Hey Mike, I hope I'm not torqueing you off on this thread. We're arguing, but good-naturedly I hope.
Mike Johnston wrote: <snip> > > The bigger the camera, the better the technical quality <snip continued below> That is the only point I'm trying to make. > , and the harder it > is to get dynamic, interesting pictures. Most large format pictures I've > seen (and believe me, I saw them endlessly at _PT_) put me to sleep. It's a > lot tougher to take good pictures with a 6x7 than with a 35mm. That's why > the vast majority of us use 35mm. > I wonder why that would be the case. Are you saying it's because they're not as spontaneous? I can see that would be true depending on the subject matter. Please explain more. > > > With my 2438ppi Minolta scanner, I can get a max pixel count on 35mm film > > around 8mp. So in essence, in some respects, I have an 8mp digital camera > > for around $400. If one were to move up to one of the 4000ppi 35mm film > > scanners, then you have a pixel count over 21mp. So even if there was a 6mp > > Pentax MZ-D out there, I could easily outperform it (in raw numbers) with > > 35mm film and a cheap scanner. > > If there's anything I rant on and on about consistently, it's photography by > the numbers. Raw or otherwise. I'm not saying we should do that. Just using the universal language of mathematics to point out some cold hard facts. > > Pixel count ISN'T everything. It certainly isn't. And yet it's THE THING most (if not all) digital equipment manufacturers tout the loudest and longest. Either they believe it's very important or they're pulling our legs (or both). It's a spec, an important spec. It's a general indicator. A camera/scanner with Xmp can be compared prior to purchase, with a camera/scanner of Ymp. Let's say we were comparing specs on audio equipment X-% total harmonic distortion at Y-watts RMS, isn't the only thing to consider. But it's probably the first thing we would look at (I always take into consideration the color of the LCD/LED displays... I hate red or orange ones :-) ). Now I have to put the audio equipment in a closet, so my wife doesn't have to see it. She doesn't get that technology can be a decorating style. :-) > > > > I agree that more information is not a prerequisite to a good photograph, > > but it doesn't hurt. > > I disagree. Sometimes, it CAN hurt. Trivial but common example: a > photographer makes the decision to throw the background in a portrait out of > focus. Less information; better picture. I didn't mean information in the sense of composition. I meant information in the sense of recorded material. Pixels, square cm, etc. > > > > I've tossed and turned over whether I would purchase a 67 II or > > the AF 645N. I came to the conclusion that if the main reason I wanted MF > > was to increase media size, then a 6 X 7 was the way to go, why stop at 645? > > Good point. As I said in a recent post, I think 6x7 is probably the best > compromise between shooting convenience and printing craftsmanship. If I > could have everything I wanted, I'd have a Mamiya 7II. > > > > You must admit that's an extreme exception to the rule, a novelty. > > I do admit it. I used it as an example to point out that even extreme lack > of "information" still doesn't disqualify photographs from working as art. > > > > we may be more of the same mind, than we > > think (of course this has mostly been mental exercise). :-) > > Well, in arguing for the position I've been arguing for, I'm certainly not > arguing in favor of it above all else. I'm far from being "against" > excellent lenses, good film, context, good definition, extended tonal range, > color accuracy, and sharp detail. I'm merely saying that these things are a > CHOICE, rather than a Universally accepted DEFINITION of what "good > photographs" must be. And I agree with you whole-heartedly. I never meant to imply anything else (Are you my wife?). <g>. I have only been (or thought I was, or meant to be) using the term "quality" in it's technical sense. The decision to use digital or film, is largely a personal one and is based on what the desired output will be. I think digital is the industry's response to the instant self-gratifying impulses of society at large. I want to see it now, not later. (The above was only a joke... probably... I think... yes it definitely was.) Hope I haven't been too aggravating. If you ever make it out we'll drink some Slibovitz together. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
