filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk <> wrote:
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: shoot first, fix it later
>
> Laurie
>
> Your point about the use of tilt-shift etc. controls for
> architectural is well made. In my minds eye I was seeing the classic
> Arch Dig. image of some new-fangled interior shot - which is far more
> about lighting than the use of the controls. For interior work you
> aren't using selective focus, and vertical and horizontal shifts can
> usually be acomplished by moving the camera.
Although I have been in situations where I have had to use such controls to
shoot an interior because I could not move the camera to a suitable location
to capture what I needed. But they definitiely come into play in exterior
and interior shoots focusing ont he architectural design rather than the
interior design which includes the furnishings - but two major exceptions
which come to mind are bathrooms and kitchens which can be quarters if one
is shooting installed sinks and bathtubs or showers, installed appliances,
cabinets, and counter spaces.
> As for the 'quality of image' issue - given the resolving abilities of
> modern films, even a high quality publication like AD isn't
> screening their printing at resolutions beyond 4000x6000 dots (in
> reality they aren't even close to that) for a full page spread -
> which puts it squarely in the resolving abilities of 35mm film. Nor
> can the dynamic range of a mass printed publication like AD take
> advantage of the enhanced tonal rendition you get in larger format
> film (more on that later as it is what my #4 point was about).
For the most part, I agree. the larger format tends to come more into play
if (1) you are doing very large enlargements of small cropped out areas for
printing in which case the 35mm film may tend to get grainy and breakdown,
(2) you need to capture and show very small fine detail such as finely
detailed textures or light patterns, or (3) small areas of fine detail which
are going to be blown up so as to be more visable in the presentation and
you do not want the detail to lose its sharpness.
>
> What did I mean by #4: - well it all has to do with "information
> density". About 9 mos ago I gave a small local seminar introducing
> 4x5 to a bunch of 35mm amateurs. As a preview, I shot the same
> architectural interior in B&W with both 210mm 4x5 and a good quality
> 35mm zoom set to the same field of view as the 4x5. Film, exposure,
> development, printing filtration, printing enlarger were all the
> same. I printed 3 shots: full frame 8x10, 8x10 cropped out of
> 11x14, and 8x10 cropped from 32x40. Even at 8x10 you could tell the
> difference and normal viewing distances. Not by grain or sharpness,
> but by tonal 'depth' in the shadows.
>
> In essence the 4x5 is able to capture more subtle tonal variation
> before limiting out either by grain or by lens/diffraction than 35mm
> film is. This makes logical sense at very large enlargements where
> grain is pronounced, but it applies down to much lower enlargements
> as well, simply because there is more ability to capture the
> information coming through the lens.
>
> This translates to an increased latitude of exposure - becuase the
> greater tonal rendition essentially lets you be less precise with
> your deepest shadow exposures. After all, if in a perfect exposure
> in deep shadows you would 'flip' 4/8 crystals on a 4x5, getting it
> wrong might only flip 2, but something was captured. Wheras on a
> 35mm, that variation might be completely contained within a single
> crystal, and not getting it to 'flip' essentially loses that detail,
> even though on a properly exposed test chart, that level of
> resolution is within the bounds of the film.
>
> Did I explain that clearly?
I will take your word for this. I get the gist of your explaination but am
not entirely clear with respect to some of the specifics. My main response
is practical in nature. It goes as follows: if the film captured image is
to be printed in a printed piece, the probabilities - even in a very high
quality publication - of retaining many of these subtle tonal differences
will be lost anyway, so does it really have any practical impact in most
cases. I see this argument being more relevant when it comes to selecting
films for their characteristics where some films are only available in sheet
film and not in roll films. Thus, to use those films for their
characteristics (i.e. heal and toe characteristics, grain, ability to
capture extended ranges in certain colors, and the like), one would need to
shoot large format.
>
---
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
