Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.

But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.


What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.

I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.

Here are the newer models:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/leaf_aptus.html

They're nice photos, but not that nice. g



I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now), and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.

IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
anything.

--
Ed Huntress


Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

They are still using film as a matter of fact.
While the consumer end of the trade has been shifting over to
digital..the professional side still shoots film in many of its
aspects. Copious amounts in fact.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmgoingaway.htm

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A86.JyRmy3tUEGYApcUPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByM jAxbTBkBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?qid=20080404160709AAHLw3c

etc etc etc

Gunner



"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

Joe Gwinn wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

Take a look on the B&H site, I see a number of 80MP camera bodies
available at prices comparable to a nice car.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 20:31:26 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Joe Gwinn wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

Take a look on the B&H site, I see a number of 80MP camera bodies
available at prices comparable to a nice car.

SLR medium format has, for decades, been primarily a realm for
advertising and weddings. Product photography, fashion, display
advertising, and commercial photography for collateral (brochures and
other printed pieces) are the primary places where they've been used.
For a while, well-off amateurs picked up some of them, but lens prices
were a killer.

Now, as you saw from those prices, digital medium-format has reverted
to those high-buck commercial applications where the fees will pay for
it. I don't know what wedding photographers are using now. But I
talked to a few industrial photographers when I was deciding what to
buy, last year, and they had either moved to, or were moving to, the
high end of the small-format cameras.

Even there, the high-end Zeiss lenses that amateurs pine for are on
the order of $1,000 each. You really have to shop carefully and be
realistic about what you need.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.

But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.

I have a mirror-less camera too, an Olympus OM-D e-M1. Only ~16 Mpix,
but I'm happy. I was more interested in the size and weight of the
camera, and I'm taking snapshots.


What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.

So, the full-frame digitals fall between 35mm and 2-1/4.


I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.

I have read about these. Film is (or was) a whole lot cheaper.


Here are the newer models:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/leaf_aptus.html

They're nice photos, but not that nice. g

Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.


I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now),

I remember Sinar. Good camera. Never used one, though.


and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.

I'd be suspicious of any solution that involved so much stitching of
little images. The eye is very good at detecting deviations from
reality.

I've been trying to correct a photo I took of a vertical mill with a
wide angle lens and tool little space, using Dxo Optics with ViewPoint.
It almost works - I can straighten things out, but it still looks odd.
I guess that the amount of correction needed is too extreme.


IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
anything.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.


Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:11:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.

But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.

I have a mirror-less camera too, an Olympus OM-D e-M1. Only ~16 Mpix,
but I'm happy. I was more interested in the size and weight of the
camera, and I'm taking snapshots.


What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.

So, the full-frame digitals fall between 35mm and 2-1/4.

Yeah, probably. Somewhere aroud here I have some 2-14 x 2-3/4
Ektachromes I shot two decades ago, and Kodak Pro PhotoCD scans I had
made of them. Pro PhotoCD had, IIRC, 4,000 x 6,000 pixel resolution. I
should pixel-peep them and see how they stack up -- pixels versus
grain.



I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.

I have read about these. Film is (or was) a whole lot cheaper.


Here are the newer models:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/leaf_aptus.html

They're nice photos, but not that nice. g

Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.


I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now),

I remember Sinar. Good camera. Never used one, though.


and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.

I'd be suspicious of any solution that involved so much stitching of
little images. The eye is very good at detecting deviations from
reality.

I've been trying to correct a photo I took of a vertical mill with a
wide angle lens and tool little space, using Dxo Optics with ViewPoint.
It almost works - I can straighten things out, but it still looks odd.
I guess that the amount of correction needed is too extreme.

Even with a view camera's swings and tilts, extreme corrections with a
short lens look weird..



IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
anything.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.

It's industrial work that I'm thinking about. Studio advertising
photography is probably what they sell those Leafs for. Maybe. I'm not
in touch with ad photography anymore.

--
Ed Huntress



Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:11:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.

But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.

I have a mirror-less camera too, an Olympus OM-D e-M1. Only ~16 Mpix,
but I'm happy. I was more interested in the size and weight of the
camera, and I'm taking snapshots.


What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.

So, the full-frame digitals fall between 35mm and 2-1/4.


I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.

I have read about these. Film is (or was) a whole lot cheaper.


Here are the newer models:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/leaf_aptus.html

They're nice photos, but not that nice. g

Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.


I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now),

I remember Sinar. Good camera. Never used one, though.


and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.

I'd be suspicious of any solution that involved so much stitching of
little images. The eye is very good at detecting deviations from
reality.

I've been trying to correct a photo I took of a vertical mill with a
wide angle lens and tool little space, using Dxo Optics with ViewPoint.
It almost works - I can straighten things out, but it still looks odd.
I guess that the amount of correction needed is too extreme.


IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
anything.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.


Joe Gwinn

They shoot...wait for it...film.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Joe Gwinn wrote:
..

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.


Joe Gwinn


Not for professionals, but I understand slightly insane amateurs are kludging up large format cameras. They are using scanners in place of the film. So they have a large ( maybe 8.5 inch by 14 inch ) " film ". And can use tilts and such to get exactly what they want as a photo.

The disadvantage is of course time. No stop action photos using a scanner as film.

And then there are the astronomers who use software to stack up images to increase light sensitivity without losing resolution.

Dan

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:16:08 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:11:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.

But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.

I have a mirror-less camera too, an Olympus OM-D e-M1. Only ~16 Mpix,
but I'm happy. I was more interested in the size and weight of the
camera, and I'm taking snapshots.


What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.

So, the full-frame digitals fall between 35mm and 2-1/4.


I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.

I have read about these. Film is (or was) a whole lot cheaper.


Here are the newer models:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/leaf_aptus.html

They're nice photos, but not that nice. g

Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.


I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now),

I remember Sinar. Good camera. Never used one, though.


and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.

I'd be suspicious of any solution that involved so much stitching of
little images. The eye is very good at detecting deviations from
reality.

How much worse could it be than a bloody fisheye lens? g


I've been trying to correct a photo I took of a vertical mill with a
wide angle lens and tool little space, using Dxo Optics with ViewPoint.
It almost works - I can straighten things out, but it still looks odd.
I guess that the amount of correction needed is too extreme.

Yeah, AFAIK, there is no real "un-FishEye" software for correction,
and normal wide-angle lenses don't really distort. Reshoot with real
lens and merge the 2 photos. Panorama software is quick, simple, and
distortion-free.


IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
anything.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.

They shoot...wait for it...film.

_That_ old stuff?

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 04:47:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Joe Gwinn wrote:
.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.


Joe Gwinn


Not for professionals, but I understand slightly insane amateurs are kludging up large format cameras. They are using scanners in place of the film. So they have a large ( maybe 8.5 inch by 14 inch ) " film ". And can use tilts and such to get exactly what they want as a photo.

ooooh!! Id have never thought of that!! Got any
links/photos/examples? Fascinating idea!!!

Damn...scanner movement might be a killer though translated through
the camera body/tripod



The disadvantage is of course time. No stop action photos using a scanner as film.

And then there are the astronomers who use software to stack up images to increase light sensitivity without losing resolution.

Dan

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Joe Gwinn wrote:
..

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District
News.


Joe Gwinn


Not for professionals, but I understand slightly insane amateurs are
kludging up large format cameras. They are using scanners in place of
the film. So they have a large ( maybe 8.5 inch by 14 inch ) " film
". And can use tilts and such to get exactly what they want as a
photo.

The disadvantage is of course time. No stop action photos using a
scanner as film.

And then there are the astronomers who use software to stack up images
to increase light sensitivity without losing resolution.

Dan
============
I built an astronomical camera into an instrument that detected very
faint infrared from abnormal conditions using minutes-long exposures.
The software that came with it subtracted out a reference exposure
with the shutter closed to cancel out hot pixels. That application
didn't require gamma correction.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:23:29 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:16:08 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:11:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:
snip


Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.

Sorry, Joe. I missed that the first time around.

Have you ever shot with an 8x10 camera? I've done it once, when I had
my agency and my art director brought in his Calumet 8x10 to shoot a
job for Casio. They wanted some Duratrans transparencies for a trade
show exhibit, printed 24 feet wide.

Anyway, my AD was called out of town and I had to shoot the 'chromes.
The lens was a very wide 360 mm. Even with that, the depth of field
was nightmarishly shallow. To get an acceptable aperture without
running into color shifts from reciprocity effect (the result of long
exposures), I had to use 6, 5 kW incandescent movie scoops. In July,
IIRC. g

I hate those cameras. I donb't know how Ansel Adams put up with them,
except that he was shooting b&w, and the reciprocity at least doesn't
screw up your color. If I had to do it again I'd rent the biggest mofo
flash units they make.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, December 1, 2014 8:41:53 AM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:



ooooh!! Id have never thought of that!! Got any
links/photos/examples? Fascinating idea!!!

Damn...scanner movement might be a killer though translated through
the camera body/tripod

This is something I read about several years ago, so I do not have any links. Not ever a good idea of text to search on.

Well I tried " scanner large format camera " and came up with some websites. It is one of those things I think about doing every once in a while.

I wonder if one could take a bunch of shots without moving anything and then use the astronomy software to stack the images and get rid of problems with scanner movement.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Monday, December 1, 2014 8:41:53 AM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:



ooooh!! Id have never thought of that!! Got any
links/photos/examples? Fascinating idea!!!

Damn...scanner movement might be a killer though translated through
the camera body/tripod

This is something I read about several years ago, so I do not have
any links. Not ever a good idea of text to search on.

Well I tried " scanner large format camera " and came up with some
websites. It is one of those things I think about doing every once
in a while.

I wonder if one could take a bunch of shots without moving anything
and then use the astronomy software to stack the images and get rid
of problems with scanner movement.

Dan

If you are that far into it you could make your own stepper drive and
reduce the vibration, or wait for it to settle. It's not difficult
unless you need competitive speed for a commercial product. My lab
prototype stepper driver for a printer head was about half a page of
assembly code.
-jsw

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:23:29 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:16:08 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:11:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

Sony's a7 Series actually are mirrorless cameras, Joe. They look like
a DSLR but they have a high-res video screen in the finder, rather
than a mirror and prism.

But they are full-frame. Both Sony's APS-C sensors, like I have in my
NEX-7, and their full-frame sensors, as in their a7 cameras, are 24
MP. What you get with the full-frame sensor is a bit more dynamic
range, rather than more resolution.

I have a mirror-less camera too, an Olympus OM-D e-M1. Only ~16 Mpix,
but I'm happy. I was more interested in the size and weight of the
camera, and I'm taking snapshots.


What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

The few I've talked to are using 24 MP cameras to replace
medium-format cameras. A 35mm Kodachrome, says Kodak, is somewhere
between 14 MP and 20 MP. It's hard to fix the number because you're
comparing grain and circles of confusion (in the film, not in the
lens) with pixels, and they aren't exactly comparable. So they tell
me. BTW, I asked this question of Ted Gustavson, the film curator at
the museum in Rochester, just a few weeks ago. That's where I got it.
Back in the '90s, Kodak said that a Kodachrome slide was 18 MP.

So, the full-frame digitals fall between 35mm and 2-1/4.


I have some photos of a hot-stamping press that I got from
ThyssenKrupp Steel in Germany. They were shot with a 6x7 Mamiya with a
Leaf Aptus II back. A Leaf Aptus II back costs between $8,000 and
$12,000, depending on the version.

I have read about these. Film is (or was) a whole lot cheaper.


Here are the newer models:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/leaf_aptus.html

They're nice photos, but not that nice. g

Agree. It's still hard to beat an 8x10 Ektachrome.


I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

There are several solutions for 4x5. One is a Sinar back that costs
about as much as I paid for my house (if it's still available; it's
been around for years now),

I remember Sinar. Good camera. Never used one, though.


and another is a step-and-repeat back from
one of the aftermarket people that uses a regular camera, overlapping
steps, and blending in Photoshop. I've never seen or tried one but
I've heard they sell for less than $200. 'Don't know for sure.

I'd be suspicious of any solution that involved so much stitching of
little images. The eye is very good at detecting deviations from
reality.

How much worse could it be than a bloody fisheye lens? g


I've been trying to correct a photo I took of a vertical mill with a
wide angle lens and tool little space, using Dxo Optics with ViewPoint.
It almost works - I can straighten things out, but it still looks odd.
I guess that the amount of correction needed is too extreme.

Yeah, AFAIK, there is no real "un-FishEye" software for correction,
and normal wide-angle lenses don't really distort. Reshoot with real
lens and merge the 2 photos. Panorama software is quick, simple, and
distortion-free.


IMO, a 24 MP camera with top-notch lenses is more than I'd need for
anything.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.

They shoot...wait for it...film.

_That_ old stuff?
Some time back I read about some software in Nasa Tech Briefs that was
used to fix distorted images. It worked very well. So I bet if you
serached the magazine you could find it. I don't remember if it was
developed by NASA or if it was available to the general public for
free. You should check.
Eric

wrote in message
...
Some time back I read about some software in Nasa Tech Briefs that
was
used to fix distorted images. It worked very well. So I bet if you
serached the magazine you could find it. I don't remember if it was
developed by NASA or if it was available to the general public for
free. You should check.
Eric

You would need a reference model to measure the distortion from, like
an image of a grid.

I attended a lecture by the engineer in charge of correcting the
second order spherical aberration in the Hubble's mirror. They knew
exactly what the problem was and could partly correct images based on
the fact that stars are point sources. The final fixes however were
compensating optics on replacement instruments rather than software.

-jsw

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 04:47:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Joe Gwinn wrote:
.

For industrial photos, probably true. I was wondering about for
instance the mainline advertising industry. Think Photo District News.


Joe Gwinn


Not for professionals, but I understand slightly insane amateurs are kludging up large format cameras. They are using scanners in place of the film. So they have a large ( maybe 8.5 inch by 14 inch ) " film ". And can use tilts and such to get exactly what they want as a photo.

ooooh!! Id have never thought of that!! Got any
links/photos/examples? Fascinating idea!!!

a search for "slit scan" and photography will come up with some of these.
Some folks move a slit across film, some just us a scanner mounted on the
back of a camera.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

They are still using film as a matter of fact.
While the consumer end of the trade has been shifting over to
digital..the professional side still shoots film in many of its
aspects. Copious amounts in fact.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

That guy is confused.

commerical photography is done digitally these day. Yeah, some people may
use film every now and then, but that's not how the majority of product
type photos are taken.

Computer operated cameras and platforms that spin the product (product
photography) around and take photos automatically are not science fiction
anymore.

Real estate photos? somebody with a digital camera.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 20:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

They are still using film as a matter of fact.
While the consumer end of the trade has been shifting over to
digital..the professional side still shoots film in many of its
aspects. Copious amounts in fact.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

That guy is confused.

That guy is one of the preemenent experts on the subject.

commerical photography is done digitally these day. Yeah, some people may
use film every now and then, but that's not how the majority of product
type photos are taken.

Most commercial photograph is.but hardly Most.

Computer operated cameras and platforms that spin the product (product
photography) around and take photos automatically are not science fiction
anymore.

Yes?

Real estate photos? somebody with a digital camera.

Newspapers, flyers etc etc..ayup..all digital. Art, detail large
format photos...film

Id not be downplaying Mr Rockwells words.

https://www.google.com/search?q=film...utf-8&oe=utf-8

687,000 hits
http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../dw0105-1.html




Gunner



"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 20:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

They are still using film as a matter of fact.
While the consumer end of the trade has been shifting over to
digital..the professional side still shoots film in many of its
aspects. Copious amounts in fact.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

That guy is confused.

That guy is one of the preemenent experts on the subject.

He's a guy with a website. He even admits he hasn't a had a real job in
years, and even then it nothing to do with photography in the first place.

commerical photography is done digitally these day. Yeah, some people may
use film every now and then, but that's not how the majority of product
type photos are taken.

Most commercial photograph is.but hardly Most.

Computer operated cameras and platforms that spin the product (product
photography) around and take photos automatically are not science fiction
anymore.

Yes?

Real estate photos? somebody with a digital camera.

Newspapers, flyers etc etc..ayup..all digital. Art, detail large
format photos...film

Id not be downplaying Mr Rockwells words.

https://www.google.com/search?q=film...utf-8&oe=utf-8

687,000 hits
http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../dw0105-1.html

website hits and google searches have nothing to do with reality.

Commercial photography is done digitally these days. Read the words
carefully if you have to.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 21:27:58 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 20:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:53:04 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I recall you saying that many pros were using Sony DSLRs, with
full-frame (24 Mpix) sensors. This would be the moral equivalent of
35mm Kodachrome.

What are the pros using to replace 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 (Hassy), 4x5, 8x10,
and so on up?

I'd hazard that digital may be approaching 2.25x2.25, but the larger
negatives are still out of reach.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

They are still using film as a matter of fact.
While the consumer end of the trade has been shifting over to
digital..the professional side still shoots film in many of its
aspects. Copious amounts in fact.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

That guy is confused.

That guy is one of the preemenent experts on the subject.

He's a guy with a website. He even admits he hasn't a had a real job in
years, and even then it nothing to do with photography in the first place.

commerical photography is done digitally these day. Yeah, some people may
use film every now and then, but that's not how the majority of product
type photos are taken.

Most commercial photograph is.but hardly Most.

Computer operated cameras and platforms that spin the product (product
photography) around and take photos automatically are not science fiction
anymore.

Yes?

Real estate photos? somebody with a digital camera.

Newspapers, flyers etc etc..ayup..all digital. Art, detail large
format photos...film

Id not be downplaying Mr Rockwells words.

https://www.google.com/search?q=film...utf-8&oe=utf-8

687,000 hits
http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../dw0105-1.html

website hits and google searches have nothing to do with reality.

Commercial photography is done digitally these days. Read the words
carefully if you have to.


your opinion is noted.


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke