Reading mode: Light Dark

The DSLR vs Bridge vs P & S Debate. Quick Thought

Go to last post
Kim Letkeman said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Ah yes, the excuse of viewing distance. Have you ever noticed how
people view prints in a gallery? Evidently not. People approach a
landscape from a distance, view the entire image, and then approach
close up to immerse themselves in the detail.

Your 4mp capture won’t have any detail in a 16x24 print….which was my
comparison. The excuse of saying “for most people” is just that….an
excuse. The fact of the matter is that anyone wanting the highest
quality should be aware of what the real options are….not options
filtered by a layer of excuses like you have done.
Click to expand...
I set the parameters right up front ... if you really, really, really
need to win an argument today by jumping out of bounds (i.e. changing
the conditions), then go right ahead. You win. For big prints in a
gallery, 35mm film will preserve more detail than my D2Hs.

Of course, I never said otherwise, but then you and Less seem to be
severely comprehension-challenged ...

By the way ... the average person with a big print on their wall
probably won't even notice the detail issue at 24x36 ... there is
plenty of anecdotal evidence that well-processed 4mp images produce
very nice posters. Of course ... if all you shoot is grass and leaves
...
Click to expand...
Or if you shoot landscapes with lots of detail. I prefer my grass to look like grass rather than green mush, thanks. I’m sorry, but if you find a 4mp sensor satisfactory for 24x36, then I’d say your quality standards are fairly low.

I set my parameters up as well. My question to you however, is why limit yourself? I keep hearing excuses about digital being good enough up to such and such print size. Why bother…..just pick the medium that will allow you to print whatever you like. Rather than letting the capture limit you…..let yourself be the limiting factor.

By the way, a large part of my business is fine art printing for myself as well as other photographers…..I know what works well at large print sizes and what doesn’t. Your sarcastic “sigh” is rather lame considering you have to limit yourself to 8x10 in order to “win” your argument.

If you’re happy with a 4mp sensor for large prints then fine. I prefer seeing detail in my landscapes thanks…..without having to make excuses and have people stand back from the print so it doesn’t fall apart!

Have you noticed that it’s always digital users who have to use the terms “from a proper viewing distance” and “up to a certain print size”, etc, etc. I never have to worry about that for some reason.
Kim Letkeman said:
--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman said:
For me, it is too many variables and too much trouble. I still shoot
some C41 B&W but find that I get a different look and really not any
better results than digital.
Click to expand...
C41 is a color print film process ... do you cross process B&W with
it? How does that look?
Click to expand...
Ilford and Kodak (and maybe others, those are the ones I've seen) both do a C41 process B&W film, I have the Ilford one in my OM1 at present - I think it's 400ASA, but haven't finished it yet, so haven't seen the results. My father tried a roll I gave him at the same time in an OM2 and I don't think I ever actually saw the results, but he said they were rather warm for his taste, which I think I'd quite like - I was expecting that and that was partly what caught my eye in the product description. I always add a warm tint to my digital B&Ws anyway.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.
 
Waaay too neat IMO, this is perfect for me, a comfy.work area. LOL

Barry

P.S. HEEEY> When did they move this topic to "Open Talk" ? Give us some warning next time mods.


Boo said:

Boo said:
That's some cool technology ...
Click to expand...
. . . with the tidy work area. That's just not natural.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images
Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically
requested or given permission to do so.
Click to expand...
--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them
 
Dave Luttmann said:
Or if you shoot landscapes with lots of detail. I prefer my grass to
look like grass rather than green mush, thanks. I’m sorry, but if
you find a 4mp sensor satisfactory for 24x36, then I’d say your
quality standards are fairly low.
Click to expand...
Typical binary thinking ... everything is suddenly about leaves and grass ...
The Davinator said:
I set my parameters up as well. My question to you however, is why
limit yourself? I keep hearing excuses about digital being good
enough up to such and such print size. Why bother…..just pick the
medium that will allow you to print whatever you like. Rather than
letting the capture limit you…..let yourself be the limiting factor.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's quite true in your case with such a limited perspective. The reason to bother is that digital's advantages are legion, especially since film has been relegated to an anachronism.

Only an idiot chooses such a painful path based on such limited use cases .... large prints of leaves and grass seem to be the favourite ....
The Davinator said:
By the way, a large part of my business is fine art printing for
myself as well as other photographers…..I know what works well at
large print sizes and what doesn’t. Your sarcastic “sigh” is rather
lame considering you have to limit yourself to 8x10 in order to “win”
your argument.
Click to expand...
Not too clear on how this works, are you?

I made a statement that concerned a generla group of people under a typical set of circumstances ... "most people, most of the time" ... that implies mostly web viewing or small to moderate prints ...

Les comes a long with the blind assertion that film is better in every way and proceeds to argue a different set of circumstances. He backs it up with terrible test data and no analysis whatsoever. When he finally seems to have gone away, you step in with the same inability to answer my original assertions. You want to argue your point, which I already conceded.

Now you are preaching the utterly ridiculous credo that everyone should shoot film for everything because grass looks better on posters. "Why bother…..just pick the

medium that will allow you to print whatever you like." ... well, how about because no one wants to use old equipment and spend their time and money with film processing and printing at labs or scanning and printing anyway (which of course has you back into digital anyway.) It's all a big waste of time these days ... except for the pros who are really into a specific milieu.

I try to never make ad hominem statements because I believe that one should argue only the point at hand. But frankly, the whole premise that one should just shoot film without thought is just dumb.
The Davinator said:
If you’re happy with a 4mp sensor for large prints then fine. I
prefer seeing detail in my landscapes thanks…..without having to make
excuses and have people stand back from the print so it doesn’t fall
apart!
Click to expand...
Sigh .... again you insist on assuming that every print has grass in it ... that every print is big and hangs in a gallery .... that everyone has the same eyesight ... yada yada yada ...

That is some of the most limited thinking I've seen on the forum ... and I thought the guy before you had the crown ...
The Davinator said:
Have you noticed that it’s always digital users who have to use the
terms “from a proper viewing distance” and “up to a certain print
size”, etc, etc. I never have to worry about that for some reason.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that the film users with which I have had interaction (three to be exact, all have posted the same garbage into this thread) all argue in a truly obsessed fashion ... seem to have very little data to show .... and insist on arguing way off point and then ridiculing others for trying to establish some parameters for the discussion.

It's called tunnel vision, and you guys all seem to have it really bad.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Kim Letkeman said:
K1000Photographer said:
I should say it is a lot easier to get great results with a DSLR.
Film may be better but you sure have to squeeze that stone rather
hard with the right equipment to get the blood out.
Click to expand...
Kim Letkeman said:
I still shoot
some C41 B&W but find that I get a different look and really not any
better results than digital.
Click to expand...
C41 is a color print film process ... do you cross process B&W with
it? How does that look?
Click to expand...
There are some C41 B&W emulsions out there.
I think Ilford started doing them in late 1970's or so.

--
Film & Digital
http://www.jaymoynihan.com
 
Tidy - it's not really ME, but if I don't want to be in the garage (where I feel like at home and have other stuff like Phaser 480 is...) I have to behave. No, you do not want to see THAT.

BTW Phaser 450 and 480 are old tech dye-sub made by Tektronix last millenium (see news http://www.fcw.com/print/3_1/news/64408-1.html ) and have served me well due to the fact I got heaps of ribbons and media free when HK was handed over back to China and Tektronix closed some warehouses there, scrapping the lots). It does 9.6 by 13.3" which accomodates 2 decent sized images per page. 480 which I rarely use (in the abovementioned garage) is 12x18". Why 2 - well, they are very very slow unless used with photoshop which does export through PhaserPort in jpg format!!! Tektronix had jpg support back in 1995, something we know today as "direct print". Even with that, running 28MHz RISC with 64M memory (they are true PostSript printers), in full resolution 300dpi and full bleed would take some ... errrrr. 10+++ minutes through standard printer driver with binary/ascii encoding. JPG does the same in about 2 minutes plus about 2 to print with 4 colour ribbon (3 does fine as well). Sorry about history stuff, but it is rare to see these things still running and yield results which meet today's standards. Both my S9500 and D80 just fill the page at 300dpi, no resizing but dpi in Photoshop. I think I still have about 12000 sheets of media to go through (and many more different ribbons as they come in various flavours, like 3 colour, 4 colour, 3+coating, Black).

It's not only camera what counts in my books, these things are fun to play with (do not ask for colour management for each ribbon).

cheers
--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top