I do not look at real photographs on my iPhone or on a computer screen, I view them as prints and on slide screens. Basically if one cannot hold a print it is not a photograph. One can disagree with me on this, but then they would just be wrong.
I don't think there is any issue about optical prints, or even well scanned film with a digital print from a scan.
What there is an issue about is whether those differences would be visible on a small digital display, like a phone screen.
I don't think there is any issue about optical prints, or even well scanned film with a digital print from a scan.
What there is an issue about is whether those differences would be visible on a small digital display, like a phone screen.
Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.An experiment that might be fun and that I'll never do:
1) Take a Fuji 6x9 and a 35mm Leica (which are the same aspect ratio) and put equal quality lenses on them that are about the same effective focal length. Use slow film. Velvia 50 let's say. Use a tripod like Avedon.
2) Expose images of a model gazing longingly at a hot dog with each camera. High res scan the images like a rockstar, cost be damned!
3) RESIZE each full frame scan to 2000 pixels on the longest edge so they're the same number of pixels regardless of format.
4) Upload to Instagram and peep those sexy pixels. Go on, pinch and zoom that action!
Does one show more or less information than the other? Is one "better" than the other when shown at social media resolution? Does one have smoother tonality? (I picked 2000 pixels randomly and have no idea what works best on instagram but that ought to be enough info for a phone.)
My guess would be that the images would be virtually the same, fwiw.
An experiment that might be fun and that I'll never do:...
My guess would be that the images would be virtually the same, fwiw.
Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.
Truth!Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.
in 5x7 prints? I hardly believe that unless darkroom process is not up to same level on each format. It is harder to print well form 35, but at 5x7 (from equally well exposed negatives) there is hardly a way t see a difference between 35 and MF. They may be some subject matters that will show that, but not in general. At least I see what I have (in that size) on my wall from either format and nobody can tell what negative they were made from. It is almost impossible to tell even at 8x10 BTW.I optically print color and b&w and can definitely see a difference in tonality between 35mm and 120 film with 5x7 prints and larger; it is noticeably smoother with 120. I don't scan so can't comment there.
in 5x7 prints? I hardly believe that unless darkroom process is not up to same level on each format. It is harder to print well form 35, but at 5x7 (from equally well exposed negatives) there is hardly a way t see a difference between 35 and MF. They may be some subject matters that will show that, but not in general. At least I see what I have (in that size) on my wall from either format and nobody can tell what negative they were made from. It is almost impossible to tell even at 8x10 BTW.
Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.
That is what I said. In fact digital has no problem printing good billboard but for small prints it can't match the resolution of film including 35mm. If you have a 45MP digital camera and a 35mm camera and make 4x6 prints. The optically printed 4x6 from 35mm film will show more details.Not if one uses film and only optical printing, like I do. Then there is a world of difference. If one must scan then they have to live with the image loss, but if one can stick to all analog processes why take a photograph and look at it through a Coke bottle bottom?
really? I wouldn't have thought that. Considering the small print I would have thought the paper you printed it on would be the final determiner of how much detail you'd see at that small size.That is what I said. In fact digital has no problem printing good billboard but for small prints it can't match the resolution of film including 35mm. If you have a 45MP digital camera and a 35mm camera and make 4x6 prints. The optically printed 4x6 from 35mm film will show more details.
The question is WHY only 4x6.For me 35mm is convenient because the camera is small and you get 35 exposures and I can process 8 rolls at once. Otherwise it is a pain. Much more critical to enlarge than 4x5 or 8x10 negatives. In the last few years I have only been making 4x6" prints from 35mm.
It is the paper but paper like RA-4 or typical B&W paper has significantly higher resolution than 300 - 400 ppi that the digital printers are capable of. If you print 4x6 with a digital printer regardless of how many MP file you feed it, it can only produce a print with about 2MP.really? I wouldn't have thought that. Considering the small print I would have thought the paper you printed it on would be the final determiner of how much detail you'd see at that small size.
My 16 mp micro 4/3 gives me jpegs right out of the camera that print directly to bordered 12" x 16" prints.If a 4x6 digi print is 2mp max, then 8x12 = 8mp and 32mp can get you 16x24?
I do not look at real photographs on my iPhone or on a computer screen, I view them as prints and on slide screens. Basically if one cannot hold a print it is not a photograph. One can disagree with me on this, but then they would just be wrong.
With my Mamiya RB67, the medium format film backs are interchangeable. So I can have different films loaded in different backs and switch in the middle of shooting from let's say Tmax100 to Velvia 50. I don't have to finish the roll to change film types. So it's more flexible than 35mm, much like LF.One thing I really like about 35mm is that you can load your own film. If I want 12 shots of Delta 400 I roll that, If I want 5 of something else I can roll that as well. Or maybe 36exp's of FP4. Can't do that with MF. Of course you have the same flexibility with LF. I like 35mm for it's spontaneity.
With my Mamiya RB67, the medium format film backs are interchangeable. So I can have different films loaded in different backs and switch in the middle of shooting from let's say Tmax100 to Velvia 50. I don't have to finish the roll to change film types. So it's more flexible than 35mm, much like LF.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?