>
Large format gives you better shadows mainly because a bellows does a much
better job of
controling internal reflections than the surfaces in a smaller camera do,
resulting in less
veiling glare, and more differentiation in your shadows.
Regarding an AD page being at most 4000 x 6000 - yeah, you can get that
resolution out of
35mm, but the pixels are not 100% good information--at that kind of resolution
some portion
of the information in each dot is grain not to mention blur--even if your
scanner really is
optically resolving 4000dpi , it probably isn't at anywhere near 100% MTF. A
scan of 4 x 5
to the same pixel count yields pixels that are nearly 100% good information.
This "good information" issue is also why it's so hard to compare digital to
film--even
35mm film can still generate more information than the best digital, but past a
certain
point it has a lot of "noise" in the info. For applications where smooth
tonality is what
matters most, I think good digitial is better than good 35mm, but where raw
high-contrast
resolution matters, 35mm is still better.
> I am not really sure what you mean by point 4 so I will not comment on that
> point, except to say that as I understand the notion of latitude in lighting
> there really should be not differences due to film format. If such a
> difference does exist at all, it may be due to the fact that some films are
> available only in large format and are not available for use with roll film
> cameras and it is the characteristics of the film which will define the
> latitude.
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
> Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
