The complete lack of grain improves tonality
LOL......
The complete lack of grain improves tonality
LOL......
Mark, you answered your quandry here.....
> On the light box the 8x10 looked a country mile better, particularly through a loupe
film on a light box, with a good loupe will tell the full story. Then, as QT pointed out, you scanned both images in such small detail, there would be no reason to see much difference, both should be similar. Remember 8x10 film does not resolve more then 4x5 film, they resolve identical, all things being equal. However, 810 has 4x the area, therefore to see the same differences in scanned files, vs. using a loupe, you would have to push the scan to films resolving limits, for both formats. Of course the 810 file would be 4x larger than the 45 file. Of course you could have done a crop of this to reduce file size.
But don't be fooled, the answer is on the light box, not the digital test you ran...
Actually jorge,
Grain breaks down tonality by decreasing graduations in smoothness of tone. It does this in color by reducing the the accuracy of the color pallette. In B&W, it detracts from the smooth graduations in tonal changes from dark to light or reverse.
This is common knowledge.....I guess the LOL meant you already knew that.....or that you simply like to follow me around to start a new battle in an area in which you lack experience. I'll let you have your last word and move to another thread to avoid giving you an audience for your anti digital antics.
Enjoy.
In B&W, it detracts from the smooth graduations in tonal changes from dark to light or reverse.
keep showing your 20 years of "experience" and "common knowledge, " which is plainly obvious it is not so common.
You clearly do not know how to use grain and certainly your statement that it "detracts" from smooth tonal gradation is nonsense.....
here is an example.
You are joking right.....because that just shows exactly the breakdown I referred to.
Yep, sure....seems to me the one lacking experience is another one, I thought you were supposed to be the great wedding and portrait photographer. WHat is the matter? your 20 years "experience" tell you this is a break down?...... once again LOL
I'm sorry Jorge,
But if you can't see that because of the high amount of grain, the tonal values in the shadows on her forhead for example, are severely reduced and in fact in many areas, are not even resolved because of clumping grain, then maybe more experience isn't going to help you. Instead of seeing the obvious, you once again resort to sarcasm and personal attacks.
It is plainly evident in your shot that grain reduces tonal accuracy and obviously overall smoothness. I hope your not trying to say that this image has as smooth tones as ones without grain.
If I tried to put a shot forward with grain like that to a client, they'd look at me like I was nuts. While I like grain for the look it provides to street photography....it is not because of smooth tonality....but because of the grittiness it adds. But if you're trying to sell people on the fact that your sample indicates smooth & accurate tonality, well I'm sorry, all it shows is a perfect case of the opposite.
But please, leave the sample up so I can point it out to others in our group.
There's not much else to say here. I'll leave before your nonsense destroys yet another thread.
Bye!
I am sorry Tech, but you are plainly hoping to see things that are not there. Since you mention the forehead you can see that there are many tones of gray there, which can be plainly seen. A print with can have a smooth tonal transition, it simply means it has grain.
Now if what you meant to say is that in a greatly enlarged negative the space between the grains result in non image forming light and thus can degrade the image, I will agree to that, but tonal transition even with the presence of non image forming light is still possible and in many cases pleasant.
Funny that you would say your clients would not buy anything like this, I am not surprised given the examples in your web site.
I’ll post this in the hope it will nudge the discussion back into the general direction of the original topic.
This past spring, I attended a Burtynsky lecture where he was asked about his equipment preferences. He related how early in his career he had used an 8x10 for most of his work. He went on to say that by the mid 90’s, the great increase in the quality of optics coupled with higher quality emulsions led him to reconsider the merits of 4x5.
A defining moment came when he began the “Shipbreaking” series in Bangladesh: The ankle deep mud in which the camera needed to be set up (combined with the lack of an assistant at the time) forced him to employ the 4x5 exclusively.
Burtynsky makes his own (“traditional” chromogenic) prints. He is the owner of a commercial lab in Toronto (nearing twenty years now- his “day job” before he was an art star) and, naturally, is very critical about print quality. There is no doubt to those who have seen his work up close.
Excluding diptychs, panoramas, crops, etc., Burtynsky’s pieces are typically 40x50”- regardless of original neg format. At that size, my opinion is that it is nearly impossible to distinguish the 8x's from the 4x’s. Take a look next time his work is in a show near you- I think you’ll agree.
Burtynsky continues to shoot the 4x5. He has spent much of the past few years working in China, and said that it is much easier to navigate the multiple bureaucracies with less stuff.
By the way, he’s making some killer work with a (cheap) video camera. Maybe that’s how he’s using the extra room in his case.
jbhogan
This past spring, I attended a Burtynsky lecture where he was asked about his equipment preferences. He related how early in his career he had used an 8x10 for most of his work. He went on to say that by the mid 90’s, the great increase in the quality of optics coupled with higher quality emulsions led him to reconsider the merits of 4x5.
I dont understand your point. Dont the advantages apply to 8x10 as well (better glass, better emulsions)? As to the test, I think Clay said it best.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks