View Single Post

Old 11-21-2013   #53
Registered User
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by Photo_Smith View Post
Taking others figures then extrapolating results without verification is fuzzy at best and not going to allow you to arrive at anything more than an VERY rough estimate.

It isn;t possible to get an absolute from a mess of estimated data.
No argument from me!

The point was not to get precise values but ballpark figures of the correct order of magnitude. Simply to be able to say that a 645 camera with low-grain colour negative film approximates an 35-45 MP digital camera, for example, or that a 20 MP dSLR gives similar results to a 35 mm camera loaded with the aforementioned film.

My results are a starting point, not an end point. They give me an idea of which film format I need to use if I want to make 40 inch prints, say (645 OK if viewer is at a sensible viewing distance, but 6x7 will be perfect if the prints need to be sharp close up - if "massaged" in Photoshop (adjust contrast, sharpness, etc., to taste).

Originally Posted by Photo_Smith View Post
The Imacon is a nice scanner and probably good enough for most but it isn't s drum scanner whatever Hasselblad tell you...
No. But it's what the university has, and drum scans aren't cheap or always necessary - there's no point aiming for high resolution if it's not needed.

I prefer the look of film - Portra has subtle colour that I cannot replicate with a digital camera, with more delicate tones, and exposure is more forgiving. But digital is faster, and cheaper (once you've paid for the camera!), and has the appearance of being sharper. I think large film prints look better than large digital prints, but the smaller the print, the more similar. I'll continue to use both formats, depending on the needs of each photography project.



Last edited by RichC : 11-21-2013 at 03:52. Reason: Our posts crossed!
  Reply With Quote