Advice for one new to digital photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, Dec 9, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints smaller
    than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.

    What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing that
    the finished results will be at least that large?

    Thanks,

    Norm
    Strong
    Guest, Dec 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    > were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints smaller
    > than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >
    > What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing that
    > the finished results will be at least that large?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Norm
    > Strong
    >
    >

    Hi Norm,

    Pretty much any reasonable digital SLR will do you. I've found you can
    up sample in PS pretty well any photographic image by a factor of two
    with no problems. Some types of images you can push much larger. So a
    dSLR in the 6-12MP range shouldn't be an issue. Like all photography,
    the lens becomes more important the larger the print because the lens
    issues become more obvious. Good lenses, used properly (optimum
    aperture, tripod where possible, etc), will give you a solid image that
    you can print in the sizes you want.

    As far as system, I really don't think it matters. I own Canon but also
    use Nikon, Olympus, Sony (Minolta) and Pentax when they are in for
    review and you can get great results from all of them. It really comes
    down to price, ergonomics (which is highly personal when it comes to
    cameras, you need to handle them), and special feature requirements you
    have (IS in lens or body, for example). Since it sounds like you do not
    have an existing investment in lenses, you are free to choose.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Dec 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

    > Hi Norm,
    >
    > Pretty much any reasonable digital SLR will do you. I've found you can
    > up sample in PS pretty well any photographic image by a factor of two
    > with no problems. Some types of images you can push much larger. So a
    > dSLR in the 6-12MP range shouldn't be an issue.


    If you mean on an area basis, I agree. I find upsampling only seems to
    help up to about 40% increase linearly (which is approximately twice
    the pixels by area count). Beyond that it doesn't help much. It
    depends a lot on scene, however. Scenes with a lot of fine detail do
    not upsample as well as ones with less detail, more uniform regions.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Dec 9, 2006
    #3
  4. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    > were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
    > smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >
    > What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
    > that the finished results will be at least that large?


    How much do you want to spend? A Canon 30D would probably work well for
    you, or a similar Nikon DSLR.
    Charles Schuler, Dec 9, 2006
    #4
  5. Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Norm,
    >>
    >> Pretty much any reasonable digital SLR will do you. I've found you can
    >> up sample in PS pretty well any photographic image by a factor of two
    >> with no problems. Some types of images you can push much larger. So a
    >> dSLR in the 6-12MP range shouldn't be an issue.

    >
    > If you mean on an area basis, I agree. I find upsampling only seems to
    > help up to about 40% increase linearly (which is approximately twice
    > the pixels by area count). Beyond that it doesn't help much. It
    > depends a lot on scene, however. Scenes with a lot of fine detail do
    > not upsample as well as ones with less detail, more uniform regions.
    >

    Hi Don,

    Exactly. High detail images upsample less well, soft images, like foggy
    landscapes or most of the 'blur' shots I love upscale well and
    massively. Highly dependent on subject matter as well as your own
    personal priorities.

    Now here is something to think on: in theory any image is infinitely
    scalable. Why? Because as you go to bigger prints the 'normal' viewing
    distance becomes larger and that means the details subtend the same
    angular resolution :) Now I say in theory because many of us have a
    tendency to get up close and personal with even huge images.

    Another important aspect is what you will print on. Highly textured fine
    art papers, for example, tend to fill in detail because the actual
    texture of the paper provides fine detail, sometimes allowing you to
    push an image bigger. Glossy photo paper is the least forgiving.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Dec 9, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    Summer Wind Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    > were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
    > smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >
    > What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
    > that the finished results will be at least that large?
    >



    As noted in this review ...

    http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/canon-eos-1ds.html

    .... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100 35mm film
    quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints from that film
    size and speed with little cropping, you're more likely get acceptable
    results from medium format film or a MF class sensor, such as the following.

    http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/mamiya-zd.html

    http://hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx

    Of course, you have the option of deferring your plunge into digital and
    using your old Rolleiflex and 120/220 film, if you still have it. If you
    do, you have the option of either scanning the negatives for printing, or
    having wet-process prints made.

    If you are interested in professional quality prints, upsampling a smaller
    digital image is a bad idea.

    SW
    Summer Wind, Dec 9, 2006
    #6
  7. Summer Wind wrote:

    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    >>were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
    >>smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >>
    >>What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
    >>that the finished results will be at least that large?

    >
    > As noted in this review ...
    >
    > http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/canon-eos-1ds.html
    >
    > ... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100 35mm film
    > quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints from that film
    > size and speed with little cropping, you're more likely get acceptable
    > results from medium format film or a MF class sensor, such as the following.
    >
    > http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/mamiya-zd.html
    >
    > http://hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx
    >
    > Of course, you have the option of deferring your plunge into digital and
    > using your old Rolleiflex and 120/220 film, if you still have it. If you
    > do, you have the option of either scanning the negatives for printing, or
    > having wet-process prints made.
    >
    > If you are interested in professional quality prints, upsampling a smaller
    > digital image is a bad idea.


    Most people seem to agree that the 1Ds Masrk II 16.7 MP competes
    with 6x4.5 or so. Regarding spatial resolution, it may match
    fine grained film, but digital has much higher signal-to-noise ratios
    resulting in better total image quality. E.g. see:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    and look at Figure 1 as well as the section on AIQ.
    Digital also has much higher dynamic range than film.

    I now routinely make 16x24-inch prints from 8-megapixel DSLR
    images that appear sharper with much better image quality that
    drum scanned fine grained 35-mm slide film.

    My workflow includes: Image Restoration
    Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

    Then, when I want more pixels for a larger print of a static
    subject, I do a digital mosaic:
    Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
    http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

    So I have mostly dropped 4x5 film in favor of digital.
    And digital works must better for fast action photography.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 10, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    > were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints smaller
    > than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >
    > What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing that
    > the finished results will be at least that large?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Norm
    > Strong
    >
    >

    Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon), and some
    lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with anything less.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR.
    >> My prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the
    >> average. Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest
    >> to me.
    >> What would be the best approach to starting digital
    >> photography knowing that the finished results will be at least
    >> that large?
    >> Thanks,
    >> Norm
    >> Strong

    >
    >Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon),
    >and some lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with
    >anything less.


    That sounds a bit trite... but Norm is probably *dead* *on*.

    The $2000 is only a start too, as it is easy to invest that much
    in a minimal lense inventory alone.

    Generally people agree that it takes about 200 pixels per inch
    to have a good print. Some images are fine with less, some take
    more. Virtually everyone agrees that 300 ppi will result in a
    good print, and for some purposes 150 or even 100 ppi is enough.

    Here is an interesting chart:

    Print Size 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x24

    Image size
    3:4 aspect
    ratio 8x10.7 11x14.7 16x21 20x26.7

    150 dpi 1200x1605 1650x2205 2400x3150 3000x4005
    1.9 MP 3.6 MP 7.6 MP 12.0 MP

    200 dpi 1600x2140 2200x2940 3200x4200 4000x5340
    3.4 MP 6.5 MP 13.4 MP 21.4 MP

    300 dpi 2400x3210 3300x4420 4800x6300 6000x8010
    7.7 MP 14.6 MP 30.2 MP 48.0 MP


    Keep in mind that Canon's top of the line DSLR produces 16
    megapixel images, Nikon's produces 12 megapixel images, and
    everything else reasonable is between 6 and 10, approximately.

    For 8x10's, virtually all of the current crop of 6MP or better
    cameras will probably do just fine (even up to 11x14).

    If you are less demanding, 10MP or more images will suffice for
    16x20 prints. If you are fairly critical, a 10MP image won't
    often be good enough for 16x20 prints, and a 12MP image will
    barely manage it. If you are super critical, 10MP and 12MP
    cameras won't do for anything much larger than 8x10's!

    Choose a camera accordingly...

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 10, 2006
    #9
  10. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR.
    >>> My prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the
    >>> average. Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest
    >>> to me.
    >>> What would be the best approach to starting digital
    >>> photography knowing that the finished results will be at least
    >>> that large?
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Norm
    >>> Strong

    >>
    >> Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon),
    >> and some lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with
    >> anything less.

    >
    > That sounds a bit trite... but Norm is probably *dead* *on*.
    >
    > The $2000 is only a start too, as it is easy to invest that much
    > in a minimal lense inventory alone.
    >
    > Generally people agree that it takes about 200 pixels per inch
    > to have a good print. Some images are fine with less, some take
    > more. Virtually everyone agrees that 300 ppi will result in a
    > good print, and for some purposes 150 or even 100 ppi is enough.
    >
    > Here is an interesting chart:
    >
    > Print Size 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x24
    >
    > Image size
    > 3:4 aspect
    > ratio 8x10.7 11x14.7 16x21 20x26.7
    >
    > 150 dpi 1200x1605 1650x2205 2400x3150 3000x4005
    > 1.9 MP 3.6 MP 7.6 MP 12.0 MP
    >
    > 200 dpi 1600x2140 2200x2940 3200x4200 4000x5340
    > 3.4 MP 6.5 MP 13.4 MP 21.4 MP
    >
    > 300 dpi 2400x3210 3300x4420 4800x6300 6000x8010
    > 7.7 MP 14.6 MP 30.2 MP 48.0 MP
    >
    >
    > Keep in mind that Canon's top of the line DSLR produces 16
    > megapixel images, Nikon's produces 12 megapixel images, and
    > everything else reasonable is between 6 and 10, approximately.
    >
    > For 8x10's, virtually all of the current crop of 6MP or better
    > cameras will probably do just fine (even up to 11x14).
    >
    > If you are less demanding, 10MP or more images will suffice for
    > 16x20 prints. If you are fairly critical, a 10MP image won't
    > often be good enough for 16x20 prints, and a 12MP image will
    > barely manage it. If you are super critical, 10MP and 12MP
    > cameras won't do for anything much larger than 8x10's!
    >
    > Choose a camera accordingly...


    and don't forget the printer!
    Dennis Pogson, Dec 10, 2006
    #10
  11. (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    >Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR.
    >>> My prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the
    >>> average. Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest
    >>> to me.
    >>> What would be the best approach to starting digital
    >>> photography knowing that the finished results will be at least
    >>> that large?
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Norm
    >>> Strong

    >>
    >>Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon),
    >>and some lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with
    >>anything less.

    >
    >That sounds a bit trite... but Norm is probably *dead* *on*.


    Gak! Typo alert: Ron Hunter is dead on.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 10, 2006
    #11
  12. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR.
    >>>> My prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the
    >>>> average. Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest
    >>>> to me.
    >>>> What would be the best approach to starting digital
    >>>> photography knowing that the finished results will be at least
    >>>> that large?


    >>> Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon),
    >>> and some lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with
    >>> anything less.

    >> That sounds a bit trite... but Norm is probably *dead* *on*.

    >
    > Gak! Typo alert: Ron Hunter is dead on.


    Agreed. And you don't need to own a printer at first, unless you need
    the printed output immediately.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Dec 10, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "Summer Wind" <> wrote in message
    news:OnHeh.26254$...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    >> were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
    >> smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >>
    >> What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
    >> that the finished results will be at least that large?
    >>

    >
    >
    > As noted in this review ...
    >
    > http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/canon-eos-1ds.html
    >
    > ... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100 35mm
    > film quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints from that
    > film size and speed with little cropping, you're more likely get
    > acceptable results from medium format film or a MF class sensor, such as
    > the following.
    >
    > http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/mamiya-zd.html
    >
    > http://hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx
    >
    > Of course, you have the option of deferring your plunge into digital and
    > using your old Rolleiflex and 120/220 film, if you still have it. If you
    > do, you have the option of either scanning the negatives for printing, or
    > having wet-process prints made.
    >
    > If you are interested in professional quality prints, upsampling a smaller
    > digital image is a bad idea.


    2 things are apparent: I clearly need to read up on the subject, if only to
    master the digital photo vernacular. I don't even know what "upsampling"
    is! Secondly, there are no shortages of ways to spend too much money on
    this hobby. :)

    I still have my Rollei. It's an f/2.8 model with a Zeiss Planar lens. It
    may be worth while making 6 x 6cm color negatives and going digital from
    that point on. Is this a practical idea?

    Thanks,

    Norm
    Guest, Dec 10, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR.
    >>>> My prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the
    >>>> average. Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest
    >>>> to me.
    >>>> What would be the best approach to starting digital
    >>>> photography knowing that the finished results will be at least
    >>>> that large?
    >>>> Thanks,
    >>>> Norm
    >>>> Strong
    >>> Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon),
    >>> and some lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with
    >>> anything less.

    >> That sounds a bit trite... but Norm is probably *dead* *on*.

    >
    > Gak! Typo alert: Ron Hunter is dead on.
    >


    thanks. I was getting confused..

    Obviously, one can spend as much as one has, or wants, on lenses, but
    when it comes to carrying them around.... Grin.
    I only suggested the minimum I expected him to be able to spend for his
    stated requirements. A moderately priced wide-angle, and a moderate
    telephoto could be had for within that range, or one could spend the
    whole bundle on a single lens.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 11, 2006
    #14
  15. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > "Summer Wind" <> wrote in message
    > news:OnHeh.26254$...
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
    >>> were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
    >>> smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >>>
    >>> What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
    >>> that the finished results will be at least that large?
    >>>

    >>
    >> As noted in this review ...
    >>
    >> http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/canon-eos-1ds.html
    >>
    >> ... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100 35mm
    >> film quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints from that
    >> film size and speed with little cropping, you're more likely get
    >> acceptable results from medium format film or a MF class sensor, such as
    >> the following.
    >>
    >> http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/mamiya-zd.html
    >>
    >> http://hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx
    >>
    >> Of course, you have the option of deferring your plunge into digital and
    >> using your old Rolleiflex and 120/220 film, if you still have it. If you
    >> do, you have the option of either scanning the negatives for printing, or
    >> having wet-process prints made.
    >>
    >> If you are interested in professional quality prints, upsampling a smaller
    >> digital image is a bad idea.

    >
    > 2 things are apparent: I clearly need to read up on the subject, if only to
    > master the digital photo vernacular. I don't even know what "upsampling"
    > is! Secondly, there are no shortages of ways to spend too much money on
    > this hobby. :)
    >
    > I still have my Rollei. It's an f/2.8 model with a Zeiss Planar lens. It
    > may be worth while making 6 x 6cm color negatives and going digital from
    > that point on. Is this a practical idea?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Norm
    >
    >

    It is, if you don't mind the laborious process of scanning the film
    after you take the shot, have the film developed (or do it yourself).
    Take it from me, doing a LOT of scanning is tedious, and time-consuming,
    and the scanner will set you back quite a bit.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 11, 2006
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>

    > It is, if you don't mind the laborious process of scanning the film
    > after you take the shot, have the film developed (or do it yourself).
    > Take it from me, doing a LOT of scanning is tedious, and time-consuming,
    > and the scanner will set you back quite a bit.


    Agreed. I did this option for a long time and it was a real pain, even
    with a scanner that I could load up a whole roll at a time and let it
    batch scan.

    Cheers,

    Wayne
    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Dec 11, 2006
    #16
  17. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>>

    >> It is, if you don't mind the laborious process of scanning the film
    >> after you take the shot, have the film developed (or do it yourself).
    >> Take it from me, doing a LOT of scanning is tedious, and
    >> time-consuming, and the scanner will set you back quite a bit.

    >
    > Agreed. I did this option for a long time and it was a real pain, even
    > with a scanner that I could load up a whole roll at a time and let it
    > batch scan.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne


    Now, most of my scanning is done at this time of year since family send
    prints in their Christmas cards, and I scan them for storage. It takes
    up to 10 minutes a print to get them scanned, despeckled, and 'adjusted'
    to satisfy my not too picky standards.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 11, 2006
    #17
  18. Ron Hunter wrote:

    >>>
    >>> As noted in this review ...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/canon-eos-1ds.html
    >>>
    >>> ... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100
    >>> 35mm film quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints
    >>> from that film size and speed with little cropping, you're more
    >>> likely get acceptable results from medium format film or a MF class
    >>> sensor, such as the following.
    >>>


    That's likely true.

    HOWEVER, what I suggest is buying a Canon Digital Rebel XTi
    at a reasonable price and playing with it to see what it can
    do, which is NOT what you really want. But it is close
    enough to do SCALING and then you will see if the full-frame
    mucho-pixel Canons will do what you want. If you didn't
    use square prints they will likely come very close. If you
    liked square prints, don't even bother, keep the medium
    format camera and pay your money to professional film
    scanning companies.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Dec 11, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    Tony Belding Guest

    On 2006-12-09 15:15:45 -0600, <> said:

    > During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My
    > prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average.
    > Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >
    > What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
    > that the finished results will be at least that large?


    Just to stir things up a bit. . . .

    First, don't forget that you *can* shoot digital with a film camera.
    There are services (re: http://www.twocatdigital.com/propcd2.html) that
    will develop and scan your film and send the results back on a CD or
    DVD. You don't get the immediate results of a digital camera or the
    ability to experiment with hundreds of virtually cost-free shots. . .
    But you do get to use your old familiar camera in your old familiar
    way, while also getting the high-quality digital images that you can
    archive, post-process, and otherwise fiddle with on your computer.

    Secondly, I have to question the percieved need for high-MP sensors.
    SummerWind suggested that you need a full-frame 16.7MP sensor to match
    ISO100 35mm color film, which just makes me shake my head. I'm
    confident that a good 6MP DSLR can compete well against 35mm in most
    situations. Furthermore, the advantage of a high-MP sensor camera is
    not as great as might first appear.

    Let's do some math. . .

    Let's start with the 6MP sensor of 3008x2008 pixels. Let's assume,
    somewhat abitrarily, that it's good for 8x10 prints that would satisfy
    most people with a close-up view. Now, if we step up to a 10 MP
    sensor, how much size does that buy us at the same quality level? Our
    resolution has increased to 3872x2592, and we can now blow up our
    prints to. . . roughly 10.3x13 inches, without losing any detail.
    Hmmm. . . Know anybody who makes 10x13 prints? I would also note
    that we are now using 66% more storage space per image than we were
    before. Hmmm. . . I believe this is what some might call "diminishing
    returns".

    It's not to say a larger MP count isn't an advantage. More is better
    -- but it's not as much better as some would have you think, and there
    are other ways of dealing with the problem rather than simply racking
    up ever-higher MP sensor specs.

    You can make digital mosaics! The software available now for stitching
    together multiple images into a larger one has become quite good.
    There are many types of shooting this isn't good for -- but for static
    scenes like landscapes it's a pretty neat trick and can be used to
    capture much larger and more detailed images.

    Another trick that's a little more obscure is using Genuine Fractals
    software. (http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2)
    With this software you can scale an image up to 800% of its original
    size. It doesn't perform miracles, it doesn't generate more picture
    details than your camera actually captured. However, it does allow you
    to scale up images without the usual "upsampling" problems of softness
    or blurriness, or stairstep aliasing. The images look sharp.

    I recently bought a 6MP camera, and I'm not worried about the
    resolution. I'm confident I can coax it into doing whatever I need to
    do. However, you should understand that I am not in the habit of
    making really big prints on a regular basis, and someone who does that
    might have different priorities.

    --
    Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas
    Tony Belding, Dec 12, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > wrote:
    >> "Summer Wind" <> wrote in message
    >> news:OnHeh.26254$...
    >>> <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My
    >>>> prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average.
    >>>> Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
    >>>>
    >>>> What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
    >>>> that the finished results will be at least that large?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> As noted in this review ...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/canon-eos-1ds.html
    >>>
    >>> ... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100 35mm
    >>> film quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints from that
    >>> film size and speed with little cropping, you're more likely get
    >>> acceptable results from medium format film or a MF class sensor, such as
    >>> the following.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/mamiya-zd.html
    >>>
    >>> http://hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx
    >>>
    >>> Of course, you have the option of deferring your plunge into digital and
    >>> using your old Rolleiflex and 120/220 film, if you still have it. If
    >>> you do, you have the option of either scanning the negatives for
    >>> printing, or having wet-process prints made.
    >>>
    >>> If you are interested in professional quality prints, upsampling a
    >>> smaller digital image is a bad idea.

    >>
    >> 2 things are apparent: I clearly need to read up on the subject, if only
    >> to master the digital photo vernacular. I don't even know what
    >> "upsampling" is! Secondly, there are no shortages of ways to spend too
    >> much money on this hobby. :)
    >>
    >> I still have my Rollei. It's an f/2.8 model with a Zeiss Planar lens.
    >> It may be worth while making 6 x 6cm color negatives and going digital
    >> from that point on. Is this a practical idea?
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Norm

    > It is, if you don't mind the laborious process of scanning the film after
    > you take the shot, have the film developed (or do it yourself). Take it
    > from me, doing a LOT of scanning is tedious, and time-consuming, and the
    > scanner will set you back quite a bit.


    Curiously enough, I have an Epson 3490 scanner that has a possible
    resolution of 3600dpi. It can be set up to scan negatives of either 24 x
    36mm or 6 x 6cm. I haven't used it in this configuration yet, but it's
    worth a try.

    Thanks again, and Merry Xmas,

    Norm
    Guest, Dec 13, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. S

    Digital Photography starter advice.

    S, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    766
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=
    Jul 15, 2004
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    705
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. aristotle

    Advice on superior macro digital photography

    aristotle, Oct 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    268
    aristotle
    Nov 9, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    677
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page