Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Gordon Moat <moat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:10:40 -0800
rafe b wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:480bj4Fhktt0U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
rafe b wrote:
Digital capture isn't perfect. But it has already exceeeded 35 mm film in nearly all regards, and is starting to make serious inroads on MF as well.
Only commercially...
No, in all regards -- except possibly in terms of
lattitude. IMO, C41 still beats most DSLRs.
Show me a print from ANY 35 mm film camera
that can match one from a Canon 1Ds, or 5D.
If an exhibit of the images of George Lepp makes it near your city, then I encourage you to go there. You might be surprised what he use to do with 35 mm, though he now uses a 1Ds Mark II. It needs to be considered that his method of printing limits resolution and results more than his chosen format. It also needs to be remember that there is a large amount of post processing done in PhotoShop for all of his prints. The least common denominator is often the printing method. In all fairness, George Lepp admitted in a conversation that using his 1Ds Mark II is much easier.
The people who do very nice prints are unlikely to send these prints, nor any samples, just to convince people of anything. If more people actually went to some exhibits and museums and saw nicely done prints, I think there would be a great deal less conjecture and discussion. Unfortunately, there are vastly more bad or mediocre prints being exhibited than there are truly well done examples.
You can download Canon 20D or 5D or 1Ds captures and see this for yourself.
Been there, done that and I'm not impressed....
Then you must be blind, I guess.
Seriously, if you're going to make a case for
"quality," 35 mm isn't the way to go.
Sure, anyone using film to get the ultimate in quality will be using large format instead. However, I would like to suggest that matching your capability to the medium upon which you are printing (while also considering post processing efforts and time) might create many situations in which 35 mm "quality" would not limit some prints.
Another way of looking at this is whether people consider any print using any method from 35 mm to be bad. Those people who can honestly state they have never seen a good 35 mm print and don't believe such a thing is possible should speak up. We could easily create such a list of those people who feel that way, and just avoid any discussions with them. So who wants their name on such a list?
And if you're going to make a case for
convenience or portability, 35 mm doesn't
hold much (or anything at all) over digital
capture either.
Agreed. The weight of a good system in either 35 mm or a D-SLR is not going to be much different. In fact one of my 35 mm kit bags outweighs my large format bag . . . i could almost joke that I went back to large format to get into a lighter system. ;-)
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
.
- References:
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Colin D
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Mike
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Colin D
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Mike
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Scott W
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Chris Loffredo
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Scott W
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Jeremy
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Scott W
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Chris Loffredo
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: rafe b
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: Chris Loffredo
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- From: rafe b
- Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- Prev by Date: Re: Photo printer
- Next by Date: Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- Previous by thread: Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- Next by thread: Re: Where have you gone, Bob Monaghan ???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
