10-21-2010, 02:20 PM
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1287660810' post='3716']
Actually, BC, my comments are not "repeated from an internet forum", but from years of experience using film (which I still shoot). I don't know about the science and the figures, but subjectively I see more shadow and highlight details in actual prints using low ISO film (either 35mm or 6x7) than my DSLR is able to reproduce.
[/quote]
Hi Pinhole,
I would agree with 6X7, as that has more resolution available than FF and can record a larger transition, but with 35 mm it is about equal these days, or not far from even low iso 35 mm film, once in print. As I said in my other post, it does require a new way to process the negative (RAW), however, because it is different in nature to film.
![[Image: castle09bw.jpg]](http://www.lumifer.com/fs/castle09bw.jpg)
The above photograph had an s-curve applied from RAW to 16-bit tiff, nothing else was required there, and in PP it was converted to B&W with contrast and brightness changes to get a tonal range as full as possible available for view and print, and the path (and step) towards the tower were burned a little to lead one into the photograph, the underside of the supporting beam (which only supports itself now <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />) was dodged a little because the weathering on it made for a nice transition from the clouds, the tower was slightly dodged and sharpened to make it the focal point even better, and in downsizing I had to desharpen the image as a whole a few times in order to prevent sharpening artefacts to appear. I downsize in small steps, of about 1.4X or 1.5X to make sure the software makes a choice rather than just skips pixels.
Shot with 5D II and TS-E 17L, handheld, 1/200s, F/6.3, with a small amount of shift to make converging lines less convergent. I almost had my knees and shoes in this picture <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />. DR range retained in this picture is about 9.5 stops (Zone 0 to just over Zone 9), compressed to jpeg for viewing (on a calibrated monitor).
Could I have done this with B&W film? Yes, but beyond a 40 cm X 50 cm print it would suffer (and I would likely not be entirely happy with it). I print this very happily at 80 cm X 120 cm and even then can get closer to look at the detail that is actually there.
Kind regards, Wim
Actually, BC, my comments are not "repeated from an internet forum", but from years of experience using film (which I still shoot). I don't know about the science and the figures, but subjectively I see more shadow and highlight details in actual prints using low ISO film (either 35mm or 6x7) than my DSLR is able to reproduce.
[/quote]
Hi Pinhole,
I would agree with 6X7, as that has more resolution available than FF and can record a larger transition, but with 35 mm it is about equal these days, or not far from even low iso 35 mm film, once in print. As I said in my other post, it does require a new way to process the negative (RAW), however, because it is different in nature to film.
The above photograph had an s-curve applied from RAW to 16-bit tiff, nothing else was required there, and in PP it was converted to B&W with contrast and brightness changes to get a tonal range as full as possible available for view and print, and the path (and step) towards the tower were burned a little to lead one into the photograph, the underside of the supporting beam (which only supports itself now <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />) was dodged a little because the weathering on it made for a nice transition from the clouds, the tower was slightly dodged and sharpened to make it the focal point even better, and in downsizing I had to desharpen the image as a whole a few times in order to prevent sharpening artefacts to appear. I downsize in small steps, of about 1.4X or 1.5X to make sure the software makes a choice rather than just skips pixels.
Shot with 5D II and TS-E 17L, handheld, 1/200s, F/6.3, with a small amount of shift to make converging lines less convergent. I almost had my knees and shoes in this picture <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />. DR range retained in this picture is about 9.5 stops (Zone 0 to just over Zone 9), compressed to jpeg for viewing (on a calibrated monitor).
Could I have done this with B&W film? Yes, but beyond a 40 cm X 50 cm print it would suffer (and I would likely not be entirely happy with it). I print this very happily at 80 cm X 120 cm and even then can get closer to look at the detail that is actually there.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
