 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2004Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging software?
HI, I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for a high pixel digital camera. I know most of you here would argue you could never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model cameras are concerned? Apkesh I would get the MF camera. Of course 4x5 gives an order of magnitude improvemet over MF. :-) I know a number of people that use film (MF & LF) for image capture and then scan, process and print digitally. In rec.photo.darkroom apkesh <apkesh007REMOVEMEPLEASE@yahoo.ca> wrote: : HI, : I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : cameras are concerned? : Apkesh  SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com I disagree I was sworn to my Canon 35mm. I recently baught a Minolta Dimage A1. 5 megapixal with the software I'm using I can either blow up a small portion of the picture and still have great detail or use the actual picture and go up to about 24 x 36. That is the size listed on the software. Also the retouching features are blowing me away the more I learn. As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones. Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:07:48 GMT, "apkesh" >HI, >I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cameras are concerned? >Apkesh > As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the > click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part > of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones. Seven zones?? I thought there were more than that... :-) > Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:07:48 GMT, "apkesh" > >>HI, >>I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to >>just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for >>a high pixel digital camera. You do realise that no-one will answer your questions here or involve you in discussions from now on if you go digital. ;-) That's a very big *wink* just in case some of you missed it... FWIW I find alot of the pleasure (and pain) in b&w in working in the darkroom and mucking around there. I find the pain is in dealing with the nature of analogue processes (read fickle (not to say digital isn't fickle, but a different kind of fickle - if that makes sense)). In some ways the manual nature of the process imbues itself in the actual article (read print). What I am trying to say is that, even though you might be able to dial in B&W mode into you digicam you might find yourself left wanting... Perhaps an essential aspect of B&W, which many of us enjoy aesthetically, does lie in it's process and an artificial version, even though it might superficially look the same, will not--in fact--be the same. Sorry to cross post, not sure of the etiquette here? Your right, I had to go find my light meter it has nine zones. :-) >> As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the >> click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >fact--be the same. >Sorry to cross post, not sure of the etiquette here? > I disagree I was sworn to my Canon 35mm. I recently baught a Minolta > Dimage A1. 5 megapixal with the software I'm using I can either blow > up a small portion of the picture and still have great detail or use > the actual picture and go up to about 24 x 36. That is the size listed > on the software. One assumes you mean 24x36 cm, not inches, which would be ludicrous in 5 mp. (1) Pixel data as captured (that is the pictorial data represented by a pixel) cannot be "blown up" or enlarged. A pixel is a static, discontinuous piece of digital information. The pixel resolution you have is the maximum image size you get. (2) the only way you could possibly enlarge any given resolution-image size as captured is via software interpolation (upsampling.) In that case, what you have is data artificially added via software to the image that the lens never saw, not real "detail." 5 megapixels isn't a great deal of resolution to begin with (a typical MF film frame equals about 80 to 100 million equivalent picture elements...), it is actually 5 million / 4, since in reality it takes 4 mosaically captured pixels on a typical prosumer digital CFA (bayer pattern) to create one actual full color pixel. If the OP wants a digital capture that approaches true MF film abilities he'll have to invest in a high end system that can deliver a 3-shot or trilinear scan that at minimum delivers more than 25 million pixels. Sinar, Better Light, possibly Hassleblad, etc, but not nikon, kodak, or minolta digital cameras. BTW, your average digital prosumer cameras simple cannot ever capture the real, high frequency scene detail silver halides are capable of capturing on a *molecular* level. It's called the Nyquist Theorem and is the cause of most digital artifacting and why digital lenses either have to be dumbed down or software fixes are necessary. "24x36" (I assume inchesAlso the retouching features are blowing me away the > more I learn. As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the > click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part > of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones. Better to get a digital camera system that can be used for b&w captures, bypassing the CFA or interpolation of a bayer pattern. All silicon sensors are inherently black and white to begin with. > Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:07:48 GMT, "apkesh" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model > >cameras are concerned? The future is what you make it. If people keep buying film, film manufacturers will keep making it and vice versa. > One assumes you mean 24x36 cm, not inches, which would be ludicrous in 5 mp. It depends on the camera and how one is utilizing it. For scenic, products and other detail oriented applications your correct. For soft, portraiture head shots etc, I tend to disagree as I have seen images in this size range of quite acceptable quality, done with small format digital. Recently,.... like Monday ! SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > > One assumes you mean 24x36 cm, not inches, which would be ludicrous in 5 mp. > > It depends on the camera and how one is utilizing it. For scenic, products and other > detail oriented applications your correct. For soft, portraiture head shots etc, I tend to > disagree as I have seen images in this size range of quite acceptable quality, done > with small format digital. Recently,.... like Monday ! 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I believe.) Certainly nowhere near MF. If you are seeing what appears to be good or acceptable quality likely it's due to interpolation/software enhancements, not straight pixels. Also depends on what you mean by "soft." Some never notice the fuzziness in a typical 8x10, 35mm head portrait. But compare it with the same shot in MF... > 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in > 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in a typical 8x10, 35mm head portrait. But compare it with the same shot > in MF... You may be correct about the file threshold, in terms of raw data of course film is going to transend a capture in fine detail, in terms of turn around and ability to record the tonality of color film, the digital is here.... provided, the system is calibrated. Like I stated if one is shooting soft portraiture there really is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. Besides what the difference between a MF camera and a digital if you have to retouch the MF image to soften it down for those old ladies you shoot ;-) SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > > 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in > > 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > system is calibrated. Like I stated if one is shooting soft portraiture there > really is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. True there's not such great detail to worry about and commercial portrait photographers like the convenience of instant digital capture and output, but at the expense of tangible and permanent images on film. > Besides what the difference between a MF camera and a digital if you have to > retouch the MF image to soften it down for those old ladies you shoot ;-) If they don't like seeing their wrinkles, they'd better not come to me for a portrait. I shoot in 4x5 ;-) > > > 5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in > > > 4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > system is calibrated. Like I stated if one is shooting soft portraiture there > > really is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. BTW, re-reading this I'm not sure what is meant by digital ability to "record the tonality of color film." Digital color space cannot match/equal the color gamut of photochemical color. Digital may be 'good enough' for soft focus subjects, but color-wise and detail-wise (whether you "enlarge" output by changing image size or reducing lpi resolution, you lose information. > True there's not such great detail to worry about and commercial > portrait photographers like the convenience of instant digital capture [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If they don't like seeing their wrinkles, they'd better not come to me > for a portrait. I shoot in 4x5 ;-) ly is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. > BTW, re-reading this I'm not sure what is meant by digital ability to > "record the tonality of color film." Digital color space cannot > match/equal the color gamut of photochemical color. I disagree completely. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > ly is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I disagree completely. But there is nothing to disagree with, Gregory. Fact: digital color spaces do not and cannot represent a full natural color gamut. Read your Photoshop manual. Photographic dye layers are much more representative of the wide variety of natural colors as seen by the human eye. Calibration has nothing to do with it, since all calibration does is address the issue of device color space differences (scanner, monitor, printer.) Calibration does not affect color gamut, but how images are converted between gamuts. Also, there is really no such thing as "color tonality." Colors are defined by saturation, hue, and brightness. Each component plays a role in the color as seen. >I disagree I was sworn to my Canon 35mm. I recently baught a Minolta >Dimage A1. 5 megapixal with the software I'm using I can either blow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part >of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones. So you have traded quality for convenience. A tradition in many cultures. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > ... I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for > a high pixel digital camera. Medium format will provide the higher image quality, by a large margin, and without question. This is especially true for black and white, since you can shoot films with practically no grain and sky-high resolution, such as Technical Pan. > I know most of you here would argue you could > never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital > picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model > cameras are concerned? The future, perhaps, but we are in the present for now, and 35mm digital is not a competitor to medium-format film. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > HI, > I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cameras are concerned? > Apkesh Consider the focal length of the normal lens used on a digital camera. When that normal equals that of a 35mm camera's normal then the sensor is equall in size to the frame of a 35mm camera. At my last look sensor sizes on under a few thousand doller cameras were running apx. 2/3 of 35mm. Optics can only be so good. Lines per/milimeter are just that. At normal setting of the zoom on my Oly. 2040, coverage is about that of an 8mm movie camera and I think a little less than a Minox. Sensor sizes and resulting focal lengths are incredibly small with under one thousand dollor cameras. Makers of digitals are packing on the pixels but are not doing much for the focal lengths, the size of the sensors. Dan > Consider the focal length of the normal lens used on a digital >camera. When that normal equals that of a 35mm camera's normal then [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Makers of digitals are packing on the pixels but are not doing >much for the focal lengths, the size of the sensors. Dan Also note that the more pixels in the CCD/CMOS, the greater the noise and therefore the lower the SNR. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > > Consider the focal length of the normal lens used on a digital > >camera. When that normal equals that of a 35mm camera's normal then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Also note that the more pixels in the CCD/CMOS, the greater > the noise and therefore the lower the SNR. Not to mention photodetector sites can only get so small, since as you say noise becomes a problem and at minimum you need enough electrons to actually produce a usable signal. I don't think so. I've been very impressed with the advances in digital photography. My 5 megapixel Canon is certainly competitive with my 35mm film cameras, but I don't think the images are quite as good. The color is easier to handle and at least as good as with film, but the sharp edges of the pixels give a quality to the images that I do not find as pleasing as the smoothness of film. We are talking here about effects that are beyond what is normally considered to be viewable resolution, but you can definitely see it. With medium format, film resolution (in relative terms) is even greater, and the results even finer. It would take about a 16 megapixel image to be competitive with a 645 film image - and a lens to match it. Such things exist, if you have the money. That said, digital has some handling and production advantages that may outweigh any slight decrease in absolute quality for any given application. > HI, > I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cameras are concerned? > Apkes |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.