Medium format photography the old way, is it advisable?

Started Feb 24, 2014 | Questions thread
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,593
Re: Fine art photography
1

ShawnHoke wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Basalite wrote:

If your are comparing the technical meritis and capabilities of digital and film then the only logical way to do that is to compare equal areas of film and sensor.

I would rather compare equal sized prints. What matters is the final image, and until we have 8K or better monitors, that means prints.

You were rightly criticized for simply saying that film was superior to digital by comparing large format film to 35mm digital. The Brooklyners I grew up with would see such a statement for the lie that it is.

Just saw this in the quote; couldn't see Basalite's reply since he's on ignore (just don't have the energy to read or to reply to all of it).

You put me on "ignore" because you had no logical response to what I said so you labeled me as someone not worth addressing anymore, although you obviously have the "energy" to do so indirectly. You could have simply, and graciously, disagreed and moved on, or simply, and quietly, ignored, me. Instead, you'd rather announce to everyone that you put me on "ignore" as a way to discredit me personally, and entirely. That's the only reason why people announce to others that they have put someone on ignore.

The only reason I mentioned LF film in a previous thread is b/c Basalite said "film" (not 35mm or MF film, but film) was irrelevant today and had long ago been surpassed by digital. That is not true. I still use MF and especially LF film b/c it delivers resolution and qualities that digital (even MF digital) can not. So, for many of us film still has relevancy and still outperforms digital. That is not a lie. It is reality.

What is not "true" is what you just said. The question was whether digital has surpassed film in quality. Yes, it has. Just because there are no viable or available digital equivalents (for now) to your 8x10 camera doesn't change that fact. To try and dishonestly distort that argument by comparing someone using an 8x10 to someone using a 35mm DSLR is beyond ridiculous.

I'll refrain from mentioning such a "lie" about LF film again though. There is apparently a point in size that film can no longer be considered film. I guess it's the point where Basalite no longer has a valid argument. After all, we never dare to compare different sizes of digital sensors to each other. That would also be a "lie" I suppose.

In the end, I do believe that 35mm film has been surpassed by FF digital.

Very good. Now you are making a fair comparison.

It's why I shoot a lot with my FF DSLR. And with the D800 and Sony 7R, FF DSLRs are seriously challenging MF film in terms of pure resolution. Again, I do believe that. And we should all be happy. BUT, film still has relevancy for many and film (yes, LF film) can still outperform digital in any format. Where's the harm in that? We live in amazing times when a photographer can choose and take advantage of both if he or she chooses.

I never said large format can not "outperform" digital. Since there is no digital large format, that's obvious. I was comparing like for like image capture areas, and you know that.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
tex
(unknown member)
tex
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
ecm
ecm
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow