Don't Like Digital

[Alpha]

In the midst of my own internal battle over whether to buy a dSLR or hold out for MF digital, something is tipping the scales.

Working on another photographer's pictures, and my first retouching work for publication, I'm finding that there aren't enough pixels. Full-length portraits shot on a 5D simply don't have enough detail for me to do a really stellar retouch. The shots look fine at 100%, but I need to go beyond that to get into the nitty gritty of the skin. I'm really having to pull out all the stops to make this work well. :meh:

Guess I won't be buying one after all.

 

[Overread]

well what about the Canon 1Ds Mark III?
Full frame sensor and 20 megapixels - that might have enough for your greater than 100% editing

 

[K_Pugh]

Surely there's some nice 39MP MF digital backs/cameras out there

 

[Overread]

50MP enough for you?
http://www.hasselblad.se/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx

if not what about 60?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p65-announced.shtml

wish they had these smaller for wildlife

 

[prodigy2k7]

Aren't enough pixels? What exactly are you trying to do that you cant? I've seen lots of pros do excellent re-touching... What kind of retouching cant you do?

I am asking out of curiosity. I like to learn

 

[Overread]

when it comes to fashion and modeling photographers I think they go as far as editing the pores on the skin!

 

[prodigy2k7]

when it comes to fashion and modeling photographers I think they go as far as editing the pores on the skin!

I think its unnecessary, since nobody will ever look up that close at each pore. That is just my opinion though... What do I know.. im just a newb

 

[Alpha]

Yes, we do go as far as editing pores. On head-and-shoulders closeup, you can get in close enough to take care of skin well, but on a full-length portrait, things start pixelating FAST when you zoom in on, say, a face. Just because the photo itself isn't of the face only, doesn't mean you don't have to retouch the skin nearly as well.

For other work, maybe you guys are right when it comes to big enlargements. But with 13MP I would NOT feel comfortable printing something like a poster. Once I break about 16x20, skin starts looking bad.

 

[Alpha]

I think its unnecessary, since nobody will ever look up that close at each pore. That is just my opinion though... What do I know.. im just a newb

To answer your question, very fine skin detail becomes really important for a) Big enlargements, and b) Facial closeups, like in beauty work.

 

[Bifurcator]

OK Show me.

Show me one, just one 35mm film scan that's better than a 12mp digital.

Currently I'm not believing a word of this and I've owned all manner of camera.

 

[Alpha]

Who said anything about 35mm?

I see you added that caveat. I don't even need to break out the scans from 6x9 chromes, do I?

 

[Alpha]

The digital versus film debate is, in a sense, irrelevant.

What I'm saying is that in a full-length portrait from a 12.8MP FF sensor, there isn't enough detail for me to do a great skin retouch on the face. End of story.

 

[Bifurcator]

Well then you're comparing apples to planets. Of course there's a difference. Why on any planet, would you think a 35mm format digital could compete with a 6x9?

And you brought up the differences between "film" and digital. That was your whole purpose to the thread as I saw it. Digital wasn't enough - you need film. Even the thread title is " don't like digital". I'm not trying to make an argument out of it but if we're going to discuss it let's at least be clear what it is we're discussing.

 

[Alpha]

This isn't supposed to be a competition, really. It's not about whether MF film has more resolution than a 13MP sensor (though I believe it does). It's about what I need to get the job done well. And 13MP isn't enough for me. That's all I'm saying. Just reporting that revelation.

 

[Alpha]

And you brought up the differences between "film" and digital. That was your whole purpose to the thread as I saw it. Digital wasn't enough - you need film. Even the thread title is " don't like digital". I'm not trying to make an argument out of it but if we're going to discuss it let's at least be clear what it is we're discussing.

The argument, as I posed it, is not between dSLR's and film. It's between dSLR's and MF digital. I stated that quite clearly:

"whether to buy a dSLR or hold out for MF digital"

You introduced the 35mm film versus dSLR thing. I did not.