Hi,
I do not own actually a Medium Format, but I've been working enough time in the recent past in advertising agencies as a designer to be able to mesure the differences between each system in real work situations.
In that jobs, you deal with any type of files, from LF to crooped dslr sensors. The pictures are taken by professional photographers and we were working exclusively in CMYK, except when we were working with Flash and derivated applications.
I fully agree with the content of this "anonymous" article.
There is a huge difference when someone is working for himself to build his portfolio or in and for little structures, than when you start to work for industrial and commercial advertising in agencies, big art galleries etc...
1) By no means, it exists the situation where you going to make a Chanel campaign with a dslr; even if it reaches the DR of MFD. It is the same for arquitecture, manufactured products, contemporary art in general etc...(it can happen, but it is not very common).
2) By no means, it exists the situation where you are going to work for a newspaper and cover a war with a 4x5 field camera either.
Each system is perfectly valid.
All this debate came from a perceived problem of exageration in DR, and the forum lines have been inundated by physics, curves, DoX, etc...in order to prove the correct information and rectifiy the heresy; not without sometimes denigration or attacks towards Marc Dubovoy and Michael Reichmann, that certainly known much more than a lot of us here and have an all life experience in photography as professionals, to at least being considered not too badly informed... I also noticed that the real experienced and professional photographers of this forum have not participated in this debate or in a very discrete form.
That was sad but very informative. It's the first time I join a Forum, I do not have the time normaly, and I stupidly put myself in this kind of thread. I did not know what it was, now at least I know what is all about.
After reading all the posts, physics ecuations and mathematics calculations, am I better informed? Not at all. Exactly like before.
Well, in fact, I know now that dslr are not that bad and MFD are not that great...and that DoX is the new religion.
Sorry, but behind the excuse of "wrong information about DR" it was indeed an hidden discution about who has got the bigger one and an open gate for provocators and as pointed, neurotic posers. I have absolutely no doubt about that these kind of thread end like that, no doubt either that this article will be severely banned but that's the way things are. I'm sure at least that some people, like it is my case, found it pertinent and appropriate.
Back in the article, the biggest difference between a dslr and a MFD I saw when I was designer is the capacity to handle severe post production process.
This is where really the gap is. Also of course in big prints (I'm talking about big prints), but that is obvious and have never been contradicted.
Well, the capacity that have the MFD files to be mistreated is simply amazing. That is required in fashion, in advertising in general, and that is the very first reason (but not the only one) why MFD is prefered for certain type of work.
It is obvious that this characteristic of MF is not and has not been measured, but the flexibility that gives you the MFD in post production, the hability to recuperate delicate situations or to be severely pushed is indeed much more important than with a dslr. There is no comparaison and it is fine.
I also heard some saying that the differences are only visible in big prints: Wrong, the differences are visible right in the web.
When we where working in Low-def for flash, every single designer was able to notice the differences between MFD files and smaller format.
The ones who claim the opposite are just not enough trained to perceive them.
Now, each system is perfect, there are just different.
Best regards,
Fred.
