Light (reflected off subject)
Lens (collected/converging and projected image diverging)
Sensor/Film (response to projected image/degree of enlargement)
Processing/Algorithm/Profile/PP (latitude for styling)
The process remains the same no matter which format you use. But as you spread the light across a smaller or larger image circle the rate of transition will change for a given amount of light (i.e. natural ambient only @ same). I use my TS-E and M645 glass (larger image circle projection) when I want those slower/gentler transitions. When I want to render a more rapid transition, I choose my more contrasty FF glass.
When I\'m shooting in ambient that is low contrast, I may decide to use more contrast glass to offset the lower contrast light, or I may choose to use the larger image circle glass to go for an uber-smooth transition vibe. That combination of low contrast light and larger image circle lets me produce smoother tones when those are my goals for an image. And if that isn\'t smooth enough or are too smooth the latitude @ finishing in PP can make up the diff for me.
Make no mistake, I\'m not saying that 14MP is going to compare with 3X or 4X as many pixels for details, but imo, the lighting, projected image and profile/pp are more important at generating \"the look\" than the format size itself is. If you\'re on a smaller image circle platform, then it might be a little more challenging to produce the smoother transitions that MF is known for, but understanding the relationship interplay of the puzzle pieces can go a long way to achieving a \"look\". Would I like to have some great MF gear ... sure, but I can\'t justify it now, so I do \"my thing\" without it.
While these small jpgs may not pass for MF like Graham\'s work ... I like the transitions I can get without the $10,000 - $40,000 price tag ... if tonal transitions are where your interest are.
Light (reflected off subject)
Lens (collected/converging and projected image diverging)
Sensor/Film (response to projected image/degree of enlargement)
Processing/Algorithm/Profile/PP (latitude for styling)
The process remains the same no matter which format you use. But as you spread the light across a smaller or larger image circle the rate of transition will change for a given amount of light (i.e. natural ambient only @ same). I use my TS-E and M645 glass (larger image circle projection) when I want those slower/gentler transitions. When I want to render a more rapid transition, I choose my more contrasty FF glass.
When I\'m shooting in ambient that is low contrast, I may decide to use more contrast glass to offset the lower contrast light, or I may choose to use the larger image circle glass to go for an uber-smooth transition vibe. That combination of low contrast light and larger image circle lets me produce smoother tones when those are my goals for an image. And if that isn\'t smooth enough or are too smooth the latitude @ finishing in PP can make up the diff for me.
Make no mistake, I\'m not saying that 14MP is going to compare with 3X or 4X as many pixels for details, but imo, the lighting, projected image and profile/pp are more important at generating \"the look\" than the format size itself is. If you\'re on a smaller image circle platform, then it might be a little more challenging to produce the smoother transitions that MF is known for, but understanding the relationship interplay of the puzzle pieces can go a long way to achieving a \"look\". Would I like to have some great MF gear ... sure, but I can\'t justify it now, so I do \"my thing\" without it.
While these small jpgs may not pass for MF like Graham\'s work ... I like the transitions I can get without the $10,000 - $40,000 price tag ... if tonal transitions are where your interest are.
Light (reflected off subject)
Lens (collected/converging and projected image diverging)
Sensor/Film (response to projected image/degree of enlargement)
Processing/Algorithm/Profile/PP (latitude for styling)
The process remains the same no matter which format you use. But as you spread the light across a smaller or larger image circle the rate of transition will change for a given amount of light (i.e. natural ambient only @ same). I use my TS-E and M645 glass (larger image circle projection) when I want those slower/gentler transitions. When I want to render a more rapid transition, I choose my more contrasty FF glass.
When I\'m shooting in ambient that is low contrast, I may decide to use more contrast glass to offset the lower contrast light, or I may choose to use the larger image circle glass to go for an uber-smooth transition vibe. That combination of low contrast light and larger image circle lets me produce smoother tones when those are my goals for an image. And if that isn\'t smooth enough or are too smooth the latitude @ finishing in PP can make up the diff for me.
Make no mistake, I\'m not saying that 14MP is going to compare with 3X or 4X as many pixels for details, but imo, the lighting, projected image and profile/pp are more important at generating \"the look\" than the format size itself is. If you\'re on a smaller image circle platform, then it might be a little more challenging to produce the smoother transitions that MF is known for, but understanding the relationship interplay of the puzzle pieces can go a long way to achieving a \"look\". Would I like to have some great MF gear ... sure, but I can\'t justify it now, so I do \"my thing\" without it.
While these small jpgs (i.e. not processed from the raw) may not pass for MF like Graham\'s work ... I like the transitions I can get without the $10,000 - $40,000 price tag ... if tonal transitions are where your interest are.
Light (reflected off subject)
Lens (collected/converging and projected image diverging)
Sensor/Film (response to projected image/degree of enlargement)
Processing/Algorithm/Profile/PP (latitude for styling)
The process remains the same no matter which format you use. But as you spread the light across a smaller or larger image circle the rate of transition will change for a given amount of light (i.e. natural ambient only @ same). I use my TS-E and M645 glass (larger image circle projection) when I want those slower/gentler transitions. When I want to render a more rapid transition, I choose my more contrasty FF glass.
When I\'m shooting in ambient that is low contrast, I may decide to use more contrast glass to offset the lower contrast light, or I may choose to use the larger image circle glass to go for an uber-smooth transition vibe. That combination of low contrast light and larger image circle lets me produce smoother tones when those are my goals for an image. And if that isn\'t smooth enough or are too smooth the latitude @ finishing in PP can make up the diff for me.
Make no mistake, I\'m not saying that 14MP is going to compare with 3X or 4X as many pixels for details, but imo, the lighting, projected image and profile/pp are more important at generating \"the look\" than the format size itself is. If you\'re on a smaller image circle platform, then it might be a little more challenging to produce the smoother transitions that MF is known for, but understanding the relationship interplay of the puzzle pieces can go a long way to achieving a \"look\". Would I like to have some great MF gear ... sure, but I can\'t justify it now, so I do \"my thing\" without it.
While these small jpgs (i.e. not processed from the raw) may not pass for MF like Graham\'s work ... I like the transitions I can get without the $10,000 - $40,000 price tag ... if tonal transitions are where your interest are.
Aug 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11751229 « Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference »
