northeast16th
Member
Making 6x6 prints only. I would love the convenience of not scanning, but would hate to sacrifice any quality.
Please feel free to vote on this one.
Color landscapes in square format (so if 35mm it would be cropped to square). Any significant difference at this size?
Please feel free to vote on this one.
Color landscapes in square format (so if 35mm it would be cropped to square). Any significant difference at this size?
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
Please elaborate. I am a little vague on what kind of reply you are looking for.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Depending on what you are looking for, in shooting digital, you wouldn't sacrifice any quality.
northeast16th
Member
to elaborate, which would look better in a 6x6 print? or so similar that it really doesn't matter?
oh, and the title is (ricoh) grd iv or 35mm scans?
just looking for opinions on which would look better on an epson printer, or both about the same.
oh, and the title is (ricoh) grd iv or 35mm scans?
just looking for opinions on which would look better on an epson printer, or both about the same.
Dwig
Well-known
I presume that 6x6 inches ...
If inches, or cm for that matter, and assuming comparable lens quality you won't see and resolution or grain/noise difference between decent 35mm scans and any 12mp or greater digital using an m4/3 or larger sensor. At those sizes sharpness would be limited by the printer and paper.
That said, there are differences in the nature of how color is rendered by differing films and between any film and digital. Similarily, there are differences between the tonal rendering of various B&W films and between any one film and digital sensors. In both cases, neither is "better"; they're just different.
wallace
Well-known
I use a GRD III as my everyday substitute for 35mm point and shoot.
The main difference I see is dynamic range. Could be better with the
Ricohs, but all in all I am quiet happy with my b/w A4 prints from Epson R800
using Carbon ink only and QTR.
I can't really speak for color prints, but in high contrast scenes you will loose
details compared to negative film for sure...
BTW I just noticed that this thread is in the wrong forum since the GRD IV is
no M mount and no CSC! So if you take the GXR with A12 module for comparison, it's
another story!
Thomas
The main difference I see is dynamic range. Could be better with the
Ricohs, but all in all I am quiet happy with my b/w A4 prints from Epson R800
using Carbon ink only and QTR.
I can't really speak for color prints, but in high contrast scenes you will loose
details compared to negative film for sure...
BTW I just noticed that this thread is in the wrong forum since the GRD IV is
no M mount and no CSC! So if you take the GXR with A12 module for comparison, it's
another story!
Thomas
The only quality concern you have to deal with at this size is the depth of field differences between the two... which will give a different look to each image.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
As much as I still like film, I'd use the digital camera if you already own it. It sounds like you have a project in mind to produce a lot of pictures. Just the cost and current inconvenience of 35mm developing would deter me.
The last poster made a good point about depth of field. If you might want less of it that'd be one reason to use the larger 35mm format.
Tom
The last poster made a good point about depth of field. If you might want less of it that'd be one reason to use the larger 35mm format.
Tom
wallace
Well-known
We are talking about landscape photography, so depth of field should be welcome.
If you really mean the GRD IV and not the GRX (M mount), than we compare
the GRD to a 35mm camera with a 28mm lens, right?
You will get less resolution, less dynamic range, no way around that.
Maybe a DP1 merril will suit you better....
If you really mean the GRD IV and not the GRX (M mount), than we compare
the GRD to a 35mm camera with a 28mm lens, right?
You will get less resolution, less dynamic range, no way around that.
Maybe a DP1 merril will suit you better....
thegman
Veteran
I would imagine at 6x6", just about anything would look good. I've got prints from a cheap waterproof digital compact at 5x7 and they look good to me.
35mm film in low ISO obviously has greater potential for enlargement, but I'd say no significant difference at that size.
35mm film in low ISO obviously has greater potential for enlargement, but I'd say no significant difference at that size.
northeast16th
Member
actually the reason i wanted to use the ricoh is because i wanted everything in focus, from 3ft to infinity, so thats perfect.
and yes, 6 by 6 inches, not cm. thanks.
and yes, 6 by 6 inches, not cm. thanks.