Arizona Highways talks Large Format Film, not digital

Very interesting and candid article:
http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....=Photo_Talk803

In article ,
(jjs) wrote:

page.cfm

They make some good points, and as someone who has had
a fair amount of work on film, published I would agree. Of course they are
talking full page/ & two page spreads ,..for small thumbnail or small size
5x7 detail type shots for reproduction, I am pretty sure a 6 mega pixel dslr
would be adequate for some applications.
--
Baltimore & DC Large Format User Website

http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution

Gregory W Blank writes:

Of course they are talking full page/ & two page spreads ,..
for small thumbnail or small size 5x7 detail type shots for
reproduction, I am pretty sure a 6 mega pixel dslr
would be adequate for some applications.

For 12x18 inches with 225-line halftone screens, about 24 megapixels are
required. You can just about get this from 35mm film. You can easily
get it from medium format. And of course, with large format, it's a
breeze. But not with digital.

There are other problems, too.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Gregory W Blank writes:

Of course they are talking full page/ & two page spreads ,..
for small thumbnail or small size 5x7 detail type shots for
reproduction, I am pretty sure a 6 mega pixel dslr
would be adequate for some applications.

For 12x18 inches with 225-line halftone screens, about 24 megapixels are
required. You can just about get this from 35mm film. You can easily
get it from medium format. And of course, with large format, it's a
breeze. But not with digital.

There are other problems, too.

Did you read what I stated? Or are you meerly adding to it?
I was not implying they would use dslr images for a full page
much less a two page spread.
--
Baltimore & DC Large Format User Website

http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Gregory W Blank writes:

Of course they are talking full page/ & two page spreads ,..
for small thumbnail or small size 5x7 detail type shots for
reproduction, I am pretty sure a 6 mega pixel dslr
would be adequate for some applications.

For 12x18 inches with 225-line halftone screens, about 24 megapixels are
required. You can just about get this from 35mm film. You can easily
get it from medium format. And of course, with large format, it's a
breeze. But not with digital.

There are other problems, too.

Did you read what I stated? Or are you meerly adding to it?
I was not implying they would use dslr images for a full page
much less a two page spread.

Your post was not clear to me. The response was.

---
David Meiland
Friday Harbor, WA
http://davidmeiland.com/

**Check the reply address before sending mail

In article ,
(David Meiland) wrote:

Your post was not clear to me. The response was.

"Really" Well,,,,,,What part of this didn't you comprehend:

They make some good points, and as someone who has had
a fair amount of work on film, published I would agree.

Of course they are talking full page/ & two page spreads

,..for small thumbnail or small size
5x7 detail type shots for reproduction,
I am pretty sure a 6 mega pixel dslr
would be adequate for some applications.

(FYI I define a detail shot as a small image which
ties into the larger featured image,...in otherwords
an inset, portion of the larger picture.


Or maybe you would like to read the link to
what John posted again so what I stated
makes sense. Here it is

Very interesting and candid article:
http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....=Photo_Talk803
--
Baltimore & DC Large Format User Website

http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution

Interesting that they didn't mention the 22 Megapixal monster. Of course
there aren't many people shooting landscapes with it, but digital is
marching closer and closer. They also didn't talk about Kodak's 13 MP "full
frame" 35mm sensor that one magazine rated as capturing as details as sharp
as 35mm film.

But as the article points out it's not just about the apparent sharpness.
It's also about workflow. There was a day when transparencies ruled over
negative film. Much of that was a work flow thing.

This might only be for editorial reasons, a "how one reviews images." For
instance I believe "View Camera" insists on prints or transparencies for
submissions, but does allow for digital. Steve will can tell us if a
digital submission is accepted, whether they request the file rather than
scanning the submitted print. I have a friend that edits calendar and
brochures. His selection process in based on slides. He finds visualizing
layout easier on a light board than on a computer screen.

Todd


"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Meiland) wrote:

Your post was not clear to me. The response was.

"Really" Well,,,,,,What part of this didn't you comprehend:

They make some good points, and as someone who has had
a fair amount of work on film, published I would agree.

Of course they are talking full page/ & two page spreads

,..for small thumbnail or small size
5x7 detail type shots for reproduction,
I am pretty sure a 6 mega pixel dslr
would be adequate for some applications.

(FYI I define a detail shot as a small image which
ties into the larger featured image,...in otherwords
an inset, portion of the larger picture.


Or maybe you would like to read the link to
what John posted again so what I stated
makes sense. Here it is

Very interesting and candid article:
http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....=Photo_Talk803
--
Baltimore & DC Large Format User Website

http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768
resolution

In article , "konabear"
wrote:

Interesting that they didn't mention the 22 Megapixal monster.

Would that be the scanning back?

In article , "konabear"
wrote:

[...] I have a friend that edits calendar and
brochures. His selection process in based on slides. He finds visualizing
layout easier on a light board than on a computer screen.

Well, a 4' by 2' high res screen is still pretty spendy.

In article ,
"konabear" wrote:

Interesting that they didn't mention the 22 Megapixal monster. Of course
there aren't many people shooting landscapes with it, but digital is
marching closer and closer. They also didn't talk about Kodak's 13 MP "full
frame" 35mm sensor that one magazine rated as capturing as details as sharp
as 35mm film.

But as the article points out it's not just about the apparent sharpness.
It's also about workflow. There was a day when transparencies ruled over
negative film. Much of that was a work flow thing.

This might only be for editorial reasons, a "how one reviews images." For
instance I believe "View Camera" insists on prints or transparencies for
submissions, but does allow for digital. Steve will can tell us if a
digital submission is accepted, whether they request the file rather than
scanning the submitted print. I have a friend that edits calendar and
brochures. His selection process in based on slides. He finds visualizing
layout easier on a light board than on a computer screen.

Todd

I wondered about scanning backs as well. I doubt their are alot of
outdoor photograpers,.....although I am sure there are some
that use a scanning back. Cost and weight issues -of the laptop.

If I send a digital file to anyone, I always send a print for matching
the on screen image.
--
Baltimore & DC Large Format User Website

http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution