dave lackey
Veteran
Is it me or has the winter doldrums set in?
Just to keep our minds active whilst hibernating, I thought I might throw this out for discussion:
Do we really need enormous megapixel images? How many women really want their portraits made with every pore, blemish and wrinkle shown in such detail? Landscapes, maybe. Street Photography, maybe. But,, for each of these, surely there is a "sweet spot",,,
I think it all depends. And if that is the case, then the argument for film-based images (and lower pixel digital images) in the market place should be considered. Horses for courses again.
What do you think?
Just to keep our minds active whilst hibernating, I thought I might throw this out for discussion:
Do we really need enormous megapixel images? How many women really want their portraits made with every pore, blemish and wrinkle shown in such detail? Landscapes, maybe. Street Photography, maybe. But,, for each of these, surely there is a "sweet spot",,,
I think it all depends. And if that is the case, then the argument for film-based images (and lower pixel digital images) in the market place should be considered. Horses for courses again.
What do you think?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
It's easier to remove pixels in post than to add them. I think the more the better in the original.
dave lackey
Veteran
Sparrow
Veteran
What you need is coffeenol
__hh
Well-known
I personally have never printed anything larger than A3 size.... As a hobbyist, anything between 6 and 12 megapickles is enough.
I don't, however, discount the need for more of those who have a genuine requirement for it (such as commercial and professional photographers).
I don't, however, discount the need for more of those who have a genuine requirement for it (such as commercial and professional photographers).
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Whether you need 50 mp or not is a different question. On a full frame 35mm size sensor? No. On a full frame medium format size sensor, yes. The increased dynamic range would be worth it.
But, now that I read again the OP's beginning post, I realize its really a film vs digital thread. Not going to touch that!
But, now that I read again the OP's beginning post, I realize its really a film vs digital thread. Not going to touch that!
dmr
Registered Abuser
Overall sweet spot: The combination of 1960s-1970s era glass and 21st. century film!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Not a digital verses film argument maybe ... but when you're talking sweet spot for me personally, I have to discount digital totally because I don't like that degree of detail in my images ... it totally detracts from what I'm trying to achieve.
My sweet spot currently resides around 35mm film.
My sweet spot currently resides around 35mm film.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Keith, get out that shoe box....and try some 'pinhole'
mcgrattan
Well-known
I've used 40MP MF digital backs. The level of information is amazing. I can't see the ordinary amateur photographer needing it.
I can only think of once or twice in the past 2 years when the 12MP I have on my dSLR isn't enough. That wasn't because I needed a huge print but because I wanted to crop out just one small section.
What I would like, though, is more dynamic range and more exposure latitude.
re: digital versus film: digital SLRs already give me almost everything I want in an SLR. Digital compacts still come quite a long way short of what I like about small rangefinders or high-end point and shoots.
I can only think of once or twice in the past 2 years when the 12MP I have on my dSLR isn't enough. That wasn't because I needed a huge print but because I wanted to crop out just one small section.
What I would like, though, is more dynamic range and more exposure latitude.
re: digital versus film: digital SLRs already give me almost everything I want in an SLR. Digital compacts still come quite a long way short of what I like about small rangefinders or high-end point and shoots.
dave lackey
Veteran
Ah! That is exactly my point..this is NOT digital v film. I mentioned horses for courses, did I not?
My point about the sweet spot can apply to both film and digital images. My D2X yields amazing detail...would I need more in my professional work? No. Certainly not for portraits! My D40 produces some of the best images I could ask for in certain instances. My D2H produced astounding images. So, why is the M8 resolution being trashed because it will become "outdated"? I think the M8 is right at the sweet spot level.
My M3 with the Summarit produces soft, flarey, dreamy images. Do I need more detail? Not for the Summarit. I bought this lens BECAUSE it does not show every hair on a fly's behind. It is more flattering than that. So, the M3 with the Summarit is at the sweet spot level for my current applications.
