Dave Dougherty
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks, Walter. I will give that a try.
Dave D
Dave D
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Enough!
- Thread starter Wile E. Coyote
- Start date
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Steady on, no need for sarcasm.
I was merely pointing out that whilst it may be possible to print 16*20 from the E10, it would be rarely worth doing so because the resolution is insufficient to support this print size if you care about detail rendition.
A better claim might have been something like: The E10 can do very nice 10 * 8 prints plus the occasional large print where detail is unimportant for the success of the image (soft portraits?).
Mind you even then there is simply no substitute for resolution. I printed a couple of studio portraits from sample files from the 14n to Super A3+ and even though this camera has its share of problems, the detail was incredible.
I've done plenty of 5 x 4 B&W work myself so I'm quite familiar with what can be done with big formats; I just don't see the point of raising expectations unreasonably with overstated claims of the capabilities of a 3.7 MP small sensor camera...
I was merely pointing out that whilst it may be possible to print 16*20 from the E10, it would be rarely worth doing so because the resolution is insufficient to support this print size if you care about detail rendition.
A better claim might have been something like: The E10 can do very nice 10 * 8 prints plus the occasional large print where detail is unimportant for the success of the image (soft portraits?).
Mind you even then there is simply no substitute for resolution. I printed a couple of studio portraits from sample files from the 14n to Super A3+ and even though this camera has its share of problems, the detail was incredible.
I've done plenty of 5 x 4 B&W work myself so I'm quite familiar with what can be done with big formats; I just don't see the point of raising expectations unreasonably with overstated claims of the capabilities of a 3.7 MP small sensor camera...
Your powers of observation simply amaze me!!! How did you ever
figure that out????
I know a photogrpher who shoots color film with a 4" x 5"
sheet-film camera. He does his own processing and it still cost
him $5.00 for each exposure he makes just to process the film so he
can see the negative. If he doesn't get better results as a result
of spending all that money, he would be absolutely nuts. I am sure
that he isn't nuts!
BTW, have you ever bothered to compare the prints you are able to
make from the images you get to prints made from images captured
with 8" x 10" sheet film camers??? I am quite sure that harsh
reality would reveal that your prints don't measure up either.
There are some conditions in which the Exx's will produce
outstanding quality and other conditions in which the Exx's simply
do not shine. If I am satisfied to enjoy the outstanding images I
get from my Exx under the correct conditiions, why do you feel
compelled to belittle my choice or my results?
Also, where have you ever seen a message posted that even implied
that the quality of Exx images equals that of medium format film?
Please post the link so I might read that post for myself.
I think that one of your biggest mistakes was assuming that the
Exx's or D100's could equal medium format film in quality. They
can't, but that doesn't diminish their value for the things they
can do!
Tirades such as yours are precicely what this thread is objecting
to. They do nothing to further our understanding of the tools we
use or the way we can use them to the best advantage.
--
Phil A
Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.
E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1
Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
I'm not convinced that the film stock is always identical - sometimes sheet film is on a thicker base.
Small sensor cameras pack in a lot more pixels per unit area than DX sensors so there should be a lot more room for increasing pixel counts yet without having to go to bigger (and much more expensive) sensors. I reckon 12MP ought to be feasible, even if you just shrink the pixels without doing anything else. Pixel size would still be bigger than P&S sensors. The trade off would be more noise and lower ISO but I'm sure many people would be happy to have a high res, low ISO camera if that what it took. I never use my D100 above the base ISO anyway.
Small sensor cameras pack in a lot more pixels per unit area than DX sensors so there should be a lot more room for increasing pixel counts yet without having to go to bigger (and much more expensive) sensors. I reckon 12MP ought to be feasible, even if you just shrink the pixels without doing anything else. Pixel size would still be bigger than P&S sensors. The trade off would be more noise and lower ISO but I'm sure many people would be happy to have a high res, low ISO camera if that what it took. I never use my D100 above the base ISO anyway.
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
The film base does play a functional, not just structural part, as it contains anti halation layers to prevent contrast lowering light scattering into the emulsion from the back...
Greetings. As a photographer who has used 35mm and 4x5 film for
about 20 years, please let me say that the "thickness of the film
base" on any film had little to do with the resolution capability
of the film. The only purpose of the base as far as I know, is to
be a "support" or carrier of the silver halide grains which make up
your image. The light does not go through the base before it
strikes the image-forming silver halide crystals, so in terms of
film quality and resolution, it is irrelevant. Indeed, the 4x5
Ectachromes I shot were vastly superior to the best 35mm Nikon
lenses, NOT because of the quality of Nikon optics, but simply the
SIZE differential between 35mm film and 4x5 sheet film. (Also, it
didn't hurt that high-end Schneider and Rodenstock glass was used
Anyway, sir, my point is that one cannot compare 35mm quality to
4x5 quality, except to say that it is much easier shooting sports
photography with a 35mm camera than a 4x5 view camera!
Thank you.
Stephen A. Solomon MBA
[email protected]
V
Vance
Guest
Okay Wile,
You seem to be a wise ole Coyote.
I've been on these boards since the E10 was the newest toy on the block, and I've learned one thing.
No matter what the latest is, someone is always going to say theirs is better.
I'd suggest you do the old " Water on the Ducks Back " technique.
Enjoy what you have, and what it does for you, and let these numb skulls fade away.
Else you'll end up like myself, looking and finding somewhere else to hang out, where folks believe the picture is the priority, and not what you used to get it.
--
Vance.
http://users.ev1.net/~txcowboy
http://pub57.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
now with live chat!
You seem to be a wise ole Coyote.
I've been on these boards since the E10 was the newest toy on the block, and I've learned one thing.
No matter what the latest is, someone is always going to say theirs is better.
I'd suggest you do the old " Water on the Ducks Back " technique.
Enjoy what you have, and what it does for you, and let these numb skulls fade away.
Else you'll end up like myself, looking and finding somewhere else to hang out, where folks believe the picture is the priority, and not what you used to get it.
--
Vance.
http://users.ev1.net/~txcowboy
http://pub57.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
now with live chat!
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Ger
In principle you are right but the numbers are way off.
3 shots on a D1x would give you about 17MP; you lose say 30% during the stitching process so we end up with a final image of around 12MP.
I have no doubt that 12MP D1x stitch would fully equal the quality of say 645 velvia scanned at 3000dpi and printed to say 19*13 (or whatever the max size of an a3 printer is). But bigger than this and the stitched frame would fall off in quality quickly whilst the 645 would hold to 24 inches wide or so.
To match a 10 * 8 negative would require a LOT more (50 - 100 MP??) and if we started talking about slow black and white then you start getting to silly numbers. Have you ever seen the incredible detail from BIG format B&W in the hands of a master printer (wet or digital)? Breathtaking - you feel you could put it under a microscope and just keeping racking up the magnification for ever.
The usual rule of thumb for film is something like: Up to about 4x magnification yopu will see no loss of detail compared to a contact sheet.
That suggests for 10*8 you could print up to 40 inch prints with near contact print quality...!
In principle you are right but the numbers are way off.
3 shots on a D1x would give you about 17MP; you lose say 30% during the stitching process so we end up with a final image of around 12MP.
I have no doubt that 12MP D1x stitch would fully equal the quality of say 645 velvia scanned at 3000dpi and printed to say 19*13 (or whatever the max size of an a3 printer is). But bigger than this and the stitched frame would fall off in quality quickly whilst the 645 would hold to 24 inches wide or so.
To match a 10 * 8 negative would require a LOT more (50 - 100 MP??) and if we started talking about slow black and white then you start getting to silly numbers. Have you ever seen the incredible detail from BIG format B&W in the hands of a master printer (wet or digital)? Breathtaking - you feel you could put it under a microscope and just keeping racking up the magnification for ever.
The usual rule of thumb for film is something like: Up to about 4x magnification yopu will see no loss of detail compared to a contact sheet.
That suggests for 10*8 you could print up to 40 inch prints with near contact print quality...!
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
I have one big stitched image I shot with the E10. It is a stitch of 9 E10 frames (3*3) rows put together using Panaorama tools. The final shot after cropping is about 25MP.
Image quality is much better than a single shot of the same scene: a streetsign across the road which is a blur on the single frame is sharp and clear on the stitch, for example.
But it is still nowhere near the detail of my 6*9 scans even on the cheap Epson 3200 flatbed. And it has a beautiful example of the perils of stitching - someone walked through the scene in the middle of the shoot and the stitching software deleted their upper body and left a torsoless pair of legs marching up the street...
Image quality is much better than a single shot of the same scene: a streetsign across the road which is a blur on the single frame is sharp and clear on the stitch, for example.
But it is still nowhere near the detail of my 6*9 scans even on the cheap Epson 3200 flatbed. And it has a beautiful example of the perils of stitching - someone walked through the scene in the middle of the shoot and the stitching software deleted their upper body and left a torsoless pair of legs marching up the street...
It seems that if we are comparing two different formats, we should
compare apples to apples rather than trying to compare apples to
oranges.
That may be true, but in order to get an accurate comparison
between the D1x to an 10x8 format, then we should either compare
them as single frames for both or say as a three frame stitch for
both formats.
The picture I asked you to consider is actually a stitch of several
images taken with my E20. There is a photographer in town who has
done a single shot photo of this same valley with a medium format
film camera. The print from his single shot picture of this valley
clearly blows my stitched photo away. His is one that I would be
proud to hang over my sofa.
--
Phil A
Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.
E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1
Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
My main camera is a D100. I got the Fuji for one reason only - to print high quality 18 * 12 inch landscapes.
I though the D100 could do it until I ran some test comparisons - I shan't bother printing bigger that about 15 * 10 from the D100 ever agian...
I though the D100 could do it until I ran some test comparisons - I shan't bother printing bigger that about 15 * 10 from the D100 ever agian...
It really depends upon what your priorities are. For most people,
smaller formats represent a better balance of qualities; this
probably underlies their popularity. No question 6 X 9 cm is quite
nice when you need improved detail and tonality compared to 35mm or
DSLR quality. I used to carry around the big Fuji rangefinders and
take careful incident light readings of everything. Eventually,
the Fujis were replaced by a Mamiya 7.
But everything has its place. The "oversized Leicas" are
reasonably portable and produce impressive results within their
domain, but they still can't match the versatility and convenience
of some of the smaller format equipment. I actually like
rangerfinder viewing for moving subjects shot with moderate wide
angles, but for careful and deliberate composition, nothing beats a
groundglass. I once dragged around a Pentax 6 X 7 and 4 lenses in
the pursuit of ultimate mobile image quality, but my sore shoulders
and the incredulous looks of bystanders reminded me that, like
everything, technical quality has to be balanced against other
realities.
As a hobbyist, my approach to photography has simplified over time.
I like to work with one camera and one or two lenses. This way, I
can concentrate more on improving my vision and pictures and less
on equipment. I do miss the additional clarity and better tonality
available from larger formats once in a while, but I won't go back
to them for my day to day shooting.
Tony
... and I agree that an awful lot of brand orientated nonsense is
written.
BUT...as far as pure image quality is concerned there is nothing
quite like harsh reality to puncture a rose-tinted view. You may
achieve quality 16*20 inch prints from your E10 but only in very
selected conditions.
I recently purchased a used Fuji GW690 III 6*9cm medium format
rangefinder camera and an Epson 3200 scanner. Now bear in mind this
scanner has a real world performance far lower than the claimed
3200dpi...
Scanned velvia landscape images from this combo printed on an Epson
1290 to 18 x 12 inches absolutely blow away the D100 RAW images
(which are significantly better than my old E10 could do at this
print size).
In terms of sharpness and fine detail the difference is ridiculous
to get anywhere near the film scans, possible a much as 16MP. It
- I would estimate that it would take at least 12MP of D100 quality
simply isn't possible to produce D100 prints with the same level of
detail above about 10 x 8 or so.
The funny thing is, 18x12 D100 prints look fine on their own but as
soon as you compare them to the scanned film prints it makes the
digital images look like watercolours.
I have some rather nice A3 prints of the Sierra Nevadas and Death
Valley shot on my E10 but compare them to the big film scans and
the difference is remarkable.
I've been using digital exclusively for over two years now and I
was quite sure it was not only a match for 35mm but also for bigger
formats.
