more pop than 35mm, the difference isn't as important when making large prints. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Rubenstein wrote: The empiricists don't give a hoot about what the theorists think on the subject of. On the subject of what? Finish your sentences son.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner.. If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc), and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose to buy today? Leica M6 with 35mm lense.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mark D. wrote: He shoots mainly slide film, Provia 100F I believe. And I'm pretty sure the prints are made on an Epson 2200 now. So yes, there are some generational issues. hmmm - perhaps he should get a digital projector and a 6x7 projector and compare the two projected images, then. Digitizing the analog film may well be detrimental to an honest comaprison. Project both to 4x5 foot size and see what differences arise. :^) Brother Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Bill D. Casselberry Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes hmmm - perhaps he should get a digital projector and a 6x7 projector and compare the two projected images, then. Digitizing the analog film may well be detrimental to an honest comaprison. Project both to 4x5 foot size and see what differences arise. That makes more sense than digitizing the negative, for sure. Brother William.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative. William Robb i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect? Herb...