If I want more detail with the M3...I can always buy sharper lenses. Then, the sweet spot shifts...for that particular application.
So, what is the point of this so-called "sweet spot"? Philsophically, it is a balance point that is not a fixed point for everything photographically. I am finding that I do not need super detail in most of the work I am presently doing these days. That's all.:angel:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If there was a sweet spot for me digitally it would lie within the M8's ten megapixel sensor which delivers more than enough resolution for my needs ... what kills it as I mentioned in a previous thread is the lack of dynamic range. Slapping an older lens on the M8 and shooting it wide open will lessen the amount of detail being shown but it wont change this fact.
A six to ten megapixel sensor that can match the dynamic range of Tri-X or Neopan or HP5 would make me happy in a lot of ways and could instantly become my digital sweet spot!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
A dummy answer!
Using my M8 in the same situation I was shooting film in the other day with a lot of external background light gave me ugly highlights with really poor detail no matter how I exposed ... over or under or in between. Maybe there's a trick to it I haven't quite worked out yet!
dave lackey
Veteran
Richard...Nice Avatar!
fergus
Well-known
A dummy answer!
Using my M8 in the same situation I was shooting film in the other day with a lot of external background light gave me ugly highlights with really poor detail no matter how I exposed ... over or under or in between. Maybe there's a trick to it I haven't quite worked out yet!
The traditional canon/nikon digital exposure is to 'expose to the right' (histogram)... reference to luminous landscape.
BUT... I've read that with the M8 you expose differently, and do something in post' to get the detail from the shadows... something to do with how the M8 sensor/file records differently to 'other/normal' digital sensors...
I don't yet have an M8 (one day!) but this is from memory what I've read.
Hopefully someone else can chime in here and fill the horrendous gaps in my explanation!!!
Fergus.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
sweet spot old-style: M3 with Summar from 1937 and Tmax400
sweet spot general film: M-Hexanons on Kodak E100G
sweet spot in digital: Fuji S3 Pro @ 200 with DC-Nikkor 135mm 2.0
The Summar renders oof in a very special way with B&W
Hexanons and E100G can be a magical combination in low light, with those saturated colors
I owned the S3 Pro but traded up for a D300. Love the speed and detail on the D300 sensor, but when enlarging parts of a print, miss the S3 Pro, since noise in that sensor had a filmish touch to it. The DC-Nikkor 135mm 2.0 is a lens I might consider having tattood on my back, since it is such a killer lens, unbelievable.
Every now and then I hook the DC-Nikkor up to a D1, 2.74MP is actually quite nice for some applications.
sweet spot general film: M-Hexanons on Kodak E100G
sweet spot in digital: Fuji S3 Pro @ 200 with DC-Nikkor 135mm 2.0
The Summar renders oof in a very special way with B&W
Hexanons and E100G can be a magical combination in low light, with those saturated colors
I owned the S3 Pro but traded up for a D300. Love the speed and detail on the D300 sensor, but when enlarging parts of a print, miss the S3 Pro, since noise in that sensor had a filmish touch to it. The DC-Nikkor 135mm 2.0 is a lens I might consider having tattood on my back
, since it is such a killer lens, unbelievable. Every now and then I hook the DC-Nikkor up to a D1, 2.74MP is actually quite nice for some applications.
Chris101
summicronia
Whoa, I hadn't seen this, so thanks for the resurrection cle.
My sweet spot is well defined. It starts with film, particularly trix (mainly because hie is gone) and a wide to normal lens. RF or SLR doesn't really matter. I'll typically use a Nikon or OM slr or my Leica M4P. I shoot pretty much the same way with either.
This 'sweet spot' photography seems to have given me the much sought after "style".
My sweet spot is well defined. It starts with film, particularly trix (mainly because hie is gone) and a wide to normal lens. RF or SLR doesn't really matter. I'll typically use a Nikon or OM slr or my Leica M4P. I shoot pretty much the same way with either.
This 'sweet spot' photography seems to have given me the much sought after "style".