My comments are not to be taken as a "raft". It is directed at the negativity of remarks such as
"These metrics come back like the flu, over and over again and are about as usefull." or
"To me charts like this are completely useless". Even if one thinks that the work is not useful (I am not among them), he should try to appreciate the work that was put into it, and if he doesn't have anything constructive to say, at least refrain from that kind of statement. That's all I meant.
QT, I think my comment was mis understood...... I was thanking you for tossing me a "life raft" as I was drowning in a sea of negativity, which you obviously picked up on......
Well Bill, what I found useful about your study is that it reaffirmed my belief that we sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees. We get so bogged down on the resolution/sharpness/edge detail, that we miss the fact that everything in photography is a compromise.
Looking at your charts I found curious that the "sweet spot" for your lenses was moderately open. I cannot recall the last time I used f/22 with my 8x10. Even with movements I always give it a little bit more just to be sure so I end up using f/32 and above. Seeing your charts it seems that I have to make a compromise, better resolution against more DOF...... take your pick.. :-)
bill,
firstly, thank you for taking the time to share your findings. i'm sure this study took a real commitment from you and i for one appreciate the fact that you were so bold as to share your work. i can't understand why you're taking such a lashing for it, except for the fact that this forum has really deteriorated of late. a little history, this forum was started as an escape from the negativity so prevalent on photo.net back in the day. ironically, the tone over there is now far more supportive than what i've observed over here lately. too many threads here lately turn into a pissing contest between 2 personalities that very quickly gets completely off subject.
folks, the bottom line is that the data presented here useful to a point; if you find it below you or incomplete, do your own damn experiment.
---Scott
www.srosenberg.com
> We get so bogged down on the resolution/sharpness/edge detail, that we miss the fact that everything in photography is a compromise.
Which is exactly what my chart identified so well, it offered you a "snapshot" of the compromises between formats.
> Looking at your charts I found curious that the "sweet spot" for your lenses was moderately open. I cannot recall the last time I used f/22 with my 8x10. Even with movements I always give it a little bit more just to be sure so I end up using f/32 and above.
Well, the extreme DOF scenes demonstrates just how practical 45 is. To shoot 810 at f45 is almost self defeating in my opinion. Assuming sharpness is your goal. It makes more sense to selectively use 810..., if you only have one camera, a 4x5 reducing back is a really versatile and complimenatry system.
Scott, thank you for the kind words. And yes, I agree with your comments regarding the tone of this, and other threads. I remember dropping off this forum in 2001 for these exact reasons. But since I was bold enough to return to engage a few good minds for some questions I had.... well, in this post, what I thought was a solid contribution, which I spent years formulating, testing and developing - to gain the "snap shot" view of the formats and how they compare with varying DOF......but it turned out to be an exhaustive struggle to defend it's principles / premise. But, it's a free forum, and QT is kind enough to dedicate his valuable time to provide the forum, so you will never hear a complaint from me...... I should have known better. Since I started this thread, I feel obligated to finish it, but after this one, I will quietly drift away again.....
First, Bill, please don't leave again. That would mean those who wish to denigrate "win" and those of us who like to read and consider things "lose." Your contributions are interesting.
Second, I've searched this thread and don't find any instance where Bill called what he was posting a "scientific study." He simply said (paraphrase) "here's a spreadsheet that might interest some." Yet some subsequent posts read like peer review comments against submittals to a vaunted journal. Why is that?
It appears there are participants on this forum, and a growing portion of society at large, who lack the ability to engage in polite discourse. Why is that?
Bill, if you did a bunch of testing and feel 4x5 is "good enough" for you (from a technical aspect). Great. That's that, and get on with shooting. Personally, I have a hard time finding enough time to shoot and enlarge, so I tend to skip over the testing angle of things. Actually, I think medium format gives good enouh resolution for me, but I'm not able to adjust the plan of focus and that's my reasoning for 4x5. If other people have a problem with your testing, I guess they can test for themselves and post their results. BTW, I like your "forest streams" photo.
Jay
Sal, thanks for the kind words, its great to hear from you again.....
> if you did a bunch of testing and feel 4x5 is "good enough" for you (from a technical aspect). Great. That's that, and get on with shooting.
Jay thanks for the compliment on my photos....
> if you did a bunch of testing and feel 4x5 is "good enough" for you (from a technical aspect). Great. That's that, and get on with shooting.
To be clear, what this "snap shot" confirmed to me was..... in many cases, it makes NO sense to lug the weight and size of 810 vs. 4x5...but, under the right circumstances, mainly very large prints and infinity focus, 810 is worth every bit of its weight and size. In no way, was my concensus, 4x5 is good enough for me.... I just bought more 810 film!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks