Without doing the calculations, from comments in lens test mtf charts I understand that diffraction affects sharpness beyond 11for 'full frame', 8 for aps-c and 5.6 for m4/3.
So f/8 on my Fujis will give me more DoF than on a full frame camera, which is the gain, without pain!
Fortunately we have enough shutter speeds to make a min of f/8 quite reasonable in any light. If you want more DoF then there will be losses from diffraction overall.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is a fascinating idea on several levels, including its reference to a classic photography technique, but in an obvious and atypical way.
Yes a great idea, exploiting technicalities to produce an interesting image, or two. But flogged to death to the extent of a whole room full of big prints ruins the effect, IMHO.
gyoung143 wrote:
Yes a great idea, exploiting technicalities to produce an interesting image, or two. But flogged to death to the extent of a whole room full of big prints ruins the effect, IMHO.
Gerry
Yeah, it might be a bit too much to see 20 of them, but one would be fun.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I can produce quite large prints of excellent quality from the 5DsR files on my Epson P9000. Software improvements have made this even more viable — for example I can recover ever more shadow detail when necessary now that the Adobe AI Denoise feature does such an excellent job. (I actually have old photographs made in poor light — for example pre-dawn bird-in-flight photographs — that were formerly unusable, but which can now be used after applying this tool.)
As to stitching, unless I am doing something extraordinarily large — let's say some sort of really big pano shot — it simply isn;t necessary. (I have licensed some stitched images at huge sizes, like between 18' and 30' wide, for commercial use.)
Back when I used the plain old 5D and to some extend with the old 5DII, I did do exposure blending, but it is extremely rare that I would need to do that now.
I guess that I have a different take about what good enough is.
Probably resulting from the fact that many people were already thinking that 24 mp was good enough back in 2008 when the revolutionary D3x came out. The first high DR DSLR.
I was stitching in the 200mp range already back then and some of my multi-row stitched images are still more detailed than what the best P1 back can produce nearly 20 years later. And no, detail is of course not the only thing that matters and yes some of that was very difficult to achieve. I was close to losing fingers to frostbite a couple of times in the process.
I think that the need for more detail will continue with new ways to experience images and that it still makes sense to strive for technical progress even in 2025.
Of perhaps I like to think that to justify the purchase of better gear…
gyoung143 wrote:
Without doing the calculations, from comments in lens test mtf charts I understand that diffraction affects sharpness beyond 11for 'full frame', 8 for aps-c and 5.6 for m4/3.
So f/8 on my Fujis will give me more DoF than on a full frame camera, which is the gain, without pain!
Fortunately we have enough shutter speeds to make a min of f/8 quite reasonable in any light. If you want more DoF then there will be losses from diffraction overall.
Gerry
This seems to be an argument for shooting M4/3 as you can shoot at f5.6 for even more gain without pain. Further, with GFX noise performance you can shoot at F11-16 and up the ISO for similar noise and DoF performance. While there might be optimal systems for different tasks, the point is the equivalence theory implies there is no system that should be preferred when trading off DoF verses diffraction.
The best camera for very long exposure landscapes that I've ever used is my Fuji GSW690II. Are there any digital cameras that can match it?
Unlimited exposure times without increased noise
Rangefinder allows unobstructed framing/focusing with NDs
'T' speed means you don't even need a cable release
No battery required
These were 15-45 min exposures except for the star trails, which was 5 hrs.
OregonSun wrote:
The best camera for very long exposure landscapes that I've ever used is my Fuji GSW690II. Are there any digital cameras that can match it?
Unlimited exposure times without increased noise
Rangefinder allows unobstructed framing/focusing with NDs
'T' speed means you don't even need a cable release
No battery required
These were 15-45 min exposures except for the star trails, which was 5 hrs.
Geoff D F wrote:
This seems to be an argument for shooting M4/3 as you can shoot at f5.6 for even more gain without pain. Further, with GFX noise performance you can shoot at F11-16 and up the ISO for similar noise and DoF performance. While there might be optimal systems for different tasks, the point is the equivalence theory implies there is no system that should be preferred when trading off DoF verses diffraction.
Well the DoF/diffraction consideration is hardly the most important in choice of f9rmat or system. And a minimum 5.6 a0erture before diffraction will give you more problems finding a high enough shutter speed for bright light conditions, and may force you to use a higher SS than you want for the subject.
I have owned m4/3, I bought the first, Panasonic G1, and have also used Sony A7 before settling for Fuji aps-c, and the format was not a particularly important factor in thedecision.
Except that being film it will record lessdetail than a digital sensors.
And there’s that little matter or reciprocity failure, which is why some of those exposures on film end up being far longer than they would be with digital… and why I can now do things like handheld night street photography with a small digital camera.
And there’s that little matter or reciprocity failure, which is why some of those exposures on film end up being far longer than they would be with digital… and why I can now do things like handheld night street photography with a small digital camera.
I think of reciprocity failure as a plus in the context of very long exposure landscapes (longer exposures, less need for NDs, etc.). My opinion above was specifically limited to those kind of photos.
Funny how any discussion of the benefits of using film, however narrowly focused, always elicits numerous responses purporting to show that digital is 'better'.
I think of reciprocity failure as a plus in the context of very long exposure landscapes (longer exposures, less need for NDs, etc.). My opinion above was specifically limited to those kind of photos.
Funny how any discussion of the benefits of using film, however narrowly focused, always elicits numerous responses purporting to show that digital is 'better'.
I probably won’t make you happy by saying this, but speaking as a person who shot film for decades before moving to digital, I would not go back.
That is not to say that a ton of absolutely brilliant photography wasn’t done during the film era, nor that there aren’t people today still doing great film-based (though frequently then scanned and photoshopped) work as well.
All of that being said, in the end it doesn’t really matter what technology (optical/chemical, digital, or a hybrid) the photographer uses — it is the quality of the photographs that I care about.
I probably won’t make you happy by saying this, but speaking as a person who shot film for decades before moving to digital, I would not go back.
That is not to say that a ton of absolutely brilliant photography wasn’t done during the film era, nor that there aren’t people today still doing great film-based (though frequently then scanned and photoshopped) work as well.
All of that being said, in the end it doesn’t really matter what technology (optical/chemical, digital, or a hybrid) the photographer uses — it is the quality of the photographs that I care about.
No skin off my back Dan, shoot whatever/however you want.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to shoot film, just sharing my perspective on why I find it the best option for very long exposures.
I also care about the 'quality' of photos. We probably don't share the same criteria for determining it, which of course is to be expected, since quality is a wholly subjective thing.
No skin off my back Dan, shoot whatever/however you want.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to shoot film, just sharing my perspective on why I find it the best option for very long exposures.
I also care about the 'quality' of photos. We probably don't share the same criteria for determining it, which of course is to be expected, since quality is a wholly subjective thing.
Going off track a bit, but since we’re discussing photography anyway .
I believe film images will become one of the more sought after art mediums in the near future, especially wet printed and including alternative process. Digitally printed film negatives maybe less so. But there is an artistic quality to film that digital lacks, and I believe its in it’s inherent flaws
OregonSun wrote:
I also care about the 'quality' of photos. We probably don't share the same criteria for determining it, which of course is to be expected, since quality is a wholly subjective thing.
Can you be more specific about what you are saying about care for the quality of photos here and the criteria for determine it?
Jack Flesher wrote:
I believe film images will become one of the more sought after art mediums in the near future, especially wet printed and including alternative process. Digitally printed film negatives maybe less so. But there is an artistic quality to film that digital lacks, and I believe its in it’s inherent flaws
I think there’s a good case to be made for that perspective, especially in the immediate future. (How it will play out many decades or centuries later is hard to know.)
One fact about optical prints, at least those made using various techniques the printing process to produce the desired interpretation, is that each is an individual thing — no two are exactly the same. This does not move such prints into the same realm as, say, paintings… but it does push them a bit more in that direction.
If one makes 20 optical/chemical prints and does the dodging/burning stuff and times how long they are in the baths… each one will be subtly unique. If I print 20 copies of a file on my p9000 on the same paper they will look essentially the same. (On the other hand, some of us frequently reevaluate photos when we print them anew, and all prints aren’t the same.)
t
And… what you describe as a future trend is already here — some older photographic prints have already sold for huge sums!
On the other hand, over longer periods of time we’ve seen the understood value of things that were once thought to be hugely valuable decline as tastes and technologies changed. (A piano from 1800 is a fascinating thing, but few will want to perform on one today.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Can you be more specific about what you are saying about care for the quality of photos here and the criteria for determine it?
Honestly, all I can really say is 'I know it when I see it'. For me photos are more than the sum of their measurable parts (technical, compositional, artistic, etc.). Parsing the nuances of those parts on the internet is not particularly interesting to me.
I guess my main criteria is how well a photograph conveys a moment and/or elicits emotion. My favorite thing about photography is that it's a record of the real world in a particular time/place.
OregonSun wrote:
Honestly, all I can really say is 'I know it when I see it'. For me photos are more than the sum of their measurable parts (technical, compositional, artistic, etc.). Parsing the nuances of those parts on the internet is not particularly interesting to me.
I guess my main criteria is how well a photograph conveys a moment and/or elicits emotion. My favorite thing about photography is that it's a record of the real world in a particular time/place.
I believe strongly in "I know it when I see it," and I often try to get people who are too reliant of supposed formulas and rules to gain more experience "seeing" and then to go with their gut. (Someone once said that the "rules" are more appropriate tools for autopsies than for births.)
What I wondered about what "I care about the quality of photos" might imply about others care for the same thing. I'll take it merely as a way of introducing your point that aesthetic quality (and, of course, appeal) involves a great deal of subjectivity.
Going off track a bit, but since we’re discussing photography anyway .
I believe film images will become one of the more sought after art mediums in the near future, especially wet printed and including alternative process. Digitally printed film negatives maybe less so. But there is an artistic quality to film that digital lacks, and I believe its in it’s inherent flaws
One of the reasons I went back to shooting film was that during the process of digitising my old collection of film photos I realised there was an aesthetic and emotional quality to film shots that digital somehow lacked. It is not a rational or quantifiable thing but about how the photo makes you feel. Are film photos as sharp, detailed or as malleable as digital - no way. But they have a certain charm.
One of the things that affects the value of artworks is their scarcity, and high quality film photos are certainly becoming more scarce. With digital you might be investing in a print thinking it is original and wonderful, only to have someone else do something better the next day with some newly invented digital wizardry.
I gave up using film (except for fun) when 'tests" I did of same subject seconds apart demonstrated that a 16mpx 14bit image on an aps-c Nikon with a Tamron zoom had more detail than a 24mpx 24 bit scan from a Provia 100 in an M6 with a 35mm Summicron. If you looked closely at the digital image you could see more detail, looking closely at the scan of the film gave you grain (actually dye clumping, no silver left in a transparency). You could just discern the difference in a3 prints at normal viewing distance.
So digital is undoubtedly a better recording medium than film. And I suggest this is of most value when recording a scene as an image to be viewed.
Film might have character, if that is displayed inadequacies, but then films were all different, even different batches of the same film were different to each other albeit in minor ways. (Pro sheet film. came with an individual asa, colour correction and reciprocity figures for each batch)
Valuing that difference is back to valuing the process rather than the image, and is at least introspective, only valued by an informed minority (other like minded photographers. Intrinsic value of a print based on the process involved is just as irrelevant to artistic value as the price achieved for old master paintings at auction amongst well heeled investors.
