Can one achieve the same quality in using a medium format when using a digital camera and imaging so

HI,
I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to
just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for
a high pixel digital camera. I know most of you here would argue you could
never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital
picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model
cameras are concerned?
Apkesh

 

I would get the MF camera. Of course 4x5 gives an order of magnitude improvemet
over MF.

I know a number of people that use film (MF & LF) for image capture and then
scan, process and print digitally.


: HI,
: I am a great fan of b&w photography and considering purchasing a camera to
: just do that. I am torn between going for a medium format or just going for
: a high pixel digital camera. I know most of you here would argue you could
: never replicate the quality of what you'll get on a negative in a digital
: picture, but isn't that what the future is going to be as far as newer model
: cameras are concerned?
: Apkesh



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

 

I disagree I was sworn to my Canon 35mm. I recently baught a Minolta
Dimage A1. 5 megapixal with the software I'm using I can either blow
up a small portion of the picture and still have great detail or use
the actual picture and go up to about 24 x 36. That is the size listed
on the software. Also the retouching features are blowing me away the
more I learn. As far as the B&W goes I can shot in color then with the
click of one menu button change it to gray scale then select was part
of the picture is black and/or white, for the seven zones.

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:07:48 GMT, "apkesh"

 

Seven zones?? I thought there were more than that... You do realise that no-one will answer your questions here or involve
you in discussions from now on if you go digital. ;-) That's a very big
*wink* just in case some of you missed it...
FWIW I find alot of the pleasure (and pain) in b&w in working in the
darkroom and mucking around there. I find the pain is in dealing with
the nature of analogue processes (read fickle (not to say digital isn't
fickle, but a different kind of fickle - if that makes sense)). In some
ways the manual nature of the process imbues itself in the actual
article (read print). What I am trying to say is that, even though you
might be able to dial in B&W mode into you digicam you might find
yourself left wanting... Perhaps an essential aspect of B&W, which many
of us enjoy aesthetically, does lie in it's process and an artificial
version, even though it might superficially look the same, will not--in
fact--be the same.
Sorry to cross post, not sure of the etiquette here?

 

Your right, I had to go find my light meter it has nine zones.

 

Medium format will provide the higher image quality, by a large margin,
and without question. This is especially true for black and white,
since you can shoot films with practically no grain and sky-high
resolution, such as Technical Pan.

The future, perhaps, but we are in the present for now, and 35mm digital
is not a competitor to medium-format film.

 

One assumes you mean 24x36 cm, not inches, which would be ludicrous in 5 mp.

(1) Pixel data as captured (that is the pictorial data represented by a
pixel) cannot be "blown up" or enlarged. A pixel is a static,
discontinuous piece of digital information. The pixel resolution you
have is the maximum image size you get. (2) the only way you could
possibly enlarge any given resolution-image size as captured is via
software interpolation (upsampling.) In that case, what you have is data
artificially added via software to the image that the lens never saw,
not real "detail." 5 megapixels isn't a great deal of resolution to
begin with (a typical MF film frame equals about 80 to 100 million
equivalent picture elements...), it is actually 5 million / 4, since in
reality it takes 4 mosaically captured pixels on a typical prosumer
digital CFA (bayer pattern) to create one actual full color pixel. If
the OP wants a digital capture that approaches true MF film abilities
he'll have to invest in a high end system that can deliver a 3-shot or
trilinear scan that at minimum delivers more than 25 million pixels.
Sinar, Better Light, possibly Hassleblad, etc, but not nikon, kodak, or
minolta digital cameras.

BTW, your average digital prosumer cameras simple cannot ever capture
the real, high frequency scene detail silver halides are capable of
capturing on a *molecular* level. It's called the Nyquist Theorem and is
the cause of most digital artifacting and why digital lenses either have
to be dumbed down or software fixes are necessary.

"24x36" (I assume inchesAlso the retouching features are blowing me
away the

Better to get a digital camera system that can be used for b&w captures,
bypassing the CFA or interpolation of a bayer pattern. All silicon
sensors are inherently black and white to begin with.

The future is what you make it. If people keep buying film, film
manufacturers will keep making it and vice versa.

 

It depends on the camera and how one is utilizing it. For scenic, products and other
detail oriented applications your correct. For soft, portraiture head shots etc, I tend to
disagree as I have seen images in this size range of quite acceptable quality, done
with small format digital. Recently,.... like Monday !

 

5mp isn't really even high enough res to match typical 35mm quality in
4x6 machine prints (6mp is the standard threshold comparison, I
believe.) Certainly nowhere near MF.

If you are seeing what appears to be good or acceptable quality likely
it's due to interpolation/software enhancements, not straight pixels.
Also depends on what you mean by "soft." Some never notice the fuzziness
in a typical 8x10, 35mm head portrait. But compare it with the same shot
in MF...

 

You may be correct about the file threshold, in terms of raw data of course
film is going to transend a capture in fine detail, in terms of turn around and
ability to record the tonality of color film, the digital is here.... provided, the
system is calibrated. Like I stated if one is shooting soft portraiture there
really is not a big difference even at 24 x 30" from other prints I have seen.

Besides what the difference between a MF camera and a digital if you have to
retouch the MF image to soften it down for those old ladies you shoot ;-)

 

Consider the focal length of the normal lens used on a digital
camera. When that normal equals that of a 35mm camera's normal then
the sensor is equall in size to the frame of a 35mm camera.
At my last look sensor sizes on under a few thousand doller cameras
were running apx. 2/3 of 35mm. Optics can only be so good. Lines
per/milimeter are just that.
At normal setting of the zoom on my Oly. 2040, coverage is about
that of an 8mm movie camera and I think a little less than a Minox.
Sensor sizes and resulting focal lengths are incredibly small
with under one thousand dollor cameras.
Makers of digitals are packing on the pixels but are not doing
much for the focal lengths, the size of the sensors. Dan

 

So you have traded quality for convenience. A tradition in
many cultures.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

Also note that the more pixels in the CCD/CMOS, the greater
the noise and therefore the lower the SNR.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

True there's not such great detail to worry about and commercial
portrait photographers like the convenience of instant digital capture
and output, but at the expense of tangible and permanent images on film.

If they don't like seeing their wrinkles, they'd better not come to me
for a portrait. I shoot in 4x5 ;-)

 

Not to mention photodetector sites can only get so small, since as you
say noise becomes a problem and at minimum you need enough electrons to
actually produce a usable signal.

 

BTW, re-reading this I'm not sure what is meant by digital ability to
"record the tonality of color film." Digital color space cannot
match/equal the color gamut of photochemical color. Digital may be 'good
enough' for soft focus subjects, but color-wise and detail-wise (whether
you "enlarge" output by changing image size or reducing lpi resolution,
you lose information.

 

I disagree completely.

 

But there is nothing to disagree with, Gregory. Fact: digital color
spaces do not and cannot represent a full natural color gamut. Read your
Photoshop manual. Photographic dye layers are much more representative
of the wide variety of natural colors as seen by the human eye.
Calibration has nothing to do with it, since all calibration does is
address the issue of device color space differences (scanner, monitor,
printer.) Calibration does not affect color gamut, but how images are
converted between gamuts. Also, there is really no such thing as "color
tonality." Colors are defined by saturation, hue, and brightness. Each
component plays a role in the color as seen.

 

I don't think so. I've been very impressed with the advances in digital
photography. My 5 megapixel Canon is certainly competitive with my 35mm
film cameras, but I don't think the images are quite as good. The color is
easier to handle and at least as good as with film, but the sharp edges of
the pixels give a quality to the images that I do not find as pleasing as
the smoothness of film. We are talking here about effects that are beyond
what is normally considered to be viewable resolution, but you can
definitely see it. With medium format, film resolution (in relative terms)
is even greater, and the results even finer. It would take about a 16
megapixel image to be competitive with a 645 film image - and a lens to
match it. Such things exist, if you have the money. That said, digital has
some handling and production advantages that may outweigh any slight
decrease in absolute quality for any given application.