No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format is vast.
Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to print
big landscapes but not until then, if we value real fine detail
rather than smooth blurs in our prints.
I shoot with an ancient E-10. I make prints up to 16x20 with no
problem. Little noise (grain) and very little CA.
This is an awesome piece of equipment, as is the E-20, and I'm sure
the E-1.
Write times? Slow.
Color rendition? Awesome!
Dust? None!
To all of you have moved on to other "stuff", good luck. There's
no sense in coming to this forum and telling all of us what's
"wrong" with Olympus; there's nothing wrong with Olympus! Olympus
is just NOT dealing with your self-serving needs.
Please take your accolades for Canon, Fuji, Nikon, ad nauseum, to
those respective forums and please let the OLYSLRTalk forum be what
it was designed to be.
If I've offended anyone, too bad! You are offending me with your
braggadaciousness regarding your "perfect" cameras.
--
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera
cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme
GraphireII...other stuff, too...
Dave Dougherty
Forum Enthusiast
I have to second what Vance says! Let's move on folks. Post some photos! Step up and show what you can do! Are you photographers or philosophers? How many pixels can dance on the head of a pin? Who gives a rip! Let's get back to basics!
Dave D
Dave D
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Area for area, 35mm is likely to be superior to large format.
The huge area advantage of large format often doesn't translate directly into a proportional improvement in final quality.
There are many reasons for this: 35mm lenses are often significantly better quality than large format lenses, sheet film may sometimes use a different formula than 35mm, film flatness and focal plane accuracy can be significant factors in large format, focusing and camera movement, slower shutter speeds etc all contribute.
And don't foget that the what counts is the linear magnification rather than the area differences. 5*4 is approximately 20 sq inches of film compared to 1.5 sq inches for 35mm which looks impressive but in fact is only really a x4 or so linear increase.
It's difficult to be absolute about this but generally speaking up until about a 4 - 5x magnification, you shouldn't really see that much difference between formats.
I guess this means a 5*4 contact and a 5*4 enlargement from 35mm would look little different. There's more data in the contact but it's too small to see at this print size.
A 20 - 25 inch wide print from 4*5 probably shows little degradation in quality from the contact but a 25 inch print from 35mm would not suffer close examination, especially if placed next to LF print.
In the end, the reason for LF these days is for mega prints (and perhaps for the movements).
The huge area advantage of large format often doesn't translate directly into a proportional improvement in final quality.
There are many reasons for this: 35mm lenses are often significantly better quality than large format lenses, sheet film may sometimes use a different formula than 35mm, film flatness and focal plane accuracy can be significant factors in large format, focusing and camera movement, slower shutter speeds etc all contribute.
And don't foget that the what counts is the linear magnification rather than the area differences. 5*4 is approximately 20 sq inches of film compared to 1.5 sq inches for 35mm which looks impressive but in fact is only really a x4 or so linear increase.
It's difficult to be absolute about this but generally speaking up until about a 4 - 5x magnification, you shouldn't really see that much difference between formats.
I guess this means a 5*4 contact and a 5*4 enlargement from 35mm would look little different. There's more data in the contact but it's too small to see at this print size.
A 20 - 25 inch wide print from 4*5 probably shows little degradation in quality from the contact but a 25 inch print from 35mm would not suffer close examination, especially if placed next to LF print.
In the end, the reason for LF these days is for mega prints (and perhaps for the movements).
When I was shooting black & white film 40 some years ago, I
purchased a 4" x 5" sheet-film "press" camera and was surprised to
find that the results I got were not all that much better than I
could get with 35mm film. As I recall, I was told then that 35mm
film could compare favorable with 4" x 5" sheet film because the
35mm film had a thinner base than the 4" x 5" sheet film had.
All the evidence I have seen in recent years would suggest that the
advantage of using a larger format film camera is that the larger
format allows more detail to be captured making it possible to
produce larger prints with better detail than is possible with
smaller format film. Are you saying that this understanding is
incorrect?
Are you saying that 1" of 35mm film will contain the same detail as
10 inches of 8" x 10" sheet film or the same as 1" of the sheet
film?
I am not sure what you mean by "share out". Are you saying that
the 10x enlargement of the 35mm will have the detail and sharpness
as the contact print of 8" x 10" sheet film? If that is what you
are saying, I am really** confused.
I would appreciate anything you could add to help clear up my
confusion.
Thanks,
--
Phil A
Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.
E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1
Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
It's a nice thought but this debate isn't purely acadamic.
The facts are quite simple and I mean no disrespect to the E10 or any other 4MP camera, but you will be disappointed if you fancy yourself the new Ansel Adams and try and produce a 40 inch wide 'Half Dome and Moon' with an E10.
As has always been the case in photography, there still isn't a true universal camera.
Horses for courses...
The facts are quite simple and I mean no disrespect to the E10 or any other 4MP camera, but you will be disappointed if you fancy yourself the new Ansel Adams and try and produce a 40 inch wide 'Half Dome and Moon' with an E10.
As has always been the case in photography, there still isn't a true universal camera.
Horses for courses...
ARB1
Senior Member
outstanding colors also, period! You can change almost everything else, but the color interpretation better be at least as good.
I shoot with an ancient E-10. I make prints up to 16x20 with no
problem. Little noise (grain) and very little CA.
This is an awesome piece of equipment, as is the E-20, and I'm sure
the E-1.
Write times? Slow.
Color rendition? Awesome!
Dust? None!
To all of you have moved on to other "stuff", good luck. There's
no sense in coming to this forum and telling all of us what's
"wrong" with Olympus; there's nothing wrong with Olympus! Olympus
is just NOT dealing with your self-serving needs.
Please take your accolades for Canon, Fuji, Nikon, ad nauseum, to
those respective forums and please let the OLYSLRTalk forum be what
it was designed to be.
If I've offended anyone, too bad! You are offending me with your
braggadaciousness regarding your "perfect" cameras.
--
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera
cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme
GraphireII...other stuff, too...
Wile E. Coyote
Leading Member
I really didn't expect this to go so far!
Thanks to all that have supported my POV, and to the others, this is what the original post was all about.
Some clarifications:
Thanks all for your responses.
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme GraphireII...other stuff, too...
Thanks to all that have supported my POV, and to the others, this is what the original post was all about.
Some clarifications:
Post processing? Oh, yes! To get my 16x20's I use a stairstep upsample that in miraculous! I posted something about it a couple weeks ago.
I'm slow and deliberate. I don't fire off 20 shots in the hopes of catching the right one. This is my style of shooting and it works for me.
I need say nothing... See the post "Post your Oly Color"
NONE!
As it stands, my E-10 is "perfect" for me, at this time. Do I see an upgrade in my future? No, not really. The E-10 was exactly what I was searching for when I laid out $1846.00 USD in June on 2002 and, today, it meets my needs very satisfactorily.
Thanks all for your responses.
----
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera
cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme
GraphireII...other stuff, too...
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme GraphireII...other stuff, too...
V
Vance
Guest
I could argue/debate with you quite a bit about that. I know for a fact that in the first year of the E10 a fellow member here, shot a commercial photo of Walt Garrison which was in turn used on a billboard in the Dallas area.
I could very easily shoot a 40 inch print with the E10 of anywhere. I'd even venture to say that if I used certain tricks, I could shoot as big as I wanted.
(Ever hear of stitching ?) ;o)
Regardless. If someone is using a camera that helps to keep them active in photography, then that is all that matters.
Myself. When I look at a great image, I don't wonder what camera they used, I wonder how they shot it!
--
Vance.
http://users.ev1.net/~txcowboy
http://pub57.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
now with live chat!
Anthony Cheh
Senior Member
DMiller:
Yes, a large print landscape with lots of detail and gradations is better served by having more information. A bigger negative/transparency/sensor allows this. The differences can be quite visible if the increase in information is extreme. It also helps that the EBC Fujinon on your camera is very very good.
By the same token, a photojournalist will choose a high frames per second, fast autofocusing D/SLR to capture fast breaking events. And, a hobbyist like myself will probably choose a lighter but reasonably versatile camera.
One shoe size does not fit all, but a camera like the E10 (or your D100) will cover a wide variety of common subjects quite well. Your own equipment choices are consistent with that.
The link I posted for Phil Arnold's interest isn't simple stitching software. There are some amazing results from people who maximized information density by taking each image at the longer focal length range and combined a larger number of images. The link shows some remarkably beautiful results with low mp digicams. It is a specialized technique but, with the right subjects and with proficiency, at a certain point it can produce better images than even sheet film.
Most importantly, the beauty of some of the images shows that it is still ultimately the photographer, not the camera, that is most important.
Tony
Yes, a large print landscape with lots of detail and gradations is better served by having more information. A bigger negative/transparency/sensor allows this. The differences can be quite visible if the increase in information is extreme. It also helps that the EBC Fujinon on your camera is very very good.
By the same token, a photojournalist will choose a high frames per second, fast autofocusing D/SLR to capture fast breaking events. And, a hobbyist like myself will probably choose a lighter but reasonably versatile camera.
One shoe size does not fit all, but a camera like the E10 (or your D100) will cover a wide variety of common subjects quite well. Your own equipment choices are consistent with that.
The link I posted for Phil Arnold's interest isn't simple stitching software. There are some amazing results from people who maximized information density by taking each image at the longer focal length range and combined a larger number of images. The link shows some remarkably beautiful results with low mp digicams. It is a specialized technique but, with the right subjects and with proficiency, at a certain point it can produce better images than even sheet film.
Most importantly, the beauty of some of the images shows that it is still ultimately the photographer, not the camera, that is most important.
Tony
Phil Arnold
Leading Member
Since you can't seem to relate to reason, I thought that some sarcasm might get through to you.
I beg to differ with you!!! With proper camera work and proper post processing both the E-10 and the E-20 are capable of producing prints up to 13" x19" that have amazingly good detail and not just for soft portraits. It takes extra effort to capture images that will make good large prints, but my E-10 and E-20 both clearly produced results that are greatly superior to the very best results I can get from my 35mm film camera (no matter how the images from the 35mm were scanned or printed)!
Statements like yours are both prejudicial and erroneous, and I have numerous prints to prove that the the Exx's can be used to produce high quality 13x19 prints with good detail. Might it be that because you have several cameras to pick form, you haven't been forced to learn how to get the most out an Exx? To get good large prints from an Exx, the focus has to be dead-on-perfect and that can be difficult to achieve. If the focus isn't dead-on-perfect the results will be soft and no amount of post processing will be able to fix that. Could it be that the reason you don't think that the Exx's can produce good 13x19 prints is that you have never learned how to get the focus dead-on-perfect? The results that are possible from the Exx's will never match the results that can be obtained form a 1Ds or a medium format film camera, and no one should expect them to. But that is no reason belittle the Exx's the way you seem compelled to do.
As long as you can afford to purchace what ever camera equipment you choose to use, there is no reason for you to waste your time learning to get sharp prints out of an Exx. But in the hads of someone who has the proper skill and patience the Exx's can be used to produce prints that clearly surpass what should theoretically be possible. Just because YOU can't do it doesn't mean that it can't be done!
BTW, you never did bother to answer my questions, so I will ask them again.
You have never seen the prints I am able to make, but you seem to have a need to belittle them and the tools I use to get them. Why???
Where is the link to the thread that suggests the results from Exx's equal those from medium format film cameras (without stitching images together)? I really want to read that post for myself.
--
Phil A
Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.
E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1
Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com
Wile E. Coyote
Leading Member
--I was merely pointing out that whilst it may be possible to print
16*20 from the E10, it would be rarely worth doing so because the
resolution is insufficient to support this print size if you care
about detail rendition.
A better claim might have been something like: The E10 can do very
nice 10 * 8 prints plus the occasional large print where detail is
unimportant for the success of the image (soft portraits?).
Mind you even then there is simply no substitute for resolution. I
printed a couple of studio portraits from sample files from the 14n
to Super A3+ and even though this camera has its share of problems,
the detail was incredible.
I've done plenty of 5 x 4 B&W work myself so I'm quite familiar
with what can be done with big formats; I just don't see the point
of raising expectations unreasonably with overstated claims of the
capabilities of a 3.7 MP small sensor camera...
Your powers of observation simply amaze me!!! How did you ever
figure that out????
I know a photogrpher who shoots color film with a 4" x 5"
sheet-film camera. He does his own processing and it still cost
him $5.00 for each exposure he makes just to process the film so he
can see the negative. If he doesn't get better results as a result
of spending all that money, he would be absolutely nuts. I am sure
that he isn't nuts!
BTW, have you ever bothered to compare the prints you are able to
make from the images you get to prints made from images captured
with 8" x 10" sheet film camers??? I am quite sure that harsh
reality would reveal that your prints don't measure up either.
There are some conditions in which the Exx's will produce
outstanding quality and other conditions in which the Exx's simply
do not shine. If I am satisfied to enjoy the outstanding images I
get from my Exx under the correct conditiions, why do you feel
compelled to belittle my choice or my results?
Also, where have you ever seen a message posted that even implied
that the quality of Exx images equals that of medium format film?
Please post the link so I might read that post for myself.
I think that one of your biggest mistakes was assuming that the
Exx's or D100's could equal medium format film in quality. They
can't, but that doesn't diminish their value for the things they
can do!
Tirades such as yours are precicely what this thread is objecting
to. They do nothing to further our understanding of the tools we
use or the way we can use them to the best advantage.
--
Phil A
Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.
E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1
Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme GraphireII...other stuff, too...
I think most would agree that keef's "head in the sand" post
I think most wouyld agree that you should take a look in a dictionary if you are confused by the meaning of "rude."
I read these message boards and add to them for my benefit and that of others. It's been a while since I wrote on the E1. Living in Tokyo I was one of the first to try out this camera. I wrote my opinions. They were not positive and were met with rudeness.
Recenlty I have answered a couple of people who were thinking of buying an E20. Since i used one for 1 1/2 years and now own something else, I felt my opinion must be worth something.
I cannot speak for all posters negative to the E1, but for my part what I have said was said in the hopes of continuing a discussion.
http://www.waddo.net
features many E20 photos and will shortly feature many 10d as well.
Keith
I think most would agree that if I call you a dummmmb assssss, that would be rude. I think that most would agree that my ostrich metaphor was a succinct way of suggesting that this "ENOUGH!" message is a call to blind loyalty and the desire to stifle the exchange of ideas.
I think most wouyld agree that you should take a look in a dictionary if you are confused by the meaning of "rude."
I read these message boards and add to them for my benefit and that of others. It's been a while since I wrote on the E1. Living in Tokyo I was one of the first to try out this camera. I wrote my opinions. They were not positive and were met with rudeness.
Recenlty I have answered a couple of people who were thinking of buying an E20. Since i used one for 1 1/2 years and now own something else, I felt my opinion must be worth something.
I cannot speak for all posters negative to the E1, but for my part what I have said was said in the hopes of continuing a discussion.
http://www.waddo.net
features many E20 photos and will shortly feature many 10d as well.
Keith
Phil Arnold
Leading Member
I'm not familier with "QED", so I am trying to figure out what you ment by responding with QED.
I'm sure that you will fill me in.
Thanks
--
Phil A
Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.
E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1
Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com
I'm sure that you will fill me in.
Thanks
--
Phil A
Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.
E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1
Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com
Anthony Cheh
Senior Member
DMiller:
I understand why Phil took offense to your comments. You might want to review them:
(start quotes - with explanation in brackets)
As a former E10 owner (now D100) [I've moved "beyond" the E-10 but I still need to state to obvious mainly because it makes me feel good], I sympathise with those with excessive affection for the E series AND those who have lived with the frustrations...[I have been disabused of my "excessive affection" and no longer have such frustrations...pity the rest of you poor sods still owning an E-10]
.....
BUT...as far as pure image quality is concerned there is nothing quite like harsh reality to puncture a rose-tinted view [people who only own DSLRs are self-deceiving...I have learned the TRUTH]. You may achieve quality 16*20 inch prints from your E10 but only in very selected conditions. [Sigh, you really are underpriviledged unlike me].
In terms of sharpness and fine detail the difference is ridiculous [between my new toy and you underpriviledged lot] - I would estimate that it would take at least 12MP of D100 quality to get anywhere near the film scans, possible a much as 16MP. [In other words nothing in consumer digital can match my new big toy].
