Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Print you say...  (Read 9418 times)
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 606


« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2010, 08:38:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmm well I'm not grasping the article myself. It was more along the lines of "trust me I know what I'm talking about", and a nicely worded rant.
In fact I'm not demanding anything, esp not pointless numbers.

But..
"You can't determine the absolute quality of a digital camera"

True, I agree, but you

"Can go outside and take a shot with a MF and DSLR" and show us the difference in DR, very very easily! Thus the heated debate might end at this point.
I'm sure there are some very good reasons why MF digital is desired by some and that it has a very real difference in bigger prints and quality. But we're not talking about that..we're on DR, and that alone. I suspect there might be a DR advantage to MF, but that it's not that much..and in the real world less than obvious. But we'll wait for those shots..  
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 08:39:53 AM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7991



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2010, 09:21:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I have stayed out of this fray until now, but I have read all of the posts in this and the related articles and threads, hoping for some useful information (as opposed to fervent, unsupported opinion). I have a fair amount of experience with various film formats in the film era (35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 primarily). I have zero experience with MF or LF in the digital world (my digital cameras have included Canon S60, G10, 10D, and 5D).

A number of individuals whom I respect highly have weighed in on the current issues (MF vs 35mm digital and especially the "amount" of dynamic range in each). And all I've learned so far is that some individuals consider the differences "obvious" while others admit that the differences are "obvious" only to "trained observers" and still others claim that there is no difference whatever (except in "price of equipment"). Except for "price of equipment", which can be verified by anyone on numerous websites (B&H for example), I have seen no evidence whatever to support any of the other positions.

IMHO, the only posts that have advanced this whole discussion are three in the current thread: Post #9 by DFAllyn, #13 by Ronny Nilsen, and #21 by Barry Fitzgerald. My thanks to DF, Ronny and Barry!

Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2010, 10:15:35 AM »
ReplyReply

This whole discussion is highly reminiscent of what was talked about regarding high-end audio components ..
***********
I hope we aren't going in the direction of degaussing plastic CDs, exotic wood pucks and $10k interconnects...:>)

Steve
Logged
image66
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2010, 11:47:42 AM »
ReplyReply

OF COURSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!!

Who's arguing that?  There is no way that an image from a Digital Rebel is going to match that from a a MFDB. But then again, there are no two MF Digital Backs the same either. Would you care to enlighten us on the differences between them?

To make things even more chaotic:  There is a difference in images between cameras of a single brand and sensor size.  The Canon 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D and 7D all have different native curves. The 5D and 5Dmk2 are no where identical. The Nikons are the same way in that no two models produce the same images.

Almost without exception, every DSLR is using CMOS sensors. Like lemmings, we forced them into that because ONE manufacturer happened to figure out how to get better noise levels from CMOS than CCD. (CMOS good, CCD baaaaad). Even though, "industry experts" have, for years, said that CCD is superior in image quality, we, the buyers, have chosen ONE imaging characteristic over all others and we've done this to ourselves.

Back in the "film days" (which some of us still live in for quantifiable reasons), no two films were the same. Some used Provia, others Velvia, while Ektachrome and Kodachrome had their followers and users. For some professional applications, C41 ruled the day and we have the Portra and Fujifilms to choose from.

I mention that because it's absolutely silly to make a comparison between a 35mm Provia 100F picture and a Hasselblad Portra 160NC shot blown up to 16x20. No matter how you post-process them THEY WILL LOOK DIFFERENT!!! Depending on the application, one will be superior to the other, but it's obvious that the Hasselblad shot will be superior. Or will it? Which is better? Why is it better? What is the application? (I still laugh at the Provia/Digital comparisons--Provia 100F being one of the lowest resolving transparency films on the market).

Each film has a specific way of "seeing"--just as each digital imager has a specific way of "seeing". I've asked this question before, but what "film" does YOUR camera's imager most closely match?  Don't give me that "whatever I want it to, I adjust it in post" nonsense because to do that you are bending bits (adjusting gamma, contrast, saturation, etc) far away from what the sensor itself is actually doing. The less bending you have to do, the better. (It's most likely the case that MFDB image data needs less bending to get to the usable form). The dirty little secret is that a lot of this bending is accomplished in-camera BEFORE the RAW file is written. You think those high-power processing chips are just there for JPEG files?Huh  Riiiight.

We KNOW that MFDB images look different than DSLR images. That's a given. But we've been reading all this self-grandizing pontification from the "experts" but absolutely no explanation as to why. There are too many variables involved that haven't been nailed down for an accurate comparison.

