|
|
|
|
|
|
by Obi_Juan_Kenobi
3452 days ago
|
|
|
If your 4x5s are barely beating your D3300, that's on you. Only the higher end medium format digital really matches 4x5 in terms of resolution. Now, if your argument is that you only print 16x20 so it doesn't matter, then that's fine, but that's a completely different argument. Moreover, if you do a 'DSLR' scan of the negative, you can get quite a bit more detail. I'd say 100MP of "really actually noticeable and useful" resolution. https://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-you... The reasons to use large format, as I see it, are as follows: * Lens choice. There's a wealth of options here that you simply don't get with smaller formats * Movements. The mild DoF hit is easy to accept when you have complete control over the focal plane, as well as the distortion control * Film. Digital PP still isn't quite up to replicating the chemistry. Someone good, and with a significant effort, can get really close, but it's not quite the same. |
|
|
These two statements contradict each other. There is not much difference in resolution between 24MP and 50MP (4.9 : 7), so if I was getting ~50MP of resolution in my 4x5 negatives, you wouldn't expect to see a big difference, even if I was doing everything right.
>Moreover, if you do a 'DSLR' scan of the negative, you can get quite a bit more detail.
This is in fact what I do (using a very sharp pre-AI 55mm Micro Nikkor). I do get benefits from stitching multiple 24MP "scans", but this is because there is always some resolution loss in scanning. So, sure, I might end up with a 100MP file, but I find that I can typically reduce that down to around 30-40MP without losing any detail.
Do you have an example of a 100MP scan of a 4x5 negative that loses detail when reduced to, say, 50MP?