| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2004 09:57:17 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
A professional photographer considers the 35MM the smallest format. When you want a poster or mural you go the medium format which then starts at 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 to the more comfortable 4 by 5. The bigger the better and pictures taken with an 8 by 10 view camera dwarfs the other formats. |
Which isn't always true, however. I know a place that has two 7-metre high prints taken from 8x10's produced from 35mm frames. Quality ... ? Just fine.
E
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 09:59:24 AM · #52 |
Just fine, or excellent - perfect - flawless.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 10:58:53 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
A professional photographer considers the 35MM the smallest format. When you want a poster or mural you go the medium format which then starts at 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 to the more comfortable 4 by 5. The bigger the better and pictures taken with an 8 by 10 view camera dwarfs the other formats. |
Which isn't always true, however. I know a place that has two 7-metre high prints taken from 8x10's produced from 35mm frames. Quality ... ? Just fine.
E |
**********************************************************************
Prints can be forced to acceptable levels. But consider the simple mathematics. If you blow up an 8x10 negative 5 times you get a 40 x 50.
the 2.25 format has to go up 19 times. Forget the 35 mm. Now, ask yourself the question: you own either a fine art gallery or an advertising company which format would you chose for a 40x50 print that will be viewed up close? You can make an intermediate oversized negative, but the quality does not equal the same shot taken with the bigger format. There is always loss in reproduction. It all depends on your assesement of what fine is. Otherwise we can all run art galleries and advertising companies with 35mm format.
Message edited by author 2004-08-31 11:14:41. |
|
|
|
08/31/2004 11:18:33 AM · #54 |
Interesting read on the subject:
Click here
Message edited by author 2004-08-31 11:19:35.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 11:20:39 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
You don't get that excitement like you used to when you picked up your prints from the developer. Or even better, when your developing some B&Ws in your own darkroom, slowly watching them appear onto your Ilford Glossy.
Digital will never ever match that feeling. |
I absolutely agree. I use my film camera all the time, but I seldom put anything but black and white film into it. Working in the darkroom is magical. Granted, seeing an image instantaneously on the back of my digital camera is magical, as well, but they're different flavors of magic. |
|
|
|
08/31/2004 11:44:27 AM · #56 |
Ah, yes...those halcyon days with an old TLR and a roll of 120 Tri-X!
I had more fun with that beast than just about any other hobby. |
|
|
|
08/31/2004 12:03:54 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Ah, yes...those halcyon days with an old TLR and a roll of 120 Tri-X!
I had more fun with that beast than just about any other hobby. |
Hey, I just bougth not one, but TWO TLRs. One a yashica mat 124g and the other a richoflex model vi. My very first medium format cameras. I won't do my own processing, but it will be fun to experiment with something new, at least for me.
Anyway, back to the original topic. I recently came accross this article. I thought it was pretty amazing. Now, can we say the same about their digital couterparts. I think not. As a matter of fact, In 10 years technology will have changed so much that you would probably be hard pressed to find a way to download stuff from your digital "film", let alone in 50! I love digital, trust me. I love the fact that I can manipulate my images anyway I want in a setting I'm comfortable with, my computer. I love being able to see the results right away. I'm 100% digital, however, I don't think that digital is ever gonna be equal to film, at least when it comes to the situation mentioned in the article. I guess in that aspect, film really is better than digital.
June
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 12:12:18 PM · #58 |
That's a great article, especially considering I have a couple of rolls of similar film sitting around waiting to be developed.
But note the variety of subjects and places covered by the pictures on that one roll -- those 36 frames must have been shot over a period of several months, not snapped off in a few minutes the way we're doing it today ... |
|
|
|
08/04/2010 04:26:30 AM · #59 |
im putting on my Ken Rockwell hat now, so procede at your own risk!
in addition to being a photographer, im also a musician. i remember when the amplifier companies came out with solid state amps, touting them as having better specs than tube amps, 1/2 the weight, and without the bother of purchasing and biasing tubes. transistors appeared to beat tubes, ON PAPER. but something was wrong--they didnt sound as good.
im also an audiophile, and the same thing happened in the late 80s with CDs vs. vinyl. the marketing folks told us that CDs sounded BETTER than vinyl. they said the specs proved it and that youd never have to deal with records and their accompanying nuances. once again, something was wrong--they didnt sound as good.
as a photographer, ive seen digital cameras come a long way in the last 10 years. we were told the digital 2-3 megapixel resolution cameras were perfect, and better than the best Leicas, Nikons, and Hassels. something was wrong again. the very best pro-level cameras now take extremely high definition pictures, and feature bells and whistles Cartier-Bresson and Paul Strand never dreamed of, but they lack warmth and character. precision has won out over character and beauty.
is the impressionist painter Monet inferior to photorealist painter Richard Estes because Monet left definition up to the viewer and painted a feeling, while Estes painted with incredible technical precision at (some would say) the expense of content? my point is this: id rather have film for my composition, with its warmth and character. ill leave digital to the photojournalists, medical and scientific photographers, the HDR whizzes, and sports/action gang. sure, you can compose brilliantly on digital. i just get more of what i am looking for from tubes, vinyl, and film.
asking which camera format is best will never produce a correct or quantifiable answer--its a 'to each his own' proposition. it has no right answer because its the wrong question. the RIGHT question is, 'Which format allows me to best capture an image the way I want you to see and feel it?'. |
|
|
|
08/04/2010 08:52:45 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by kipmartin:
im putting on my Ken Rockwell hat now, so procede at your own risk!...
...ill leave digital to the photojournalists, medical and scientific photographers, the HDR whizzes, and sports/action gang. sure, you can compose brilliantly on digital. i just get more of what i am looking for from tubes, vinyl, and film. |
You really dredged up an old thread for your first post. So, given the nature of your input, what brings you to a site focused primarily on digital photography? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:26:12 PM EDT.
