Medium Format vs. Full Frame Locked

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,474
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

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.

That's very true and we have hit a point of "good enough" quite some time ago.  However, people ask questions, which require technical answers.  For example, the OP asked a question that required that technical answer.  How do you answer whether or not someone should go with film or digital based on their needs unless you have a certain set of technical expertise and you can compare the two media.  We do tend to be mired in minutiae, but that's different than not caring about the technical aspects at all.

Furthermore, with so much marketing BS thrown at us from each and every direction, it takes some technical expertise to separate the real deal from the BS and all the obfuscation that goes along with that.  So, the technical aspect certainly has its place.  It's not the end all and it shouldn't be, but the technical is what allows us to achieve the artistic.

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.

Slowing down and actually thinking about the scene has nothing to do with the media you're using.  You can shoot with a motordrive like a machine gun with film and you can do so with digital.  By the same token, you can put your camera on the tripod, scan the scene, think about what it is that you want to say, think about how you want to say and then shoot.  You can do that with film and digital as well.

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.

The thing is that you have to shoot a LOT before you can get to the point of not wasting a shot.  You have to practice and practice and practice.  That's a lot cheaper with digital precisely because you don't have the limited resources and you can experiment, get instant feedback and become better quicker.  Ask the same pro how many rolls of film he burned before he became as good as he was.

Another thing to remember, that film and processing were A LOT cheaper in the 80s and 90s than now.

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.

That's true, but that again goes back to the marketing BS.  How do do you determine what's good and what isn't?  We have gotten to the point where there is no difference in image quality between the same generation of cameras that share the same sensor size.  I think we're also fast approaching a point where there will be no palpable difference among different sized sensors (up to a point of course).  So, the way to determine whether X is worth the money over Y, we have to dig deep into the pixels.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +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