Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: 4x5 - 5x7 or 8x10  (Read 20100 times)

fredjeang

  • Guest
4x5 - 5x7 or 8x10
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2010, 10:56:20 am »

Quote from: pcunite
Never underestimate the sales potential from mentioning how hard something is... whether or not it is better in the final result is not the main differentiator.
I agree 100% !

Fred.
Logged

mmurph

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 506
    • http://
4x5 - 5x7 or 8x10
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2010, 06:32:38 pm »

Quote from: pcunite
Never underestimate the sales potential from mentioning how hard something is... whether or not it is better in the final result is not the main differentiator.

Can you say "giclee"?  

Or "archival pigment print" at the very least! Everyone knows "ink jets" are for rubes! Heck, even a "dye" print would be better than that.

Gallery owners and patrons show and see what they think is best.

Persnally, around 2003 I grabbed a test digital image at a certain MP size off of a web site. Added the approprite "grain like" noise in PS, and viola - the noise created what people interpreted as many more MP of good old film-like detail!  

Please note that I still shoot 4x5 film, as well as the best digital I can afford at any given time. I am not arguing pro or con. Just saying there is perceved value (snob appeal) in different directions.

Go look at tests with cheap wine in fine bottles .....   sort of like the "adjacency effect" in color theory.  From "Fresh Air":

Mr. LEHRER: I think probably - this is probably a year ago - I wrote about a series of experiments involving wine. And I've since learned about this wonderful subculture on the Internet of wine aficionados. And this experiment concerned a experiment done by a scientist at the University of Bordeaux, and it was done on wine experts, people who were going to school to learn about wine. And he showed that basically you can trick these wine experts into believing all sorts of silly stuff, that you could give them a white wine that was dyed red, and they would describe this white wine in terms of, you know, they'd talk about its crushed red fruit and how it smelled like blackberries and full of tannins.

And you could give them a cheap wine, but if you served it in an expensive bottle, it would be called refined and elegant. And these basic findings wouldn't be surprising to a psychologist. We're doing this kind of stuff all the time. The brain is constantly warping its sensations to reflect our expectations. That in a sense we, you know, we see what we want to see and taste what we want to taste and disregard the rest. And yet somehow when you talk about it in terms of wine, people become very sensitive.
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
4x5 - 5x7 or 8x10
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2010, 11:35:26 pm »

Quote from: jsch
Where the image is sharp, there is way more detail in the 8x10. I posted 4 images. 2 showed the whole image and 2 details (600x600 for 8x10 and 182x182 for 5D). The detail images show the same part of the image at 100%. The scan of the 8x10 shows much more information in that region than the 5DMkII. And I scanned only at 1440 dpi.

Perhaps my arguments are confusing. I tried to explain that 8x10 gives more control over depth of field and a smoother transition from sharp to unsharp than every other format. With the Canon I'm limited to f1.2 or 1.4 to get a similar effect. To be clear. I use 8x10 because I like the process. I made this comparison out of curiosity. I print very small (between 8x10 and 16x20) and I think I don't need 8x10. Since 2004 all my WORK is Canon full frame and I like the convenience of it. Working sometimes with 8x10 is fun and gives me inspiration for my other work.

Best,
Johannes

Ah, sorry, I misread your previous post with the crops.  I thought that you were trying to trick us a bit, and that the 600x600 crop was the 5D2, not the 8x10.  I had them mixed up.  Yup, the 8x10 definitely has more detail than the 5D2!  
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up