On 12 Feb 2003 at 20:38, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
> Rob,
> It wasn't so much the absence of barrel distortion as the lack of the
> familiar "converging vertical lines" effect and elongate faces that you
> invariably find at the edges of a wide-angle photo. The faces of people at
> the edges
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, I wrote:
> I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
> Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In
> several of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20
> or a 24, there is no tell-tale line convergence or curvat
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
> I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
> Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several
> of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there is
> no tell-tale line co
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several
of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there
is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature at the edges. That tells me
these photos w
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10
print?)
>
> I only crop when the "found view" looks a little too found.
Since my viewfinder doesn't match my negative perfectly, I have to
At 08:39 PM 11/02/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>...with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally
> shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop
> to perfection during the printing phase. Why because
> with the higher resolution formats you can afford
> to crop, with 35mm you cant.
Is that one of those cast in
> OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a
> little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as
> well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough
> magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and
> realise
>...with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally
> shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop
> to perfection during the printing phase. Why because
> with the higher resolution formats you can afford
> to crop, with 35mm you cant.
Is that one of those cast in stone photographers rules?
Rob Studdert
H
Thus, my current mantra is "if
> you desire prints,
> use film; if you want to view using the computer,
> use digital."
>
> Even today you must still ask yourself "What am I
> going to do with this
> image?" before you trip the shutter. Personally, I
> think it will remain
> that way for the
AM
Subject: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
> OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a
> little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as
> well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of
l
> the time anyway) and maybe I should buy that FA* 600mm F5.6 - but I cant
> do either easily and neither can a lot of the world.
>
> My .2c
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Brigham
> > Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
With 35mm I compose very carefully and usually
print full frame. BUT, with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally
shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop
to perfection during the printing phase. Why because
with the higher resolution formats you can afford
to crop, with 35mm you cant. Secondly, usin
> Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff
> over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice).
Bruce,
How true. Fine-art buyers, also, are less impressed with 35mm prints, at
least from contemporary photographers.
Generally, buyers of all stripes tend to be more impressed the further you
can get from som
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>It's a matter of taste, so I don't argue that they ARE better, nor do I
disrespect (at all) any photographer who disagrees. But I also don't easily
accept it when people presume that larger is always better. That's an
opinion, not a fact
--Mi
Mike,
Very interesting point. When I first got my 67II, I always put it on
a tripod. When doing studio and location portraits, I found that the
tripod was too slow to work with to capture natural poses and
expressions. There was always that last minute fiddling with the
tripod before the shot t
Herb,
I base better on my own taste - which is, as you say, tonality and
detail. I have never been one that is that interested in grain as a
positive factor in my images. Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff
over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice).
Certainly as Doug put it, the image itself
> this month's Shutterbug has an interesting opinion on this. define "better"
> first, is what they boil down to, and then you can decide if 35mm format
> good enough or not. for some people, grain or lack thereof, which is what
> tonality that medium and large format photographers treasure is deri
d neither can a lot of the world.
RB> My .2c
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rob Brigham
>> Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
>>
>>
>> I seem to recall
My .2c
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Brigham
> Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
>
>
> I seem to recall that different printers work at their
> optimum with different ppi images. So
> my own personal opinion, Bruce (and it's just between the two of us), having
> shot a few miles of MF and a few more miles of 35mm, is that a good photo will
> overcome its format.
Well said, Doug.
I might add to that a trivial additional observation, which is that a good
photo will also over
> Don't forget that digital camera marketers count each R, G and B sensor
> separately in the megapixel rating. In which case it should probably be
> called megadots. While I'm being pedantic, I assume you mean ppi instead
> of dpi in your printing resolution ;)
>
> The file comes out with the r
iscussion about film? The thread is called "Megapixels required
for an 8X10 print?" That's what I was addressing, anyway.
>Yes, but your inference is that the image "suffers" by
>the increase. If the image or scene is "intimate", it
>might, but generally suc
Matt Greene said:
> The talk aobut "grain" always bothers me. "Grain" is
> purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid
> (most B&W images) without "grain". Then again,
> printing on textured paper defeats "grain" argument
> every time.
> "Grain", like "saturated colors" is, for all intent
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The file comes out with the right amount of megapixels because of the
software interpolation making guesses about what's going on between the
sensors. This adds to the filesize but doesn't add any actual
information.<
interpolation adds infor
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I can say for myself that MF is significantly better looking in
the larger prints. That doesn't mean there isn't a time and place
where 35mm is the best choice, just that a bigger negative makes for a
better bigger picture.
Bruce<
this month's
Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...a good photo will overcome its format.
That's a keeper!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Most of the time I try very hard to compose exactly
> what I want
> in the viewfinder, but a) I'm sometimes unable to do
> so because
> of not being able to change my location quickly
> enough or not
> having quite as long a lens as I needed
--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I
> would submit that
> it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF.
> I personally don't
> think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 -
> even there the
> difference is obvious
my own personal opinion, Bruce (and it's just between the two of us), having shot a
few miles of MF and a few more miles of 35mm, is that a good photo will overcome its
format.
Doug
At 9:53 PM -08002/10/03, Bruce Dayton wrote, or at least typed:
>Doug,
>
>Yeah, I was trying to figure out exa
Doug,
Yeah, I was trying to figure out exactly what he was saying. Seems
like a piece of crap shot (out of focus, badly exposed) on medium or
large format wouldn't be compared to anything.
I was commenting based on actual experience of taking high quality
35mm shots with good films and good lens
Mike Johnston wrote:
> 300-dpi 8x10 = 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000
>
> 240-dpi 8x10 = 1920 x 2400 = 4,608,000
>
> So you need a 7-mp camera for a top quality inkjet 8x10 and a 4.5-mp
> camera for an adequate-quality 8x10. That's without rezzing up,
> interpolating, anything. Note that some experts sa
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Part of the problem here is that area increases so
> dramatically with
> relatively small increases in dimensions.
>
> For instance, a 5x7 print is 35 square inches. If
> you increase that size by
> just one inch in every direction--make it 7x9--you
Welcome back, Mafud.
At 9:14 PM -08002/10/03, Matt Greene wrote, or at least typed:
>>
>While it may be obvious that one 35mm print or another
>may be discernable from Medium Format, a properly
>exposed, properly focused 35mm negative, say Portra
>160, when properly printed, can easily rival
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film,
> I would submit that
> > it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF.
> I personally don't
> > think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14
> - even there the
> > difference is obvious.
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> One last thing about making digital prints:
>
> One of the nice things about digital is that if you
> have a computer and an
> inkjet printer, you can see for yourself how many
> megapixels you need to
> make an 8x10 print. Just go to the web, pull d
On 10 Feb 2003 at 11:10, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> They could have just as easily been saying to her "Get your work done
> by a professional photographer" as what you have interpreted to be a
> poor camera/print.
Another pertinent question: Did she indicate that the print was shot on a
digicam befor
One last thing about making digital prints:
One of the nice things about digital is that if you have a computer and an
inkjet printer, you can see for yourself how many megapixels you need to
make an 8x10 print. Just go to the web, pull down a full image file from a
3-mp camera, and print it. Then
> While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I would submit that
> it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF. I personally don't
> think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 - even there the
> difference is obvious.
Yeah, I totally agree with you there, Bruce. Granted, Tri-
Part of the problem here is that area increases so dramatically with
relatively small increases in dimensions.
For instance, a 5x7 print is 35 square inches. If you increase that size by
just one inch in every direction--make it 7x9--you add another 28 sq. in.,
almost (not quite) doubling the area
>> She didn't make the prints her self, it also wasn't
>> the print medium at fault, She took shots with a
>> consumer 4mp digi cam and it shows on the prints.
>
> I'm willing to bet that if *you* took the shots and had them printed
> no one would have a problem with them.
It's pretty easy to f
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Don't tell me, tell the digital is best guys. Mind you
> I had a model who printed out 4 MP shots she took on
> her digi cam to 8x10 and showed an agency, They
> laughed and told her to get shots on film.
Is she someone capable of making a dece
I've got a studio shot that I did on a Coolpix 990 with good lighting.
That is a 3MP camera. Printed at home at 8X10 it looks mediocre. I
took it to the lab and had them print it on the D-Lab. Much improved.
No, not anywhere near my 67 stuff, but very passable at 8X10. The
general impact of the
Matt,
While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I would submit that
it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF. I personally don't
think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 - even there the
difference is obvious.
Bruce
Monday, February 10, 2003, 10:18:48 AM, you wrote:
humm well, the shots looked good to me on screen.
--- tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >
-Original Message-
> > From: Brendan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >
> > She didn't make the prints her self, it also
> wasn't
> > the print medium at fault, She took shots with a
> > consumer 4mp
Don't tell me, tell the digital is best guys. Mind you
I had a model who printed out 4 MP shots she took on
her digi cam to 8x10 and showed an agency, They
laughed and told her to get shots on film.
--- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
I've read alot of "garbage" about how you
> o
if one shoots the "Black Square" painting, i bet, monochrome CGA (320x240) resolution
would give the close to optimal results: no grain, very smooth black on very snow like
white...
resolution is not everything!
than again, if one shoots only a fragment of that picture, a simple copy of /dev/nul
William,
My recollection is that the Agfa D-Lab supports somewhere near 100MB
file as the maximum.
Bruce
Monday, February 10, 2003, 4:35:27 AM, you wrote:
WR> - Original Message -
WR> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
WR> Subject: Megapixels required for an 8X10 pri
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
>
> I've printed:
> 1.3 Mpixel digicam output
> ~8Mpixel 35mm 2400 ppi scans
> ~30Mpixel 120 2400 ppi 67scans
> `90Mpixel 4X5" 2400 ppi scans
>
>
48 matches
Mail list logo