So we have this essay from an anonymous "industry insider and expert".  Yeah, fine. I got absolutely nothing from it and it contributes absolutely nothing to the advancement of photography. Basically, all it said was "those who write the big checks are smarter than you."

You know what?  I DON'T write big checks for THIS technology--I'm an industry insider and expert in something else, but while selecting and approving technology in my industry, we go about a time-consuming process of quantifying what exactly are the differences between products and WHY those differences exist. I've been doing the scientific method for over twenty years in the business world with high-tech products and know when somebody is blowing smoke.

So in other words, don't get so high and mighty on yourself. Until you pony up the facts and give me specifics as to what is going on between the technologies, I'm going to assume that you really don't know squat. (which is unfortunate, because it is obvious that you SHOULD know the facts)

In the last three threads on this, I'm the only one who has done any form of testing on anything and published it. Granted, it was a quick-and-dirty and offers no opinion to speak of, but of all the very very smart people that hang out here, I'm appalled that NOBODY else has done the same.  Shame on us!

I guess it's just easier to write a "I'm smarter than you" essay.
Logged
Luis Argerich
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


Astrolandscaper


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2010, 12:27:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I've read a lot of posts and work by anonymous and my conclusion is that he is not a very reliable writer.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2010, 12:41:00 PM »
ReplyReply

A camera is tool. Nothing less, nothing more.
A tool is an instrument destined to help an operator to acheive properly a task, acording to his aims and desires.
Talking about photography, it results that the tool has a technical aspect, and the purpose is esthetic and artistic.
Tools have different shapes, power, and complexities that sirve different styles, goals and operators.
The crafstman that use the tool is not there to tell how the tool has been built, but to master the tool itself.
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.

Fred.
Logged
ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2010, 01:19:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.

I think there is no single test comparison possible, for different characteristics different type of tests are needed in order to compare two different devices, and the DxO contributes here as well. The question is what one makes out of it.
Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2010, 01:27:39 PM »
ReplyReply

..adding to what Fred said, there is also careful application of technique.  Getting the most from what the tool can deliver, and today's tools are delivering quite a lot, if at least enough to make the job work.  As a professional I only care what I put in front of the client, and not how the H E double hockey sticks I went through to get it.  I'm very happy with my 40D for quick returns, and still love my MAM M645 for the extra "pop" I get from it.

Lenses have a lot to do with and so does post processing and printing.  Maybe with DXO, and after following some advice on these forums I too can become a expert at shooting and getting high quality shots of paper targets.  However, clients pay me to shoot other things....
Logged
s00
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2010, 02:58:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Talking about photography, it results that the tool has a technical aspect, and the purpose is esthetic and artistic.
Quote from: fredjeang
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.

These statements are only true only for a limited audience i.e. for some (most?) members of this forum and readers of this site.

There are lots and lots of people for whom "numbers and scientific evidences" are VERY meaningful : Scientific photography, documentary photography, law enforcement, surveillance.......

Personally, I find these discussions interesting and lean towards the "I don't care which camera I use" camp. But that's only because my photography is purely recreational.

So, please, someone make those measurements and record those numbers!
Logged
Rory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2010, 03:26:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pete Ferling
Maybe with DXO, and after following some advice on these forums I too can become a expert at shooting and getting high quality shots of paper targets.  However, clients pay me to shoot other things....

Hey Pete - not much detail in the sky in your avatar - maybe should have used the 645 <grin>  - just kidding.

Rory
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7487


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2010, 03:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Without science and knowledge we wouldn't have DSLR,
or MFDBs,
or Velvia,
or any other film,
nor would we have a camera to put the film into,
nor a lens to put in front of it.
Neither would we have nuclear power,
electric light
or electricity at all.
Horsepower would be the power of the horse
and torque would be nothing to care about at all.
We would not have DDT, BBC, CIA, IBM
but also no penicillin.
Life expectancy would be short, even if we survived birth.

Science and technology may matter, after all.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: fredjeang
A camera is tool. Nothing less, nothing more.
A tool is an instrument destined to help an operator to acheive properly a task, acording to his aims and desires.
Talking about photography, it results that the tool has a technical aspect, and the purpose is esthetic and artistic.
Tools have different shapes, power, and complexities that sirve different styles, goals and operators.
The crafstman that use the tool is not there to tell how the tool has been built, but to master the tool itself.
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.

