Difference between those who are interested in the process of making images -vs- those interested in producing expressive images regardless of the technical process involved?
Bernice
Originally Posted by Greg Miller
Difference between those who are interested in the process of making images -vs- those interested in producing expressive images regardless of the technical process involved?
Bernice
The 5x4 Porta is certainly better in the text and curved lines. But seems less crisp on the straight metal edges, has obvious noise, and has chromatic aberration inside the aperture blades (not the film's problem, but a result none-the-less of the system). How does one factor noise into a resolution test? It does impact resolution, but in the scales here not necessarily in an obviously good or bad way. So hard to make definitive judgements other than they are different.
What makes you think they don't ?
The person who made these tests writes articles like this one: Taste and Landscape Photography.
Another interesting twist is the amazing amount of detail (resolution) that can be pulled out of deep shadows from a D800E. Much more than I ever could with color film. So's there resolving power in the deep shadows where the film shadows are just blocked up. On the other hand color film still holds more detail in the brightest tones than the D800E.
So do we need to compare resolution in specific tonal ranges? Or what would change if the line pairs were changed from black+white to black+gray, or gray+white? I think we have to remember that tests like these are only valid so long as the test closely mimics subjects we are actually photographing.
I wasn't basing that statement on this single thread.
What if the anti-aliasing filter were to have a slope that is more gradual with constant group delay than what appears to be commonly used, what effects would this have on the digital image. If more resolution is required, increase the number of samples and rate by an order of magnitude rather than trying to squeeze the last possible bit information from the data available.
Bernice
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin
Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com
"Preoccupation with the equipment is the hallmark of the amateur"--EWD
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
--A=B by Petkovšek et. al.
Sorry if you thought my remark (last sentence of the quoted post) was directed at you. It was not, and your work is obviously not all about the technical aspects. My remark was more generic in regards to how much time and effort by people on this site spend agonizing over technical aspects, almost to the exclusion of the creative side. Even in the image sharing threads, which for the most part I ignore, where it seems the most common remark is "what lens was that" or "nice tones".
Definitely not chromatic abberation from the taking lens - The drum scan from my Heidelberg (not available at the minute) doesn't show it.
It doesn't have to be grainy - I didn't noise reduce it that much and the digital had so little textural detail I think it was always going to be smooth. But yes digital is mostly smoother than film. Here's a properly post processed IQ180 vs Mamiya 7 scanned on my Heidelberg at 6000dpi
Magnification is shown in the photos but what you're seeing is probably a 60" print equivalent on screen.
Tim
p.s. Ken Lee posted one article but you might want to look at these too..
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/issues/
Probably about 5 or 6 deeply geeky lens/camera tests in that whole lot
Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks