Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
We are currently using medium format but are considering going digital.
One of the aspects we need to consider is enlargement sizes. With the Bronica (ETRSi) we can get enlargements to 16X20 and retain excellent quality. So with this in mind, what sort of size can a digital file be enlarged to before pixelation occurs?
I understand that the more Megapixels the better, but also, the quality of the sensor has a lot to do with the quality of the final image.
At the moment, we are looking at converting next year, and the Canon 1D II is the favourite (as I already have a Canon EOS and various lenses).
If anyone already has one of these I would be interested to hear of your experiences/pitfalls/recommendations.
Also, from reading a few topics here, I get the impression that a decent PC with photo manipulation software is an absolute must - is this correct or can you not simply print straight from the captured image?
Sorry it's a bit long winded but at the moment I'm still a die-hard film user and know little about digital (other than it's quicker, easier, more convenient, and a decent camera is blooy expensive).
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
I use a 1DS and can blow up the files to the same size I used to on 110 film without any problem. The 1Dmk2 would enlarge to 16x20 easily, I regularly print on site to A0 size.
However, if you want to match MF in digital SLR then the 1DS with good quality glass is the only way to go.
That must have been some quality 110 camera, the 110 camera I had came free with a pack of Corn Flakes! LOL
LOL - ooops add ten
Why not just scan the MF slides/prints etc. That way you get the best of both worlds
But a good qaulity scanner, such as an Imacon, to give them the equiv files is going to run into 000's.
Yes - a scanner for MF negs is very expensive and as rare as the proverbial rocking horse doo doo. But that's really not the issue.
The factor that is forcing the issue is that there is only one lab locally that offers on-site roll film processing, which is handy if there is a problem, or we need to give explicit instructions. But we have just been advised that they are likely to cease this service as 'most wedding photographers' are going digital. We are not wedding photographers, we are a small portrait studio, and so enlargements are commonplace. I just want to be sure we will be able to offer the same quality of print if we do have to go digital.
So Keith, you reckon the 1D II should cope? I guess the best way to check is to have a demo.
Look out Focus on Imaging!
You have a point there Jembo. Not being a professional, I don't have that sort of worry. I also have a local pro lab that are quite happy to do E6, C41 and B&W (in fact, they won't touch digital.) So I just use my Epson 3170 flatbed. The scans are good enough for Alamy so that'll do me until I can afford a dedicated MF scanner or, as Keith suggested, an Imacon. One day the price will come down, even second hand Flextight scanners are a bit steep!
The 1D2 is easily going to cope in a portrait studio. When I was still using the 1DX Nikon, printing A2/A1 was an everyday practice and the 1D2 knocks the spots off it.
You may notice a slight quality drop off against the MF(depends on which camera you currently use)in quality, but the customer will not.
Just noticed it's a Bron.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar