pinball_pw wrote:
Looks very nice. The biggest I have gone on metal is 30 inches on the long side. Looks like that would hold up pretty easily.
Thx!
With the Arca/Phase/Rodenstock setup I have I might print up to 5 feet on metal no problem (60in), maybe even 6feet since visual acuity is stunning and also pixel quality overall is superb including color depth and dynamic range. The color differentiation is particularly impressive. I do have to be spot on with technique. With the Canon I might go to 40in wide but that is about the limited when viewed up close and you have high standards for quality. The Pentax 645D file and the Nikon D800E might go about a foot more than the Canon but even in a 30x40in print you see differences between the MF Digital and the 35mm digital format. I am obviously talking single files. With stitching one can go much bigger but that is not always possible also the color qualities and capabilities of the sensor do not change by stitching more images.
Yes, oops, forgot about this. I don't have many people shots, and I don't think I have any with the 80/2, since I specifically bought the Hasselblad 110/2 and adapter for this purpose, but I will see what else I can post.
Yeah, if you have the time, anything would be good. I've been searching as well.. Hard to find digital contax shots where I know they were shot wide open..
What I'm trying to see is how the magic of the 80/2 translates in the digital world. I have a bunch of Contax645 gear, I shoot film with it, and love the look, but I'm curious to see how well the images will turn out if I used a digital back.
To be honest, I didn't have the back for all that long, and I barely used the 80/2. I just never got around to it. My Sinar back had electronic trouble with my Contax, resulting in very bad exposures, and general lack of reliability, so I ended up selling it. I also loved the 35/3.5 and 120/4 Makro lenses, and did most of my shots with those.
The Sinar back I used was a 22MP 48x36mm back, btw.
It looks like I don't have any 80/2 shots on digital at all. I do have one nice shot on Adox CHS 25 though:
The rest I don't have EXIF for, and I don't recall full details any longer, but I think they are all with either the 120/4 or the 35/3.5, and maybe one with the Hasselblad 110/2.
Thanks, nice shots BTW! But it's as I feared, the Contax645 really looks digital with a digital back.. A lot of people like the Contax645 because of it's look w/film, and I think that look changes to much when not using film
Now I'm tossed as to if I should get a DB for the contax or not (leaning more towards not).
Yeah, somehow the Contax is too good... The imperfect film look is mostly because of the film with this camera. I sold mine, but am considering buying one back, and just shooting Adox CHS 25.
Matt Grum wrote:
The JPEG compression is very high in the fall leaves shot and it's lost some of the fine detail, that is all.
Oh, that's what you mean - I get it now! Yes, Photobucket murders image quality, and I did compress the image a lot.
