Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Paul Saunders
but what I'm really interested in knowing is if there are any good reasons
why *I personally* need to use a medium format camera. Let me first tell
you my thoughts on this issue.
1. Digital vs. film.
Digital is obviously the format of the future. It's still in its early
stages of development but eventually it's going to make film more or less
obsolete, for all but the most die-hard photographers. One does wonder how
available film will be when digital really does take over, but I don't
that's going to happen just yet.
For myself, I'm happy to embrace the advantages of digital, but I'm not
ready to give up film for the immediately foreseeable future. Even when
digital resolutions become sufficiently large, there are still good reasons
to use film.
Three that spring to mind are;
a) Colour characteristics. There's something about the colour of Velvia
for example which is really special, and scanners don't seem to be able to
capture it very well, especially the rich greens.
b) Long term storage. Although digital is infinitely copyable with no
quality loss, current storage media are far more fragile. I'd sooner trust
film than a CDR for the immediate future at least.
c) Equipment reliability. All electronic equipment is at the mercy of the
weather, and can cease to function in adverse weather conditions such as
extreme cold or wet weather. This has happened to me on a number of
occasions, which is why I prefer manual cameras with mechanical shutters.
2. Format Advantages.
a) Digital. No grain. Quick and easy upload to computer, no time wasted
on scanning, no scanning artefacts, no time wasted correcting the scan
afterwards, no dust and scratches to remove. And above all, cheap! Each
photo effectively costs nothing! Low resolutions and high cost are current
problems but these will be solved soon. Digital cameras have already
reached the stage where they're approaching 35mm quality at a fairly
reasonable price.
b) 35mm. Huge selection of lenses, from super-wides to ultra-telephotos,
fairly light weight (compared to MF) and since I use cameras with mechanical
shutters I don't have to rely on electronics. I can keep shooting in
adverse weather conditions even when the electronics fail me. Current
digital SLRs have a smaller CCD than film, so wide angle lenses become less
wide. In fact it seems very difficult to get a really wide angle lens on a
digital camera, so 35mm has a big advantage there.
c) Medium Format. Large image size, therefore effectively little or no
grain, thus great potential for cropping. Great for huge enlargements
showing fine detail.
3. Personal Requirements.
So what do I do with my photos? Well I was never too fussed about prints, I
always preferred to take slides and look at them with a projector in a dark
room. These days however I can't be bothered with all that projector
hassle, so I scan them and view them on the computer screen instead. Most
of my viewing is done on the computer screen, on a 17" monitor, but I plan
to use larger monitors in the future. This is my preferred method of
viewing photos.
As for prints, I have no interest in doing anything more in a darkroom since
my darkroom is digital now. There's plenty of potential for printing
digital images, but I don't anticipate myself wanting or needing prints
larger than A3. Apparently a good 35mm slide (Provia F or Velvia) is
sufficiently sharp for that (although I'm sure some will disagree) and even
4 megapixel digital images can be printed at A3 satisfactorily, so I've been
assured (and I've seen one quite impressive enlargement to back that up). 6
megapixel images should certainly be large enough for A3 prints.
I do have a small number of medium format images in my collection, but I've
found no real use for them. I don't bother with a darkroom anymore and I
don't have a scanner capable of scanning them, nor do I have the cash spare
to buy such a scanner. Besides, all my best shots have been taken on 35mm,
my MF shots have never really compared in terms of perspective or
composition, and it doesn't really suit my style of photography (although I
take landscapes I tend to travel far and light, grabbing opportunities as
they present themselves).
So...
At the moment I'm keen to buy myself a decent digital camera, I've decided
on a 4MP Canon G2. But some part of me keeps looking back at the medium
format stuff, and I find myself drooling over the Fuji GSW690, which seems
the ideal camera for me, both lightweight, wide angle and a huge image size,
perfect for my fast moving landscape photography. And even though it's a
fixed lens, at that size of transparency I could crop considerably without
noticing any quality loss.
But do I really need this camera? I'm not likely to notice the difference
on a computer screen. But would I really notice the difference in an A3
print? Can I justify the expense of such a camera, including a vastly more
expensive scanner to scan the slides? Would it make a difference
professionally? Would publishers be more eager to buy a 6x9 photo than an
identical one taken on 35mm?
To sum up, the best use I can see for each of the three formats is as
follows;
a) Digital. Great for snapshots, record shots, test shots, experimental
shots, panoramic shots and "normal" shots. Would save me a lot of money on
film and probably be a lot of fun to use since there'd be no cost to worry
about.
b) 35mm. Still the best choice for taking my most important shots. Wider
angles and longer telephotos. More permanent storage medium in the short
term. Good for use in adverse weather conditions where digital might prove
unreliable.
c) Medium Format. You tell me! I can't think of a convincingly good
reason...
I'd be interested to hear any comments about the pros and cons of each of
these three formats.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Mark
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I know there are good reasons to use various different formats of cameras,
> but what I'm really interested in knowing is if there are any good reasons
> why *I personally* need to use a medium format camera. Let me first tell
> you my thoughts on this issue.
>
> 1. Digital vs. film.
>
> Digital is obviously the format of the future. It's still in its early
> stages of development but eventually it's going to make film more or less
> obsolete, for all but the most die-hard photographers. One does wonder
how
> available film will be when digital really does take over, but I don't
> that's going to happen just yet.
>
> For myself, I'm happy to embrace the advantages of digital, but I'm not
> ready to give up film for the immediately foreseeable future. Even when
> digital resolutions become sufficiently large, there are still good
reasons
> to use film.
There will always be many good reasons to use film.
> Three that spring to mind are;
>
> a) Colour characteristics. There's something about the colour of Velvia
> for example which is really special, and scanners don't seem to be able to
> capture it very well, especially the rich greens.
True, very true
> b) Long term storage. Although digital is infinitely copyable with no
> quality loss, current storage media are far more fragile. I'd sooner
trust
> film than a CDR for the immediate future at least.
Wrong. A decent CD-R will last far longer than film will. And you can keep
two incase of a freak failure. CDRW isn't, however, as reliable
> c) Equipment reliability. All electronic equipment is at the mercy of
the
> weather, and can cease to function in adverse weather conditions such as
> extreme cold or wet weather. This has happened to me on a number of
> occasions, which is why I prefer manual cameras with mechanical shutters.
Okay, all cameras have mechanical shutters (even if they're electronically
controlled), but like you'll admit almost all film cameras are also
electronic
> 2. Format Advantages.
>
> a) Digital. No grain.
Not "grain" no, but the equivilent - CCD noise
> Quick and easy upload to computer, no time wasted
> on scanning, no scanning artefacts, no time wasted correcting the scan
> afterwards, no dust and scratches to remove.
All except no time wasted correcting, you do need to correct and crop
digital images for printing
> And above all, cheap! Each
> photo effectively costs nothing! Low resolutions and high cost are
current
> problems but these will be solved soon. Digital cameras have already
> reached the stage where they're approaching 35mm quality at a fairly
> reasonable price.
Nah, not nothing - Ofoto for example charges 49cents/print. Home prints
aren't much cheaper and don't last nearly as long
> b) 35mm. Huge selection of lenses, from super-wides to ultra-telephotos,
> fairly light weight (compared to MF) and since I use cameras with
mechanical
> shutters I don't have to rely on electronics. I can keep shooting in
> adverse weather conditions even when the electronics fail me. Current
> digital SLRs have a smaller CCD than film, so wide angle lenses become
less
> wide. In fact it seems very difficult to get a really wide angle lens on
a
> digital camera, so 35mm has a big advantage there.
True, you can't get super-wide, but you can get wide enough for all but the
most unusual uses
> c) Medium Format. Large image size, therefore effectively little or no
> grain, thus great potential for cropping. Great for huge enlargements
> showing fine detail.
Expensive
Mark
Paul Saunders
> Wrong. A decent CD-R will last far longer than film will. And you can keep
> two incase of a freak failure. CDRW isn't, however, as reliable
Are you sure about that? I'm sure I've read that CDR isn't reliable beyond
5 years for archive purposes.
> Okay, all cameras have mechanical shutters (even if they're electronically
> controlled), but like you'll admit almost all film cameras are also
> electronic
Sure I'll admit that, but this was a personal question, and all of my 35mm
cameras have mechanical shutters.
> Not "grain" no, but the equivilent - CCD noise
But it isn't so bad, is it? Not at ISO 50, surely?
> > And above all, cheap! Each
> > photo effectively costs nothing!
> Nah, not nothing - Ofoto for example charges 49cents/print.
I wasn't thinking of prints, just the photos themselves. I could take
photos all day without it costing me a penny. The prints will cost money
certainly, but I don't have to print everything.
> Home prints
> aren't much cheaper and don't last nearly as long
Actually I was thinking of investing in a printer that uses archival quality
inks.
> True, you can't get super-wide, but you can get wide enough for all but
the
> most unusual uses
Well my most commonly used focal length is 24mm, and that frequently isn't
wide enough, I'd really like to get a 17-35mm zoom. I guess I have a
"panoramic" mentality when it comes to landscapes. I'd really like a proper
panoramic camera, but that would cause me problems with scanning.
> > c) Medium Format.
> Expensive
Yep...
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Rubin
> c) Equipment reliability. All electronic equipment is at the mercy of the
> weather, and can cease to function in adverse weather conditions such as
> extreme cold or wet weather. This has happened to me on a number of
> occasions, which is why I prefer manual cameras with mechanical shutters.
I don't know if that's an overgeneralization though. I know that
electronic wristwatches (Casio G-Shock) aren't bothered by conditions
and treatment that would destroy a mechanical watch. Cameras are not
that much different from watches in how they operate. Have you tried
a really tough electronic camera like an F5 or EOS-1 (or even an F3)?
> wide. In fact it seems very difficult to get a really wide angle lens on a
> digital camera, so 35mm has a big advantage there.
True, a moderate wideangle (20mm lens, having equivalent of 32mm coverage)
isn't a big problem. For really wide angle you can use a full frame fisheye
and distortion removal software, but that's not so convenient.
> So what do I do with my photos? Well I was never too fussed about prints, I
> always preferred to take slides and look at them with a projector in a dark
> room. These days however I can't be bothered with all that projector
> hassle, so I scan them and view them on the computer screen instead. Most
> of my viewing is done on the computer screen, on a 17" monitor, but I plan
> to use larger monitors in the future. This is my preferred method of
> viewing photos.
In this case digital rules.
> At the moment I'm keen to buy myself a decent digital camera, I've decided
> on a 4MP Canon G2. But some part of me keeps looking back at the medium
> format stuff, and I find myself drooling over the Fuji GSW690, which seems
> the ideal camera for me, both lightweight, wide angle and a huge image size,
> perfect for my fast moving landscape photography. And even though it's a
> fixed lens, at that size of transparency I could crop considerably without
> noticing any quality loss.
Maybe you could consider a Nikon D100 with a 20mm lens. It would have
about the same wideangle coverage as the GSW690, IIRC. It would cost
much more than the GSW690, but you wouldn't have to buy film for it.
For a bit less than the GSW690 costs, you could get a Coolpix 5000
with a Nikon wideangle adapter. That would have more wideangle coverage
and 5 MP, though the images won't be as clean as D100 images.
> But do I really need this camera? I'm not likely to notice the difference
> on a computer screen. But would I really notice the difference in an A3
> print? Can I justify the expense of such a camera, including a vastly more
> expensive scanner to scan the slides? Would it make a difference
> professionally? Would publishers be more eager to buy a 6x9 photo than an
> identical one taken on 35mm?
You can get pretty good MF scan results from an Epson 2450 Photo flatbed
scanner which is just $350 or so.
> To sum up, the best use I can see for each of the three formats is as
> follows;
You haven't even mentioned an important question, which is how much
do you shoot?
I've been interested in the GSW690 (or some variant) as well. I'm not
likely to buy one, but a store near me rents them for $25 a day. I'd
like to give it a whirl and probably will do so sometime. If you just
want to get shooting with a GSW690 out of your system every now and
then, you might use that approach.
JGGillette
shot. But like Paul said, I can take all the pictures I want for free.
JGGillette
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahl3f2$a5$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mark
> "Mark" <tigger...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Wrong. A decent CD-R will last far longer than film will. And you can
keep
> > two incase of a freak failure. CDRW isn't, however, as reliable
>
> Are you sure about that? I'm sure I've read that CDR isn't reliable
beyond
> 5 years for archive purposes.
Nonsense. With the old cyanine dyes a CD might be able to fade that quickly
in heat or sun. Modern phthalocyanine dyes will last at least 25 years or so
and could last well over 50 if treated decently.
> > Not "grain" no, but the equivilent - CCD noise
>
> But it isn't so bad, is it? Not at ISO 50, surely?
Not at 50-100, but grain isn't bad at those speeds either. However, 50 might
be TOO low, as CCD noise increases with exposure time.
> > > And above all, cheap! Each
> > > photo effectively costs nothing!
>
> > Nah, not nothing - Ofoto for example charges 49cents/print.
>
> I wasn't thinking of prints, just the photos themselves. I could take
> photos all day without it costing me a penny. The prints will cost money
> certainly, but I don't have to print everything.
Exactly
> > Home prints
> > aren't much cheaper and don't last nearly as long
>
> Actually I was thinking of investing in a printer that uses archival
quality
> inks.
Even the archival inks don't last as long as CRT prints to photo paper
(Ofoto, Shutterfly, etc...) which are real photographs (Ofoto uses Kodak
DuraLife, Shutterfly uses Fuji Crystal Archive)
Mark
John Stafford
I simply find it gratifying that using MF just plain pisses off just the
kind of people I wouldn't like anyway.
Jack
The advantage of medium and large format is and has always been better
tonality than can be acheived by 35 mm or affordable digital cameras. I
have and love a 5 mb digital that is capable of making very high quality 13
x 17 images, but it is not the equal to my medium format cameras, and not
even close to my 4x5's, in terms of tonality. JackM
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jeffery Harrison
format camera. The GSW690III has a 65mm lens which is approximately equal to
a 26mm lens on a 35mm camera so that would do a decent job of giving you the
wide angle you like.
As to image quality a print made from a medium format negative (I shoot 6x7)
surpasses that of 35mm at ANY size. With the first roll I shot the 4x5
prints just blew away event the best results I've ever gotten from 35mm. For
monitor viewing the quality is probably wasted but for prints the only way
you can beat it is to get a bigger negative.
Jeffery S. Harrison
fotocord
>
> at that size of transparency I could crop considerably without
> noticing any quality loss.
>
You don't get it. at all. Cropping isn't what MF is about. Neither is
"giant prints". It not even about grain. You can shoot 35mm with APX-25
(when it was made) and shoot MF with Tri-x in rodinal so the grain is the
same and the MF print has better tonality. In the above example the 35mm
print might even be sharper, but ----FOR ME---- the MF print looks enough
better to warrant using it. YMMV.
Being honest from what you wrote, you already talked yourself out of it and
no, you probably don't need a MF camera.
--
Stacey
Gordon Moat
chip camcorders have great colour quality. You can store lots of still images
onto cheap tape (miniDV), and whenever you want more, you can record motion and
sound. This I think is much more interesting viewing on a monitor or computer
screen, and the still images from the camcorder have more than enough
resolution for any 17" monitor. Also, you can just play back like a slide show
for your friends, by playing back through your television.
When it comes time to print something on your inkjet printer, you can easily
upsize a digital video still using Genuine Fractels, or just PhotoShop, and you
should get acceptable results. The dot gain of the ink jet would provide nearly
continuous tone output anyway.
Film cameras are good when you have a desire to record your own personal
history. This can be valuable when you want to share your adventures, insight,
and travels with friends, or in the future with your family. If this is not
important to you, and the moment is the main consideration, then by all means
go pure digital capture. The other reason to use film is the true black and
grey values when shooting B/W film, which just sucks currently in any digital
RGB based capture system.
The 35 mm format is easily the most flexible. It offers the largest choice of
film, and usually quite a bit of reasonable pricing on new and used gear. Also,
it is usually light and easy to carry relative to larger formats. Makes a good
backup to digital in some cases.
With Medium Format, the main advantages are better colour quality, and less
magnification needed for larger prints (relative to smaller formats). If you
rarely make large prints, or are not selling image, working in a studio
situation, or in general making money off your shots, then your money may be
better spent elsewhere.
If you can make money off your images, then MF may be the way to go. There are
many Art Buyers, Art Directors, and publishers that remain more impressed by MF
chromes than anything smaller. The lack of skill and experience scanning that
some photographers possess, often means that publishers like to receive chromes
to scan, rather than trust you to do it. I have read comments in some
publications complaining about poorly scanned images, or upsized digital,
looking like oatmeal when viewed on a large monitor at an agency. Scan quality
needs to be very good when you are sending 50 MB (or larger) images to any
publisher.
So you should decide if this is a hobby, or if you think you want to try to
make money from your photography. However, I really think you should
investigate digital video. You may find that it opens up even more
possibilities.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
There are some factors you have not mentioned
(knowing you from elsewhere)
1) Portability
as you travel large distances on foot, carrying everything.
2) Battery life
you are often away for up to a week at a time with no access to a
charger/electricity/shops.
3) reliability
you are often out in all weathers including overnight so
damp/rain/mist/heat/cold are all an issue for you.
Actually if you truly only plan to use the images on screen with an
occasional print and you address 2 and 3 above then digital would
appear to suit your needs.
Of course if you plan to sell the images, ie UK magazines then for the
time being I would stick with tran film and a good, tough 35mm system.
Just my 2p worth.
On the wide angle front, I was using a 14mm on a D1 last week and that
was plenty wide.
regards
Mark
Bernard Hill
In article <ahl3f2$a5$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>Actually I was thinking of investing in a printer that uses archival quality
>inks.
>
But with digital why worry about longevity? Simply reprint when the
photo fades. Of course you don't want to do this every couple of months
but my experience is that it's nothing like that, more like a year on
the latest inks/papers. I wish some of my old 35mm heirlooms shot by my
dad (negative lost) had not faded - the problem is not unique to
digital.
>> True, you can't get super-wide, but you can get wide enough for all but
>the
>> most unusual uses
>
>Well my most commonly used focal length is 24mm, and that frequently isn't
>wide enough, I'd really like to get a 17-35mm zoom. I guess I have a
>"panoramic" mentality when it comes to landscapes. I'd really like a proper
>panoramic camera, but that would cause me problems with scanning.
Having sold all my 35mm equipment and now gone digital there are 2
things I miss:
1. Wide angle. I loved using my 18-24mm lens.
2. Aspect ratio. 4:3 is different to 3:2 and the occasions I go back to
35mm cameras I love the 3:2.
However *both* these are almost addressed by taking multiple pictures
and stitching together into a panorama. I say "almost" because the
special characteristics of a very wide-angle view are not reflected at
all.
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland
01750 21854
+44 1750 21854
mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com
> "Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > Wrong. A decent CD-R will last far longer than film will. And you can
>> > keep two incase of a freak failure. CDRW isn't, however, as reliable
>> Are you sure about that? I'm sure I've read that CDR isn't reliable
>> beyond 5 years for archive purposes.
> Nonsense. With the old cyanine dyes a CD might be able to fade that quickly
> in heat or sun. Modern phthalocyanine dyes will last at least 25 years or so
> and could last well over 50 if treated decently.
That's still not even close to some films. I've printed negs that were
close to 80 years old, had _not_ been treated decently, and didn't show
any damage... I've read that these should be printable even after 300
years.
Sure, those were B&W negs on glass base, but the base shouldn't make that
much difference - if anything the glass base is more fragile.
--
Mikko Nahkola <mikko....@nokia.com>
My ideas, not my employer's. No warranty. YMMV.
#include <disclaimer.h>
Mxsmanic
news: ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I know there are good reasons to use various
> different formats of cameras, but what I'm really
> interested in knowing is if there are any good
> reasons why *I personally* need to use a medium
> format camera.
Currently, the best digital cameras provide all the resolution and image
quality you need for a majority of photo applications. You only need to go
to larger film formats when (1) the image will be viewed from a distance
closer than the "standard" viewing distance (equal to the diagonal of the
image, or beyond), or (2) the image will be cropped. In both of these
special cases, the resolution of digital won't be enough to match the visual
acuity of the eye, and so you need to use a film format. 35mm will work for
most of these situations; for the more extreme situations, you'll need
medium format instead. And for the most extreme situations, you may need
large format. For example, if you are creating a landscape photo that will
be displayed as a mural-sized backlit transparency on a wall and will be
examined from only a foot or two away, your only realistic choice is large
format.
> Digital is obviously the format of the future.
Up to a certain degree of enlargement, yes. I'm not sure that it will ever
replace film in large format, and it will be a very long time before it
approaches medium format; not because it cannot be done, but because it
won't be practical to try to do it (unless some unforeseeable breakthroughs
in fabrication technology occur).
> One does wonder how available film will be when
> digital really does take over, but I don't
> that's going to happen just yet.
Most of the world outside California is still shooting film, and will be for
many years to come.
> a) Colour characteristics. There's something about
> the colour of Velvia for example which is really
> special, and scanners don't seem to be able to
> capture it very well, especially the rich greens.
The best scanners can capture it. It is also theoretically possible for
CCDs to capture it, although they might have to be custom-designed for the
purpose. I wouldn't hold my breath.
> a) Digital. No grain.
As long as you don't push the speed too high.
> Digital cameras have already reached the stage
> where they're approaching 35mm quality at a fairly
> reasonable price.
They are still significantly below the best 35mm; however--and this is more
important--the best digital cameras are more than good enough for most photo
applications.
> c) Medium Format. Large image size, therefore
> effectively little or no grain, thus great potential
> for cropping. Great for huge enlargements
> showing fine detail.
Exactly. Large format has the same advantages, only more so.
> 6 megapixel images should certainly be large enough
> for A3 prints.
Six megapixels is enough for any image, as long as it is viewed from a
proportionately "standard" distance.
> At the moment I'm keen to buy myself a decent
> digital camera, I've decided on a 4MP Canon G2.
> But some part of me keeps looking back at the medium
> format stuff, and I find myself drooling over the
> Fuji GSW690, which seems the ideal camera for me,
> both lightweight, wide angle and a huge image size,
> perfect for my fast moving landscape photography.
I like image quality. Earlier this year I tried to decide between digital
and MF. Digital cost about $8000 and provided me with 2/3 the quality of
35mm; MF cost half that and provided me with about four times the quality of
35mm. Needless to say, I ended up going with MF.
> But do I really need this camera?
Do any of us really need any camera?
> But would I really notice the difference in an A3
> print?
Yes. I see a difference even on inkjet prints.
> Would publishers be more eager to buy a 6x9 photo
> than an identical one taken on 35mm?
Usually they don't care. The reproduction sizes in printed materials are
almost invariably too small to profit from MF, and most often they are too
small to profit from 35mm as well.
> c) Medium Format. You tell me! I can't think of
> a convincingly good reason...
There isn't one, unless you need very big enlargements that will be examined
from close range, and/or aggressively cropped images.
Mxsmanic
news: ahl3f2$a5$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> But it isn't so bad, is it? Not at ISO 50, surely?
For normal exposures, it's invisible. But CCDs still often have a problem
with long exposures (seconds), because of thermal noise. They have to be
actively cooled to avoid this.
> > Expensive
MF is cheaper than professional 35mm digital.
SWB
> I could take photos all day without it costing me a penny.
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
That's a fine notion that many 'digital' photographers have Paul. If the
equipment to go digital didn't cost you anything its true as well. The
equipment you have now is obsolete, when will you need to trade it in for
the next camera, and how much will your old one be worth? I suspect that
'free' pictures don't really exist apart from in the mind.
Steve
;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...] Most
> of my viewing is done on the computer screen, on a 17" monitor, but I plan
> to use larger monitors in the future. This is my preferred method of
> viewing photos.
What you end up doing with your photos is the single most important thing
when deciding what you really need.
So go digital. Even the worst digital product will be more than good enough
for that.
Lassi Hippeläinen
<...> Three that spring to mind are;
>
> a) Colour characteristics. There's something about the colour of Velvia
> for example which is really special, and scanners don't seem to be able to
> capture it very well, especially the rich greens.
Digital is still far behind in dynamic range. If your exposure isn't
just right, you've lost either bright or dark end.
> b) Long term storage. Although digital is infinitely copyable with no
> quality loss, current storage media are far more fragile. I'd sooner trust
> film than a CDR for the immediate future at least.
The long term worry isn't the permanence of the storage medium, but the
availability of drives. No magnetic data storage format has lived long.
When the U.S. Census of 1971 (IIRC) was needed in the 90's, there were
exactly two (2) drives left that could read the tapes. I don't see good
reasons why commercial lifetimes of different CD formats would be even
that long.
You might claim that new CD players are backward compatible with old
disks, but that is not certain. The laser wavelength is different. Old
promises for storage longevity were based on wide ir lasers, not narrow
blue ones. There is no quarantee that the CDs of today could be read by
any machine in 2030.
Film can be "read" with eyeballs.
<...>
> 2. Format Advantages.
>
> a) Digital. No grain. <...>
Assuming you need only the lowest "film" speed. I still count it as a
plus that films are available at a wide speed range. The "speeds" of
digital cameras are mathematical simulations, not the real thing.
<...>
> c) Medium Format. You tell me! I can't think of a convincingly good
> reason...
There's no replacement for square inches ;->
-- Lassi
Brian Ellis
you are giving any thought to this whole area. Just buy the cheapest
digital camera you can find and take it from there. You certainly don't
need medium format equipment jif all you're going to do is look at the
results on a monitor. It seems to me about like saying "I'm never going to
drive faster than 20 miles per hour. Should I get a Ferrari or a Hyundai?"
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Chris Ellinger
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>3. Personal Requirements.
>
>So what do I do with my photos? Well I was never too fussed about prints, I
>always preferred to take slides and look at them with a projector in a dark
>room. These days however I can't be bothered with all that projector
>hassle, so I scan them and view them on the computer screen instead. Most
>of my viewing is done on the computer screen, on a 17" monitor, but I plan
>to use larger monitors in the future. This is my preferred method of
>viewing photos.
You don't need medium format. Electronic imaging is perfect for your
purpose.
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Kinon O'Cann
its infancy, and while I agree it is the future and capable of some amazing
things, it can't touch 35mm film, let alone MF. Have you ever seen a 30 x 40
professionally done print from a 6 x 7 Reala negative? Can digital match the
beautiful flesh tones, gradients, and contrast of some of the best flesh
films? Has any digital camera come close to unseating Velvia as the medium
of choice for landscape photographers? Nope. Not even close.
MF equals best quality (next to large format, of course). Of course, MF
isn't suitable for everything. Nothing is. So make your choices based on
needs, as always.
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>big snip>
John Stafford
mo...@attglobal.net wrote on 7/24/02 1:40 AM:
> Honestly, I would rather point you towards digital video. The current crop of
> 3 chip camcorders have great colour quality.
Sorry, but everyday hands-on use of a quality 3-ccd professional camera
leads me to far different conclusions. I use the Canon XL-1 at work and I
find no such quality. Highlights are blown out so easily I'm often forced
to use contrast filters.
Stills? Quality of stills from the camera best approximate blister-packed
disposable cameras. Or has the technology improved drastically since last
year?
John Stafford
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> Actually I was thinking of investing in a printer that uses archival quality
>inks.
You don't need a special printer. Archival quality inks and paper run
through conventional consumer printers.
John Stafford
mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com at mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com wrote on
7/24/02 4:28 AM:
> That's still not even close to some films. I've printed negs that were
> close to 80 years old, had _not_ been treated decently, and didn't show
> any damage... I've read that these should be printable even after 300
> years.
Well, just stay in touch with me. I just received a grant to digitally store
and xmit a cache of old glass plates and negatives. It's a rather big
project which will entail scanning the transparencies not only for web
presentation and reprints, but to pull as much detail as possible from some
regarless of the esthetic outcome, rather like survey work. For the later
I'm challenged to pull detail from images through emulsion stains, and my
friend, there are LOTS of stains and artifacts in old transparencies.
And of course, there's a rather special problem - nitrobased films, and
crisp and degenerating, cracked, curled negatives - HUGE issues.
It's issues like these that further compell me to use a larger conventional
film format for important images. I can imagine someone 100 years from today
trying to fathom detail from the poor consumer digital images made today and
earlier. These early days of digital imaging are going to be known as the
desert years of imaging.
John Stafford
at mxsm...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/24/02 4:40 AM:
> "Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
> news: ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Currently, the best digital cameras provide all the resolution and image
> quality you need for a majority of photo applications. You only need to go
> to larger film formats when (1) the image will be viewed from a distance
> closer than the "standard" viewing distance (equal to the diagonal of the
> image, or beyond), or (2) the image will be cropped. In both of these
> special cases, the resolution of digital won't be enough to match the visual
> acuity of the eye, [...]
You are clearly not a documentary photographer, or your standards are very
low for such efforts.
John Stafford
lahi...@ieee.orgies.invalid wrote on 7/24/02 6:01 AM:
> [...]
> The long term worry isn't the permanence of the storage medium, but the
> availability of drives. No magnetic data storage format has lived long.
> When the U.S. Census of 1971 (IIRC) was needed in the 90's, there were
> exactly two (2) drives left that could read the tapes.
Interesting. Sounds more like a claim made by someone trying to extract more
$ from Uncle Sam than it's worth. I'd like to know the format of those
tapes. I have recovered 32-year old tapes made on an obsolete computer as
recently as last year. Tapes are EASY.
Mark Weaver
"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message news:B9641C72.38A1%
>
> It's issues like these that further compell me to use a larger
conventional
> film format for important images. I can imagine someone 100 years from
today
> trying to fathom detail from the poor consumer digital images made today
and
> earlier. These early days of digital imaging are going to be known as the
> desert years of imaging.
>
Right--for example, my son's descendents will certainly not be able to
fathom what their great-grandfather looked like as a boy because of the lack
of detail produced by this poor, consumer-grade digital camera during the
'desert years' of imaging:
http://www.fototime.com/5306F5C5E7135EA/orig.jpg
When I think of the photographs of my own great grandparents (born in the
late 19th century) as children or young adults, there are only a few still
left, they're black and white, generally not-very-interesting studio or
formal group shots, and are generally not in great condition.
What I think will be different in 100 years is that people will have more
excellent, full-color, perfectly preserved images of their local and family
histories, of their ancestors lives than they know what to do with. And it
won't be the case that there will be one only copy of these images that's
passed down (or misplaced or accidentally discarded or left to grow mold in
Aunt Mary's damp basement). Rather, they'll take up next to no space and
cost next to nothing to reproduce, so everybody in the family will have a
complete, perfect set (whether they ever bother to look at them or not is a
different question ;)
Mark
Dick Weld
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > > Expensive
>
> MF is cheaper than professional 35mm digital.
Oh really? Perhaps you could pick up a few cheap Hasselblad lenses for me...
Jeremy 1952
I
> always preferred to take slides and look at them with a projector in a
dark
> room. These days however I can't be bothered with all that projector
> hassle, so I scan them and view them on the computer screen instead. Most
> of my viewing is done on the computer screen, on a 17" monitor, but I plan
> to use larger monitors in the future. This is my preferred method of
> viewing photos.
I embraced digital photography in late 1999, so I could do away with the
slide projectors and paper-based prints. I have found viewing photos on a
monitor to be particularly unsatisfying.
This is a personal choice, obviously. You may be quite happy with the
compressed dynamic range, the lack of detail and the muddy colors.
I can compare the experience with using a cheap mail-order developing
service. The prints are dirt-cheap, and the colors are washed out, there is
an overall gray cast on the photos, the enlarger lenses are lousy, and the
prints are most unsatisfying.
I do not see the point in using fine lenses and name-brand film, only to end
up with a result that is indistinguishable from a $10.00 blister-pack
consumer camera.
Same goes for digital. When comparing a photo on a monitor with its
paper-based print equivalent (or a slide), there is no comparison.
Digital photos are fine for "utility" work--home inventory, snapshots to be
sent out over the Web, pictures of your car after having damaged in an auto
accident--but for anything that you want to keep, I believe that film is
still the domain of choice, and will remain so for some time.
Cheers
Ted Battye
photography, even if it doesn't raise any bars in terms of quality.
Sounds like you have a hair-pulling task ahead of you with the trannies
John, good luck with it!
Ted B.
DarrenH
more complex than that?
Cheers
D
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> So what do I do with my photos? Well I was never too fussed about prints,
I
> always preferred to take slides and look at them with a projector in a
dark
> room. These days however I can't be bothered with all that projector
> hassle, so I scan them and view them on the computer screen instead. Most
> of my viewing is done on the computer screen, on a 17" monitor, but I plan
> to use larger monitors in the future. This is my preferred method of
> viewing photos.
>
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I know there are good reasons to use various different formats of cameras,
>but what I'm really interested in knowing is if there are any good reasons
>why *I personally* need to use a medium format camera. Let me first tell
>you my thoughts on this issue.
...
If you don't know why you would need it, then you don't need it.
Gordon Moat
relatives. The images are from the late 1800s and up through the 1950s. There
are a few glass plates as well, though the worst items are the postcard
converted images without negatives.
I do quite a bit of digital retouching, colour correction, and artefact removal
for my work. My biggest trouble has been finding good film and scanning
combinations for the images, giving the most information to work with. I have
found a few combinations that work fairly well, though they differ a bit
depending upon the original source.
I think that drawing and painting skills help immensely with accomplishing
this. My formal training in art, and specialization in oil painting really is
what makes correction possible. I would imagine you have an artist on your
staff, since digital retouching is quite a bit like drawing and painting, and
requires similar thought processes.
The was an article in the April PDN about Milton Greene. His son, Joshua
Greene, is restoring many of his late fathers photos, many of which have
deteriorated badly. One of the estimates from the article indicated that he
spends nearly twenty hours on each image . . . painstaking work apparently.
This is history, and a part of peoples heritage. I commend you for taking on
such a project. I wish I had more time and resources to devout to my family's
images . . . hopefully in the near future. Best of luck to you.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Paul Saunders
> > c) Equipment reliability. All electronic equipment is at the mercy of
the
> > weather,
>
> I don't know if that's an overgeneralization though.
Maybe, I'm just going by personal experience.
> Have you tried
> a really tough electronic camera like an F5 or EOS-1 (or even an F3)?
Nope. Are pro digital cameras likely to be reliable in adverse conditions?
> Maybe you could consider a Nikon D100 with a 20mm lens. It would have
> about the same wideangle coverage as the GSW690, IIRC. It would cost
> much more than the GSW690, but you wouldn't have to buy film for it.
A little out of my price range at the moment. How cheap do you think pro
digital SLRs will get before the prices bottom out?
> For a bit less than the GSW690 costs, you could get a Coolpix 5000
> with a Nikon wideangle adapter. That would have more wideangle coverage
> and 5 MP, though the images won't be as clean as D100 images.
That's more my price bracket at the moment. I have decided on a Canon G2
with 4MP, that has a wide angle adapter too. Is the Nikon really worth the
extra? I'm sure I read a comparative review of these two cameras and I
wasn't so impressed with the look of the Nikon shots in spite of the extra
resolution.
> > Can I justify the expense of such a camera, including a vastly more
> > expensive scanner to scan the slides?
> You can get pretty good MF scan results from an Epson 2450 Photo flatbed
> scanner which is just $350 or so.
Thanks for pointing this out, I've just read a review of it and it looks
pretty good for the price. I hadn't realised flatbeds had improved so much.
This seems to be a viable low-cost option for scanning my MF trannies.
> You haven't even mentioned an important question, which is how much
> do you shoot?
Typically around 50 shots on a good day, double that on an excellent day.
But even then I'm holding back because of the cost of film. I'd like to be
able to bracket more and take more different compositions of the same scene.
Of course I realise that MF is not suited to high volume work, but I'd be
using different cameras for different purposes. Digital for the machine gun
shots, 35mm for the semi-automatic shots and MF for the sniper rifle shots.
> I've been interested in the GSW690 (or some variant) as well. I'm not
> likely to buy one, but a store near me rents them for $25 a day. I'd
> like to give it a whirl and probably will do so sometime. If you just
> want to get shooting with a GSW690 out of your system every now and
> then, you might use that approach.
I don't know if that option is available to me but it might be worth looking
into.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> > Are you sure about that? I'm sure I've read that CDR isn't reliable
> > beyond 5 years for archive purposes.
>
> Nonsense. With the old cyanine dyes a CD might be able to fade that
quickly
> in heat or sun. Modern phthalocyanine dyes will last at least 25 years or
so
> and could last well over 50 if treated decently.
I'm glad to hear that. Maybe my memory is faulty.
> > > Not "grain" no, but the equivilent - CCD noise
> >
> > But it isn't so bad, is it? Not at ISO 50, surely?
>
> Not at 50-100, but grain isn't bad at those speeds either. However, 50
might
> be TOO low, as CCD noise increases with exposure time.
That's a good point that I hadn't considered. Actually the Canon G2 has a
noise reduction feature that removes noise on shots taken at 1 sec or
slower. It does this by taking two shots, one black, and subtracting the
noise on the black image from the photo. Seems to work well on the sample
shots I've seen.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Gordon Moat
> in article 3D3E4BDD...@attglobal.net, Gordon Moat at
> mo...@attglobal.net wrote on 7/24/02 1:40 AM:
>
> > Honestly, I would rather point you towards digital video. The current crop of
> > 3 chip camcorders have great colour quality.
>
> Sorry, but everyday hands-on use of a quality 3-ccd professional camera
> leads me to far different conclusions. I use the Canon XL-1 at work and I
> find no such quality. Highlights are blown out so easily I'm often forced
> to use contrast filters.
I have used the Canon XL-1 as well for documentary work. I agree with the
assessment that filters are needed. Anyone who thinks that they can just pick one
up and use it without a matte box, and appropriate filters, and get good results
will find poor results. This older model from Canon was a good first attempt, but
is now behind the game in quality.
There are better choices in DV from JVC, Panasonic, and Sony. Most of these better
choices cost more, though the lens choices are also somewhat better in the kit
lenses. The Canon can be greatly improved by going with the 14x manual lens, and
the monochrome viewfinder that allows accurate focusing; however, at that cost
level it is more than the JVC, and almost the same as a couple Panasonic choices.
The Canon XL1-S is a much improved choice. Steven Soderbergh is set to release
Full Frontal soon. Quite a bit of footage originated on XL1-S camcorders.
However, this is delving too much into broadcast video. My comments were directed
at the fact that the original poster viewed his images on a computer monitor. I
got the impression that he was not doing this for a living, implying that he
likely did not have a calibrated monitor. I would also guess that his television
is quite normal, and not a broadcast monitor. With those assumptions, I think it
would be quite fair to guide him towards digital video. Which camcorder, and
system, and at what cost, would be better left to a different News Group (IMHO).
>
>
> Stills? Quality of stills from the camera best approximate blister-packed
> disposable cameras. Or has the technology improved drastically since last
> year?
The stills from the original XL1 are barely usable, but okay for viewing on a
monitor. There are vastly improved stills capabilities from many more video
camcorders new to the market. The XL1 is nearly five years old at this point, and
current chips, and lens systems have improved.
I would not be making many letter sized prints from these, but viewing on a
monitor, and sending images over e-mail are well within the capabilities of many
digital video camcorders. Since these were the primary uses expressed by the
original poster, I still recommend he investigate digital video. Besides, his
interest in saving money with photography meant that he expressed little interest
in printing shots, since printing raises the cost of his hobby.
The technology has improved since last year. Recent offerings from Sony,
Panasonic, JVC, and Canon were introduced at the NAB convention recently. Some of
the same chips used in digital video cameras also get used in some digital still
cameras, usually with no more than a software change, though obviously the lenses
are different.
Another thing is that the original poster expressed an interest in panoramic
images. The built in wide screen feature, or better than that an anamorphic (16:9)
adapter, make wide panorama stills easy to shoot with many digital video
camcorders.
Another factor is that since television technology changes slowly, an investment
in digital video would retain more value, and be an easier resale than digital
still equipment. New items are introduced at the same rate for both types, but the
delivery platform of video changes much more slowly. I think the HD sets are still
several years away from being affordable and common in most homes.
Paul Saunders
> I simply find it gratifying that using MF just plain pisses off just the
> kind of people I wouldn't like anyway.
LOL! Yeah, that's a good reason...
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> The advantage of medium and large format is and has always been better
> tonality than can be acheived by 35 mm or affordable digital cameras. I
> have and love a 5 mb digital that is capable of making very high quality
13
> x 17 images, but it is not the equal to my medium format cameras, and not
> even close to my 4x5's, in terms of tonality. JackM
These 13x17 images that you make from your digital camera? How do you print
them? On a photo quality inkjet?
How do you compare those images to your MF shots? Do you scan them and
print them on the same printer?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> It sounds to me like you've made up your mind.
No, just looking for good reasons to use it.
> The GSW690III has a 65mm lens which is approximately equal to
> a 26mm lens on a 35mm camera so that would do a decent job of giving you
the
> wide angle you like.
Yes, wide angle and fine detail.
> As to image quality a print made from a medium format negative (I shoot
6x7)
> surpasses that of 35mm at ANY size.
Does this apply to quality inkjet prints from scans, or only to
conventionally printed photographs? I'm not interested in the latter
because Photoshop is my darkroom now, so the output has to be digital.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Honestly, I would rather point you towards digital video. The current crop
of 3
> chip camcorders have great colour quality. You can store lots of still
images
> onto cheap tape (miniDV), and whenever you want more, you can record
motion and
> sound.
I'll be honest, I have no interest in video. I tried it once and hated it,
couldn't wait to get back to stills.
> This I think is much more interesting viewing on a monitor or computer
> screen, and the still images from the camcorder have more than enough
> resolution for any 17" monitor.
Only 17" at the moment, I want bigger. And they will get bigger. I'm
thinking of the future here, hopefully one day we'll have massive monitors
with huge resolutions.
> Also, you can just play back like a slide show
> for your friends, by playing back through your television.
My television is smaller than my monitor... :-) I don't care for TV much.
> When it comes time to print something on your inkjet printer, you can
easily
> upsize a digital video still using Genuine Fractels, or just PhotoShop,
and you
> should get acceptable results.
No, I don't want acceptable results, I want great results.
> The 35 mm format is easily the most flexible.
Currently my preferred format.
> With Medium Format, the main advantages are better colour quality,
Why is the colour better if the film used is the same?
> If you
> rarely make large prints, or are not selling image, working in a studio
> situation, or in general making money off your shots, then your money may
be
> better spent elsewhere.
I would like to sell images.
> If you can make money off your images, then MF may be the way to go. There
are
> many Art Buyers, Art Directors, and publishers that remain more impressed
by MF
> chromes than anything smaller.
Of course there's the catch 22 situation of needing to sell the images to
get the money to buy the cameras to take the images...
Assuming I could make money out of my 35mm shots, would my options increase
significantly by adding MF to my repertoire?
> So you should decide if this is a hobby, or if you think you want to try
to
> make money from your photography.
No, it's not just a hobby, I want to make money from it. I did go freelance
once but failed miserably. Not because of my photos, but because I have no
business sense. I have no problems taking the photos, I'm just useless when
it comes to selling them.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> My comments were directed
> at the fact that the original poster viewed his images on a computer
monitor. I
> got the impression that he was not doing this for a living, implying that
he
> likely did not have a calibrated monitor.
It most certainly is calibrated. I know it's not very big, but the quality
is pretty good. I do need something bigger though.
> viewing on a
> monitor, and sending images over e-mail are well within the capabilities
of many
> digital video camcorders. Since these were the primary uses expressed by
the
> original poster,
Primary, but not exclusively. Quality (resolution) is very important to me,
particularly with a view to the much larger, higher resolution monitors that
we're bound to have in the future. I would also like to have large prints
made of my best shots, although not that many in percentage terms.
> I still recommend he investigate digital video. Besides, his
> interest in saving money with photography meant that he expressed little
interest
> in printing shots, since printing raises the cost of his hobby.
My reasoning here is that if I get a digital camera I can then take all my
snapshots, record shots, experimental shots and normal shots at no cost.
This will save me a lot of money that I currently spend on film. Money that
I can put to better use elsewhere.
For example, shooting one 35mm roll of Velvia might result in three or four
snapshots, perhaps four really good shots and the rest would be "normal"
shots (i.e. interesting to me but of little real value to anyone else).
With all three formats I might take a dozen digital snaps, 30 to 40 "normal"
digital photos, perhaps a dozen good shots on 35mm (wide angles &
telephotos) and four really good shots on MF.
The net result would be more photos in total, but less cost overall, and the
best shots would be in the best format. Some of those digital photos could
go online immediately, not having to wait for the film shots to be developed
and scanned.
> Another thing is that the original poster expressed an interest in
panoramic
> images. The built in wide screen feature, or better than that an
anamorphic (16:9)
> adapter, make wide panorama stills easy to shoot with many digital video
> camcorders.
So how much would such a "panoramic" video cost, and what would the
resolution be?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Jeremy 1952
> recently as last year. Tapes are EASY.
>
like you. After reading up on it, I have done an about-face.
The topic is too exhaustive for me to post anything meaningful here. But,
as a beginning, have a look at this link. You may find it to be an
eye-opener.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub80-smith/pub80.html#preservation
Paul Saunders
> >Actually I was thinking of investing in a printer that uses archival
quality
> >inks.
>
> But with digital why worry about longevity? Simply reprint when the
> photo fades.
Not really practical. I'd rather just print it once and be done with it.
> Of course you don't want to do this every couple of months
> but my experience is that it's nothing like that, more like a year on
> the latest inks/papers. I wish some of my old 35mm heirlooms shot by my
> dad (negative lost) had not faded - the problem is not unique to
> digital.
Have you read about the latest archival quality inks? 200 years apparently,
check this out;
http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/7356.html
> Having sold all my 35mm equipment and now gone digital there are 2
> things I miss:
>
> 1. Wide angle. I loved using my 18-24mm lens.
I couldn't live without wide angle.
> 2. Aspect ratio. 4:3 is different to 3:2 and the occasions I go back to
> 35mm cameras I love the 3:2.
Yep, I like that too, I'd prefer 2:1 in fact!
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> I like image quality. Earlier this year I tried to decide between digital
> and MF. Digital cost about $8000 and provided me with 2/3 the quality of
> 35mm; MF cost half that and provided me with about four times the quality
of
> 35mm. Needless to say, I ended up going with MF.
That's a good argument.
> > But do I really need this camera?
>
> Do any of us really need any camera?
:-)
> > But would I really notice the difference in an A3
> > print?
>
> Yes. I see a difference even on inkjet prints.
That's what I really wanted to know. Is the difference that obvious?
> > c) Medium Format. You tell me! I can't think of
> > a convincingly good reason...
>
> There isn't one, unless you need very big enlargements that will be
examined
> from close range, and/or aggressively cropped images.
Maybe I should start making very big enlargements and create a good reason
for MF.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote
>
> > My comments were directed
> > at the fact that the original poster viewed his images on a computer
> monitor. I
> > got the impression that he was not doing this for a living, implying that
> he
> > likely did not have a calibrated monitor.
>
> It most certainly is calibrated. I know it's not very big, but the quality
> is pretty good. I do need something bigger though.
By calibration, I did not mean quality, nor the accuracy of the monitor out of
the box. If you are using something beyond Adobe Gamma, or ColorSync software,
then you are truly calibrating your monitor. A Pantone ColorVision Spyder with
PhotoCAL would be a good example. The reasons for using a solution like this
would be to preparation an image for printing (press, not inkjet), which is
much more technical than simple RGB to CMYK conversion.
I am sure that you have a great computer monitor, but many colours used in
printing are not visible on a monitor. This is were colour correction comes in,
and why monitor calibration is needed.
>
>
> > viewing on a
> > monitor, and sending images over e-mail are well within the capabilities
> of many
> > digital video camcorders. Since these were the primary uses expressed by
> the
> > original poster,
>
> Primary, but not exclusively. Quality (resolution) is very important to me,
> particularly with a view to the much larger, higher resolution monitors that
> we're bound to have in the future. I would also like to have large prints
> made of my best shots, although not that many in percentage terms.
It would depend upon how large the prints would be, and what you would consider
as acceptable. Objects with more straight lines, especially diagonals, do not
reproduce well at large outputs, unless you are willing to soften the edges a
bit to minimize stairstepping artefacts. There are some software tricks to do
to the image to improve output, but no way to add information that was not
originally captured. Also, the dot gain of inkjet printing sometimes is
sufficient to soften edges, and can also minimize the appearance of artefacts.
>
>
> > I still recommend he investigate digital video. Besides, his
> > interest in saving money with photography meant that he expressed little
> interest
> > in printing shots, since printing raises the cost of his hobby.
>
> My reasoning here is that if I get a digital camera I can then take all my
> snapshots, record shots, experimental shots and normal shots at no cost.
I think you mean no additional cost, unless someone gave you the camera and
computer as a gift, in which case good for you. ;-)
>
> This will save me a lot of money that I currently spend on film. Money that
> I can put to better use elsewhere.
>
> For example, shooting one 35mm roll of Velvia might result in three or four
> snapshots, perhaps four really good shots and the rest would be "normal"
> shots (i.e. interesting to me but of little real value to anyone else).
> With all three formats I might take a dozen digital snaps, 30 to 40 "normal"
> digital photos, perhaps a dozen good shots on 35mm (wide angles &
> telephotos) and four really good shots on MF.
Seems like you shoot quite a bit of shots. High volume without being able to
offset the cost by doing this for a living, makes for an expensive hobby.
Digital would be a better practice system. You could always keep a film camera
to go back and take another shot, if you really want a large output.
Any large output is expensive, whether film or inkjet. Desktop Epson printers
that handle 13" by 19" paper (high quality inkjet paper), would use quite a bit
of the ink cartridges for a full colour, full sized output, and hopefully
nobody touches it before it dries, and no computer glitch or misfeed.
Large film outputs are also not terribly cheap, at least for a hobbyist on a
budget. The Fuji Frontier, and other systems can produce some nice enlargements
from film, though some of the places that have them also accept digital files
via CD-R. Kodak and AGFA make similar systems. You may want to check in your
area to see what specifications the labs may want, and at what costs. It may
end up cheaper in the long run than an inkjet.
>
> > Another thing is that the original poster expressed an interest in
> panoramic
> > images. The built in wide screen feature, or better than that an
> anamorphic (16:9)
> > adapter, make wide panorama stills easy to shoot with many digital video
> > camcorders.
>
> So how much would such a "panoramic" video cost, and what would the
> resolution be?
Take a look at <http://www.canondv.com/optura100mc/index.html> for an idea of
the low end. This one is capable of 1,280 x 960 in JPEG. There is a JVC for
under $US 1200 that does 1600 x 1200, and new choices almost every month. To
compare, many of these low end models are 1.3 to 2 megapixel stills capable
(most for less than $US 2000). Obviously, spending more gets into better
lenses, more features, better batteries, better audio, etc. You can judge these
against your normal monitor resolution for screen viewing, though televisions
are quite a bit less resolution.
I was also thinking that if you shoot high volume, then you are likely not at
the maximum quality setting of a digital still camera. Having more memory cards
would help, but these are not cheap. Therefore, the resolutions are getting
very close to the capabilities of digital camcorders, and maybe close enough to
make it a good choice.
Many of the lower end camcorders offer 16:9 wide screen, which is panoramic.
Mostly this is done with on camera software, or by cropping the captured image.
There are some companies that make lens attachments that do the same without
cropping the image area, though which one to get depends upon the camcorder
being used. Kenko, Sony, and Canon sell some lower cost adapters, similar to
items for digital still cameras. More money into Century Precision Optics
adapters will get better glass (real glass, not plastic), and yield better
results.
In the $4000 to $10000 (US) range, there are interchangeable lens digital video
camcorders. Models from JVC, Canon, and Panasonic are quite good. Sony
interchangeable lens systems are mostly a bit more expensive. These are usually
large enough to not be very portable, and less of a consideration for a
hobbyist.
Anyway, the simple answer is that the resolution is quite good for e-mail,
monitor viewing, and even television. Some tricks would be needed for large
prints, like Genuine Fractels or similar.
Huib Smeets
you don't need MF
If you only want to take pictures to look at them on a monitor a
digitalcamera will do fine, lets see, you'll buy a 21" monitor, probably
capable of displaying 1600x1200 pixel (and maybe even more) 1600 times 1200
is 1920000 pixels, thus a 2.1 megpixel camera is already sufficient or buy a
3.3 megapixel camera and you'll have room for some cropping.
Huib
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
news:ahl18e$vb3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:
> I know there are good reasons to use various different formats of
> cameras, but what I'm really interested in knowing is if there are any
> good reasons why *I personally* need to use a medium format camera.
> Let me first tell you my thoughts on this issue.
>
> 1. Digital vs. film.
>
> Digital is obviously the format of the future. It's still in its early
> stages of development but eventually it's going to make film more or
> less obsolete, for all but the most die-hard photographers. One does
> wonder how available film will be when digital really does take over,
> but I don't that's going to happen just yet.
>
> For myself, I'm happy to embrace the advantages of digital, but I'm not
> ready to give up film for the immediately foreseeable future. Even
> when digital resolutions become sufficiently large, there are still
> good reasons to use film.
>
> Three that spring to mind are;
>
> a) Colour characteristics. There's something about the colour of
> Velvia for example which is really special, and scanners don't seem to
> be able to capture it very well, especially the rich greens.
>
> b) Long term storage. Although digital is infinitely copyable with no
> quality loss, current storage media are far more fragile. I'd sooner
> trust film than a CDR for the immediate future at least.
>
> c) Equipment reliability. All electronic equipment is at the mercy of
> the weather, and can cease to function in adverse weather conditions
> difference on a computer screen. But would I really notice the
> difference in an A3 print? Can I justify the expense of such a camera,
> including a vastly more expensive scanner to scan the slides? Would it
> make a difference professionally? Would publishers be more eager to
> buy a 6x9 photo than an identical one taken on 35mm?
>
> To sum up, the best use I can see for each of the three formats is as
> follows;
>
> a) Digital. Great for snapshots, record shots, test shots,
> experimental shots, panoramic shots and "normal" shots. Would save me
> a lot of money on film and probably be a lot of fun to use since
> there'd be no cost to worry about.
>
> b) 35mm. Still the best choice for taking my most important shots.
> Wider angles and longer telephotos. More permanent storage medium in
> the short term. Good for use in adverse weather conditions where
> digital might prove unreliable.
>
> c) Medium Format. You tell me! I can't think of a convincingly good
> reason...
>
Gordon Moat
we go:
Paul Saunders wrote:
> Only 17" at the moment, I want bigger. And they will get bigger. I'm
> thinking of the future here, hopefully one day we'll have massive monitors
> with huge resolutions.
They are available now, but the cost is still high. There are also monitor
walls, but those require dedicated systems, at an even higher cost.
>
> > Also, you can just play back like a slide show
> > for your friends, by playing back through your television.
>
> My television is smaller than my monitor... :-) I don't care for TV much.
Interesting . . . I do not watch much TV either . . . .
>
>
> > When it comes time to print something on your inkjet printer, you can
> easily
> > upsize a digital video still using Genuine Fractels, or just PhotoShop,
> and you
> > should get acceptable results.
>
> No, I don't want acceptable results, I want great results.
Then more resolution and more colour information are the answers. This is also
a situation in which more quality costs you more. The options include digital
backs for MF, and film scanners. At least with the digital backs, you can
upgrade just the back in the future, and avoid film costs, but I think
depreciation would be similar to 35 mm based digital still cameras.
Rollei just introduced a 56 mm by 56 mm chip digital back for the 6008 and
6003. I am not sure of the cost, but the results should be great. Something
less may be more acceptable, considering the cost.
Film and drum scanners enjoy a longer working life span, due to capturing of
more colour information, better dynamic range, and higher resolution. These
also mean larger file sizes, requiring more RAM, and fast computers to avoid
waiting for each image to scan and load up. Generally, the greater capability
than dedicated digital still systems keeps them usable for longer, until
digital still systems reach those capabilities. . . but then again, film
scanners continue to improve as well.
>
>
> > The 35 mm format is easily the most flexible.
>
> Currently my preferred format.
Probably my most used, including film scanning. I still enjoy larger formats,
mostly because of the better colour tonality.
>
>
> > With Medium Format, the main advantages are better colour quality,
>
> Why is the colour better if the film used is the same?
Check this technical publication with the heading "Cropping the Image":
<http://www.kodak.com/country/RU/ru/professional/support/techPubs/e58/e58.shtml#1006048>
It explains it quite well with regard to grain, though that is only one issue.
The statement for the same document mentions "The poorer the lens and focus,
the less graininess will be observed in prints.", which can be taken many ways.
The whole article is very informative, but just a look at the bottom tables can
tell quite a bit. With a 4" by 6" print, the grain is nearly the same with
Portra 160NC on 35 mm as it is with Portra 400NC on Medium Format, and even
less from a 4" by 5" camera. There is a bit in this article relating grain,
image quality, and colour quality as well.
Colour quality is also dependant upon enlargement. This is simply the result of
starting with more information from a larger capture area, in which case MF
gear has a larger amount of colour information, including more information of
transitions between colours.
Inkjet, and some dye sublimation, printers can confuse the printing issues a
bit. The spread of the ink can soften areas of the print, and at some print
sizes, it may be tough to see much of a quality difference between digital
capture, and scanned images. This also depends quite a bit on the scanner,
which can make quite a difference. Additionally, you get what you pay for with
printers most of the time, and more expensive systems are really quite good.
Interesting article here:
<http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/contone.shtml>
And check out some of the other information at the links on the side of this
page. Fuji has some similar information, as do AGFA, but Kodak is a bit more
extensive.
>
>
> > If you
> > rarely make large prints, or are not selling image, working in a studio
> > situation, or in general making money off your shots, then your money may
> be
> > better spent elsewhere.
>
> I would like to sell images.
A medium format transparency can be quite impressive. When meeting some clients
in person, a laptop may provide a useful display for images, but often prints
are better choices. Build a portfolio targeting the type of shooting you would
like to do. Read PDN, if you can get a copy, since they have lots of articles
about digital images (scanned or direct).
I carry a small battery powered portable light table. It is perfect for showing
chromes to a potential client. The 35 mm images usually need a loupe, which is
not always convenient. Having a 645 chrome (or larger) means that no loupe is
needed, since they are easier to view. You should be able to visit some camera
stores and see similar examples to judge this for yourself.
You could just take prints, though I have found that they are best in a book.
This avoids them being handled and damaged, or smudged, or dropped. Taking both
prints and chromes keeps you prepared for either type of viewing. I rarely
power up the laptop to show images, unless the work involves image
manipulation, and I want to make a point about that.
>
>
> > If you can make money off your images, then MF may be the way to go. There
> are
> > many Art Buyers, Art Directors, and publishers that remain more impressed
> by MF
> > chromes than anything smaller.
>
> Of course there's the catch 22 situation of needing to sell the images to
> get the money to buy the cameras to take the images...
Yeah . . . it is a tough life, but rewarding on a creative level. I also do
design and illustration, though photography is most of my income. Used gear
helps, as does rental gear availability.
>
>
> Assuming I could make money out of my 35mm shots, would my options increase
> significantly by adding MF to my repertoire?
Absolutely, though I would recommend that you practice more with 35 mm (or
digital). That way you can keep the costs down, and go back to repeat really
good compositions with MF gear.
>
>
> > So you should decide if this is a hobby, or if you think you want to try
> to
> > make money from your photography.
>
> No, it's not just a hobby, I want to make money from it. I did go freelance
> once but failed miserably. Not because of my photos, but because I have no
> business sense. I have no problems taking the photos, I'm just useless when
> it comes to selling them.
I know the feeling. It would be nice to attract an agent, and get away from so
much of the business aspects, and leave more time for the work. Watch your
costs, know your rights, and let everyone know what you want to do for a
living. Build an on-line gallery. Print up a portfolio (sometimes called your
"book"); twenty really good pieces would be a good start.
Really try to get a copy of PDN. The on-line is here:
This is really a great resource for professional shooters. There are some good
books as well. Making contacts is the hard part, then you need to back it up
with images. Try lots of different areas of photography to start, though you
may find you need to specialize a bit more later. The specialization may define
your gear and your shooting choices in the future.
Learn PhotoShop really well. Learn about printing issues (press, not inkjet,
not newspaper) and colour correction. Understand scanning, and know how direct
digital compares. Learn how to take advantage of any format, and get the best
out of each. Versatility can make you more valuable to prospective clients.
Good luck, and feel free to ask lots of questions.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
Jack
is a 13x17 image. After doing my thing in PhotoShop which usually includes
converting to a B&W RGB image, and "smart" unsharp masking, I either take it
to 200ppi using Stair Interpolation then have a LightJet print made, or give
it to the print shop at 150ppi and let the LightJet software take it to
300ppi and have a LightJet print made. My print shop (Hamilton Color Lab in
Omaha) prints out my B&W images on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. The tonality
is at least as good--better I think--that I can acheive with Ilford
MultiGrade IV in my darkroom. The 13x17's are tack sharp this way. I have
done 16x20's this way which are surprisingly sharp. Obviously, this doesn't
leave room for cropping, that MUST be done in the camera to get these large
prints.
I don't have a printer capable of making anthing larger than 8x10. For
8x10's, I get best results from my printer (HP P1000) by setting the image
to 600ppi using SI then printing at 2400dpi. The images are extremely
sharp--look like an 8x10 contact print.
I scan some of my medium format negs into PhotoShop at 1200ppi, but have not
been real happy with them, mostly for two reasons. 1) A surprising amount
of dust shows up in the scans, which means I obviously need to improve
something there. However, this dust never seems to be a problem in the
darkroom, only in scans. 2) The scans, even with sharpening, never seem to
have the same crispness that the digital images have. It is subjective, but
they just seem to be dull, even after lots of work in PhotoShop. This
could, of course, be simply a need for a better scanner. I have never had a
medium or large format neg professionally scanned for comparison.
For whatever reason, however, scans of 4x5 negatives seem to come out fine,
probably because there is less enlargement. 1200ppi scans of 4x5 negs
results in 75MB files. Therefore, I like to think of my 4x5 as my "25MB
digital camera".
JackM
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahmp0k$fvs$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jack
feel I need to add some additional comments. When I said the MF tonality is
better than the 5MG digital, I meant compared to conventional darkroom-made
MF prints, not prints made from MF negs I have scanned. This could be,
however, simply because my scanner isn't quite up to snuff. I would
seriously recommend you consider LF rather than MF. The costs are probably
less and the need for high quality scans much less. Extremely high quality
prints can be made from 4x5 negs scanned at 1200ppi.
