And the TFN cover goes to....

[kuha]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

I'm guessing you get a better contrast ratio too, or is the term dynamic range? Any idea how the top range digital cameras compare with film in this respect?

I would amend my hasty comments above. So much of this depends on qualitative issues, not merely quantitative: the exact kind of film used, the quality of the lens, the sharpness of the original capture, etc. Personally, I'd guesstimate that--on average--the following comparisons are pretty reasonable:
35mm film roughly equals 12 - 16MP
6x7cm film roughly equals 40 - 50MP
4x5" film roughly equals 100 - 150MP

Really good digital captures, particularly with the HDR feature, allow more dynamic range than almost any film. There's no question that the best digital cameras out there now are pretty impressive--but they can still cost a good deal more than film cameras FOR THE SAME RELATIVE QUALITY.

[kuha]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting . . . 8x10" film.

Not exactly a 'handy' camera to whip out and shoot! :shock:

That's true, but it's all about the ideal tool for the specific task at hand. The 8x10 is an ideal landscape/architectural tool; not great for finish-line shots.

[Conor Dary]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

And in transparency film too. A Velvia 50 8x10 is pretty amazing on a light box.

[meninblack]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

"

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

Must admit I have never seen (or heard of) anyone shooting "sports" with a medium format camera.

[kuha]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

"

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

Must admit I have never seen (or heard of) anyone shooting "sports" with a medium format camera.

I have done some of this (on an amateur basis) and it works just fine. The increase in image quality over 35mm is truly dramatic. However, that's not what I was suggesting in the discussion above--which evolved into the larger issue of digital vs. film.

[meninblack]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

"

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

Must admit I have never seen (or heard of) anyone shooting "sports" with a medium format camera.

I have done some of this (on an amateur basis) and it works just fine. The increase in image quality over 35mm is truly dramatic.

I would be really interested to see one of these images. Please post an example.

[Conor Dary]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

"

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

Must admit I have never seen (or heard of) anyone shooting "sports" with a medium format camera.

I have done some of this (on an amateur basis) and it works just fine. The increase in image quality over 35mm is truly dramatic.

I would be really interested to see one of these images. Please post an example.

Kind of impossible when the biggest image can only be 100 pixels wide.

[kuha]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

I don't have electronic files of any of these, but I appreciate the interest. If I can figure out something meaningful, I'll try. But, yes, as Conor states, the original image quality would immediately get lost in a jpeg.

[Conor Dary]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

"

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

Must admit I have never seen (or heard of) anyone shooting "sports" with a medium format camera.

I have done some of this (on an amateur basis) and it works just fine. The increase in image quality over 35mm is truly dramatic. However, that's not what I was suggesting in the discussion above--which evolved into the larger issue of digital vs. film.

For our local park district I shot a lot medium format using a Fuji, on basketball. And I even shot baseball using a 4x5! The basketball shots I scanned and printed at 12x18. For the baseball I printed at 30x40 inches and they looked great, even up close.

But unfortunately it is impossible to reproduce here.

[meninblack]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

"

Which is exactly why SOME of us are still shooting medium format, 4x5" and even 8x10" film.

For our local park district I shot a lot medium format using a Fuji, on basketball. And I even shot baseball using a 4x5! The basketball shots I scanned and printed at 12x18. For the baseball I printed at 30x40 inches and they looked great, even up close.

But unfortunately it is impossible to reproduce here.

I would also be interested to know how you "medium format" proponents capture the dynamic nature of track & field. I know how digital shooters just set their cameras to fast-repeat and shoot. This normally means you capture hundreds & thousands of exposures during a meet. Some of these images turn out to be useful but most don't. I'm not sure this strategy is feasible (or cost efficient) with medium format film shooting.

[kuha]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

I would also be interested to know how you "medium format" proponents capture the dynamic nature of track & field. I know how digital shooters just set their cameras to fast-repeat and shoot. This normally means you capture hundreds & thousands of exposures during a meet. Some of these images turn out to be useful but most don't. I'm not sure this strategy is feasible (or cost efficient) with medium format film shooting.

You're correct. You can't "machine gun" with any medium format camera. In part (ever since 220 film disappeared) because you can only get 10 shots on a roll--and these cameras don't have motor drives anyway! It's a very different working process--much slower, more selective, and more precise--since you can't just bang off 50 shots and hope that one of them will be good. Clearly, this is NOT the best technique for a pro; it's about another way of looking at the world. (For what it's worth, I've worked with Mamiya 7 cameras and love them.)

[Daisy]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

Another article by the same guy who wrote the previous link above. Here he shows how superior the film is. But then demonstrates how the digital camera is more versatile. He's obviously a fan of both formats.

Comparing a digital to a film camera is like comparing a bus to a Ferrari. I'm serious; it's exactly like that. Photographers know film and digital are completely different media, so we use them for completely different purposes. The differences are obvious to us and we don't worry about it. Casual internet hobbyists lack the experience to see the obvious differences so they worry about the differences for hours on end. A professional driver knows when to start up the Ferrari or the bus, while the weekend photographer is still learning.

Just to prove he still love film: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

[meninblack]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

Another article by the same guy who wrote the previous link above. Here he shows how superior the film is. But then demonstrates how the digital camera is more versatile. He's obviously a fan of both formats.

Comparing a digital to a film camera is like comparing a bus to a Ferrari. I'm serious; it's exactly like that. Photographers know film and digital are completely different media, so we use them for completely different purposes. The differences are obvious to us and we don't worry about it. Casual internet hobbyists lack the experience to see the obvious differences so they worry about the differences for hours on end. A professional driver knows when to start up the Ferrari or the bus, while the weekend photographer is still learning.

Just to prove he still love film: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

The important distinction here is that Ken Rockwell is shooting mostly landscapes not T&F. In sports and action photography you need to capture the action first and foremost. You actually make many compromises to do this. Potential losses in image quality being just one. I'm sure KR would be shooting digital if his aim was to get his images on the cover of TFN.

[Daisy]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

I'm sure KR would be shooting digital if his aim was to get his images on the cover of TFN.

Look at the link, he loves the quality of film but even for his landscapes he acknowledges that digital is more versatile (even a fan of digital). So you can bet he'd be a using a digital camera for track and field.

[kuha]

Re: And the TFN cover goes to....

The important distinction here is that Ken Rockwell is shooting mostly landscapes not T&F. In sports and action photography you need to capture the action first and foremost. You actually make many compromises to do this. Potential losses in image quality being just one. I'm sure KR would be shooting digital if his aim was to get his images on the cover of TFN.

As noted above, YES, without question. I had assumed that the conversation had taken a broader perspective on the technical issues involved. Of course, an interesting question here is: What do we mean by "action"? Meaningful photographs aren't all of crashes, elbows in the chest, or hitting the finishing tape.