These guys use whatever equipment best suits the purpose of the assignment. I seem to remember NG's first all digital assignment about flight was shot on D1X's. These are shot with a 10D. I know for a fact that NG photographers have also used medium format when the situation was more controlled.
Imagemaster's point, as far as I can tell, was to say that MF and LF have superior resolving power to 35mm, and that makes them better. So he's using resolution as his benchmark for 'quality' in this case, which is hardly unusual. Why beat him up 5-7 times over for it?
Clearly there are situations where one is better than the other, but each involves a compromise. 35mm compromises resolution at the cost of portability and speed. MF delivers resolution for portability; LF delivers ultimate resolution at the cost of portability and ease of use. If I could take LF resolution images of everything, I would, but I think everyone realizes that this is just not feasible, and that we have to sometimes make do with the resolution 'limitations' of 35mm in order to get the shot. Clearly, having a shot at a somewhat lowe resolution than LF is still better than having nothing at all.
And why dredge up what appears to be a strong personality conflict from a previous forum episode up in this thread? The sarcasm is borderline childish, and entirely unwarranted in a thread that is discussing the ability of digital to generate great photographs for NG. Please keep private messages private... the bickering is taking the whole thread in a bizarre direction.
lordarka wrote:
Wow! What's with all the animosity here?
These guys use whatever equipment best suits the purpose of the assignment. I seem to remember NG's first all digital assignment about flight was shot on D1X's. These are shot with a 10D. I know for a fact that NG photographers have also used medium format when the situation was more controlled.
Imagemaster's point, as far as I can tell, was to say that MF and LF have superior resolving power to 35mm, and that makes them better. So he's using resolution as his benchmark for 'quality' in this case, which is hardly unusual. Why beat him up 5-7 times over for it?
Clearly there are situations where one is better than the other, but each involves a compromise. 35mm compromises resolution at the cost of portability and speed. MF delivers resolution for portability; LF delivers ultimate resolution at the cost of portability and ease of use. If I could take LF resolution images of everything, I would, but I think everyone realizes that this is just not feasible, and that we have to sometimes make do with the resolution 'limitations' of 35mm in order to get the shot. Clearly, having a shot at a somewhat lowe resolution than LF is still better than having nothing at all.
And why dredge up what appears to be a strong personality conflict from a previous forum episode up in this thread? The sarcasm is borderline childish, and entirely unwarranted in a thread that is discussing the ability of digital to generate great photographs for NG. Please keep private messages private... the bickering is taking the whole thread in a bizarre direction. ...Show more →
My god Arka, I hope you realize you just repeated all I've said before, and I hope you did it for a reason. If that's the case, you can just as well take over for me. I'm perfectly sure you'll do it in an entirely sober manner without any childish sarcasm, exactly as this important topic deserves. Have fun!
If that's the case, you can just as well take over for me. I'm perfectly sure you'll do it in an entirely sober manner without any childish sarcasm, exactly as this important topic deserves. Have fun!