Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2016, 04:41 AM   #46
Veteran Member
Kolor-Pikker's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 333
QuoteOriginally posted by Pablo Villegas Quote
I think you're the one suffering from that effect... I never claimed film to be better looking than digital, in fact, digital right now has surpassed film in most things, except for one, the rolling off and handling of highlights.
You're the one using a slide film to claim all film has less DR than digital. Owning a Pentax 645D, and having shot some Portra 400 in 120mm, I can tell you, there's no way I can do what I do with film in daylight and overexposing with the Pentax. The DR is just not there on the highlights. Try an overexpose two stops to get that look on digital. It's basically impossible to overexpose film negative, you can always get it back.

Here's a clear example, on how digital handles overexposure... http://alcarlayblog.com/acarlayphoto/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/vertical-column-720x.jpg

You can find lots of examples on how film handles it, here's one... Jose Villa | Fine Art Weddings» Blog Archive » Poseidon shoot with Oncewed
To be honest you're supposed to under-expose digital and then push for the desired result, so comparing the two isn't really apples-to-apples. As I've said in my previous post the primary objective is to watch the histo and make sure nothing clips. Unless you're using a Canon with only 11 DR and pattern noise in the shadows, there's no reason to ETTR with a digital camera these days.

That first link is a prime example of how not to expose if you want to keep the highlights.

Those film photos are absolutely gorgeous though, never seen something shot so well both technically and artistically. It has "this is large format biatch, deal with it" written all over and I love it.


Last edited by Kolor-Pikker; 09-24-2016 at 04:47 AM.
09-24-2016, 06:23 AM   #47
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 90
QuoteOriginally posted by Kolor-Pikker Quote
To be honest you're supposed to under-expose digital and then push for the desired result, so comparing the two isn't really apples-to-apples. As I've said in my previous post the primary objective is to watch the histo and make sure nothing clips. Unless you're using a Canon with only 11 DR and pattern noise in the shadows, there's no reason to ETTR with a digital camera these days.

That first link is a prime example of how not to expose if you want to keep the highlights.

Those film photos are absolutely gorgeous though, never seen something shot so well both technically and artistically. It has "this is large format biatch, deal with it" written all over and I love it.
I know... That was my point, if you want to get that look, there's nothing better than film right now. I mean, I've never used a full frame digital medium portrait with 15 stops of DR, yet. But what I've used, and can afford, you just can't do it on digital, it wouldn't look that good.

And for landscape, you can still do incredible work on film, but you'll need to use large format, 4x5 at a minimum, or if you like last panoramic shots 6x17.
09-24-2016, 07:42 AM   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,011
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kolor-Pikker Quote
"this is large format biatch, deal with it"

Y'all are talking way beyond my ken right now (though it's a fascinating discussion); however, I will give $100 USD to the first one of you who uses Kolor-Pikker's slogan as a tattoo.
09-24-2016, 03:34 PM   #49
Veteran Member
Silent Street's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Snobsville & Hipsterville, Vic AUS
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by Pablo Villegas Quote
[...]
And for landscape, you can still do incredible work on film, but you'll need to use large format, 4x5 at a minimum, or if you like last panoramic shots 6x17.
That is very emphatically not true. The resolution gain, if any, going from 6x7 / 6x9 to 4x5 is unremarkable and marginal at best, technique and lens quality being considered. In my experience, a 6x7 transparency sitting on the lightbox beside a 4x5 says nothing other than a smaller size; the quality of the technique is what makes the image shine, not the size. My photographs are enlarged to 80cm across (I've maxed out the printer at the lab) and gallery viewers assume they were "...taken with one of those old fashion accordion cameras?" (4x5 field). No. Just a Pentax 67 and the best lenses. That said, there is a much more noticeable gain in image quality going from 4x5 to 8x10 and higher. The biggest field camera I had ever seen on one of my tiger walks through rainforest was a mahogony 15kg Tachihara 8x11 and a 25kg tripod! The images from that beast are a sight to behold (as are the film holders...), but carrying it around is the reason the photographer now gets by with a walking frame...

09-24-2016, 07:20 PM   #50
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 90
QuoteOriginally posted by Silent Street Quote
That is very emphatically not true. The resolution gain, if any, going from 6x7 / 6x9 to 4x5 is unremarkable and marginal at best, technique and lens quality being considered. In my experience, a 6x7 transparency sitting on the lightbox beside a 4x5 says nothing other than a smaller size; the quality of the technique is what makes the image shine, not the size. My photographs are enlarged to 80cm across (I've maxed out the printer at the lab) and gallery viewers assume they were "...taken with one of those old fashion accordion cameras?" (4x5 field). No. Just a Pentax 67 and the best lenses. That said, there is a much more noticeable gain in image quality going from 4x5 to 8x10 and higher. The biggest field camera I had ever seen on one of my tiger walks through rainforest was a mahogony 15kg Tachihara 8x11 and a 25kg tripod! The images from that beast are a sight to behold (as are the film holders...), but carrying it around is the reason the photographer now gets by with a walking frame...
Size difference between 6x7 and 4x5(10x12) is very considerable. Is as much as going from 35mm to 6x6. And almost like going from 4x5 to 8x10. With a 4x5 camera you can use a 120mm film back and shoot 6x17, that's a lot bigger than 6x9, and it's only using a part of the whole frame.

I don't know about the resolution, since that depends on the scanner and technique used.

But it's not only resolution, it's the camera, you have lots of movements to correct perspective, to have whatever you want in focus, very different depth of field, and yeah, the glass makes a big difference as well. It's completely different, you can control everything. You can change perspective, you can make the foreground or background bigger or smaller, etc...

Of course you can make great landscape photos with 6x7, 6x9. But it's not the same as large format.
09-26-2016, 10:10 AM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Pablo Villegas Quote
...
Of course you can make great landscape photos with 6x7, 6x9. But it's not the same as large format.
I have a 4x5 and I'll add the larger the film area the better the tonal scale is too. View cameras and their movements make for a better landscape camera most of the time in terms of the end results and not what is easiest and convenient for the person taking the picture.
09-30-2016, 09:20 PM   #52
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 23
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Zone XI? I thought Zone X was supposed to be the whitest white imaginable. How do you go up from there?
Actually Ansel Adams makes reference to Zone XI in one of his early additions of "The Negative". This zone is way beyond the shoulder of the film curve and such extreme exposure can cause reversal of the image. Both the early and latest addition of this book give an example image called "The Black Sun" or something similar. This early addition is the only one I have seen that references Zone XI

Cheers

MK
10-01-2016, 09:15 PM   #53
Veteran Member
Silent Street's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Snobsville & Hipsterville, Vic AUS
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I have a 4x5 and I'll add the larger the film area the better the tonal scale is too. View cameras and their movements make for a better landscape camera most of the time in terms of the end results and not what is easiest and convenient for the person taking the picture.
I have an Ebony forby (SV45TI) and the only movement I very frequently use is front or rear cardinal shift — and that's quite mental enough when in a hurry! Amazingly, this is very, very common among LF users that I've gone out with, a limited number of movements, and very commonly shift. Somebody recently said they'd use more movements if there was a reflex viewer; A what!? I only have a vague recollection of such a thing that allows re-orientation of the image and critical focus (doing away with a loupé). This 5x4 stuff is very slow and can cause a lost opportunity to frequently occur; would be excellent to be able to carry a P67 system and 5x4 system, but that would be something left to a grunty V6 rather than a wonky pair of legs...
Certainly, a P67 is better for spontaneity, speed and portability, but does not necessarily give bigger or better prints over what I am already achieving with 6x7. And I'm printing up to a metre (this is about the limit of 5x4 too). Got to scoot about and find a lab where I can print RA-4Hs to GINORMOUS size...

11-19-2016, 11:07 PM   #54
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Essex County, Ontario
Posts: 476
QuoteOriginally posted by Silent Street Quote
I don't give a stuff about floss and fanfare about the Zone System (it was unheard of when I started my classic training in '77, only becoming fashionable as a conversation piece among chardonnay socialists)
I had not seen this thread before today so I've been reading it through. I'm not sure what could be meant by this quoted line. I began learning about photography around '77 also and encountered info about the Zone System almost right away in many sources easily available at the time. It can be quickly verified that Ansel Adams and his application of the Zone System were known far and wide long before I ever heard of him. I can't recall the professionals and excellent printers I got to know who were using it just a couple years later being socialists either. The last several books Adams published with professional writers' help demystified the application of his insights so that it was far more than a "conversation piece".

Last edited by From1980; 11-19-2016 at 11:40 PM.
11-20-2016, 03:37 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 485
QuoteOriginally posted by From1980 Quote
I had not seen this thread before today so I've been reading it through. I'm not sure what could be meant by this quoted line. I began learning about photography around '77 also and encountered info about the Zone System almost right away in many sources easily available at the time. It can be quickly verified that Ansel Adams and his application of the Zone System were known far and wide long before I ever heard of him. I can't recall the professionals and excellent printers I got to know who were using it just a couple years later being socialists either. The last several books Adams published with professional writers' help demystified the application of his insights so that it was far more than a "conversation piece".
Silent Street takes his down-under contrarian-ness very seriously. he's a smart guy, and like all smart people is sometimes correct about stuff. It's quite possible that the Zone system is best known in North America----the Zone System was of course widely known in North America from at least the '50's on....it was developed in the '40's I think, and had some kind of earlier roots IIRC.

Lots of people in other parts of the world don't know who Adams was, or the f64 group, & etc, just as we in NA may be out of touch with earlier photographers from Europe and certainly from anywhere else.
11-20-2016, 04:05 PM   #56
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Essex County, Ontario
Posts: 476
QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
Lots of people in other parts of the world don't know who Adams was, or the f64 group, & etc, just as we in NA may be out of touch with earlier photographers from Europe and certainly from anywhere else.
So it depends on which ZONE you live in?

I questioned the post because by 1977 "classic training" implies being taught by people well versed in what was going on in the world of photography and what it's history was. So I think it's reasonable to believe one of the most famous artists for decades in NA would certainly be heard of in any respectable institution in another internationally trading English speaking country. Just the circulation of photography magazines likely made Adams name and techniques well known even to serious hobbyists.
11-20-2016, 04:35 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 485
QuoteOriginally posted by From1980 Quote
So it depends on which ZONE you live in?

I questioned the post because by 1977 "classic training" implies being taught by people well versed in what was going on in the world of photography and what it's history was. So I think it's reasonable to believe one of the most famous artists for decades in NA would certainly be heard of in any respectable institution in another internationally trading English speaking country. Just the circulation of photography magazines likely made Adams name and techniques well known even to serious hobbyists.
mmmmm....you'd be quite surprised at educational differences, I think. My daughter is currently studying at the Courtauld in London for her Master's in prep for a PhD, after undergrad at Wellesley and Berkeley. SHE is certainly VERY surprised at the differences so far---not only between her programs and other lesser U.S. ones, but then the U.S. ones against the Brit ones, and then again to the continental ones. I also understand that from the case of young woman of mixed French/US background who grew up in the US and then went to the Sorbonne.

It would actually surprise me more that Adams and Archer and their Zone System ( I am a strong advocate, btw, even in the digital age, of Zone ideas) were well known outside the US.....
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, camera, lot, medium format
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Names appearing with ampersand and bold - does it do anything, and how do I do it? pathdoc Site Suggestions and Help 15 03-24-2016 06:12 PM
Is there a flash so fast you can't see it? peterh337 Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 15 12-05-2014 10:43 PM
Is there a "T" mode? I can't find it... Sperdynamite Pentax K-5 2 08-13-2011 09:09 AM
Once again, it's been proven I can't handle anything nice. larryinlc Post Your Photos! 2 07-20-2009 10:21 PM
How come leica can do it and Pentax can't? deudeu Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 09-22-2008 11:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top