Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: tintoreto on November 12, 2017, 04:26:50 am
-
For all they want to compare ... :)
http://austinmann.com/trek
-
If all you need is 72 dpi on the web, love the sRGB color space and 8 bits I agree, why not just use an iPhone. It works for most of the younger generation who are only interested in getting the current moment on the web.
If you are at all concerned with a final print the way photography used to be focused, the iPhone for me is a pass.
Paul Caldwell
-
Man, I don't even feel that the iPhone images are good enough for FaceBook. It is hugely convenient, but my phone takes pretty shitty pics. All of my iPhones have. I've preordered the iPhone X, but I'm not looking forward to taking photos with it at all.
Now, my wife's Samsung... that takes halfway decent photos.
-
Because I already have a couple of medium format cameras, but I don't even own a cell phone. Today my Nikon D800 is my medium format.
-
Hi,
I would suggest it is more about the photographer than the camera.
A real camera gives you full control things like aperture, shutter speed and focal length. What matters most for me is that it also offers a tripod mount.
But, cell phone cameras can yield images that you cannot tell apart from say a Phase One P65+, if you don't print large enough.
Check, Real World Image Sharpening by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe, second edition, pages 30-33.
If you shoot a great image with an iPhone it may be better than one thousand mediocre images on medium format, or no picture at all. After all, f/8 and being there was often what photojournalism has been about.
Best regards
Erik
For all they want to compare ... :)
http://austinmann.com/trek
-
Hi Eric,
I am familiar with the pages you mention in the book, even tested it myself. For my results for a 30 x 40 or even a 20 x 30 at 300 ppi, I will stay with the MF or 35mm camera.
The iPhone I agree can take a shots that are easier to capture, and many times works better in inopportune times, but the results from any iPhone I have used,4, 5, 6+ and 7+ the camera/lens/iso combination most times would not make a nice print.
Last time I checked the iPhone is still 12MP, and I have long given up attempting to interpolate a 11mp raw from my old Canon 1ds MKi to much larger than 16 x 20, just won't hold up for me. And I have never found any software that can interpolate to the quality of a native image from a larger MP camera, thus the reason I have stitched for years now.
Probably just me I guess, but for others I am sure a worthwhile tool.
Paul Caldwell
-
Those iPhone pictures look awful! What a waste of perfectly good pictures! :-[
-
Hi Paul,
My point was more about horses for the races...
The samples in the book were small, of course. But, at that size, the advantage of the larger format was not obvious. Most images taken are only shown on screen. Screens now go 4K which is around 10 MP I would guess, cropping taken into account.
For prints, I would agree that "serious formats" are beneficial. But, neither a Sony A7rII, Fuji GFX or Phase One FX is something I would carry in the pocket of my pants.
I actually don't use cell phone cameras, it is "no real photography" for me. But, that is no reason to ignore them. And, they are where the action is...
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric,
I am familiar with the pages you mention in the book, even tested it myself. For my results for a 30 x 40 or even a 20 x 30 at 300 ppi, I will stay with the MF or 35mm camera.
The iPhone I agree can take a shots that are easier to capture, and many times works better in inopportune times, but the results from any iPhone I have used,4, 5, 6+ and 7+ the camera/lens/iso combination most times would not make a nice print.
Last time I checked the iPhone is still 12MP, and I have long given up attempting to interpolate a 11mp raw from my old Canon 1ds MKi to much larger than 16 x 20, just won't hold up for me. And I have never found any software that can interpolate to the quality of a native image from a larger MP camera, thus the reason I have stitched for years now.
Probably just me I guess, but for others I am sure a worthwhile tool.
Paul Caldwell
-
I have a Fuji X100, original model, for the rare cases when i still need a small but good quality camera.
You guys?
Edmund
Hi Paul,
My point was more about horses for the races...
The samples in the book were small, of course. But, at that size, the advantage of the larger format was not obvious. Most images taken are only shown on screen. Screens now go 4K which is around 10 MP I would guess, cropping taken into account.
For prints, I would agree that "serious formats" are beneficial. But, neither a Sony A7rII, Fuji GFX or Phase One FX is something I would carry in the pocket of my pants.
I actually don't use cell phone cameras, it is "no real photography" for me. But, that is no reason to ignore them. And, they are where the action is...
Best regards
Erik
-
I have a Fuji X100, original model, for the rare cases when i still need a small but good quality camera.
You guys?
RX100 mk V, but I find my D850 compact enough for a large majority of the cases when I intend to take photographs.
There are certainly relevant cases where compactness is of paramount importance (shooting in a pocket submarine?), but as far as I am concerned I feel that I am sometimes attracted to compactness for the wrong reasons, namely a lack of commitment to the act of photography, a desire to take photographs without being into it.
And my personnal experience is that I never get good photographs out of those stolen sessions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I am a bit like Bernard, when I want to take pictures I always use "big gear". In my case it is a Sony A7rII with half a dozen, or so, lenses.
The lens kit is like 16-35/4, 24-105/4, 24/3.5 TS , 70-400/4-5.6, 90/2.8 macro and a 28-85/3.3-4 for using Scheimpflug.
I also have a Sony RX100 (Mk 1), but it sees little use and a Lenovo cell phone that also sees little use.
Any of the devices will produce good enough images for screen. I have made A2-size (16" x 23") prints from the RX100.
The reason the cell phone and the RX100 sees little use are that I don't consider them serious tools. But, both can deliver images that are good enough for most purposes.
The main limitation of both the RX100 and the cell phone is the lack of viewfinder and to some extent the user interface. The cell phone also lacks a tripod mount and it is of course limited by it's fixed wide angle lens and jpeg format. So, I don't feel it is fun to shoot with the cell phone.
On the other hand, cell phone makes it to situations where I would not carry a camera and they are quiet OK at taking pictures. That is the reason that they have taken over much of commonplace photography.
A good photographer knows how to make best use of any camera, so (s)he will get great images with any tool.
If I plan on making a large print, I would obviously take the highest resolution device I have available, put it on the best tripod I have and focus as good I can, use medium aperture to avoid diffraction, ETTR for best shadow detail, employ Scheimpflug for best depth of field and so on. Cell phones don't allow me to that. The Hasselblad 555/ELD with the P45+ is not easy to focus and it does not really offer Scheimpflug. (*)
Small sensors often lead development. After all, it takes a lot of engineering to get good image quality from a small sensor surveillance camera or a cell phone. Those developments spill over to larger sensors in due time.
So, I don't feel there is a need to sneeze at cell phones. After all, the image doesn't care about the device used to shoot it. A device in the trunk of the car will miss the action.
Best regards
Erik
(*) I have a solution for the Hasselblad called Flexbody. Very nice, but I would not use it in the field.
RX100 mk V, but I find my D850 compact enough for a large majority of the cases when I intend to take photographs.
There are certainly relevant cases where compactness is of paramount importance (shooting in a pocket submarine?), but as far as I am concerned I feel that I am sometimes attracted to compactness for the wrong reasons, namely a lack of commitment to the act of photography, a desire to take photographs without being into it.
And my personnal experience is that I never get good photographs out of those stolen sessions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The last time I spent multiple nights out in the wilderness I took two camera systems: MF technical camera and a7rii. Each with three lenses. The a7rii sat in a chest pouch with the three lenses, MF in the backpack. The Sony used for images on the trail or during breaks where I did not want or need to take out the MF and set up the tripod. After some time of living with the images, only a few from the a7rii made it into the portfolio, and all of those were w/ 35mm lens. That made me think my next camera may be a rx1r.
However, I have yet to sell a print from those "on the trail" images from the a7rii. As Bernard and Erik pointed out, those images just are not cutting it. Not because of the camera but because of my lack of focus. I am now thinking the better approach is to just ditch the a7rii all together and use the iPhone for those "on the trail" images. The one thing it would kill is the idea of the a7rii being a pseudo back-up.
Anyway, for me the more relevant title for this thread would be, "Why using full frame if there is an iPhone..."
Dave
-
The site OP did link was very much the Answer of his Question. http://austinmann.com/trek (http://austinmann.com/trek)
The Image Quality.
-
I glad that it works out for him.
Paul Caldwell
-
Because I print. :) :o
-
If you shoot a great image with an iPhone it may be better than one thousand mediocre images on medium format, or no picture at all. After all, f/8 and being there was often what photojournalism has been about.
I don’t even own a phone beyond my landline, but what Erik says is as true today as it was in the 4x5 vs 35mm days! While there are limitations to EVERY system, we can add to Erik’s post be saying:
It’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it that counts
-
I don’t even own a phone beyond my landline, but what Erik says is as true today as it was in the 4x5 vs 35mm days! While there are limitations to EVERY system, we can add to Erik’s post be saying:
It’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it that counts
That may be what that lady at the bar whispered in my girlfriend's ear.
Regardless, I vote "Because I print" by ALGROVE as the best comment ever on this forum in the "short funny" category..
Edmund
-
Why not both?
(http://i62.tinypic.com/29mnl20.jpg)
-
why use an iphone when you can just look through a leftover cardboard tube after the toilet paper runs out?
-
why use an iphone when you can just look through a leftover cardboard tube after the toilet paper runs out?
because you can not save it after you look through the cardboard tube... :-)
-
because you can not save it after you look through the cardboard tube... :-)
I use my ipad a lot for photos because i can see the screen :)
Edmund
-
http://austinmann.com/trek
-
And don't forget this: https://www.flickr.com/cameras/ (https://www.flickr.com/cameras/). The 5 most popular cameras on flickr are all iPhones (6, 6s, 5s, 7 and 7+). The most popular camera brand is Apple (before Canon, Nikon, Samsung and Sony in that order). And of course the adverts demonstrating the iPhone can do billboard sized pictures:
(https://files1.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_2330/23302915/file/iphone-sunshine-everywhere-8-2000-62505.jpg)
-
An iphone and an Instagram account are all you need to become a millionaire within a few years, if you have talent, makeup and grit. Can one say the same of medium format? :-[
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/millionaire-models-instagram-stunning-women-7076190
I’d say the Instagram crowd understand the parameters of fashion photography better than most commercial photographers, based on their incomes. Look at the way so many young “influencers” with average good looks and real savvy have managed to leverage decent looks into commercial success. I’d be willing to bet that Kim Kardashian gets more for posting a sponsored iphone selfie on Twitter than most people here get for a medium format shoot. Of course one could argue that what made Kardashian a household name was a humble home video camcorder :)
Edmund
And don't forget this: https://www.flickr.com/cameras/ (https://www.flickr.com/cameras/). The 5 most popular cameras on flickr are all iPhones (6, 6s, 5s, 7 and 7+). The most popular camera brand is Apple (before Canon, Nikon, Samsung and Sony in that order). And of course the adverts demonstrating the iPhone can do billboard sized pictures:
(https://files1.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_2330/23302915/file/iphone-sunshine-everywhere-8-2000-62505.jpg)
-
An iphone and an Instagram account are all you need to become a millionaire within a few years, if you have talent, makeup and grit. Can one say the same of medium format? :-[
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/millionaire-models-instagram-stunning-women-7076190
Not quite. According to your link, I would need an iPhone, an Instagram account... and a sex change. That last part may prove tricky.
-
Not quite. According to your link, I would need an iPhone, an Instagram account... and a sex change. That last part may prove tricky.
Look at the picture *of* the Leica here. I think it’s rather good. No sex change involved ... so far :)
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/brooklyn-beckham-photography-book-1005404
I do a lot of sketching these days and it’s hugely motivating to realize that for a change the other guys do *not* have bettter equipment, even though their ability and training is superior.
Edmund
-
of course any photo snapped in good light and viewed at 5x7cm in 72dpi on a tiny screen while juggling a BLT sandwich and a cardboard cup of coffee can look great and bring you money and fame if that is what you are after - just as it is quite possible to live in a cardboard shack with inadequate water and sanitation or work in a sweatshop to support your family: human beings are very resourceful. But Harley Davidson still sells motorbikes and kids still love dinasaur cartoons so maybe the outlook for medium format is not so bleak.
-
Are you going to post some of your iPhone pics?
I love the camera on my Samsung S8 but for my particular photography, it can't come close to my Canon FF.
Also, your grammar needs attention.
-
Look at the picture *of* the Leica here. I think it’s rather good. No sex change involved ... so far :)
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/brooklyn-beckham-photography-book-1005404
For doing that I would not need a sex change, but I would need different parents. That is even more tricky.
Frankly, Brooklyn Beckham may or may not be a good photographer, I don't know. I have not read the book or watched the Instagram account. But that is not the point of the exercise in that case. People (not me, others) follow his Instagram feed just because he is Brooklyn Beckham. He got over 10 millions followers and got paid about $8 million for that.
-
For doing that I would not need a sex change, but I would need different parents. That is even more tricky.
Frankly, Brooklyn Beckham may or may not be a good photographer, I don't know. I have not read the book or watched the Instagram account. But that is not the point of the exercise in that case. People (not me, others) follow his Instagram feed just because he is Brooklyn Beckham. He got over 10 millions followers and got paid about $8 million for that.
I agree he had a headstart, but he built his brand. That’s savvy, not camera equipment. And those women I pointed to earlier seem to be doing well, most of them without special parents, and no big cameras. People on the Instagram circuit have taken the camera out of the photograph.
The interesting thing here that many photographers became successful with mediocre gear, but the kids are becoming really rich with next to none.
Edmund
-
I agree he had a headstart, but he built his brand. That’s savvy, not camera equipment. And those women I pointed to earlier seem to be doing well, most of them without special parents, and no big cameras. People on the Instagram circuit have taken the camera out of the photograph.
The interesting thing here that many photographers became successful with mediocre gear, but the kids are becoming really rich with next to none.
Many successful photographers had mediocre gears. For example, read that interview from Mario Giacomelli:
http://www.horvatland.com/WEB/en/THE80s/PP/ENTRE%20VUES/Giacomelli/entrevues.htm (http://www.horvatland.com/WEB/en/THE80s/PP/ENTRE%20VUES/Giacomelli/entrevues.htm)
Excerpt:
I don’t know about other people’s cameras. Mine is a thing I had cobbled up, it holds together with tape and is always losing parts. All I need to set is the distance and that other thing – what do you call that other thing? I’m not a fan of mechanics. I have had this camera, still the same one, since I started taking photos. (...) I had it made. By dismantling a camera given to me by a friend and removing whatever seemed useless. I only need distance and that other thing – what’s that other thing called again? I don’t know how these machines work, what counts is that light shouldn’t get in. It’s just a box.
Yet...
(https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/07_giacomelli-web.jpg)
-
Even today you can make good pix with film and sell them, but let’s face it the digital guys feed the print media.
And in the same way, I’d say that one can learn to use “real” photo gear, but for a youngster in a digital media world, which is where it’s at nowadays, for that young person an iPhone is the way to go. Real cameras are now esoteric special-purpose devices.
Edmund
Many successful photographers had mediocre gears. For example, read that interview from Mario Giacomelli:
http://www.horvatland.com/WEB/en/THE80s/PP/ENTRE%20VUES/Giacomelli/entrevues.htm (http://www.horvatland.com/WEB/en/THE80s/PP/ENTRE%20VUES/Giacomelli/entrevues.htm)
Excerpt:
I don’t know about other people’s cameras. Mine is a thing I had cobbled up, it holds together with tape and is always losing parts. All I need to set is the distance and that other thing – what do you call that other thing? I’m not a fan of mechanics. I have had this camera, still the same one, since I started taking photos. (...) I had it made. By dismantling a camera given to me by a friend and removing whatever seemed useless. I only need distance and that other thing – what’s that other thing called again? I don’t know how these machines work, what counts is that light shouldn’t get in. It’s just a box.
Yet...
(https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/07_giacomelli-web.jpg)
-
Maybe the question should have been: why use cameras?
Rob
-
Maybe the question should have been: why use cameras?
Rob
Rob,
I’m afraid you are right.
And the question will get more acute as the connected phone continues to intelligence while the camera stays dumb.
As an example, from my own small forays into fashion, I would almost think that a phone shooting 120 fps for a couple of seconds would produce as many printable blurry but alive images as a hi-rez sharp albeit slow stuttering SLR.
Edmund
-
Perhaps, come the day that my old Samsung cellphone has a screen where the image is visible in daylight, then I, too, will let the Nikon batteries go uncharged.
It's no pleasure carrying around temptation; I could never outrun a fifteen-year-old mugger of either gender. Not only the temptation factor, but the way a camera makes the rest of the population view one with distinct mistrust gets in the way of catching life on the hoof without being observed.
I believe that there is more to it than one's inability to do an HC-B and be invisible: the difference is not in the photographers but in a public now so aware of intrusion, law and COMPENSATION, and which sees cameras as threats/opportunities. Cellphones, on the other hand, make you a tourist whom everyone ignores as best they can. A 12 megapixel cell would be pleasant, shooting Tiffs!
-
Good point but what is more muggable: a DSLR or an iphone?
Maybe sometimes though not always slowing down instead of trying to keep up with 15 year olds can be good.
-
Interesting discussion! Are we are getting image quality confused with print quality? Great images can be made with any camera but the possibility to make great prints is often diminished/restricted with lesser quality cameras – particularly if you print large. With the example you site, Giacomelli made exceptional images but his print quality was average at best. Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to higher quality prints much as we have become accustomed higher resolution TV screens. Additionally, we have become accustomed to large screen TVs. It seems print size has increased with the advent of larger TVs. Given a choice would you like to watch a movie on a TV made in the 60s? I guess we have conditioned the viewer to want better resolution and larger size while their appreciation of better aesthetics hasn’t keep pace.
-
Well, in my defence, I did specify 12 Megas and Tiffs, which is the same as my D700...
Never found even the ten of the D200 a problem; it's problem was high ISO wasn't particularly great..
Both get heavy after a while, but then we'd have to consider focal length, too, and a cellphone would laugh, and just climb back into my pocket.
-
Well, in my defence, I did specify 12 Megas and Tiffs, which is the same as my D700...
Never found even the ten of the D200 a problem; it's problem was high ISO wasn't particularly great..
Both get heavy after a while, but then we'd have to consider focal length, too, ronand a cellphone would laugh, and just climb back into my pocket.
Rob, the images from cell phones are usually strongly compressed jpeg files, but special apps allow one to shoot Raw. Of course, image quality of the current crop of 12MP + cameras is nowhere near a “real” camera, but by daylight I would call an iPhone competitive with a Leica IIIf with a 35mm Elmar.
On a side note, I know no Aps-C SLR that is equivalent to a 1900 13x18 or even 10x12cm plane-film camera, or even with a pocketable Plaubel Makina, and yet people have no issue with using the images from SLRs.
This cameraphone shaming is a rerun of the Leica vs the rest of world debate of the 1930s and we all know who won that one.
As for muggings, I think all,you need to do is carry last year’s phone and every teenager will avoid you like a louse-ridden hobo :)
Edmund
-
Rob, the images from cell phones are usually strongly compressed jpeg files, but special apps allow one to shoot Raw. Of course, image quality of the current crop of 12MP + cameras is nowhere near a “real” camera, but by daylight I would call an iPhone competitive with a Leica IIIf with a 35mm Elmar.
On a side note, I know no Aps-C SLR that is equivalent to a 1900 13x18 or even 10x12cm plane-film camera, or even with a pocketable Plaubel Makina, and yet people have no issue with using the images from SLRs.
This cameraphone shaming is a rerun of the Leica vs the rest of world debate of the 1930s and we all know who won that one.
As for muggings, I think all,you need to do is carry last year’s phone and every teenager will avoid you like a louse-ridden hobo :)
Edmund
Edmund, they already avoid me; worse, they don't even see me.
Just discovered that Cindy Crawford's daughter - Kaia - or similar, is in the business too and has appeared on Vogue covers with Mum... who needs a camera or a cellphone to get ahead. To be fair, she's quite a pretty kid!
Rob
-
Edmund, they already avoid me; worse, they don't even see me.
Just discovered that Cindy Crawford's daughter - Kaia - or similar, is in the business too and has appeared on Vogue covers with Mum... who needs a camera or a cellphone to get ahead. To be fair, she's quite a pretty kid!
Rob
Rob,
The days of the patriarchy are over - the women now do it all themselves ... while enriching Facebook, Google and Twitter ;)
It's interesting that the ones originally afraid of the direct-to-market phenomenon were the music firms, who thought the musicians would be able to market their own music over the Internet. It turns out the net left the music studios clinging on to life, but Facebook and Google ate the lunch of both the print press and the traditional advertising structures.
Here in Paris we have a dotcom called Ventes Privées where a few hundred women employees now account for something like 10% of all apparel sales in France. Ventes Privées sells zillions of "remaindered" clothing items via pictures but ALMOST ALL THE FEMALE IMAGES ARE VIRTUAL (!).
Edmund
-
Rob,
The days of the patriarchy are over - the women now do it all themselves ... while enriching Facebook, Google and Twitter ;)
It's interesting that the ones originally afraid of the direct-to-market phenomenon were the music firms, who thought the musicians would be able to market their own music over the Internet. It turns out the net left the music studios clinging on to life, but Facebook and Google ate the lunch of both the print press and the traditional advertising structures.
Here in Paris we have a dotcom called Ventes Privées where a few hundred women employees now account for something like 10% of all apparel sales in France. Ventes Privées sells zillions of "remaindered" clothing items via pictures but ALMOST ALL THE FEMALE IMAGES ARE VIRTUAL (!).
Edmund
Virtual women have a long history of promotion: mail-order brides come to mind, with or without remaindered apparel.
Reading the expat Scottish press, it seems one of the Glasgow glad-rags units has become super-successful since going not virtual, but listed. There you go. I think.
Rob
-
Virtual women have a long history of promotion: mail-order brides come to mind, with or without remaindered apparel.
Reading the expat Scottish press, it seems one of the Glasgow glad-rags units has become super-successful since going not virtual, but listed. There you go. I think.
Rob
Yeah, well apparently they now have software that can stick the clothes on quite realistic "virtual women" and pose them.
I was at Vente Privée for a machine learning talk, and a lady explained that french women buyers won't buy clothes displayed by "normal-looking" models, they insist on "supermodel" models, and at some point they just ran out of models for their photoshoots and went computer-generated. Their sales success demonstrates that human models and human photographers are totally superfluous for apparel catalog shoots, but we all knew that anyway, right?
I guess porn actors and camera ops may soon go the same way as the apparel models and be replaced by virtual models :)
Edmund
Edmund
-
Yeah, well apparently they now have software that can stick the clothes on quite realistic "virtual women" and pose them.
I was at Vente Privée for a machine learning talk, and a lady explained that french women buyers won't buy clothes displayed by "normal-looking" models, they insist on "supermodel" models, and at some point they just ran out of models for their photoshoots and went computer-generated. Their sales success demonstrates that human models and human photographers are totally superfluous for apparel catalog shoots, but we all knew that anyway, right?
I guess porn actors and camera ops may soon go the same way as the apparel models and be replaced by virtual models :)
Edmund
Edmund
I thought porn stars already were computer-generated creatures... shows how little of it has crossed my path! But even had it, isn't the technology so good we'd never know?
Rob
-
(http://digitaldog.net/files/IMG_0062.jpg)Are you going to post some of your iPhone pics?
Here are two from my new X. I really like this camera coming from an iPhone 6. I like the Pano's, that way you can shoot 'live' and after, pin the best expression, and the HRD doesn't suck.
When I went to the Great Sand Dunes this month, I also took the 5DMII with 100-400 and was glad I did. But for an over night in Trinidad, traveling light, still had something nice from Simpson's Rest. At 100%, there are areas I think are over processed by the camera. This is 100% iPhoto/defaults.
This camera is vastly superior to a medium format camera. When that camera isn't with you!
(http://digitaldog.net/files/IMG_0122.jpg)
-
Hi,
I would suggest that anyone having a high resolution camera, like my Sony A7rII at 42 MP, makes a small experiment.
- Take sharp image
- Downsize it to 50%
- Upsize the downscaled file to 200%
- Print both images at 16"x23" size
The results may depend on the observer's eye sight, but they may come as a surprise.
The way I see it, cell phone cameras are getting better over time. Much of sensor development happens on small sensors, they are employed everywhere.
The utility of cell phone cameras is somewhat limited by lenses. Cell phones are expected to be pocketable and that may mean that they probably cannot have very long focal lengths.
Best regards
Erik
Interesting discussion! Are we are getting image quality confused with print quality? Great images can be made with any camera but the possibility to make great prints is often diminished/restricted with lesser quality cameras – particularly if you print large. With the example you site, Giacomelli made exceptional images but his print quality was average at best. Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to higher quality prints much as we have become accustomed higher resolution TV screens. Additionally, we have become accustomed to large screen TVs. It seems print size has increased with the advent of larger TVs. Given a choice would you like to watch a movie on a TV made in the 60s? I guess we have conditioned the viewer to want better resolution and larger size while their appreciation of better aesthetics hasn’t keep pace.
-
One of the things I enjoy about medium format photography is the process of taking a picture. The deliberate and sometimes somewhat arduous process (those long hikes particularly) of using my Phase One is part of what attracts me to it. For me, it is an escape form the fast pace life I lead. Using an iPhone doesn’t give me that experience. I recently returned from a shoot where I used my D850 and the experience wasn’t as satisfying. In addition, working with the D850 files left me feeling that I left something on the table by not having the sharper more workable XF100 files. If anything, I feel more like moving to a tech camera than moving to an easier more convenient solution. If an iPhone works for you then great but it sure wouldn’t work for me!
-
This pic took less than 2 minutes to make, it’s almost good enough eg. for a flyer. With a “real” camera it would take tilt shift and lights. Phones with their huge dof have revolutionised close-up photography.
Edmund
-
This pic took less than 2 minutes to make, it’s almost good enough eg. for a flyer.
Almost? :o
-
This pic took less than 2 minutes to make, it’s almost good enough eg. for a flyer. With a “real” camera it would take tilt shift and lights. Phones with their huge dof have revolutionised close-up photography.
Edmund
Really? I don't doubt that the iPhone is very capable but your shot is nowhere near good enough even for a small screen shot and I doubt it convinces anybody.
-
Really? I don't doubt that the iPhone is very capable but your shot is nowhere near good enough even for a small screen shot and I doubt it convinces anybody.
That shot is trashy, with a random subject, and taken handheld with ambient light to keep a position reference, but it still shows the dof and magnification one gets from a phone. Now after criticising me, show me one of yours, taken with an MF kit, and objects not in the same plane. Go ahead, I’ve noticed that critics here always use “copyright” as an excuse not to post images.
Edmund
-
Almost? :o
Sometimes good enough is good enough.
-
That shot is trashy, with a random subject, and taken handheld with ambient light to keep a position reference, but it still shows the dof and magnification one gets from a phone. Now after criticising me, show me one of yours, taken with an MF kit, and objects not in the same plane. Go ahead, I’ve noticed that critics here always use “copyright” as an excuse not to post images.
Edmund
Hell, Edmund, this isn't rocket science. The beauty of medium format is that there's plenty of real estate. Take a step or two back, snap, crop into image, done.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Edmund.jpg)