Your vast Age is irrelevant. ;-)
My point was that I'm very familiar with how medium format film looks
and how I prefer to view photographs, and I have many years of
experience in making photographs with medium format cameras and media.
Looking at stuff on a light table is about the most miserable viewing
experience there is IMO.
Regards presenting photos for display electronically: while computer
screens have a wide variance and you cannot easily control how they
look in the general case, if you're working with a *specific* display
and know its characteristics, you can make your photos look perfect on
that display. Apple iPad displays are all very accurately calibrated
to the same standards so if you optimize a photo for an iPad display,
you can be darn sure it will look the same on any non-defective iPad.
Regards books and prints ... yes, there's tremendous variability. With
all these issues, might as well not bother, eh? ]'-)
G
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Bob Sullivan <rf.sulli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Godfrey,
> We've met and Tanja's recent thread on ages should remind you.
> I was shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes."
> Fine arts exhibitions I don't know much about, but I spent 10 years
> with a major printer and publisher and understand commercial printing.
> And believe me, how a print looks in a book or on a poster depends
> a great deal on the 4(-5) color press process and the pressmen.
> Exactly how it looks on a computer screen or an iPad is mainly
> beyond your control. Generally how it is represented you do have
> control of, but the fine tuning? You can't even guarantee my screen
> is calibrated properly.
>
> All this said, projection of slide images and a big lupe on a light table
> do best for me.
>
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <gdigio...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> My first 'serious' camera was a 1949 Rolleiflex that my grandfather
>> let me use in 1967-1968. I used medium format cameras alongside my
>> 35mm and digital equipment until I finally sold all of it just last
>> year. I'm well aware of what medium (and large) format transparencies
>> look like on a light table. I even used to project them.
>>
>> Light table, projection ... Both are miserable ways to look at
>> photographs, IMO. Displaying photographs on a high resolution HD
>> television screen is better but still awful.
>>
>> How a photo looks in a fine art exhibition print, or in a book, or on
>> a computer screen (aka devices like the iPad) is much more important
>> to me.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Bob Sullivan <rf.sulli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Godfrey,
>>>
>>> Along the same lines as your commentary...
>>> I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
>>> borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
>>> The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
>>> As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
>>> But the last couple of cameras from Pentax (K-5 & 7) are good enough
>>> to rival those projected Kodachromes. And my results are better.
>>>
>>> As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table
>>> with a big loop.
>>> It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital file will never
>>> compare to it.
>>> I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it still has real IQ
>>> advantages.
>>>
>>> Regards, Bob S.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <gdigio...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
>>>> resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
>>>> etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
>>>>
>>>> The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
>>>> - film speed
>>>> - how it is exposed
>>>> - how it is processed ... gamma is critical
>>>> - how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
>>>>
>>>> The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several
>>>> factors
>>>> - the size of the sensor
>>>> - the {x,y} photosite dimensions
>>>> - the strength of the antialiasing filter
>>>> - how it is exposed
>>>> - how it is processed
>>>> - how acutance is measured
>>>>
>>>> All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
>>>> scanning the film, etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
>>>> experience using specific cameras and lenses.
>>>>
>>>> I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
>>>> and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
>>>> good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
>>>> found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
>>>> for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
>>>> (645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
>>>> DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
>>>> that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
>>>> the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
>>>>
>>>> So for me, digital capture and processing outperforms Medium Format
>>>> film and processing at the 6 Mpixel, professional quality camera and
>>>> lenses point. Everything beyond that is a plus on the digital side,
>>>> and the handling and management of digital capture images is far far
>>>> far more convenient and flexible.
>>>>
>>>> Others will disagree with me and quote a bazillion silly numbers. But
>>>> don't bother, please. This is an ancient debate and I'm not going to
>>>> pursue it. I know what works for me.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW: I'd still like a Bronica RF645 camera with wide and normal
>>>> lenses. A beautiful piece of equipment, always wanted to work with
>>>> one. But if I got one, I doubt I'd get enough use out of it to be
>>>> worth the money, even at the current $600-700 price level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jens <p...@planfoto.dk> wrote:
>>>>> Hello list
>>>>> I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC
>>>>> 1:4 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-).
>>>>> Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images
>>>>> compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Jens
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>>>> follow the directions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Godfrey
>>>> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>>> follow the directions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>> follow the directions.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Godfrey
>> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
> the directions.
>
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
