DiGiorgi
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the
> highlights. You are correct to expose accu
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the
> highlights. You are correct to expose accurately for both ends of the
> spectrum. The issue with digital, I think, is that the shadow areas
> tend to show noise more - so it
2007 4:33 PM
MM> To: pdml@pdml.net
MM> Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
MM> In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
MM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MM> Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
MM> 1/125 sec @ f/13, s
ECTED] On Behalf Of
JCOC> Paul Stenquist
JCOC> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM
JCOC> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JCOC> Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
JCOC> No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposure is the enemy of
JCOC> good digital photograph
at this point.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposu
f Of
Gasha
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
It is true,
all labs now print on some Noritsu machine.
And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process.
This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it
lf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:33 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @
In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
Reference photo:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm
100% view of a single person:
h
It is true,
all labs now print on some Noritsu machine.
And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process.
This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it to
that size to get A4 (20x30cm) image. Print was good, much better than
most of other pics, and i managed to get 1st plac
This seems to be more of a scanner test.(?)
My experience has been the complete opposite. Obviously, personal
impressions, also, play a roll.
Jack
--- Patrick Genovese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a
> comparison of
> > a first generati
> I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of
> a first generation image to a third generation image.
> The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film,
> you need to print it optically.
That is so true. I recently had some prints done f
: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My point is if you know what your doing and & the subject lends itself
to
the process, an APS sensor can be used to create very high resolution
images.
BTW, That shot was 3 images captured with the K10D & stitched together.
I
could just as easily used
it's NOT.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:04 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail
en if there were they would
>be lens limited compared to larger film or digital
>formats...
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>David Savage
>Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail than that. You
can get it, but you don't need it for a group photo.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
> 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
>
> Reference
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Francis
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:26 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My conclusion is that in the hands of someone who knows what they are
doing even a small-frame 6MP DSLR is
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high
frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means
Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same
: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant.
G
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Hello Jens,
>
> Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45
> lens
>
> ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
>
> Here
Of
David Savage
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>I dont agree that the higher resolution that
>medium and large format photography provides
>is moot or
HAR!
It's a tiny web image:-). You're obviously pulling our legs.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:14 PM, William Robb wrote:
>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
Reference photo:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm
100% view of a single person:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm
--
Bruce
Sunday, January 21, 2007, 7:47:22 PM
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm
>
> I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
For myself, that's not good enough.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Di
Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high
frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means
Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same
as producing a group photo for the web.
The right tool for the job is essential. For w
At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>I dont agree that the higher resolution that
>medium and large format photography provides
>is moot or unnecessary in typical photography
>unless you never print anything bigger than
>4x6" or never make a web image display larger
>than 1200x800 (both
Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant.
G
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Hello Jens,
>
> Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45
> lens
>
> ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
>
> Here is the full shot to give you some perspective:
> http://w
ns Bladt
> JB> Nytarkort / Greeting Card:
> JB> http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html
>
> JB> http://www.jensbladt.dk
> JB> +45 56 63 77 11
> JB> +45 23 43 85 77
> JB> Skype: jensbladt248
>
> JB> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
>
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bruce Dayton
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:04 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I'm not particularly defending small frame digital, but your example is
a much smaller group. I have shots of sm
how that old Chicago
JCOC> Bears team shot I mentioned earlier impressed me as looking
JCOC> jco
JCOC> -Original Message-
JCOC> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JCOC> Bruce Dayton
JCOC> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:50 PM
JCOC> To
nuary 21, 2007 8:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Hello Jens,
Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens
ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
Here is the full shot to give you some perspective:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_
k
JB> +45 56 63 77 11
JB> +45 23 43 85 77
JB> Skype: jensbladt248
JB> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
JB> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey
JB> DiGiorgi
JB> Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13
JB> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JB> Emne: Re: Film
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Cassino
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:48 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
thing. A lot of the things I w
most likely was done on 8x10 based on the quality.
Group people shots are extreme resolution hogs
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:13 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Roberts
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:35 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Evan Hanson wrote:
>My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
>print
As always Mark, you make a great point.
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote:
> I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
> thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this
> link sums up where I finally wound up:
>
> http://www.markcassino
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this
link sums up where I finally wound up:
http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php?title=stuff_per_pixel&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Medium format and certainly
5 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey
DiGiorgi
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
You've stated you are producing a
Evan Hanson wrote:
>My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
>print beats even a drum scan.
I have found just the opposite to be true: I've rarely seen an optical
print that can compare to a well-done scan and print. Oh, certainly the
*resolution* and fine detail will
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
> In stead of arguing this and that; show me your digital group images.
> Crop out one face covering 5-10% of the frame.
> Lets see and judging for ourselves.
I wouldn't c
You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for
printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips
up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double
the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here:
>> This one wasn done with a P
On 22/01/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right
> gear for the job.
> Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan
> from a Pentax 6x7.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.
My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
print beats even a drum scan.
Evan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
e-
> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne
> af Paul
> Stenquist
> Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07
> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
>
>
> Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those
23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul
Stenquist
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I
43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af P. J.
Alling
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:41
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabiliti
ourse most scans are not superb, and
> most optical prints are not perfectly executed. This, of course,
> makes the comparison difficult.
> Paul
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -
> > From: "Jens Bladt&qu
To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabilities to the direct
digital capture more than the actual image on the film. I think I could
easily skew a test into the 6x7 column by shooting a nice fine ISO 100
B&W film and printing in a darkroom say an 11x14 print on a good paper
with a nic
rison difficult.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
>
>
>> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing
>> the
>> rig
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the
> right
> gear for the job.
> Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a sc
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those
are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant,
because underexposure causes image degradation.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choo
To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right
gear for the job.
Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan
from a Pentax 6x7.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
But paper is patient. So are HTML-files.
But what can
50 matches
Mail list logo