What a confusion to resize and about resoloution

[GeoffWessex]

A TIFF file could easily be 33Mb at a high ppi - magazines used to insist on TIFFs but they can handle Jpegs much more now. And if you can print your Jpeg image to good quality at A4 size it will be good enough in a magazine.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by GeoffWessex

A TIFF file could easily be 33Mb at a high ppi - magazines used to insist on TIFFs but they can handle Jpegs much more now. And if you can print your Jpeg image to good quality at A4 size it will be good enough in a magazine.

All Raw files are just different versions of a Tiff file.

[karenoliver]

Thanks for the answers :-) It makes more sense now. Does everyone think then that for larger image sizes medium formt and large format film is better than digital?

Karen

[GeoffWessex]

If you wanted to make a very large print then yes, Medium Format film is better than APS-C sized digital, and theoretically better than 'Full'Frame' digital (but I don't think you'd find much difference between FF digital and MF film). Add to that the expense of Medium Format film cameras, and the development and scanning of the film and editing, only the finest jobs would require it - even if professional studio/product photographers insist on them.

Then again, how big would the print be? If you're looking at an A4 sized print you'd be viewing from a few inches and seeing how good the resolution is........ but if it's poster sized you'd stand well back and get the same relative view. Then you'd need a magnifying glass to check it out. But large prints aren't really meant to be looked at from a few inches.

If you only mean a digital, on-screen version of your image, full frame digital is superb. Your 'barrier' to finer work is the resolution of the computer monitor.

So your line "for larger image sizes medium formt and large format film is better than digital".....

Strictly speaking, yes - there's a much higher resolution in MF and LF film (we're talking about 5cm x 4cm and bigger here) than in APS-C digital and, theoretically, higher than Full Frame digital.... just compare the sensor size differences... about half a square inch on the regular digital camera, up to 'enthusiast' level, About one square inch on Full-Frame (which means it's the same size as a 35mm frame); about 6 square inches on Medium Format film, and right up to amazing 240 square inches on some of the old wooden view cameras. A print from one of those is hugely impressive - and at 'contact print' size its sharpness, clarity and resolution would blow your socks off.

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

All Raw files are just different versions of a Tiff file.

Really? That requires explanation, I think.

[karenoliver]

Thanks, Geoff. I do think film is expensive compared to digital. I do process my own 35mm b/w films at home and converted a shed to a darkroom but for colour it works out £4 for dev only so I never shoot film in colour really. I have always fancied medium or large format but the cost puts me off. If all I wanted to do was exhiibit work at a gallery or in a photobok say it seems sticking with digital is the way. I would love a medium format camera with digital back but would have to rob a bank first! :-)

Karen

[GeoffWessex]

Yes, I did the developing thing a long time ago - had to give it up when 'the management' had a baby and wanted a nursery.Tsk!

I'd still be very happy if somebody passed along a good medium format film camera - my brother used to have a Bronica SQRS and at one time I was even loaned a Hasselblad 500C/M for a few months. Nowadays, though, I'd get the film reliably developed and then scanned to digital - my days of wet chemicals are over. Even then, it wouldn't be for 'exploring' - just for return visits to favourite locations where I would already know exactly what I want, and for some studio things.

Of course, a medium format DSLR would be even better - but even the cheapest of the decent ones (Pentax 645) comes in at over 13,000 pounds and it's not even available outside of Japan!

The Large Format film camera I mentioned above is 12" x 20" and you can imagine the quality of a contact print from it..... shame that the owner (a university professor who teaches various photographic things) has limited himself to some of the dreariest pictures you'll ever see..... I hesitate to give his web address but if you keep it to yourself it won't get back to me...... http://www.prestonschiedel.com

[KeithT]

I always send a minimum of 33 mb @300ppi images for magazines. Usually via writeable DVD. My Amateur Photographer published images were 3000 x 1937 pixels which gave me a file of 33.3 mb.

Yes of course. Sorry for the confusion. But not raw OldBoy, I tend to send Tiff to magazines for some strange reason only known to my subconscious mind, but probably for the reason Geoff points out above - a lot of magazines prefer uncompressed images, or did at one time. Of course jpegs would be compressed, so yes smaller files. A 33mb Tiff file would be compressed to around 13.5 mb Jpeg at full quality. So my appologies.

As for film vs digital: I think it is hard to beat Fuji Velvia, but I use a FF camera and have no trouble in replicating the quality of medium format with it. But for the best of all quality a large format camera and sheet film is still very hard to beat, even from the top end digital camera that need a win on the lottery to purchase.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by GeoffWessex

Really? That requires explanation, I think.

Many raw file formats (including 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CR2 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony)) are based on the TIFF file format. These files may deviate from the TIFF standard in a number of ways, including the use of a non-standard file header, the inclusion of additional image tags and the encryption of some of the tagged data.

See Wikipedia for more infomation.

[GeoffWessex]

Right, fair enough OldBoy, thanks.