The funny thing is, 18x12 D100 prints look fine on their own but as soon as you compare them to the scanned film prints it makes the digital images look like watercolours. [Pity you who don't have my big camera unless you like painting].
I have some rather nice A3 prints of the Sierra Nevadas and Death Valley shot on my E10 but compare them to the big film scans and the difference is remarkable. [I'm not boasting....the E10 was, well...."nice"...you see I am a generous man...I have pity on the little people].
I've been using digital exclusively for over two years now and I was quite sure it was not only a match for 35mm but also for bigger formats. [Even I was once ignorant until I acquired my big new toy].
No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format is vast. [So now I'm no longer self-deceptively ignorant like the people who have kept their E-10s and I can be smug in knowledge that I do have something better than the other children].
Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to print big landscapes but not until then, if we value real fine detail rather than smooth blurs in our prints. [Until, years from now, when the 12-16 MP DSLRs are common, the underpriviledged will have "smooth blurry pictures" unlike the "real fine detail" that is the true test of a real camera....I am so happy that I am one of the select few and I just need to let the rest of you feel bad].
(end of quotes and discussion of the underlying meaning)
DMiller, no one disputes that a 6 X9 cm camera with a fine lens can produce sharper results than most DSLRs and 35mm cameras. My commentary is pointed, but you went beyond that when you insisted that the one area that your new toy (and indeed, film) has an advantage over DSLRs must be the sine qua non of true quality.
I don't know about you, but I'll take the fine E10 pictures I've seen on this forum over the mediocre ones I shot on my Fuji 690 any day.
Tony
I understand why Phil took offense to your comments. You might want to review them:
(start quotes - with explanation in brackets)
As a former E10 owner (now D100) [I've moved "beyond" the E-10 but I still need to state to obvious mainly because it makes me feel good], I sympathise with those with excessive affection for the E series AND those who have lived with the frustrations...[I have been disabused of my "excessive affection" and no longer have such frustrations...pity the rest of you poor sods still owning an E-10]
.....
BUT...as far as pure image quality is concerned there is nothing quite like harsh reality to puncture a rose-tinted view [people who only own DSLRs are self-deceiving...I have learned the TRUTH]. You may achieve quality 16*20 inch prints from your E10 but only in very selected conditions. [Sigh, you really are underpriviledged unlike me].
In terms of sharpness and fine detail the difference is ridiculous [between my new toy and you underpriviledged lot] - I would estimate that it would take at least 12MP of D100 quality to get anywhere near the film scans, possible a much as 16MP. [In other words nothing in consumer digital can match my new big toy].
The funny thing is, 18x12 D100 prints look fine on their own but as soon as you compare them to the scanned film prints it makes the digital images look like watercolours. [Pity you who don't have my big camera unless you like painting].
I have some rather nice A3 prints of the Sierra Nevadas and Death Valley shot on my E10 but compare them to the big film scans and the difference is remarkable. [I'm not boasting....the E10 was, well...."nice"...you see I am a generous man...I have pity on the little people].
I've been using digital exclusively for over two years now and I was quite sure it was not only a match for 35mm but also for bigger formats. [Even I was once ignorant until I acquired my big new toy].
No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format is vast. [So now I'm no longer self-deceptively ignorant like the people who have kept their E-10s and I can be smug in knowledge that I do have something better than the other children].
Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to print big landscapes but not until then, if we value real fine detail rather than smooth blurs in our prints. [Until, years from now, when the 12-16 MP DSLRs are common, the underpriviledged will have "smooth blurry pictures" unlike the "real fine detail" that is the true test of a real camera....I am so happy that I am one of the select few and I just need to let the rest of you feel bad].
(end of quotes and discussion of the underlying meaning)
DMiller, no one disputes that a 6 X9 cm camera with a fine lens can produce sharper results than most DSLRs and 35mm cameras. My commentary is pointed, but you went beyond that when you insisted that the one area that your new toy (and indeed, film) has an advantage over DSLRs must be the sine qua non of true quality.
I don't know about you, but I'll take the fine E10 pictures I've seen on this forum over the mediocre ones I shot on my Fuji 690 any day.
Tony
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum