Medium Format vs. Full Frame Locked

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

I posted up a 30megapixel 12x24 shot. If you open it at print size on your monitor in Photoshop or Lightroom, if you have your monitor scaled correctly you wont see the grain at all at 300dpi. That's from a very early version of Fuji Pro film they no longer make anymore and the grain structure is about equivalent to ISO800 or 1600 but it's not displeasing.

I'm not sure what "scaled correctly" means - the thumbnail image in the post doesn't show noise, but I can see noise clearly in the posts when viewed larger, and if I pixel-peep (which is a bad habit, I agree) the noise is quite evident, as is lack of sharpness at the corners.

Granted, those are all factors that we've come to expect with the conveniences and advancements brought about by digital. I enjoyed the photo in spite of them. I think a lot of people (sometimes myself included) forget that there's more to an image besides how sharp it is, how noisy it is, and even if there are any blown highlights or unrecovered shadows.

I'm not sure about the look of film compared with digital, though. I can see it and appreciate it, but it can also be emulated pretty easily in digital, if it's what you really want. What are your thoughts on that?

I think the only film I've ever shot was with those one-time use box cameras that you'd buy from grocery stores, back when I was a child. What holds me back from film now is largely the limited shot count per roll, and the lack of immediate feedback. I don't chimp many shots these days but it's a nice security blanket. I still miss enough shots that I recover by redoing it, which is something I wouldn't have the chance to do with film. And yes, as cheap as rolls of film and developing may be, they can add up quickly and it's an expense that occurs every time you shoot. I like the idea of one up-front cost, and not feeling like I'm getting charged per shot (which is the case with digital, printing aside).

Granted, I've often thought that there would be a feeling of release with film. You're limited in your shot count, so you try to make each one count (whereas with digital I try to do the same, but sometimes I just end up mashing the shutter button because I become lazy, and sort it out in post later). You don't have the ability to see what you took until it's developed, so you just take it and move on, hoping for the best. And it's film, so absolute perfection is not as easily reachable as it is with digital, and perhaps you stop worrying about trying to make every single shot perfect. I can see the appeal.

I've only been in photography as a serious hobby for a little over ten years, at this point. Maybe in a few more decades I'll get into film.

When you look at all the print settings that photo is designed to be printed at 12x24 if you were looking at it at that size you would not see the issues you're describing.

If you were to open that image in Photoshop and view it at print size or actually print it, you wouldn't see any issues and that's half the point. A lot of people get on forums and particularly this forum and talk about the technical aspects of photography.

To be honest I don't get it, and that's another thing, I don't really care anymore. I came to a realisation a while ago I can take amazing photos other people like but then it's a bitt of whatever. A lot of people get caught up in the technical aspects to impress eachother but then forge what they're actually supposed to be doing which is taking photos.

We didn't check and chimp back in the 90s either, we tended to accept what was and think about it a little longer. I went out with another person on Tuesday who is a professional photographer. With digital I have a habit of taking photos and thinking later. It becomes an automated process where I'm not even thinking about the settings or what I'm taking photos of despite shooting in M.

When you're actually talking about things and you slow down for a second you start to bring yourself back to what it is you're doing. Having a mentor there to talk about what I was doing actually made me check my meter and exposure settings. It made me scan the scene and think about what sort of photo I wanted to take.

There used to be a thing back in the 80s and 90s. I was speaking to another pro who used to do high end commercial jobs. He was saying, you would be given one maybe two rolls for a big job, and you would be told you could have all but two shots that were "good" when you think about it in terms of limited resources you tend to not waste them.

This is the thing also... We live in a generation where we look at everything at 100% which is the equivalent at 50megapixels to looking at a 48inch print with a loupe.

No one actually does that.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
rbf
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow