A landscape shooter ditches 4x5 for digital?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear that
image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
over image quality:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
10 answers Last reply
More about landscape shooter ditches digital
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
    news:9Kyue.1$zZ1.0@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
    > Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear
    that
    > image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    > over image quality:
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

    I've never seen Day-Glo saturation so delicately applied. Either that, or
    the pictures were meant to be an artist's rendering of what the earth might
    look like 8-1/2 minutes after the Sun went supernova.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    TAFKAB wrote:
    > Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear that
    > image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    > over image quality:
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

    Regardless of how you view his photos I think his article was well
    written and gave a pretty good comparison between 4 x 5 and the 1Ds
    Mark II.

    This is what I got out of his article,

    He was getting better looking images with the rebel 300 then the 4 x 5,
    but the resolution of the rebel limited how large he could prints.

    The 1Ds Mark II allows him to print large then what he could with the
    rebel, but not as large as with 4 x5.

    If the prints are below a certain size the 1Ds Mark II makes better
    looking prints then the 4 x 5 does.

    Scott
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Paul H. wrote:
    > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
    > news:9Kyue.1$zZ1.0@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
    >
    >>Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear
    >
    > that
    >
    >>image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    >>over image quality:
    >>
    >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
    >
    >
    > I've never seen Day-Glo saturation so delicately applied. Either that, or
    > the pictures were meant to be an artist's rendering of what the earth might
    > look like 8-1/2 minutes after the Sun went supernova.
    >
    P'raps his monitor needs adjustment. Or yours. Or both. On mine it looks
    overdone, esp. on the flat panel, but perhaps that's the way it was, or
    the way he saw it, or what he wants to convey.

    The article, tho, is pretty well written.

    --
    John McWilliams

    It's no longer a man up or man down....It's a <your company name here> ®
    Power Play....
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    It comes from picking the right time of day for a shot and yes maybe a
    little touch of the saturation slider. As the sun is going down some
    western US landscape are stunning, combination of high altitude and
    sometimes no smog. Worth a trip.

    Tom
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <9Kyue.1$zZ1.0@bos-service2.ext.ray.com>,
    TAFKAB <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
    >Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear that
    >image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    >over image quality:

    After spending mosty of the last two weeks doing multi-mile hikes around
    Utah in heat pushing 40 degrees, carrying 10 kilos of 4x5 camera and the
    stuff required to take pictures with it, I can symapthise with the
    convinience argument. It takes dedication to lug one of those around.

    Although, I must say, im my case if I decide to settle for convinience and
    leave the 4x5 behind, I'llusually opt to take my medium format Mamiya 7, or
    Rolleiflex, rather than my 10D, because even though the 10D wins in
    convinience, it doesn't win by enough to offset the vastly superior image
    quality I get from the medium format slides. The benefit that the 4x5 has
    over the medium format is not really image quality - not at the size of
    prints I can make anyway. The benefit comes in being able to use camera
    movements, which certainly make landscape photography a whole lot more
    interesting.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Chris Brown wrote:

    > The benefit that the 4x5 has
    > over the medium format is not really image quality - not at the size of
    > prints I can make anyway. The benefit comes in being able to use camera
    > movements, which certainly make landscape photography a whole lot more
    > interesting.


    Which makes things like the TS hartblei lenses interesting. :-)

    4X5 can be fun but using one "creates" different type of images than using
    other types of easier to use cameras. They are slow to setup and use so the
    images created usually end up looking like "arizona hiway" types of things.
    Not that they have to but seems to be how mine always do.
    --

    Stacey
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <9Kyue.1$zZ1.0@bos-service2.ext.ray.com>,
    TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser says...
    > Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear that
    > image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    > over image quality:
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
    >
    >
    >
    Just another example of how the end justifies the means.
    For most applications digital is now "good enough".
    Even when striving for maximum quality landscapes, the only time
    this is going to make a difference is in large presentation prints.
    Most people now see reproductions, not originals. These are online,
    halftones in magazines, or offset printed posters. With any of these
    the quality differences tend to get lost.
    So like in anything else, know your market...

    --
    Robert D Feinman
    Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
    http://robertdfeinman.com
    mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Colin D wrote:
    > TAFKAB wrote:
    > >
    > > Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear that
    > > image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    > > over image quality:
    > >
    > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
    >
    > The ease with which digital images can be stitched with good stitching
    > software allows four or nine or 16 images to be combined into one with
    > the same aspect ratio as a single frame, with megapixel counts in the
    > high hundreds or even thousands. Such images can blow away practically
    > any 4x5, and probably 8x10 shots.
    >
    > Colin

    This is very true. There are a lot of people who are better at this
    then me but even so I can get a pretty good photo without too much
    work.
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/37240858/original

    That is about a 32 MP image.

    Scott
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Scott W wrote:
    >
    > TAFKAB wrote:
    > > Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear that
    > > image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    > > over image quality:
    > >
    > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
    >
    > Regardless of how you view his photos I think his article was well
    > written and gave a pretty good comparison between 4 x 5 and the 1Ds
    > Mark II.
    >
    > This is what I got out of his article,
    >
    > He was getting better looking images with the rebel 300 then the 4 x 5,
    > but the resolution of the rebel limited how large he could prints.
    >
    > The 1Ds Mark II allows him to print large then what he could with the
    > rebel, but not as large as with 4 x5.
    >
    > If the prints are below a certain size the 1Ds Mark II makes better
    > looking prints then the 4 x 5 does.
    >
    > Scott


    Hello

    The problem is that the Canon images have quite obvious RED fringing on
    the left edge of the rock. That should be removable, at least using
    ACR31. Did he not notice it?

    Mike Engles
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    TAFKAB wrote:
    >
    > Yes, he did. And, based on the "Spiderock Sunset" examples, it's clear that
    > image quality was not the motivator. Score another victory for convenience
    > over image quality:
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

    The ease with which digital images can be stitched with good stitching
    software allows four or nine or 16 images to be combined into one with
    the same aspect ratio as a single frame, with megapixel counts in the
    high hundreds or even thousands. Such images can blow away practically
    any 4x5, and probably 8x10 shots.

    Colin
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Cameras