Bruce, I know Frans Lanting did a project of American landscapes with a peculiar digital camera, but apart from him I don't know of any landscapers working with digital MedF. I've been lookinga round a little to find some.
Do you have any links? Jostein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:50 PM Subject: Re: 20x30" from 6MP? > Chris, > > A nice synopsis. I was shooting two 67ii's before moving to digital. > I know what medium format looks like and 35mm film. I concur that for > very fine detail, that film holds an edge. > > What many fail to realize is that for the buying public (largely > weddings/portraits) they are not looking for fine detail. They don't > want to see skin imperfections and don't really want to view 20X30's > from a few inches away. The lack of grain and color vibrancy of the > digital images gives them a wonderful look even when blown up to large > sizes. > > If I was shooting landscapes for a living, I would either be using a > medium format digital back or medium format/large format film. Since > the money that I make from photography (part-time work only) is purely > from people shots, 6mp dslr is serving me very well. My clients are > just as happy with the product as they were when I was shooting 67. > > Thanks for such a clear description of what is going on. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Thursday, November 18, 2004, 8:30:00 AM, you wrote: > > CB> I don't own a DSLR, but I own 35mm and MedF bodies, and I work at a > CB> camera store/lab, so I've seen countless enlargements from all > CB> formats, including DSLRs. I've noticed that film, even 35mm, seems > CB> better able to capture really fine details. If I want a print I can > CB> examine extremely closely, I'm going with film, even if it's only > CB> 35mm. > > CB> However, for some reason, possibly the complete lack of grain, DSLR > CB> prints enlarge much nicer than 35mm and, if you go large enough, even > CB> better than MedF. Sure the prints begin to fall apart if you walk > CB> right up to them, but at a reasonable viewing distance, DSLR prints > CB> look amazing. I'm so used to seeing grain on enlargements bigger than > CB> 20x30 that it's mindblowing to see its absence. > > CB> MedF, which is all I shoot now, is a good compromise right now between > CB> the complete lack of grain of digital and the smaller negative size of > CB> 35mm. It looks pretty good when enlarged to poster size (the grain > CB> isn't usually too objectionable), and it holds fine detail > CB> exceptionally well. Of course MedF kits are not as cheap, portable or > CB> feature-laden as 35mm or DSLR bodies, so there's definitely a > CB> downside, but it works for me right now. > > CB> Chris > > CB> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:19:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton > CB> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Bill, > >> > >> From his previous posts, I get the feeling that he is a strong film > >> advocate who is trying to prove that digital (DSLR -35mm) isn't good > >> enough yet. Seems that I remember that he doesn't have a DSLR yet and > >> is going through the math calisthenics like many others. > >> > >> I can say, that I am having better luck blowing up *istD shots of > >> portraits, families and weddings than I ever had shooting 35mm with > >> equivalent best glass from Pentax. My clients are plenty happy with > >> the last eleven 20X30's that I have delivered. > >> > >> Bruce > > > >
