>>Large formats suck (sharpness-wise, not grain-wise) if you keep the
>>aperture miniscule. Wider is sharper.
What a bunch of garbage some wonderbrick numbed minds come up with. Over
and over again we read from Nikon/Canon people reasons why their film
format of choice is superior to large-format. This DOF arguement is as
crusty as an old diaper. And it stinks just as bad.
When comparing images from a 4x5 that are compositioned the same as 35mm
(pick either vertical or horizontal to match images) you will need a 125mm
lens in 4x5 to match a 50mm lens in 35mm film format. Granted, the DOF
will be different at a given aperature and without using movements will
require stopping down two additional stops on the 4x5 to match DOF.
Will the additional two stops affect diffraction enough to be a problem in
the 4x5? Possible if you are running say F45 or F64. However, even at
that, one must compare final usage size to determine how much of a problem
it is. The reality is that blowing up to a 11x14 print size will still be
in the large format favor because any loss of resolution due to defraction
is more than made up for in the resolving capability of the film and the
less magnification of lens aberations.
One cannot shoot a large format the same way as a 35mm camera. First of
all, why would you? The days of the 4x5 press camera are long gone and the
main purpose today is fine-art or any commercial work requiring movements.
A good 4x5 field camera can produce absolutely stunning images and even
with print sizes of 11x14 or 16x20 defraction really isn't a problem. I
have a 6x7 that has some movements on the back (film back swings/tilts) and
it comes in handy when working in the studio but in the field I'll just
stop down more. That way I don't have to worry about destroying a frame
(mine doesn't have a dark slide).
I'll never forget a job my last employer's ad-agency did. They had a
commercial photographer photograph our products with a 4x5. They were
incredibly anal about exposure and must have blown close to a dozen
poloroids on each and every shot. He never used movements, the exposures
never were perfect and flash reflections hot spotted areas. They knew that
it was going to be a photoshop job (and charged us accordingly). All this
detail, detail, detail and using such high-end film format for the job.
For what? A product catalog in duotone where the image size never exceeded
4x5 on the printed page. How did they get the image into the computer?
Flatbed scanner at 300dpi. Didn't matter, the print shop never did get the
plates lined up so every single catalog had blurry pictures. (not one page
of any of the 10,000 catalogs were correct). For this we paid close to
$5000 for the photography alone! It was pure garbage and I let it be known
where every fault was at. Didn't matter, rumor was that our marketing
director was having an affair with both our boss and probably everybody at
the ad agency. I was eventually "downsized" and the marketing director (she
was just a secretary with no marketing background or knowledge) is still
there and the ad agency is still ripping the company off.
To quote somebody we've all come to love: "Think, people, THINK!
Ken Norton
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|