31 May
2014
31 May
'14
1:22 a.m.
On May 30, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
On 30/05/14 2:31 AM, Geoff Oltmans wrote:
I believe 35mm is supposed to offer up to around 18MP, maybe higher. Personally with my
film scanner, I'm good for somewhere around 10MP, but then if I'm wanting to do
*LARGE* prints, I'll most likely shoot 4x5 film. I shoot a mixture of digital, 35mm,
120, 4x5, and 8x10. It all depends on why I'm taking the photographs. Tonight I was
shooting 35mm with a Leica M6. I have one project that is strictly digital, yet, I have
certain shots for that project I plan to do using 4x5 Fuji Velvia 50, which I'll then
pay to have drum scanned, and digitally convert to B&W, as that's the only way to
get the resolution of images I need for certain shots (if I could afford to, I'd be
doing those shots with an 8x10 camera, but my existing 8x10 gear isn't up to doing
them).
Zane
--
healyzh at aracnet.com
http://blog.zanesphotography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanes-photography/
On May 29, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
I still tinker with film occasionally, a couple of colleagues at
work
use it exclusively and they are semi-/professionals and do good work. It
can be fun working with film but to get excellent results takes a lot of
care and work. I have also read that 35mm is around ~10MP if tripod
mounted and sufficiently fine grained, and that hand holding it drops to
around 6ish. This seems to echo my own experience with film vs digital.
This estimate is mine, based on inspecting a few thousand high quality drum scans,
generally of decent transparency stock and studio shots.
This would put medium format (say 6x7cm) at around 48 MP. The lenses are up to that.
--Toby
My first dSLR was a 6MP camera (a Pentax *ist DS) and in Raw shooting
side by side comparisons with Fuji Provia 100f they seemed pretty close
to me (with a slight edge to the film). 35mm film
~ 10MP in my experience.
I reckoned that Kodachrome was a bit more, but you can't get that now :-(