Tom,
At 4:03 PM +0000 1/21/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>
>Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:22:33 -0500
>From: Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [OM] Why bigger images are better
>
>On Sunday, January 20, 2002 at 21:25, Joe Gwinn <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote re "[OM] Why bigger images are better" saying:
>...
> > The science is that the human eye uses subtle gradations in intensity and
> > color to infer the 3D shape of a subject from a 2D image of that subject.
> > This is true on the retina viewing a 3D world, and certainly true when
> > viewing a photograph. If the fidelity is insufficient, the photo will look
> > flat. The higher the fidelity, the more the photograph will look more like
> > a window framing the subject and less like a snapshot.
>
>Up to a point. There are physical limits related to the density of our
>retina's cones and the sharpness of the eye. Beyond that, infinite detail
>adds nothing.
Yes. The resolution of the (young) human eye is about one minute of arc in
bright light
.
>...
> > This is why photos for magazine ads are done on 4x5 minimum, with lots of
> > 8x10 being used. The minimum is medium-format, used for ads in newspapers
> > (with less resoultion than slick magazines). News photos are usually 35mm,
> > however.
>...
>And National Geographic? Their photographers mainly use 35mm.
>35mm can be grainless up to 16x20 or so.
Grainless, yes. They shoot Kodachrome, I suspect. But the present discussion
is not about grain per se, it's about how one achieves the illusion of depth in
a photograph. Their photos are wonderful, but they still look like photos, not
the real thing. Not up to advertising standards.
Nor is National Geographic going to be keen on schlepping 4x5 cameras into
trackless parts of Africa, and most of their subjects are too fast to catch
with a 4x5 camera anyway. Nor are the movements much use in Africa.
>I think ads use 4x5 s mainly so they can pass the transparencies around the
>approving committee to take a look manually. Also, 4x5 view cameras have
>movements that are convenient for product photography.
Large-format photography is far more expensive than medium-format, and
medium-format is more expensive than 35mm, so they would use smaller formats if
they could. Magnifiers and projectors are cheap.
One can already get shift lenses for medium-format and 35mm. If the market was
there, medium-format cameras with movements would be made. There is no
technical reason this couldn't be done. One hears of prototypes, but rarely
actual production. Likewise, 35mm.
>Having said that, I was noticing last week at our photo club how the
>digital prints seemed "flat" compared to the silver prints. And all that
>extra detail does come in handy when cropping or manipulating.
Exactly. As the digital cameras get better, the difference will disappear.
Joe Gwinn
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|