Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...a good photo will overcome its format.
That's a keeper!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
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
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
Matt Greene said:
The talk aobut grain always bothers me. Grain is
purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid
(most BW images) without grain. Then again,
printing on textured paper defeats grain argument
every time.
Grain, like saturated colors is, for all intents
and purposes,
Matt wrote:
And the whole idea of saying pixels seems somehow
odd, since the discussion is about film and not
digital images and slide or print film, by their very
nature, do not have pixels, though I understood what
you meant.
How is the discussion about film? The thread is called
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 right
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
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 derived
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
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
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
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
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 next few
- 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
Result? Even at 8X10 print size you can clearly
see a
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 print?
I've printed:
1.3
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/null
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
only
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 digi cam and it
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
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
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 decent
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 figure
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
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-X
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.
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 before
--- 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 down a
--- 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.
Yeah, I
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 a
--- 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
add
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 say you
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
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
--- 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.
34 matches
Mail list logo