JackM
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahmp9s$3bn$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
John Stafford
at wea...@nospam-corvusdev.com wrote on 7/24/02 9:39 AM:
> Right--for example, my son's descendents will certainly not be able to
> fathom what their great-grandfather looked like as a boy because of the lack
> of detail produced by this poor, consumer-grade digital camera during the
> 'desert years' of imaging:
>
> http://www.fototime.com/5306F5C5E7135EA/orig.jpg
Nice effect, the loading of color after the gray scale. I like that very
much.
But you know I'm speaking of documentary photos, evidentiary things, long
shots, etc. Maybe quantity will make up for singularly high resolution
images, but already I know so many folks who have lost their digital images,
and we are talking about the average folk here.
John Stafford
mo...@attglobal.net wrote on 7/24/02 11:33 AM:
> I have done a bit of similar work. Most of this was old photos for my family
> relatives. The images are from the late 1800s and up through the 1950s. There
> are a few glass plates as well, though the worst items are the postcard
> converted images without negatives.
>
> I do quite a bit of digital retouching, colour correction, and artefact
> removal
> for my work.[...]
It is hard work to do it properly, isn't it? My years as a traditional
photographer helped when I first started the digital thing (when Photoshop
first came out), but we _are_ finally doing things with PS and plugins that
really cannot be accomplished using traditional processes, although it still
takes a critical eye to do right and the methods remain controvercial - for
example, it has been suggested that for historical research purposes it is
important to reproduce the original negative as closely as possible, kinks,
wrinkles, mistakes, stains and everything, including print data records of
the imaag, and carefully document the process - and THEN make the improved
image. It rather takes the fun out of it, but that's probably why they call
the project WORK. :)
Jack
Jeremy, I think you may be very pleasantly surprised what a modern 5-6 MB
camera, some skillful PhotoShop work, and outputting with a high end
LightJet printer can do. JackM
"Jeremy 1952" <jer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dz%8.712$Ky3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John Sheehy
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>That's a good point that I hadn't considered. Actually the Canon G2 has a
>noise reduction feature that removes noise on shots taken at 1 sec or
>slower. It does this by taking two shots, one black, and subtracting the
>noise on the black image from the photo. Seems to work well on the sample
>shots I've seen.
The Sony F707 does that too in full manual and shutter-priority modes,
although it only does it at 2.5s or longer.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
John Stafford
mo...@attglobal.net wrote on 7/24/02 12:04 PM:
>[... snip the good stuff... please see article]
> Another thing is that the original poster expressed an interest in panoramic
> images. The built in wide screen feature, or better than that an anamorphic
> (16:9)
> adapter, make wide panorama stills easy to shoot with many digital video
> camcorders.
Yes, it makes it much easier and certainly suitable for screen
presentations. I think there is great potential in that kind of work.
FWIW, I had a project to do huge, high-resolution documentary panoramics
from scanned MF negatives (SWC images) but had to put it on hold when I
found that my favorite program, QTVR-A would not take the large scans. This
isn not a slam on the product, which I believe to be the finest. One MF
maven in this group forwareded very helpful, undocumented information
regarding a work-around that will definitely suffice, so next year if I can
get a grant (or maybe regardless), I'll take it up again.
But I still prefer MF for documentary panoramic work. And if I were better
with a 5x4, I'd go bigger yet. But I must say my personal limitations make
MF adequate. For me. For now. Until someone wants to pay me to do LF. :)
Paul Saunders
> I have found viewing photos on a
> monitor to be particularly unsatisfying.
Sounds like you don't have a very good monitor.
> This is a personal choice, obviously. You may be quite happy with the
> compressed dynamic range, the lack of detail and the muddy colors.
In fact, it sounds like you've got a terrible monitor!
> I can compare the experience with using a cheap mail-order developing
> service. The prints are dirt-cheap, and the colors are washed out, there
is
> an overall gray cast on the photos, the enlarger lenses are lousy, and the
> prints are most unsatisfying.
Jeez, is your monitor really that bad?
> I do not see the point in using fine lenses and name-brand film, only to
end
> up with a result that is indistinguishable from a $10.00 blister-pack
> consumer camera.
I think you need a new monitor...
:-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> There are some factors you have not mentioned
> (knowing you from elsewhere)
>
> 1) Portability
> as you travel large distances on foot, carrying everything.
Yes, this is an important issue, and most of the time the ascent is more of
a killer than the distance. Carrying a lot of weight uphill is way harder
than on flat ground. And as you know I like my uphills. That's why I
thought a Fuji GSW690 would be a good choice. Alternatively perhaps a small
6x6 system, like a Bronica, with just 3 lenses maybe? Any other suggestions
for a relatively small lightweight (and low cost) MF setup, preferably with
a choice of a few lenses, including a very wide?
> 2) Battery life
> you are often away for up to a week at a time with no access to a
> charger/electricity/shops.
For digital this means lots of memory cards. The battery in the G2 is
supposed to last a helluva long time, four or five hundred shots I think.
> 3) reliability
> you are often out in all weathers including overnight so
> damp/rain/mist/heat/cold are all an issue for you.
Indeed. That's one reason why I don't want to rely on digital, and why it
may be quite unsuitable for certain types of weather (unless I get an
underwater housing for it).
> Actually if you truly only plan to use the images on screen with an
> occasional print and you address 2 and 3 above then digital would
> appear to suit your needs.
It would definitely suit a lot of my needs, in particular saving money on
film. If I spent less on film I could afford to make more than the
"occasional" print. In fact, large high quality prints are starting to
sound more and more appealing the more I think about it.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
JackBlack
snapshots to your heart's content... :) You want something quick and dirty,
which is just fine; there's nothing wrong with that. Scanning, retouching,
printing, and experimenting with my 35mm and MF transparencies are half the
fun (well, maybe less than half the fun, but you get the point) for me...
MF isn't for snapshots; without sounding snooty, I personally take MF as
more of an artistic approach to the medium than digital or 35mm. I take a
lot of 35mm transparency, but more often than not I tend to return to the
scene from great shots with a couple different MF cameras and work on
getting great shots from the simple 35mm shots I've already taken. I'll
take an hour or more setting up for a good shot with MF; with 35mm, I'll
tend to take a bunch of different shots (the shotgun approach) rather than
taking the time to take the RIGHT shot... ;-)
Digital has grain (or "noise", as another poster noted); digital costs money
for the prints. If you only look at a picture on the computer screen, then
you'll NEVER see the true quality of the image whether you're using MF,
35mm, or even high-res digital. You're only going to get so much out of a
screen: it'll never be photo quality. Period.
Film vs digital media (CDR): I'd take digital medium (CDR, DAT, etc) ANY DAY
over film, because we all know film fades over time, can get scratched, or
whatever. That doesn't mean I'll stop shooting film: I've been the digital
route, and it just wasn't right for me. I scan in my best shots in the
highest res I can, save an archival permanent, and carefully archive the
transparency. Chances are the transparency and digital permanent will last
longer than my scanners!! ;-)
When I first started in MF (with 6x6) I absolutely fell in love with it:
great quality, larger transparencies mean better quality scans and larger
prints, and I discovered that I was being a lot more patient when it came to
taking the shot. This has made me a better photographer, and I enjoy myself
a lot more than before.
Anywho, you asked for it... ;-)
Jack
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Mxsmanic
de news: 3D3E8832...@ieee.orgies.invalid...
> Digital is still far behind in dynamic range.
No ... most current digicams are behind in dynamic range, but the
fundamental CCD technology they use is not. CCDs can capture 17 stops or
so, if they pixels are large (i.e., a large sensor), and if the CCD is
actively refrigerated.
> If your exposure isn't just right, you've lost
> either bright or dark end.
Again, this is a voluntary limitation of camera design, not a technological
limitation.
Mxsmanic
x_y%8.347904$vq.19...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> When I think of the photographs of my own great
> grandparents (born in the late 19th century) as
> children or young adults, there are only a few
> still left, they're black and white, generally
> not-very-interesting studio or formal group shots,
> and are generally not in great condition.
Still true today.
Conversely, there are nice Kodachromes around that are half a century old
and still look great.
In part it depends on how much you spend on the original image capture.
Mxsmanic
3D3EBEF4...@weldcommunications.com...
> Oh really? Perhaps you could pick up a few
> cheap Hasselblad lenses for me...
A Hasselblad kit can be had for as little as half the price of a D1x, and
typically for $2400 less or so even in the worst case.
Mxsmanic
B9641CE7.38A2%jo...@stafford.net...
> You are clearly not a documentary photographer,
> or your standards are very low for such efforts.
The statements I've made hold true for any type of photography intended for
viewing by human beings. The limiting factor is human vision in most cases,
not the type of photography used.
Mxsmanic
news: ahmsv2$it2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> That's what I really wanted to know. Is the
> difference that obvious?
No, it's not very obvious at all, mainly because the resolution of inkjet
printers is really low (only about 150 ppi--that 2880 dpi stuff concerns the
number of ink dots on paper, but it requires many dots to form each pixel).
The printer does not really exhaust the quality of either 35mm or MF at A3
size. However, the MF image is a bit sharper and smoother, if you look
closely. On a high-resolution print (a true 300 ppi dye-sub or chemical
print, for example), the difference would be much more evident, although I
still don't think it would really hit you in the face that much, depending
on your viewing distance. For larger enlargements or closer viewing
distances, the difference really does start to stick out.
> Maybe I should start making very big enlargements
> and create a good reason for MF.
Well, MF is nice, even if you don't need it. The MF scans I'm fiddling with
tonight are very, very nice. They are 170 times larger than what will fit
on a typical computer screen--the equivalent of a wall-mural-sized
enlargement.
for7
I use my Fuji GA645 for snapshots all the time. Awesome snapshots too :)
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
John Stafford
at mxsm...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/24/02 7:30 PM:
Permit me to use some American English: Bull Fucking Shit.
Speaking from the 'future', you cannot anticipate the possible future value
of the detail you throw away today.
Mxsmanic
> Permit me to use some American English: Bull
> Fucking Shit.
You'll have to come up with something other than ad hominem to persuade me.
The physiology of human vision is fixed. It will not improve in the future.
Therefore any photographic method that fully satisfies the capabilities of
human vision will be adequate forever. For full-frame images at standard
viewing distances, both 35mm and MF qualify (as does LF, of course), and the
best digital images do as well.
That's why digital is doing well: It's not as good as 35mm or MF, but it's
good enough for human vision, in most applications.
Mike
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:58:38 -0500, John Stafford <jo...@stafford.net>
wrote:
John Stafford
at mxsm...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/24/02 8:22 PM:
> "John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> B964B76D.394F%jo...@stafford.net...
>
>> Permit me to use some American English: Bull
>> Fucking Shit.
>
> You'll have to come up with something other than ad hominem to persuade me.
Okay. Yer ugly, too.
> The physiology of human vision is fixed. It will not improve in the future.
True, but DEMANDs and expectations will change. Just as they have throughout
history. Live for the moment or think.
> Therefore any photographic method that fully satisfies the capabilities of
> human vision will be adequate forever.
Speak for yourself. Your poor self.
Paul Saunders
> Sounds to me like you should just get a point-and-shoot digital
Actually, I never point-and-shoot. I check perspective, move, recheck,
move, etc, attach monopod or set up tripod if necessary, point, check
exposure, check with separate hand held meter or spot meter if necessary,
select desired aperture and shutter speed, zoom/compose, focus, brace if
necessary, then shoot.
Even for snaps I still check exposure, move, compose and focus, because I
never, ever take photos on automatic. I don't even own any automatic
cameras, I can't stand the things. All my cameras are totally manual with
mechanical shutters.
> and take snapshots to your heart's content... :)
Ugh, I hate snapshots, I mainly take them for other people's benefit.
> You want something quick and dirty,
No I don't, I think you and a few others have misunderstood where I'm coming
from. I would indeed like something quick (I enjoy working in fast changing
light and I'm always on the move, which makes tripods and MF a problem) but
I want the highest quality possible, working within the limitation of a very
tight budget. That doesn't stop me using Provia F and Velvia exclusively
though.
My main problem is that I spend too much on film. That's where my interest
in digital stems from. If I buy a decent digital camera I can take all my
less important shots on that, which would save me a lot of money which could
be better spent elsewhere.
> Scanning, retouching,
Yes, I enjoy that.
> printing,
Printing from digital is something I haven't got into yet, this is why I'm
uncertain of the potential quality benefits of MF over 35mm, and to a lesser
extent digital (anything worth printing I plan to take on film). I'm
thinking primarily A3 size with a good inkjet after processing in Photoshop.
> and experimenting with my 35mm and MF transparencies ...
... is expensive. I rather thought that a digital camera would be a good
medium for experimentation, particularly with exposures for difficult shots,
assuming that the ISO settings and dynamic range on the digital camera are
at least comparable with my film cameras.
> MF isn't for snapshots;
I'd never dream of using it for that purpose.
> without sounding snooty, I personally take MF as
> more of an artistic approach to the medium than digital or 35mm.
That's *exactly* what I want to spend more time doing, taking artistic
shots! They've always comprised a very small percentage of my repertoire in
the past but my interest in arty shots has increased considerably lately. I
realise that such shots are not terribly compatible with my normal shooting
style, but I'm prepared to make compromises, and I do actually enjoy all the
tripod and spot metering stuff when I can spare the time.
> I take a
> lot of 35mm transparency, but more often than not I tend to return to the
> scene from great shots with a couple different MF cameras and work on
> getting great shots from the simple 35mm shots I've already taken.
Now that's a big problem for me, returning to the scene. For two reasons.
Firstly, because I often have to travel (i.e. walk) a long way to get to
many of the scenes I photograph, so returning is very inefficient in terms
of time and effort, and secondly, because the lighting is never the same
twice. I'm fascinated by changing light and cloud conditions. Many of my
best shots are opportunistic in nature, so by definition, I can't go back
and take them again. Photographs which don't depend on unique light and
clouds are not a problem, but such shots are not usually amongst my best.
> I'll
> take an hour or more setting up for a good shot with MF; with 35mm, I'll
> tend to take a bunch of different shots (the shotgun approach) rather than
> taking the time to take the RIGHT shot... ;-)
Now this is usually a problem for me. Although I can spare some time
setting up the tripod for a good shot, I don't have that luxury with every
shot. The bottom line is that I'm a hillwalker. I often have to walk many
miles to get to various locations and many more miles to get back. Walking
takes time, and there are only so many hours in a day, so I have to spend a
fair percentage of it walking. Sometimes I'll stop for as much as half an
hour waiting for optimum light if the shot is important enough, but I can't
do that with every shot or I'll end up walking in the dark (actually this
happens to me often).
The shotgun approach works well for me in fast changing light. I think of
it as "action landscape photography". I've had many years of practice at
grabbing opportunity shots in changeable conditions, and find a monopod is
usually more practical than a tripod. It's not simply a question of quality
vs. quantity. If I grab at enough opportunities, some of them are bound to
turn out good (bearing in mind that I do know what I'm doing with a camera,
I'm not operating it randomly).
In slower paced conditions I do indeed prefer to take my time, but often I
don't have that much to spare. One solution that I often use is to go
backpacking in the hills and set up camp in a photogenic location. This
gives me the luxury of being able to get up before dawn, set up my tripod
and take photos carefully. I can work out compositions beforehand ready for
when the light gets interesting. Sometimes I'll camp in the same spot for
days, and this approach has usually paid off. Unfortunately, carrying all
that camping gear to the top of a mountain isn't easy, and that's before I
even consider what cameras to take! I've carried tripods, MF and telephoto
gear up in the past and it's nearly killed me. So light weight is an
important consideration I can't avoid.
> Digital has grain (or "noise", as another poster noted); digital costs
money
> for the prints.
I don't plan to print from digital, except for comparison purposes.
> If you only look at a picture on the computer screen, then
> you'll NEVER see the true quality of the image whether you're using MF,
> 35mm, or even high-res digital. You're only going to get so much out of a
> screen: it'll never be photo quality. Period.
The computer screen is the most convenient method, not the only one. I
always used to look at my slides projected in a dark room, but I generally
can't be bothered with the hassle nowadays. I'm not currently set up to do
decent sized prints, but I'm aiming toward that. Many of the comments in
this thread so far have convinced me that large size printing is probably
the way to go.
As for the computer screen, you can zoom in to see the 1:1 detail you know.
Also, a computer screen has much higher contrast than a print, and can look
very impressive in a dark room. It also helps to use a high resolution, I
use 1280x960 on my 17", which is high enough to not see any pixelisation,
and my monitor is very sharp at that res.
I just compared an MF print in a book to the image on my desktop (they're
roughly the same size) and I could see more detail in the print, but more
contrast on the screen.
> When I first started in MF (with 6x6) I absolutely fell in love with it:
When I started with 6x6 I didn't, partly because the camera was too cheap
but mainly because of the limitation of the single fixed focal length lens,
which did not suit my wide-angle requirements. I found it very difficult to
get satisfactory compositions.
> great quality, larger transparencies mean better quality scans and larger
> prints,
And I never had the necessary gear to print them or to view them with a
projector. I've always found the larger trannies impressive, but never had
any real use for them. I always found that I took better shots with my 35mm
gear, undoubtedly because of the more versatile lens choices.
> and I discovered that I was being a lot more patient when it came to
> taking the shot. This has made me a better photographer, and I enjoy
myself
> a lot more than before.
I enjoy taking my time over a shot too, I've done a bit of that recently (my
sprained ankle has limited my walking for a while) but I don't usually have
that luxury on a typical hillwalk.
> Anywho, you asked for it... ;-)
Yep, I did. Thank you for your comments.
Have you looked at my website by the way? I suspect not. A few of the
replies I've received seem to give the impression that they think I'm a
beginner who isn't serious about quality. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Mxsmanic
> Okay. Yer ugly, too.
That's an ad hominem argument as well, and thus no more persuasive than its
predecessor.
> True, but DEMANDs and expectations will change.
Not with respect to human vision, because human vision does not change.
> Just as they have throughout history.
See above. No such changes have occurred in that domain.
> Speak for yourself. Your poor self.
We all have the same vision.
Paul Saunders
> > That's what I really wanted to know. Is the
> > difference that obvious?
>
> No, it's not very obvious at all,
Now you're contradicting yourself! You just said the result would be
noticeably superior.
> mainly because the resolution of inkjet
> printers is really low
So where do I get higher resolution from, in a printer?
> The printer does not really exhaust the quality of either 35mm or MF at A3
> size. However, the MF image is a bit sharper and smoother, if you look
> closely.
So now you're saying I don't really need MF?
> For larger enlargements or closer viewing
> distances, the difference really does start to stick out.
I can't see that it would be very practical to print much larger than that
without spending a fortune on a professional printer.
> > Maybe I should start making very big enlargements
> > and create a good reason for MF.
>
> Well, MF is nice, even if you don't need it.
And carrying it up and down mountains is a hassle. Why would I bother if I
don't really need it?
> The MF scans I'm fiddling with
> tonight are very, very nice. They are 170 times larger than what will fit
> on a typical computer screen--the equivalent of a wall-mural-sized
> enlargement.
Would 1/2 gig of memory suffice to fiddle with scans that big?
Can't see me ever needing anything that large though.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
John Stafford
at mxsm...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/24/02 9:21 PM:
> "John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> B964BEAA.3963%jo...@stafford.net...
>
>> Okay. Yer ugly, too.
>
> That's an ad hominem argument as well, and thus no more persuasive than its
> predecessor.
Well, duh.
>> True, but DEMANDs and expectations will change.
>
> Not with respect to human vision, because human vision does not change.
You don't get it. Plain and simple.
Jeremy 1952
> camera, some skillful PhotoShop work, and outputting with a high end
> LightJet printer can do. JackM
I was directing my comments more at the practice of viewing pics on a
computer monitor, vs. seeing a print or a slide.
While it may be more convenient than dragging out the old projector, the
view is far less satisfying on the monitor.
David J. Littleboy
"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote:
>
> >> True, but DEMANDs and expectations will change.
> >
> > Not with respect to human vision, because human vision does not change.
>
> You don't get it. Plain and simple.
Then I'd say your argument technique is the problem. (In particular, there's
no need to invoke future states, since 6MP is clearly insufficient now.)
If you go to an exhibit of 20x30" prints from 35mm, you quickly find
yourself being aghast at the softness (or at least I was at the Nikon
showroom gallery here in Tokyo last month), so the "6MP is all you need"
theory is clearly quite wrong empirically...
(Mxsmanic's claim that inkjets are limited to 150 ppi also seems
problematic, since 240 ppi prints are noticeably better than 200 ppi prints
(although from high-quality source images, I find 200 ppi quite good for
anything A3 and over).)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Thomas Edward Witte
>
> > I could take photos all day without it costing me a penny.
Not entirely true. Yes it's cheap, but not free. You have to
factor the start up capital to buy the camera, flash cards, laptop or
digital wallet if you really plan to shoot all day on location (need to
download cards or buy even more), blank media to then save the images to
(DVD's or CD's), time required to copy, store, print and process the
images. I normally charge between $80-$200 an hour depending on the
assignment, so I'm not out there making that money when I'm doing all that
other stuff.
Thomas
GO Photography
http://www.mindspring.com/~photoj
To contact me directly, please reply to pho...@mindspring.com
Q.G. de Bakker
> > Okay. Yer ugly, too.
>
> That's an ad hominem argument as well, and thus no more persuasive than
its
> predecessor.
No, no. That's the first (!) "ad hominem".
Lassi Hippeläinen
>
> in article 3D3E8832...@ieee.orgies.invalid, Lassi Hippeläinen at
> lahi...@ieee.orgies.invalid wrote on 7/24/02 6:01 AM:
>
> > [...]
> > The long term worry isn't the permanence of the storage medium, but the
> > availability of drives. No magnetic data storage format has lived long.
> > When the U.S. Census of 1971 (IIRC) was needed in the 90's, there were
> > exactly two (2) drives left that could read the tapes.
>
> Interesting. Sounds more like a claim made by someone trying to extract more
> $ from Uncle Sam than it's worth. I'd like to know the format of those
> tapes. I have recovered 32-year old tapes made on an obsolete computer as
> recently as last year. Tapes are EASY.
I don't have the source at hand, but it was mentioned in the IEEE
Spectrum some years ago.
-- Lassi
Lassi Hippeläinen
>
> "Lassi Hippeläinen" <lahi...@ieee.orgies.invalid> a écrit dans le message
> de news: 3D3E8832...@ieee.orgies.invalid...
>
> > Digital is still far behind in dynamic range.
>
> No ... most current digicams are behind in dynamic range, but the
> fundamental CCD technology they use is not. CCDs can capture 17 stops or
> so, if they pixels are large (i.e., a large sensor), and if the CCD is
> actively refrigerated.
In astronomical photography, everything possible is squeezed out of
CCDs. But the price is pretty astronomical, too. The Hubble Space
Telescope is so expensive that the cost of the cameras is marginal.
Ditto for huge earthbound ones.
But under those circumstanes even film has been pushed to pretty extreme
performance. When David Malin honed his skills in unsharp masking, he
could dig something like 16 stops from old glass plates of the Palomar
Sky Survey. He also found two dim galaxies in the process, now named
after him.
> > If your exposure isn't just right, you've lost
> > either bright or dark end.
>
> Again, this is a voluntary limitation of camera design, not a technological
> limitation.
At reasonable prices, film still has more dynamic range than CCDs.
-- Lassi
Mxsmanic
news: ahnmgj$3sj$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I just compared an MF print in a book to the
> image on my desktop (they're roughly the same
> size) and I could see more detail in the print,
> but more contrast on the screen.
As you've no doubt surmised, this is a function of the display method used,
not the image-capture technology.
Slides look very good on a monitor, which has the dynamic range to display
them decently, but they aren't much more impressive than negatives in print,
since paper has a smaller range than both negatives and slides.
mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com
>>MF isn't for snapshots; without sounding snooty,
> I use my Fuji GA645 for snapshots all the time. Awesome snapshots too :)
Actually ... MF _was_ originally designed for snapshots, unless I'm badly
mistaken... back when Real Photographers used glass plates and such.
Why, it seems that MF was more the "snapshot" type medium all the way to
the 50s or 60s around here. That's about when the cheap 35mm cameras
started to appear and until then, Kodak Brownie, Agfa Box, Agfa Clack,
cheap folders... Leicas weren't for snapshots and very few people had
ever heard of such a thing as "Argus".
--
Mikko Nahkola <mikko....@nokia.com>
My ideas, not my employer's. No warranty. YMMV.
#include <disclaimer.h>
Mxsmanic
> You don't get it.
You haven't provided it.
Mxsmanic
ahnt8p$ped$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
> If you go to an exhibit of 20x30" prints from
> 35mm, you quickly find yourself being aghast at
> the softness ...
That depends on how far away you are from the prints when you view them. If
the viewing distance is roughly equal to at least the diagonal of the image,
and the image is uncropped, 6-8 megapixels is sufficient. At a distance of
36 inches, for example, you can't see any more than that.
> Mxsmanic's claim that inkjets are limited to 150
> ppi also seems problematic, since 240 ppi prints
> are noticeably better than 200 ppi prints ...
There is the issue of quality of pixels as opposed to their number. Up to
about 1.5x more pixels on input than on output, the quality of pixels can
rise significantly, especially with raster printing. This is simply because
the resulting pixel is better chosen. The resolution does not improve,
however.
For the same reason, an image downsampled from a much larger resolution
often looks better than an image originally shot at that same final
resolution. But the final resolution is the same in both cases.
