dave_s Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 <i>why would they be leaving it in droves for digital</i><p>Because (a) the quality's getting very high, (b) it's good enough for most commercial and high street photography, © it saves them $10K+ a year in film and processing costs, (d) it streamlines work flow.<p>The dumping of MF film gear by professional photographers is a windfall to other MF users. The risk you take in buying MF gear cheap is that you can't predict how long you'll be able to get your favorite emulsions in 120. Also, the market situation will probably bankrupt some manufacturers who can't adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_kosoff Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I think the people who are dumping MF gear are mostly wedding photographers who are switching to DSLR's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everitt Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 "I think 35mm is in serious trouble as DSLR's are either as good as, or soon will be as good as or better than 35mm film" The current DSLRs are already better than 35mm. They also can give MF a run for their money at certain print sizes. "I think the people who are dumping MF gear are mostly wedding photographers who are switching to DSLR's." There are a lot more people than just wedding photogs dumping MF.. just read on these forums... I eventually will as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve williams Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 Jason, If you look at the figures I stated (if they are correct), how can DSLRs, with 4.1 - 6 MP equate to 35mm, which is along the lines of approx. 22MP??? Also, how can it be approaching MF, when MF is approx. 50MP??? Are my numbers off? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everitt Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Did you get these figures from Ken Rockwell? 22mp is quite an exaggeration from the results I've seen... I use a Pentax 67, it's image quality is amazing.. but I've seen images from 6mp DSLRs that can rival it up to a certain point.. an 8x10 for example will be very close.. above that the MF will win more clearly though from what I've seen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve williams Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 I don't think I got them from kenrockwell.com (I don't remember.) Actually, I think I read them on this site somewhere, but could be wrong. I may not have been clear. I was talking about bigger enlargements - above 8x10 (16x20, 20x24, etc.). When you look at 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, there's not going to be as much benefit for the larger formats. If those are exaggerations, what are the actual numbers? (Does Ken Rockwell exaggerate, by the way? I don't know him at all. I've seen his web site a few times, though.) Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 <I>Also, how can it be approaching MF, when MF is approx. 50MP??? </i><BR><BR>I'm not here to make an argument either way - I have a Hassie and a digital camera. But I would point out that the quantity of pixels, can be rather meaningless. Case in point: I sometimes scan 35mm slides with my 4000 dpi scanner and get somewhere around a 55mb file. I'd say 90 percent of the prints I make aren't even close to what my measley 6Mp Canon 10D can do just about every time. I suspect this is due to film grain, which starts to show up pretty well when scanned at 4000 dpi. Digital images just tend to enlarge better. A year or so ago, I wouldn't have believed this myself, but for better or worse, it's true. Now if I were going to Yosemite tomorrow, and I could either take my 10D or my Hassie, which would I take? The Hassie in a heartbeat! Best wishes . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_kosoff Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Digital images do NOT enlarge better than film images. There was a fairly recent a/b comparison, I believe on photonet where they show the results of greatly enlarging a digital image and a film image. The digital image at a certain point just became a detail less jaggy blob, type in it was totally illegible, the exact same image on film, enlarged to the same degree, was grainy, but it still held vastly more detail, and you could easily read type that appeared in the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne_crider4 Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 The square can be nice, concentrating your vision into what I call a window view and centering the viewers attention. To crop the 6x6 tho seems a waste of film territory. Why not just shoot a 6x7 instead if you want a more rectangular image and crop it to 6x6 when necessary. In the end as stated before, cameras are tools, and I'm sure your tool box will hold more then 1 or change as needed. If anything be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 <i><blockquote> I think the people who are dumping MF gear are mostly wedding photographers who are switching to DSLR's </blockquote> </i><p> And studio photographers, and event photographers, and fashion photographers, and.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 <i><blockquote> Why not just shoot a 6x7 instead if you want a more rectangular image and crop it to 6x6 when necessary. </blockquote> </i><p> Lenses and bodies are bigger, bulkier and heavier, for starters. Lens slap is usually more pronounced, and sometimes (as with Pentax 67) a bigger, more expensive, better dampened tripod is consequently needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_chow Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I think many people are just happy with a 6m or 8m picture. So to them the film or digital debate is over. But we are better. One great advantage of digital is software. If you don't have Photoshop, would you still prefer digital? My theory is that while 6mp can be quite a humble figure, it is the software that makes the 6mp work. Colour and contrast adjustments, sharpening and special effects. These are all at work to please/fool the eyes. But film can also benefit from the software resolution as soon as you digitise the images. Whenever I look at my projected 35mm slides, I am always amazed by the amount of "data" contained there. I hope eventually we will have better (and cheaper and faster) technology to scan a film, more bit depths, better dust/ grain removal software etc. that are targeted for films. Then I will know that film will survive. Just MHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 <I>Digital images do NOT enlarge better than film images</i><BR><BR>I have found the opposite to be true with my images and equipment. I'm not familiar with the test you refer to. In my example, I used 35mm film and perhaps that explains it - MF will likely do much better, and of course LF even better than that. I still stand by my initial point: the mere quantity of pixels one ends up with after a scan is relatively meaningless. YMMV. Best wishes . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_kosoff Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 ".[. Z , jul 15, 2004; 11:05 p.m. I think the people who are dumping MF gear are mostly wedding photographers who are switching to DSLR's And studio photographers, and event photographers, and fashion photographers, and...." I know an awful lot of studio photographers and fashion photogs, and they all use MF cameras with either film or digi backs. I don't know any who have sold their MF and replaced them with DSLRs, then again I am referring to photographers who are at very high levels of quality requirements, national advertising and editorial, it could be different with people doing less demanding work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius_finkenhagen Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 There are alot of photographers which use Hasselblad for shooting both snowboarding and alot of skateboarding. These sports are very fast moving, but Hasselblad seems to do a great job. Most og these photographers use either the 200 or 2000 series for it's high shutter and 30mm lens posibility. I would say Hasselblad work great for sports also. You can check out www.atibaphoto.com for excellent results on Hasselblad used in fast moving skateboarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 "I don't know any who have sold their MF and replaced them with DSLRs," Given that you probably don't know any real photographers at all, your opinion is of little interest to most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_kosoff Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 A comment by: "harvey platter , jul 17, 2004; 05:06 p.m. "I don't know any who have sold their MF and replaced them with DSLRs," Given that you probably don't know any real photographers at all, your opinion is of little interest to most people." Harvey you're very amusing, it might benefit you to know what you're talking about before you make an embarassingly dumb remark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 The only dumb person I can see around here seems to go by the name B.Kossof...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_kosoff Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Harvey, please share with us your experiences with "real" photographers, I'm eager to learn from such an accomplished photographer as yourself. I'm surprised to find out that the last 30 years I spent as an advertising and editorial photographer in NYC have somehow kept me from meeting "real" photographers. www.kosoff.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Ooh, err missus, little Kossof's thrown a tizzy! Next he'll tell us how much money he makes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff.grant Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Harvey, You must have something better to do than keep a cyber slanging match alive. I think that Mr Kosoff has established his credentials. It's a pity to see a thread that I have found interesting turn into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 As a matter of interest, he started it in another thread. I merely enjoy keeping it alive.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_irving1 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I am a landscape photographer,have published a few books...mostly work with Linhof 617 cameras.This year however I turned 50...and decided to commemorate the milestone by shooting my "personal" work with a Hasselblad 500CM and a 50 Distagon.I am loving this camera/lens combination!I use Fuji NPZ 220 film and handhold almost everything just to depart as much as possible from the my normal Velvia/tripod/Linhof methodology...My project for the year is entitled "50 at 50"...at the end of the year I will choose 50 images and put together a portfolio..and perhaps a book.But the Hasselblad has been so much fun!Never thought I would enjoy the square format until I started shooting a few weddings on the side,but did not consider it for landscapes until now.Glad I did! By the way,check out my website: www.garyirving.com...it is in great need of updating and reformatting,but if you are interested in landscape you might enjoy it. Gary Irving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kparratt Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 ...then when you've enjoyed Gary's photography for a while, take another look at Simon Coyle's work at www.vir3x.com . This has really made my day. Kevin p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now