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

Macro guy wrote:

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.

It actually has a lot to do with the media and the medium... Explaining bad habits to people who didn't shoot before they fell into them is nuanced. The average photographer didn't have a polaroid back. We just accepted what was and dealt with what wasn't.

You can't lie about whether you're a capable or not as a photographer on film, the negatives don't lie and if you stuff something up then it teaches you. Or maybe you will learn once you've wasted a couple of rolls. You learn maybe once, and you learn quite quickly when you blank a roll, or get your exposure settings so badly wrong that the film you shot was useless not to do that again.

With digital you just delete it and go on with your day and pretend you're the world's most amazing photographer... Until... You get out on a job and you suffer the consequences of stuffing up someone's priceless wedding photos that tell the most important story of some people's lives...

"Hey there, err, can I have the bouquet back, I stuffed it up, Just wait a sec... While I'm at it can we redo the cake cut and the first dance?"

This is what happens with this mentality of shoot first and check later that has come with digital.

The problem is there are a lot of photographers who go out on a job with an attitude like that now because you can get a DSLR for under $500 with a kit lens and then charge someone $2000 for a wedding... Until your reputation as a human being is ruined thanks to Google Reviews or Facebook or what have you...

What I am also telling you here is that sometimes the technical details don't matter and the flaws are what makes it what it is. You've come to expect noiseless photos, whether that is a good thing or not is debatable... to some... But:

The very issue of noise is what leads people to cheat, and introduce Fuji and Sony sensors with baked in noise reduction and then you sacrifice detail for noise reduction and put up with smaller cameras for more convenience and then you tell me in this generation then why should I not just pull my iPhone out and pretend I'm a photographer...

If all it is is the smallest camera with the least amount of visible noise then camera phones have already won that battle, but the images often look like they're made out of plastic.

Yes but the grain structure is so important I'm going to sit there with my nose against the print just to check it out...

And this is the usual conundrum with dpreview.

 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