But it has no indexical relationship to the subject being photographed, so what it adds may look real but it’s fake.
I know the difference between a model and actual data, and it would bug me, if I had the technique and equipment to avoid it.
Rick “willing to carry a camera that doesn’t need it” Denney
The features it is extracting are generated as much by the random patterns in the noise as much as by anything put there by the lens.By extracting features and pulling them out of the noise, is it any less "real" ?
In my darkroom days, I felt like I could get great results from 35 mm, but it was much easier with 6x4.5 and larger negatives! Even to this day I sometimes wonder if I'd enjoy having a 5x7 view camera and just making contact prints: That's what Edward Weston did, and it was an exhibition of such prints which really gave me a new appreciation of small prints viewed at close range.It's my understanding that the MF digital market is very small. It could be that FF digital is good enough for the vast majority of advanced amateur and pro photographers. During the film era, MF was (more or less) the standard choice for portrait and wedding pro's.
Am wondering if the "next big thing" isn't larger sensors or more pixels, but more emphasis on improved onboard computational imaging to compete with mobile devices. I figure there's much potential there for features like auto-HDR combined with large-sensor performance.
Yes, indeed. The Sony sensor used in several of the medium-format cameras (Pentax, Leica, Fuji, Hasselblad) is still very near the state of the art in its ability to pull useful tonality and color out of inky black shadows.I don't know what the next big thing is, but improvements in dynamic range and low light sensitivity are always welcome.
Just looking at it I would have guessed a scanned film image. Something about the way colors look on film vs digital.I think one of the joys of today's photography is that it's actually a multitude of possibilities where wet-plate imaging and digital technology need not be mutually exclusive. My photo's not so exotic: Shot on color negative film using a Canon Rebel G equipped with modern Canon 40/2.8 lens, scanned, slight chromatic aberration removed and a touch of perspective correction applied. Lately I've had a hankering for an old-fashioned "tropical" teak-and-brass plate camera, and stereo versions existed too: Wonder how Playstation VR will work as a viewer!
View attachment 158858
The Pentax's color rendition is superb, but many favor the color rendition of its predecessor, which used a Kodak sensor. That's the one thing that has really improved. My Canon is ancient in digital terms, and I have to do more things to correct its color than the Pentax needs. But none of that is on the same planet of what I have done to calibrate color on my scanner, calibrate my monitors, and the workflow that I use to correct color on scanned film so as to retain the film's inherent characteristics.
It's really difficult to find a digital sensor that will emulate saturated, narrow-range film like Velvia