December 18, 2014, 04:25:26 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PVS

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 16, 2013, 05:49:48 PM »
All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)



As for noise, my eyes see no noise, my digital camera records effectively zero noise at the iso's I use (sub 400, the same as the film I shot), why should I accept the compromise of noise/grain in film prints? Noise and grain are not "natural" looking, they are defects that we became accustomed to due to technological inadequacies, those inadequacies are no longer there so why accept them?

I am in the camp that firmly believes noise and grain do not add detail, as so many seem to misunderstand, they are comparatively crude devices that can be used to some stylish effect, if that is what is desired. Further, it is a lot easier to add the effect than take it away, I'll take the time and skill to shoot noise/grain free whenever possible and add in post if I want the style.

Have you checked corners or periphery of your eyes recently, I'm pretty much sure you don't get that much blur and lack of sharpness with any of the lens you might be using on that 1Dsmk3? Also the flare, when was the last time you were looking at the sun? Flare, blurry corners and other abberations are quite natural things yet most of the photogs try to avoid them.. Sorry, that 'natural' talk was the most invalid argument I heard recently.
People should just stick with their own preferences without giving any further explanations otherwise when someone writes a nonsense like the mentioned one it just gives a ground for suspicion other arguments in their posts might be corrupted as well.
I have yet to see architecture/landscape print shot with MF/35mm DSLR which could rival depth and DR most of the stuff shot on 120s or bigger.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: August 06, 2013, 05:52:29 PM »
Life is unfair - kill yourself or get over it.

33
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: August 05, 2013, 02:58:45 PM »
Quote
Q: The 28-70 mm f/2.8 class lenses have been superseded by 24-70 mm f/2.8 instruments. Taking into the account the success of the Sigma 18-35 mm are you already thinking about a full frame construction of that type or rather about e.g. a 28-70 mm f/2.0 or a 28-50 mm f/2.0 model?
A: We don’t have a very concrete idea at the moment, yet we will keep on considering designing large aperture zoom lenses.

from http://www.lenstip.com/136.1-article-Interview_with_constructor_of_Sigma_lenses.html

34
ps - please do try printing sometimes, you might be surprised.

35
The whole point of taking photos is to view the prints.
And enjoy their artistic, technical, documentary or sentimental values.

At least it used to be like, in case things changed some please pass me the map.

36
Print it in whichever size you like and tell me again that you spotted any grain in those shots.

37
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 29, 2013, 10:39:27 PM »
Even the mods got so excited that they forgot this should go in 3rd party section, heh.

38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Medium format
« on: July 11, 2013, 07:32:40 PM »
Another SQ-A user here, used to shoot with Pentacon Six TL (50/4, 80/2.8, 120/2.8, 180/2.8 Zeiss and 300/4 Meyer-Gorlitz) and M645 1000s (with 80/1.9 and 45/2.8 ), decided to stick with 2xSQ-A bodies and 50/3.5 S&PS, 2x80/2.8 S&PS, 105/3.5 S, 150/3.5 S and 150/4 PS.. why double the lens set-up? Because, in case one set-up gets stolen/broken for some reason, I need to have complete reliable back-up at once.

Can't beat the 6x6, just ask instagrammers.

39
Sony recently released pattern for sensor with photosites aligned in honeycomb grid.
So, besides Foveon and Xtrans there's always more to come.

40
I moved from Canon 8800F to Plustek 7400 for 35mm, have to admit I'm quite impressed by the difference. I still use CS8800F for 120s, though.

Here's some insight of it's capabilities:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html

41
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: December 12, 2012, 10:09:44 AM »
that boils down to 'claim vs. experience' type of argument.

43
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: digital camera as light meter
« on: December 12, 2012, 05:30:25 AM »
I use 5dc all the time for metering, when I shoot slide film I keep the EVs about the same and when I shoot C41 I usually add 0.5-1EV compared to 5dc shot. I mostly shoot with Bronica SQA cameras but also with M645 and RB67 gear.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 06, 2012, 05:20:07 PM »
If you take a look at the updated link in the OP you'd see it was the D600 which overexposed in studio shots compared to D800, 5Dmk2, 5Dmk3 and 6D.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6