Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercialphotography
on 8/16/01 11:21 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very nice 8x10-11x14, > but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you won't get > very good looking images above that. For general reception (candid) shots, > a digital "35mm equivalent" should work OK, but I certainly would not use it > for formals. the arithmetic doesn't tell the whole story with digital files. They blow up far beyond what you would expect. the reason is almost entirely to do with the lack of noise in the image. For example, I would be happy to print a 6 Mpx file up to 20x16. The lack of grain fools you almost completely. It makes you realise how much noise there is even in MF 100 asa film, and how this affects our perception of the image. It is only when you get up to 4x5 that you are seeing the same smoothness of tone. Sharpness of course is another thing. I have a 3 Mpx file which I blew up to 13x19 as an experiment (without using GF). There is a slight softness to the image but that is really the only criticism I have of it. It is *certainly* an acceptable print for most purposes. I don't own a digital camera... i've borrowed these files to experiment... but as soon as a 6 Mpx camera is available and relatively affordable I'll be buying one. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com ICQ: 109343205
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercialphotography
> > A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very > nice 8x10-11x14, > > but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you > won't get > > very good looking images above that. For general reception > (candid) shots, > > a digital "35mm equivalent" should work OK, but I certainly > would not use it > > for formals. > > the arithmetic doesn't tell the whole story with digital files. > They blow up > far beyond what you would expect. Yes, and no. > the reason is almost entirely to do with > the lack of noise in the image. For example, I would be happy to print a 6 > Mpx file up to 20x16. The lack of grain fools you almost completely. It > makes you realise how much noise there is even in MF 100 asa film, and how > this affects our perception of the image. Take a good look into areas with detail. Digital cameras do hold edges quite well, but they lack in detail. That isn't noise or grain...but missing detail! I have a digital camera, both a 3.3M pixel and a Hasselblad back...and yes, they do look quite good, when the prints are small. But, they both pale in comparison to real MF film.