Fred.
Logged

Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2010, 03:33:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
A camera is tool. Nothing less, nothing more.

And tools have specs ... and when people exaggerate the specs on their tools to try and impress , people in the know call BS ...

All this tooing and froing about craft and art and commerce and whatnot ... all interesting ... for another discussion ...
Logged
Dave Millier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2010, 03:40:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Jeremy, the article was not writen by Michael and I did not declare that they were scientificly right, what I did say yes is that I thing and I know that Michael and others are pretty well informed and are experienced enough that I give them at least good credit. And if they make mistakes and rectify, for me it's fine.
If I do not agree with Michael, and it has happened, I say it as clearly as when I do agree.
Simply, if I ask myself the question: with who would I like to do a workshop, or been trained in order to improve my technic ? Michael would be high on my list. He is not the only one, but I would certainly (and actually I do throughout this website) learn a lot from his knowledge.
If I was an executive in photographic industry and need some consulting, he would be also high on my list. I'm not the only one to consider this, as he actually do so currently. People fully involved in the industry fully trust him like people trust Mark, for a reason I guess.
So, an error or exageration (if there is) in an article for me does not affect my position.

Fred.

Fred

if Michael or anyone else whose expertise you trust said: "medium format backs have 286 stops more dynamic range than the Hubble space telescope" would you automatically assume they were right?  A small number of people seem to be mis-understanding the unease that is being expressed.  Many people have publically stated they are content to accept that medium format backs can offer superior overall image quality to 35mm sensors but they are surprised by the scale of the supposed advantage in dynamic range. They would like to see some evidence of the claim. If this can be produced, everyone will go away happy; end of debate.  But we haven't really seen any evidence. Instead, we get claim and more claims and a bit of weasel words to fudge the issue. Why can't we see the evidence if is so clear cut? More words are not really necessary.  The cynic might suspect that the evidence can't be found and that a bit of a face-saving operation is being mounted. I'm glad to say that not being a cynic, I look forward with confidence that the evidence will be collected and made into a nice article - then we can all switch to arguing how it is achieved...

Logged

My website and photo galleries: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5138


« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2010, 03:58:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I endorse the idea of applying Occam's razor, a.k.a. the Principle or Parsimony, or KIS: favor the simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts.

Or from a different perspective: favor a neutral position or null hypotheses like there are no significant difference in DR between MF and 35mm digital unless there is evidence that contradicts it.

The one central observational fact offered in the essay is that people can tell the difference between DMF over 35mm format digital when they view sufficiently large prints; specifically, larger than 20"x16" [corrected], which means that current 35mm files are being displayed at less than 250PPI [corrected] when cropped to that shape.

The simplest explanation that comes to mind is greater spatial detail (or resolution or sharpness or whatever).
That is, the larger images delivered by the MF lenses have more detail (more "lines per picture height", achievable even with equal or slightly less "lines per mm" thanks to the larger size of the image formed on the larger sensor) and the higher pixel count MF sensors can record more spatial detail, so putting it all together gives more spatial detail in the files, and on the prints. On the second part of sensor resolution, it has been shown that sharp eyes can see the difference between 250PPI prints and higher PPI prints, when dealing with Bayer CFA sensors.

This proposed explanation is minimal in that it really relies only on a clear, measured, uncontroversial difference (pixel counts and measured sensor resolution in lines per picture height), and also has the virtue of explaining the other half implied by the claim, that differences are less visible or not visible at all in smaller prints.

I do not see any reason to introduce any hypothesis about dynamic range differences in order to explain the phenomenon mentioned by Anonymous. Dare I mention that the visibility of dynamic range differences should not be affected so much by print size? And I am glad that no-one has talked about "micro-contrast" yet!

So I see nothing in the Anonymous essay that leads me to reject the null hypotheses stated above about DR differences.


By the way, I do see elsewhere evidence pointing to some DR advantage for MF over 35mm format in equal sized prints of base ISO images, due to the measurements I have seen of higher per pixel S/N ratio at base ISO for the FF CCD's of MF, and the ditherering effect of printing at higher PPI on perceived DR. And MF might have other advantages, like lower lens aberrations due to working at a less low f-stop to get a given DOF. But I am only discussing the evidence raised in the essay.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 04:07:24 PM by BJL » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2010, 04:14:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it would be good for members of the Forum to recognize that the sentence in Mark Dubovoy's article causing pages and pages of commentary has been removed. Furthermore, there was a commitment to undertake further work on this issue. Therefore, I think it only makes sense to put that part of the discussion to rest until we see the further work.

As for the current discussion about the contribution from "Anonymous", I agree with that person's basic point that it's best to print the pictures to appreciate overall IQ differences between MF and DSLR images, especially if we are talking about using professional printers (e.g. an Epson 3800 or better) on high quality non-matte papers. This combination produces more resolution and finer tonality than are visible on most of our displays, and because the differences in these qualities between high-end DSLRs and MF, while they exist, can be somewhat subtle, what we see of them may well reside within the difference between a display medium and a fine print medium. I don't quite agree that the differences only begin to show at 16*20 inches. I think they are apparent at least down to 13*19 as well, but the question of the dimensions at which size begins to matter I think depends very much on the characteristics of the image, the quality of post-processing and how trained is the observer looking at such comparisons.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2010, 04:23:20 PM »
ReplyReply

A serious photographer does not need to know how much point DR have this or that.
He just need to know that it has enough,
and as an experiment user that I respect have mentionned: what to do with it.
None profesional photographer that I know is preocupated by numbers, excepted the ones in their bank account...
I leave you with your DRs, DoX and high-end science essays.
Let me know when you publish in the Cambridge's journal.  

I'll read with great pleasure.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2010, 04:41:13 PM »
ReplyReply

There's nobody else in the block right now - the neighbours have gone off to Bahrain for the bum end of winter, so I am able to turn the music up to proper distortion levels and I have played Kid Rock's All Summer Long perhaps seven times in a row; great video and those girls and those boats just embody all that is my particular version of the American Dream. I shall never be back there, I don't expect, and the Dixie flag I bought years ago in Miami has long vanished.

Does anybody know whether anybody manufactures stick-on, plastic/transfer versions of it - the flag - that can be put onto a car? It would save me doing a roof respray which, on an eleven year old rusty and scarred Ford makes little sense, and I could get away with just getting rid of some oxidation which I could then overlay with the plastic. I was tempted to paint flames, but that would, in turn, just tempt the local tontos and an old car is better than no car.

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2010, 06:34:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Does anybody know whether anybody manufactures stick-on, plastic/transfer versions of it - the flag - that can be put onto a car? It would save me doing a roof respray which, on an eleven year old rusty and scarred Ford makes little sense, and I could get away with just getting rid of some oxidation which I could then overlay with the plastic. I was tempted to paint flames, but that would, in turn, just tempt the local tontos and an old car is better than no car.

Rob,
Is this your way of stating that you'd rather buy a new car than an MFDB system?  

It seems clear to me that a lot of the fuss about this DB versus 35mm DSLR issue is due to the sharp increase in cost for what is probably a very disproportionately small increase in quality, coupled with some serious disadvantages of the MFDB regarding weight, high-ISO performance, slow frame rate and a few other nice features which the latest DSLRs offer.

I have to say that I very much appreciate the concept of using the right tool for the job. Just recently, after taking delivery of my new chaise longue for my new house, I was surprised to find included with the chairs, packets of short, squat, timber legs with self-tapping screws.  

I always prefer to use my very portable, Panasonic 12 volt drill with rechargeable battery for such jobs. It's just so handy. Alas! It wasn't powerful enough to drive those 4" self-tapping screws into the timber base of the chaise longue. I had to bring out my heavy, 750 watt, two-handled Ryobi electric drill with attached power cord that needed plugging into an extension cord which needed plugging into a power socket.

I couldn't help thinking to myself at the time, 'This must be just like using an MFDB. The right tool for the job'.  
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 06:41:39 PM by Ray » Logged
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39

Shoot me, I'm not the piano player


« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2010, 08:11:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Alan Goldhammer
...Claims are made by people with PhDs after their name (I have one but don't make any claims!!
Um, you claim to have a PhD after your name...
Logged

“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” ― Stephen King
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2010, 09:25:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rory
Hey Pete - not much detail in the sky in your avatar - maybe should have used the 645 <grin>  - just kidding.

Rory

Rory, it pains me that I cannot have a 645 pointed at me all the time... )  Alas, I'm just another dude with his hat on backwards and pissing people off in the front row of life.  Aside from the pun, there is some truth to your comment.  I do like playing with digital bracketing, but find the one click -details in both shadows and highlights -approach with MF a bit easier on the post processing.  Sure you can run one of several methods to mix bracket digital shots to gain DR, and even though there is improvement, none of mine looked better than the straight MF shots with simple LR adjustments.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad