Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
very well put, Jim!I think there are two ideas that the images in this thread try to convey.. a quality image (good light, composition, something that wouldn't have been a waste of film)... as well as the quality of the MF digital capture. The larger images tend to demonstrate the second quality better. with the smaller ones (no Victor, that's not big enough to show the 2nd quality), the image could just as well have been taken with an inexpensive P&S.
Well, if a P65+ Apla SK 35mm shot resized at 2000 can be replicated by a P&S then we are wasting our money!
but you are right. I print min 24"x36" and I doube the P&S would hold up
That said, maybe there is a message in xpixels shot; it IS impressive and is NOT full size (is it? looks like 2500xxxx)
anyway a P&S is not going to have a 100% crop like this (at least I hpe not
BTW it DOES take 4 clicks to get full size. How does xpixel post his biggies???
Victor
Have to agree with this folks. It's MUCH friendlier to view say 900 pixel images in the thread with links to your larger versions. This is especially true for those with limited bandwidth or travelling as I am right now. On a laptop, I don't even bother scrolling across the huge images, so I never view those for example unless I'm sitting at my 30"... We will click though *IF* we want to see more detailThat said, xpixel posts the images so huge that I have to scroll all around to see them (on a 15" macbook pro)
Dear JimIn most cases (well 99%) where you can see a MF outfit doing better than a DSLR or P&S is it's ability to capture a quality of light... this, more than the 100% pixels are what makes xpixel's images stand out as MF. What separates the top MF shooters is the ability to capture and display this quality.
Victor, you've been with the forum pretty much from the start, and you have some of the top gear out there, and there's no doubting that you can use and process those pixels. What you haven't figured out yet, is light.. and how to capture that quality that really shows what the gear can do (# of pixels really isn't the biggest differentiating factor between MF, DSLR and P&S.). This is meant as constructive, since you have so much invested in both gear and time with your setup, and what appears to be your passion. If you're happy with where your images are, then please, ignore this.. but if you want to evolve further in the craft/art.. then start looking at your light, and not the lenses/sensors/or 100% crops. So, other than the number of pixels, there really isn't anything in that P65+ shot that can't be replicated with a very inexpensive P&S
Ed, this one is really especially beautiful...Phase One 645DF, P65+, 300mm, Sensor+, ISO 400
Thanks to Chip Phillips for showing us his special overlook.
wow, the shots of the 35mm on your blog look really impressive, too! the lens seems to be extremely well balanced (literally no distortion, literally no light fall off... not that it would be obvious at least. Unless you did some post work on the files...).Check out my blog for M9 hands-on review | S2 review now online
+1! I really like the play of light in that shot Ed -- very nice!Ed, this one is really especially beautiful...
Yes, beauty, and ecellent use of light and shade. Good eye!Phase One 645DF, P65+, 300mm, Sensor+, ISO 400
Thanks to Chip Phillips for showing us his special overlook.
Dear Jim
You are right, light is key. I know on a photo excursion much time is spend on timing for light (though local contract enhancement and some vibrancy can help. in post)
Unfortunately, photography is secondary; we trek and travel. I take what I can and make the best of it. I may miss a great sunrise contrast and depth, but I have images of Mt Blanc that will rarely be photgraphed, simply diue to perspective and weather and thew fact that I climbed 3,000 feet to get it! (and I actually have people badgering me for prints (at $200-400, certainly not FREE!); again, not being a professional, that slips below my running of my small company,and my enjoyment of the outdoors. I'm not trying to be professional, just trying to get what pleases me)
I can appreciate what you say, but most images are rushed as I have no setup time and rarely can even use a monopod. It is why the S2 intrgues me; for travel, PJ and trekking it has some clear advantages over an Alpa S-K Phase combo, even, dare I say it my be-liked Contax (I try to keep from romancing photo gear! :ROTFL: )
I would like to have gotten the Geneva shot at 8am instead of 4pm. Not in the cards. I suppose I could add some punch, but this is actually just a test shot for a panorama of the whole bay and town.
Then again there are style preferences; I am not into the misty, or the high shadow landscape stuff (that can border on resort art) nor can I STAND the long exposure water shots (looks like cotton candy to me)....chaq'une a son gout.
but what do I know, I just follow my taste and enjoy what I have.
regards
Victor