I'm not an alchemist, but after years of experimenting I've hit on something I consider rather special. If I was to tell you I have honest to god 35 negs shot at ISO 12,800 with sharp grain no more prominent if shot at ISO 400 and with full tonal scale. I'll wager most would consider me mostly blind and or delusional or my exposure meter has gone South. I'm a zone system advocate and have a selection of meters and I've been not been sloppy. I'd like to open a conversation before I posting images.
Another aside is depth of focus. While isolating a subject with shallow focus is effective and FF certainly has an edge here, but for landscapes the benefits of foreground to infinity in critical focus is very welcome. The FF shooter to obtain this is forced to use small apertures with the attended image degradation... sounds like the image quality advantage has vanished. Add to this if say a shutter setting of 1/60 is needed the FF shoot wanting identical depth of focus vs MFT has to use a small aperture will have to the boost ISO... another IQ issue.
A few years back a client needed 30x40 color prints for display in the lobby of their City Hall. I'd shot with a humble MFT Panasonic G1 which was just fine for their website. I'm a pro and the JPEGs were good straight out the camera and the question was what would they look like as 30x40's???
There was a public reception gig and in attendance were members of the local camera club who had a close-up look and after critical examination I was asked if I'd shoot with a 4x5 camera and a news shooter with a brace of D4's flat-out questioned my honesty!
If a photographer is sloppy then RAW files from a FF camera will certainly help in corrective PP, a harsh judgement on my part but I'm too not far of the mark with this observation.
Each group claims 'better' and this debate will continue. In my opinion there's 2 principal factors, okay, make it 21/2. One is the incredible digital technology offering superb clean images, and it's easily accomplished. Analogue is far more difficult and less flexible and some find this challenge more rewarding, and don't like saying this, but 'film' is not hip.
Film has a different rendering and is more associated as an art form, thanks to the likes of Adams, Weston, Karsh, Avedon, Bresson.
A photography recently submitted a selection of work for jury selection, the judges were all artist painters, not a single photographer on this jury. The images presented were predominately digital with only a few b&w analogue in the mix. Ten of the selected nine were analogue.
The concept of a vertical crop from a horizontal shot with a mega pixel will indeed work, but this sounds a bit like using a hi tech expensive camera like it's nothing more than an auto everything 'point and shoot' pocket camera. My impression only.
Most of the premium DSLR's are already thinly disguised video cameras where quality images can be plucked from the video, so the trend is to wild shooting and then edit and then of course 'photoshop'. There is an expanding number of shooters who have hit the super tech wall and in seeking more personal involvement are looking to minimal processing, some are getting serious about b&w while others look to analogue. I teach photography and frequently observe the photographers more interested in showing off their super whizz bang gear as in a competition of who is'king' of the group with the latest and most expensive gear. It's not uncommon for these deep pocket shooters to be humbled during 'show and tell' sessions being out shot by photographers with humble 10 year old 8mg cameras.
I'd suggest you process your b&w film. The cost for Paterson tanks and reels is very reasonable and the chemistry is also inexpensive and you'll save money in the long run and far more important is you are in control, and what the heck it's fun!
Thanks Bruce, could well be the answer.
I need advice re shooting during severe rain. I had a Pentax K20D with their 50-135 and it withstood torrential exposure to rain and would look to Pentax again if I knew one of their shorter zooms could take it but just don't know? Currently I use an Oly EM5mk11 and don't know if this can really withstand heavy rain and if so can the 12-40 also be immune? Maybe I should look to Nikon???
Any advice will be very much appreciated.
Thanks for your kind comment! I'm gradually learning that less is often better than more, as in PP.
Thanks. For myself I'm appreciating the disciplines needed for shooting and processing film and then enjoying digital pp, and I find myself being far less inclined drift away into the la la land of photoshop. Having said that I do like to experiment with all the software but I do find myself returning to the honesty associated with analogue.
Each to their own in this marvelous world of photography!
This 1968 photo was shot on a Leica with the 21mm on Tri-X and now scanned with some color added I think it's rather pleasing to the eye. Any thoughts about having one foot in analogue with the other in digital. I might add my original wet print made on Kodak fiber Polycontrast does have a tiny bit more feeling of depth than the best I've been able to accomplish with the best Epson has to offer as pure b&w.
There's is one more item about marketing related to pros that you've hit on...tax deductible, or most visible shooters like those doing NFL, international sports are given their gear, freebee. I benefited from this never paying a penny for my equipment for over 30 years.
All this is a promotional tax deduction for Nikon, Canon, so it's a winning deal for the 'select'.
I again agree, well 90%. Marketing strategies in the photo industry will always preach buy this super duper wiz bang lense. I had a show of 30x40 prints shot with humble 8 megapixel camera with a good kit lense. Some discerning photographers did examine them up close and personal and their comments beyond how lovely the photos were (lol) the consensus was the photos were made with nothing less than a full frame 20+ mp camera.
Most non pros want to emulate the 'pros' and this greatly encourages the purchasing of premium, expensive equipment.
There's a catch '22' with this. Having expensive premium equipment discourages taking their treasures out on dizzily days let alone during a gully washer. I had a 2 hour plus shoot during a torrential blowing rain storm and my Pentax K20D mated with a weather friendly lense was like a duck impervious to the elements. I'm not sure how many photographers really beleive in the claims of weather sealing. My Olympus EM5 MK2 also is like a duck in heavy rain.
This is observation is based on my 20 or so years as a photo instructor.
I agree. Careful post processing can even surpass premium lens quality. The need for premium lenses is for pros needing the extra light gathering of an f4 vs. say a f1.4 or 1.2.
On this topic there's the important element related to 'pride of ownership'. I believe in most cases this motivates the shooter to live up to the status of a premium optic and ego takes more care and thought when making a photograph.