10D limits

[Erik M]

Depends on your subject matter. For low detail subjects you'll be okay--portraits, macro, street photography, etc. For grand landscapes the 10D will fall short of medium format and the 1Ds and MF digital backs and large format. Of course that's not to say that it will look bad, just not as good as the other mentioned formats. Why not use your MF equipment for landscapes and the 10D for everything else? It's not an 'either or' proposition.

[dbarthel]

I go to 13x19 almost without thought. Never gone bigger, though.

[Erik M]

>I also have medium format (Pentax 645N), and I can say my 13"x19" 10D prints are "better" than prints from scanned 645 negatives, because of no visible grain. I use a Polaroid 120 Sprintscan, which is not a drum scan, but still a very high quality film scanner.<

It might be a little different with transparancies then with color neg film. I've found (using my own SD9 and a friend's D60) that with foliage a 645 transparancy is crisper and has more fine detail than a 6MP dslr. But then again, I've found that when photographing pure rock formations (such as in Death Valley) 645 really doesn't capture any more detail than a 6MP DSLR. So in a way it really matters what you shoot and what type of of 'look and feel' you prefer and what type of enlargement sizes you're looking to do from varying subject matter. In fact, light and composition are far more important than resolution in the success of an image.

[BJL]

...BJL is an absolute whiz on this sort of thing   .

With flattery like that, I have to comment; but actually I have undergone a "conversion" to an obsession with print viewing, and a scepticism about numbers except when the numerical differences are so large that their implications for print quality are unambiguous.

   What I like to do now, and recommend, is to seek out high quality photographic prints of the type and size one aspires to, produced using the relevant camera (here the 10D) and then prepared and printed with skill and care, as would be done with a traditional "chemical" exhibition print.


P. S. I did a casual comparison of this kind between the Olympus E-20 and 35mm Kodak transparency films, by comparing different books in the "Day in the Life of ..." series, where the film/sensor choice is set by sponsorship. My casual conclusion was that, as one moves closer, the film photos start to show weaknesses first, with grain showing at distances where digital noise is still invisible. However, getting closer, the E-20 photos start to look the worst, because once visible, the noise is more colorful and distracting ("TV style confetti" versus "film soot"). Resolution tended to be the last problem, usually only an issue at closer viewing than needed to see grain or noise.

[Tammi]

I have a canon 10D. Will I get quality results from this camera printing a 20 x 24. What post processing will be required. I am new to digital but have shot medium format film for about 20 years. Is is possible to get comparable results. Thank you for your help.

[Ray]

Difficult to answer that question. You'll have to experiment with different types of images to see what works.

In general terms, film has the advantage of providing more resolution than digital because there's no precise cut-off. It just keeps on, providing more and more resolution at increasingly irrelevant contrast ratios till it reaches invisibility at about 2% MTF

Digital, on the other hand, does have a precise cut-off point. But it has the advantage of providing, perhaps, a higher contrast at resolutions lower (but more relevant) than the film cut-off point.

There's a whole lot of basic maths that deals with the relationships between resolution on sensor, resolution on enlarged print, and perceived resolution of print in relation to viewing distance from print. BJL is an absolute whiz on this sort of thing   .

I would say generally, a 20x24" print from a 10D can look spectacular, provided you've used your best lenses and have abided by all the accepted rules for attaining sharp images.

[gurtch]

I agree with the above, that with certain subject matter, 20"x30" prints from a 10D can be breath taking. I have a 20"x30" on my wall of an egret's head (large mass, plain backround). You can count the feathers and the eye has tremendous detail. Almost all of my work is seascapes, where there are large dunes, and large expanses of sky (with little distinct details), and large prints are not only possible, but stunning. I also have medium format (Pentax 645N), and I can say my 13"x19" 10D prints are "better" than prints from scanned 645 negatives, because of no visible grain. I use a Polaroid 120 Sprintscan, which is not a drum scan, but still a very high quality film scanner. Use careful technique, tripod,etc, and careful post processing. There are probably a hundred ways to get there, but I use Fred Miranda's Interpolation stair step Action to res-up, and his 10D Sharpening Action on my 10D images. By all means give a 20"x24" or 20"x30" a try. I know the "math" doesn't seem to work, but with careful interpolation and sharpening, the real world results may pleasantly surprise you.
Good Luck
Dave G.
www.modernpictorials.com

[gurtch]

Well said, Erik, and I agree with you. For sand dunes and sky, or sunrise/sunsets, my 10D prints are better than scanned negs. I suppose you could get some different points of view regarding slow (100 speed) neg vs slide film sharpness. Many feel neg films offer the greater sharpness. Splitting hairs here, I know.
Best to you.
Dave