Originally posted by Torphoto Wow this thread is filled with alot of miss information.
The film vs digital thing is missing one critical factor, latitude! Film ( print ) can handle 4 stops over exposing and not just get detail but very good detail, the DR of Print film is alot greater than you give it credit for, more so B&W but it takes a printer with good experience to dodge and burn the scene together, an art that will soon be lost to time.
This is only true in specific instances (a very select group of three or four special-purpose, low contrast films), or with special processing. If you're allowed to use "special processing", then a digital camera far exceeds the latitude of print film with HDR processing.
Furthermore, in film, the vast majority of commercial work was done with positive film like Ektachrome and Velvia. These films have FAR less latitude(~7 stops) than the K-5 (~12-15 stops, depending on whom you believe). The only subjects art directors ever wanted print film for were portraits, to make retouching easier; the rest of the time it was Chrome, chrome, and more chrome.
That said, the insistance on chromes was due to workflow, not any absolute measure of quality; all the drum scanners and printing systems were set up to use positives, and dammit, that's what they wanted. Of course, before digital, chromes gave that "look" that National Geographic created a market for. But the vast majority of print work wouldn't have looked much different with print film for an origin.
Quote: Next as much as I like the k5 it can't replace my 5d MKII for my commercial use, maybe the K-3 can
The K-5 has closed the gap with FF significantly but remember your looking at a 2+ yr old design with a brand new one. When similar new tech is applied to the future FF sensors things will go back to advantage FF over aps-C again.
This is fundamentally true - that is, once the Sony sensor tech (or their competitor's response) moves to full frame, it will once again return the DR crown to the FF platform - assuming that it scales appropriately.
Still, I look through images from FF and APS-C, and I still see nothing like the difference I saw between medium format images and 35mm images. The difference between FF and APS-C is marginal in all but the most extreme cases. Both formats capture far more dynamic range than any reflective media can reproduce. It's like 4x5 film, back in the 80s and 90s. We'd shoot 4x5 for anyone who wanted it, and charge an arm and a leg for it, but we knew that essentially 2% of those clients actually needed 4x5 instead of medium format, and only 20% of the clients that wanted medium format needed MF instead of 35mm. It's the dirty secret of commercial photography.
I shot a lingerie catalog for a startup company once upon a time, and they *insisted* on 4x5 chromes. They wanted that "look", and my Hasselblad just wasn't going to give it to them. So I got out the Linhof and they paid thru the nose, and were happy, happy campers. I gave up trying to change their mind when the AD said "Money is no object."
Quote: Oh and BTW if you need to correct for +/- 4 stops of exposure in images you really need to rethink photography on a whole as a hobby, let alone a career. We all know the 5d MKII sensor has serious banding issues, but correctly exposed the advantage still goes to the MKII right up to 6400 iso.
The shadows in an image can *easily* be four stops down from the main exposure setting. Bringing detail into those shadows is roughly equivalent to underexposing by four stops. If the 5dmk2 sensor bands when recovering -4 stops, it will band when bringing detail out of those shadows, as well. I don't own one, so I don't know; I'm just reasoning with the information you've given me.