We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)" saying something like:
Well, some 'archival' inks claim a century or so, iirc, but nobody's really tested it. What would be ironic, would be to get a bloody good print and simply copy it onto film, for its archival qualities. Black and white would do; it would be perfectly adequate for leaving a record..
Couldn't agree more. The boxes of photos we have from my Dad will be sorted through and "nice ones" kept but the vast majority of them will be recycled. They are a record but us kids don't know anything about the people or places in them, unless something is written on the back or the packet but that isn't likely to be more than "Wetterhorn 1938".
Best photgraphic print probably has a very long life stored in the cool, dark, bottom of a wardrobe. Hung on a wall, even behind glass, they'll fade, might take a while but fade they will.
The longest life photography is IIRC selenium toned B & W.
Cibachrome was alleged to be the best color print.
But I've got many color prints tens of years old that sill look good.
The key is to get a proper photo made, NOT an inkjet or laser print.
and actually *any* 35mm film.
The grain density is about that unless you go to something like kodachrome 25.
Which is the best I ever used. But horrendously slow.
With a top class lens stopped to its optimum, and kodachrome 25, you can get about twice that resolution on a clear day with a tripod..maybe..
The general consensus is that 25Mpx is as good as any film you have ever used.
And 10Mpx is as good as 99% of them.
Some scanners go up to around 50Mpx or so, but mots people find that just reproduces the grain, not the picture.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher saying something like:
Look up gigapan film. Adox CMS 20
What does it say?
its it a toilet duck?
I don't read German :-(
Ach - inselaffe !
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher saying something like:
There's a Union flag for English in the top right.
people with the very best lenses (think: Leica) can hope to exceed the quality of 25 MP even with the very best film.
And the very best film is only suitable for specialist applications. ISO 20 film is not suitable for general photography.
Some years ago I did some calculations based on the performance of the bog-standard prime lens in my Olympus OM2. I worked out that I needed
64Mp or better to match what the lens could deliver at.Kodak's 2483 photomicrographic film is (or perhaps was) rated at about
10 ASA.
In theory, perhaps. The OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 was an outstanding performer at f/8 to f/11. But you would need a very steady tripod to fully exploit that resolution with ISO 20 film. You would also need mirror lock-up. Even then, I very much doubt whether the equivalent of 64 MP could routinely be achieved.
It is easier with Leica lenses, because they perform far better wide open. They often aren't significantly better than cheaper lenses at f/8 or f/11. It is when you open them up that they come into their own.
My Leica M-Elmarit 24mm f/2.8 is sharpest in the centre at f/2.8. It is sharpest across the frame at f/4. No further improvement is gained by stopping down.
24mm is my favourite focal length and I wanted a lens that I could use wide open and still get pin sharp results. Leica M-Elmarit 24mm f/2.8 is the only 24mm lens that fits my requirement. That's why I bought it. Unfortunately, that is also why it is so darn expensive.I no longer use it as often as I did because I don't have a Leica M9 - perhaps one day. It was cheaper to buy a Nikon D700 and a
14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I only use my Leica lenses with film - almost always Kodak Professional BW400CN.There's a film that is fine for the specialist applications for which it was designed, but is completely unsuitable for general photography.
I would like to see your figures as that lens couldn't even beat kodachrome
25 asa. Very few camera lenses are actually any good optically IME, certainly nowhere as good as a 1/10 wave length mirror.We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home" saying something like:
Trade up. Dump your pikey camera.
What to? I already have an SLR or four, with decent lenses. They are nowhere near as good as the telescope mirror as far as optics go.
yes: a g0ood prime lens stopped down optimally is about that.
BUT unless you have time to set it that way, and focus it that way, its not really an issue, and for small detail, you probably want to use a zoom lens rather than expand a small part of the picture.
again, yes, if you are photo-ing museum artefacts etc etc with controlled lighting..but again, its easier to go medium format and scan the larger slides..
I suppose what I am saying is that greater than 10Mpx is really beyond most peoples ordinary needs, and its good enough for magazine work unless you are into 'national geographic type imagery.
2Mpx is definitely substandard, but 8-10Mpx is really pretty good. I'd like more, but until its affordable, I can wait.. >
yes. I've got pretty top of the range 20 yr old Nikons, and Angenieux zooms but the newer ones are even better.
And even more expensive. The better primes seem to be all over £1500 ...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher saying something like:
Depends. My first digicam was an Epson 650 which had a fairly low pixel count, about 1.1Mp iirc. The pics were saved in tiffs though, which made a huge difference to its usability and pic quality.
I'm waiting until 20+ Mp full frame is on the used market for approx
300quid. Until then I'm happy enough with 10Mp APS-C. Come to think of it, I was happy enough with 6Mp on my old Canon 10D and when I dig out some of the pics it took there's nothing wrong with them at all. The 10D sensor responds really well to good quality glass, but there was always an intermittent focusing issue with that camera which Canon never sorted out.
Not a surprise as you need four times as many pixels to get double the resolution and at most light levels there is no real noise problem so sensor size doesn't matter as long as it has enough dynamic range.
replying to Dave Plowman (News), Bill wrote: Hi
Are you the same Dave Plowman that used to work with me at DC and CLM in the
70's ?HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.