Don:
> ...I disagree.
>
> I think we are just beginning to be able to handle realistic
> resolutions, which will allow you to make a large print on which you can
> examine fine detail.
>
Perhaps, but that's a very limited goal. 35mm wasn't the best choice for
that purpose. When you wanted that sort of detail you started from
large-format negatives. Most of the time, when "fine detail" is
important, the appropriate starting point is close-up photography. I've
come across a couple of low-cost digital microscopes and they were both
VGA resolution because the fine detail is already inherent in the image.
In photography, terms like "normal," "close-up," and "telephoto" are
actually defined in terms of where the viewer stands with respect to the
finished image. "Normal" means that the print fills approximately the
same arc of vision as a real-life view of the same subject would. When
the print is large, people will normally hold it farther away than when
it's smaller. The actual need to have both in the same print is fairly
rare. Specialists in the field tend to develop a skewed perspective
about this.
An example that has come up recently in motion pictures is the case of
fast-moving shots or pans with too-much detail. A few editors and
photographers have gotten into the field without the practical
background that the old-timers had. They learned that when there was a
pan or very fast action, it played better when the shutter speed of the
camera was reduced and the image was allowed to blur more than usual.
Some newcomers have become so used to watching their work on their Avid
editors with bigger-than-life screens that they get nervous and upset
when an image doesn't deliver all the detail available. They end up
shooting at high shutter speeds to preserve that detail. But when the
camera pans with that fast action and it's seen in the cinema the image
starts to jerk across the screen instead of moving smoothly. The eye
tries to break the individual frames down into still images because it
expects action to be blurred as it is in real life.
The key in this example is that the professionals have developed
unrealistic expectations because of the way they work with the original
photography. There will always be people who expect an Ansel Adams print
to reveal each pebble on a mountainside, but it isn't the way most of us
operate. We stand back and take it in as a whole. Yes, there are times
when you might need both perspectives in one picture, but digital
photography trumped 35mm in the professional world before cameras with
the monster "resolution"; of today were available. There is a need, but
it's small compared to the whole and it's more likely to be satisfied
with digital versions of large-format cameras than with the digital 35mm
equivalents. For one thing, it's cheaper than spending $800 for the
camera and $10,000 or more for each lens. You can go in the other
direction more economically just as you could with conventional
photography. Not nearly as economically as you might in a mass market
but, even so, the trade-offs are better.
HB
.
enterprise