Mxsmanic
> Now you're contradicting yourself! You just
> said the result would be noticeably superior.
Noticeable isn't the same as obvious. You can notice a scratch on a car
without being immediately drawn to it, which makes it noticeable but not
obvious.
> So where do I get higher resolution from,
> in a printer?
Dye sublimation, or chemical printing--anything that doesn't require
multiple dots to be grouped around each other in order to form a single
pixel. Dye-sub printers are usually 300 dpi, but each machine dot is one
complete pixel, since dye-sub overlays transparent dyes one on top of
another. Chemical printing has the same advantage.
Anything that uses opaque inks or pigments cannot do this (applies roughly
to inkjets and offset printing, for example).
> So now you're saying I don't really need MF?
I don't know what you need; that's for you to decide.
> I can't see that it would be very practical to
> print much larger than that without spending
> a fortune on a professional printer.
True.
> And carrying it up and down mountains is a hassle.
> Why would I bother if I don't really need it?
I don't know; why would you?
> Would 1/2 gig of memory suffice to fiddle with
> scans that big?
In theory. I have 1.5 GB, and it still grinds through the images, and I
can't really run anything else on the machine at the same time (I certainly
cannot scan one while editing another, for example). Unfortunately, that's
the max memory for my (new) machine.
Michael J Davis
>"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
>B964B76D.394F%jo...@stafford.net...
>
>> Permit me to use some American English: Bull
>> Fucking Shit.
>
>You'll have to come up with something other than ad hominem to persuade me.
/pedantic on/
er, that's not ad hominem, unless you're a bull, I suppose!
/pedantic off/
>The physiology of human vision is fixed. It will not improve in the future.
>Therefore any photographic method that fully satisfies the capabilities of
>human vision will be adequate forever. For full-frame images at standard
>viewing distances, both 35mm and MF qualify (as does LF, of course), and the
>best digital images do as well.
I think that the early images were monochrome, nowadays we have colour.
Today's colour is of a very limited gamut, only a small part of the
human eye/brain's.
>
>That's why digital is doing well: It's not as good as 35mm or MF, but it's
>good enough for human vision, in most applications.
Early digital images were monocular, soon we'll have stereo, or
holographic.
I don't think we've approached the limits of the eye, yet......
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "discursion".
<><
Mxsmanic
news: cyQeDlFj...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
> I don't think we've approached the limits of the
> eye, yet......
We can capture more resolution than the eye can see. In other respects,
matching the performance of human vision is sometimes more challenging. But
resolution is not a problem.
Mxsmanic
lrQ%8.9649$ws6.1...@news2.nokia.com...
> Actually ... MF _was_ originally designed for
> snapshots, unless I'm badly mistaken... back
> when Real Photographers used glass plates and such.
Some recent Nikon documentation I have still refers to 120 format as
"Brownie film."
Of course, in those days, films and lenses were so bad that you needed a big
negative to get anything usable at all.
ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> why I thought a Fuji GSW690 would be a good choice.
Mmmmm, bit limited I think.
Using filters is a nightmare as you cannot see what you are doing and
I suspect you use graduated neutral density filters?
Lack of a choice of lenses is also not good.
> perhaps a small
> 6x6 system, like a Bronica, with just 3 lenses maybe?
> for a relatively small lightweight (and low cost) MF setup,
> preferably with a choice of a few lenses, including a very wide?
I like 645 ie the ETRSi light(ish) - I have two with extra backs,
polaroid back, prism, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 150mm - there is a
35mm for it but the 40mm is wide enough for me
35mm = 22mm approx (in 35mm format)
40mm = 25mm approx (in 35mm format)
Cheap second hand and loads about.
My kit fits in a surprisingly small bag, useful when up and down
ladders and scaffolding :-)
> > 2) Battery life>
> For digital this means lots of memory cards. The battery in the G2
> is supposed to last a helluva long time, four or five hundred shots
I am thinking of cold weather which drains batteries - you know the
weather, backpacking in snowdonia in the winter as you do.
> > Actually if you truly only plan to use the images on screen with
> > an occasional print and you address 2 and 3 above then digital
> > appear to suit your needs.
> It would definitely suit a lot of my needs, in particular saving
> money on film.
This brings us to the sell or not sell of your images, I suspect
the (UK) outdoor mags would be very pleased to see a selection of your
trans - even on a CD chooser. They would NOT accept digital files.
SO are you planning to sell the images?
> If I spent less on film I could afford to make more than the
> "occasional" print.
Very true, personal use or commercial?
> In fact, large high quality prints are starting to
> sound more and more appealing the more I think about it.
My local lab has just brought a Agfa digital printer/scanner
about £80,000 worth. They have just printed some excellent
18 x 12inch prints from my 6x7 trans and they look like hand
prints from negs, wonderful colour and stunningly sharp.
And the new range of Epson printers and inks produce great
results, see
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/9600.shtml
regards
Mark
--------------------------------------------
http://www.architecturalphotographers.co.uk
David J. Littleboy
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some recent Nikon documentation I have still refers to 120 format as
> "Brownie film."
Yes. Buro-ni (where "-" means hold the sound a bit longer, and "ni" is
pronounced "knee") is the standard Japanese term for MF film (MF cameras are
usually referred to as chuuban) in current Japanese. It's completely normal
usage, and no Japanese speaker would find it strange/quaint/antiquated in
the slightest. So to translate buro-ni as Brownie is a horrible
mistranslation, and means Nikon's too cheap to pay my rates.
ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ah I missed this post
> No, it's not just a hobby, I want to make money from it. I did go
> freelance once but failed miserably.
:-(
> not because of my photos,
Agreed
> I'm just useless when it comes to selling them.
You have two options AIUI
1) sell them yourself
2) put them with a library and let them do the selling.
(look for a specialist library as you work in a narrow area)
I suspect (1) would be best with a little planning
but if in doubt (2) could be safer ie they know how to handle
copyright and also things like not selling to competing buyers
Look for magazines that may use your images ie outdoor mags, camping
mags, travel mags etc etc
Find out who the photobuyer for each magazine is
(tell me the mag and I will tell you the buyer)
Send sample images to each buyer, maybe as a CD presentation
html or pdf
NOT powerpoint with animations and sound - KISS
If a library choose very carefully as they will want your images
for a few years typically 5 yrs, make sure they have a good on line
policy - do not expect to earn straight away the sell/purchase/pay
cycle can be long.
See Robert Harding library in the web links below.
------------------------------------------
READ
photos that sell author = Lee Frost -all about the freelance industry
Taking pictures for profit author = Lee Frost
Sell & ReSell Your Photos author = Rohn Engh
all available at your library
------------------------------------------
SEE
http://www.photosource.com/index.php
very useful
http://www.robertharding.com/fotoweb/
a library that may suit you?
http://www.epuk.org/
editorial photographer web site
http://www.ephotozine.com/
select "features" then "Freelance"
(more Lee Frost stuff including book excerpts)
http://www.bapla.org.uk/
BAPLA - largest trade association for (UK) picture/stock libraries
------------------------------------------
JOIN
bit.listproc.stockphoto
Hope that helps
Mark
John Stafford
wrote on 7/25/02 7:01 AM:
A gem of information. Thanks for that. Now help me out with this on. How
would this translate, or can you fix it: "Mxsmani - ni san bokeh".
David J. Littleboy
"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote:
>
> Now help me out with this on. How
> would this translate, or can you fix it: "Mxsmani - ni san bokeh".
Uh, if you'd tell me what you were trying to say, I suppose I could tell you
the Japanese for it.
So does this mean that, unlike Nikon, you're _not_ too cheap to pay my
rates<g>?
Bit Bucket
news:PsC%8.1102$XG5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >I have recovered 32-year old tapes made on an obsolete computer as
> > recently as last year. Tapes are EASY.
> >
> like you. After reading up on it, I have done an about-face.
>
> The topic is too exhaustive for me to post anything meaningful here. But,
> as a beginning, have a look at this link. You may find it to be an
> eye-opener.
>
> http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub80-smith/pub80.html#preservation
>
Imagine what we might learn from the Library of Alexandria if they had
digitized copies on off-site backups! This is what a "responsible
custodian" would have done. Snap out of it, man. One method does not
exclude the others. The more the merrier.
Nevertheless, this issue has little to do with digital photography where the
originals are digital to begin with. I suppose we could make a paper print
and delete the file so you could make "preservation" an issue. ;-)
--
On the web...
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/
John Stafford
at bitbu...@earthlink.net wrote on 7/25/02 8:54 AM:
> Imagine what we might learn from the Library of Alexandria if they had
> digitized copies on off-site backups! This is what a "responsible
Yep, and why didn't they use fully automatic weapons and air support to
defend the libraries? (There were several, actually.)
John Stafford
wrote on 7/25/02 8:40 AM:
> Uh, if you'd tell me what you were trying to say, I suppose I could tell you
> the Japanese for it.
Bokeh - out of focus, cross-eyed, myopic.
> So does this mean that, unlike Nikon, you're _not_ too cheap to pay my
> rates<g>?
I'll trade translation of ancient Greek for contemporary Japanese. Nobody
pays for ancient Greek anymore. Okay, Latin? No? What's the world come to?
Dennis O'Connor
Quo Vadis, baby...
Denny
"John Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:B96573F9.3A1F%jo...@stafford.net...
Gordon Moat
problem is that to really do a proper digital repair, all traces of the digital
changes need to be unnoticeable. This takes lots of time and patience.
I have only done a little of darkroom negative retouching. Even though I do oil
paintings, I much prefer the tools in PhotoShop to true (old style) retouching.
However, I only got my degree in 1998, so you could say PhotoShop was essential to
some of my art education.
Best of luck to you. It sounds like you have a big project ahead of you.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
John Stafford wrote:
> It is hard work to do it properly, isn't it? My years as a traditional
> photographer helped when I first started the digital thing (when Photoshop
> first came out), but we _are_ finally doing things with PS and plugins that
> really cannot be accomplished using traditional processes, although it still
> takes a critical eye to do right and the methods remain controvercial - for
> example, it has been suggested that for historical research purposes it is
> important to reproduce the original negative as closely as possible, kinks,
> wrinkles, mistakes, stains and everything, including print data records of
> the imaag, and carefully document the process - and THEN make the improved
> image. It rather takes the fun out of it, but that's probably why they call
> the project WORK. :)
Bit Bucket
So, we should defend our property with slings and arrows today? Thanx 4
helping expand my point, John. ;-)
Tom
<mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com> wrote in message
news:lrQ%8.9649$ws6.1...@news2.nokia.com...
> In article <20020724205747...@mb-mc.aol.com>, for7 wrote:
>
> >>MF isn't for snapshots; without sounding snooty,
>
> > I use my Fuji GA645 for snapshots all the time. Awesome snapshots too :)
>
> Actually ... MF _was_ originally designed for snapshots, unless I'm badly
> mistaken... back when Real Photographers used glass plates and such.
>
> Why, it seems that MF was more the "snapshot" type medium all the way to
> the 50s or 60s around here. That's about when the cheap 35mm cameras
> started to appear and until then, Kodak Brownie, Agfa Box, Agfa Clack,
> cheap folders... Leicas weren't for snapshots and very few people had
> ever heard of such a thing as "Argus".
>
>
Nikon produces what they laughingly call a "User's Manual" for the LS8000ED
scanner I bought. It is pathetic.
Further, in all the references to 120 film in that ridiculous book they call
it (and I am not kidding) "Brownie Film".
That is correct. Nikon officially refers to 120/220 film as "Brownie Film".
The original "snap shot" format.
Tom
Q.G. de Bakker
> Nikon produces what they laughingly call a "User's Manual" for the
LS8000ED
> scanner I bought. It is pathetic.
It indeed is.
> Further, in all the references to 120 film in that ridiculous book they
call
> it (and I am not kidding) "Brownie Film".
>
> That is correct. Nikon officially refers to 120/220 film as "Brownie
Film".
>
> The original "snap shot" format.
Yes, it has been mentioned.
But i don't see what would be wrong with that? I think "Brownie film" is a
better name than "120" or "220" (or "roll film", as these formats are called
where i live. Another remnant from the same period).
Tom
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:ahpla1$d64$1...@reader1.tiscali.nl...
> > That is correct. Nikon officially refers to 120/220 film as "Brownie
> Film".
> >
> > The original "snap shot" format.
>
> Yes, it has been mentioned.
> But i don't see what would be wrong with that? I think "Brownie film" is a
> better name than "120" or "220" (or "roll film", as these formats are
called
> where i live. Another remnant from the same period).
>
Hey, no problem.
Just tell your clients you have your Hassey all loaded up with Brownie film
and you are ready to shoot their ad.
See if you get any particularly arch looks.
Then you will possibly see "what is wrong with that?".
Tom