Recent Photographs: all photographs © 1969-2013 by Carl Weese
I grew up in Southwestern, Minnesota. This looks identical. I often drive the back roads and shoot farms, barns other rural scenes. Particularly favoring things that are fast disappearing such as old barns, silos, machinery.I've been following your road trip to shoot the drive in theaters. I've enjoyed it.I've got to get around to checking out the Lumix u4/3 gear. It's really come a long way it seems. The dslr is getting heavy and for what I shoot I think the u4/3rds gear would work very well.ryan
Ryan, thanks for the comment. I'm impressed by micro 4/3s. I just had the opportunity to deal closely, because of a one on one workshop, with files from a 50MP Hasselblad. Make no mistake, the files are wonderful, and huge. But I ended up more impressed by what a $700 G3 can do compared to a $30,000 'blad, than the other way around.
I can imagine the G3 Hasselblad comparison. Kind of the 80/20 rule or maybe in this case the last 20 percent of image quality costs 40 times more. Medium format digital is awesome in the amount of detail that can be captured. It seems to me the difference between 4/3rds and full frame 35mm is much less than full frame to medium format.
Ryan, the amount of detail is impressive, especially on screen, but since pixel counts are a geometric progression, the jump from 16MP to 50MP only gives you about twice as big a print. At 300 ppi you jump from 15.3 inches wide to 33. If you've got clients/patrons who want to buy prints of your pictures printed at that size and willing to pay very high prices, or pay decent prices for a whole lot of prints, fine.What also surprised me a little was that the dynamic range, while obviously better, was not mind-blowingly good. That is, still not as good as negative film, even using extreme adjustments of Raw captures to handle high contrast scenes exposed to avoid clipping the highlights. Better than m4/3s? Of course. Answer to one's prayers? Not yet.
Post a Comment