Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Digital Now as good as LF!

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 1998
    Posts
    1,972

    Digital Now as good as LF!

    repeat after me- it's only the internet, it's only the internet, it's only the internet...

    On the other hand I've see nbig prints fro mthe kodak back that fits on the hassleblad (mamiya, et. al., including 4x5 cameras. The quality is stuning. So is the price: around US$21,000 + $1500 for the anti-aliasing filter. I can buy a lot of camera, lenses, tripod, etc, plus film & processing and polaroid and scans for that much money.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    11

    Digital Now as good as LF!

    Check out "foveon" on the internet. They display a 8 foot high B & W blowup taken with a 16.8 megapixel CMOS camera that rivals large format.

  3. #13

    Digital Now as good as LF!

    I can tell you what I'm missing ~ it's that huge hole that used to be a bank account!

    As much as I'd love to jump on the digital bandwagon, my wife's not ready to give up her new mini-van so I can have another toy, uh, tool to use.

    At the present, for the money, you still can't beat film. Scan & print digital, but it's still cheaper to buy a box of 4x5 sheet film than spring for the digital back (and attendant accessories.)

  4. #14

    Digital Now as good as LF!

    MMm. I see one of our posters has been reading the Foveon ad copy, endorsed by photographer Greg Corman on a joke of an interview on NPR? Let's see, if you can get 6 megapixels from 35mm - too conservative an estimate, but one the digiphiles just love- and the size of a 4x5 inch sheet of film is equal to .. . hmm. . . 12 pieces of 35mm film (I just did it, actually laying a 35mm neg across the sheet film with a ruler. . it's between 10 and 12), then that makes. .oh. . 78 megapixels for a sheet of 4x5, conservatively? Yep, it sure does. Don't give me any crap about the "proof being in the pudding," either. 16 megapixels doesn't even beat MF, let alone 4x5. It just doesn't make mathematical sense. And yep, I'll bet my next paycheck the visual inspection would bear this out. I don't want to hear about "but there's no grain in digital" either. Vast expanses of one color pixel (often interpolated in camera, or fudged with Genuine Fractals) may not have grain, but they don't have detail either. Kind of what video looks like, eh? And by the way, the last time I looked at my 20x30's from 4x5, I couldn't see any grain anyway. Imagine how good they look at eight feet? Oh, what was that you said. . . I'm crazy because I don't buy into hype?

    Biting on the troll, as always

  5. #15

    Digital Now as good as LF!

    Dear Josh

    I see you got Greg mixed up with Roger Then again, maybe not. Both are exploitative in a sense.

  6. #16

    Digital Now as good as LF!

    Dear Eric, Thank you (honestly) for correcting me. . it's Gorman, then isn't it? It's best to know thine enemy by his right name. . you gave me a chuckle

Similar Threads

  1. P.O.P. looks good!
    By Calamity Jane in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-Mar-2005, 21:11
  2. Any good DVDs out there ?
    By Ron Bose in forum Resources
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 1-Nov-2003, 13:04
  3. Enlarging Lenses;How good is good
    By ronald lamarsh in forum Darkroom: Equipment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30-Jan-2002, 05:59
  4. MTF - what are they good for???
    By shaman in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-Feb-2000, 09:55

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •