[rollei_list] Re: OT: Slide Film and E6

At 09:39 PM 12/23/2007 -0500, Bernard wrote:
I've had the opportunity recently to work on a gallery show that consists of 20x24 prints from 4x5 negs (as well as a short movie, which is the part that I worked on). One of the interesting things was that viewers, most from the "digital generation," were bowled over by the amount of detail in the prints.
A couple of years back there were, on this forum, a series of discussions about the information storage capability of digital image sensors, and, I think, some attempt to define how many pixels it would take to replicate a 35mm color negative. I think perhaps the number was 24 MPixels, but that was followed by many posts which expressed different definitions of a "Pixel", and I don't recall that agreement was reached, even among a couple of people who were actually working on digital image sensors.
Anyhow, a 20X24 print from a 4X5 negative is only a 4X (linear, not area) enlargement. One might assume that the viewers from the "digital generation" were accustomed to looking at prints made from a sensor array only 1/3 inch in size or so. What kind of detail would those viewers perceive when looking at a print made from a digital sensor array size 4x5?
Also, I agree that prints made from a Rollei negative are normally more detailed than the same size print made from a 24X36 mm negative.
Back to my bottom line. I am willing to accept the detail and resolution of current consumer digital cameras for every day use. If I had to do something commercial I would use a bigger format, perhaps even a process camera. On the other hand, I am bowled over by what one can do with digital processing. Last week we had a snow storm and I took a shot of a "castle" (a grotesquely sized house actually) from my back yard. It was snowing and the image was a bit muddy and some color was lost because there was a lot of falling snow in the 1/4 mile from my back yard to that house. In about 2-3 minutes I was able to create an image about as good as one would get on a bright shiny day.
Purists would say this is not "photography", but if not, what is it and what is "photography". Have we not been adjusting gamma, dodging and burning, and manipulating negatives and prints since the invention of film cameras? Is gamma adjustment, dodging, burning, whatever, "photography" or something else?
It's been a long time (65 years or so) since I first developed film (Kodak Tri-Chem-Pack I think) using a red light I bought at a 5 and dime store, which wasn't a very safe light at all, and I don't miss the chemical smells I used to like, the feel of wet film and paper (I didn't have tongs then), and the thrill of seeing images appear on film or paper during development.
Actually it's a miracle that me, and many others my age, are still alive, after breathing mercury vapor for hours at a time while trying to hypersensitize film. (Or was it super-sensitize?) Perhaps mercury became a poison after we all did those kinds of things. 

DAW

Other related posts: