On 2013-06-03 21:07, Randy Little wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:57 PM, karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
As to cropping - I could take a nice picture of a subject, say a
face with the best lens (imo) for the job - say a 200mm lens - or I
could shoot that face with a 100mm, 50mm or even a 16mm. As long as
I maintain the correct perspective for the photo I can then crop any
of these images and get an identical image to that had I used the
correct long lens in the first place. The only difference is one is
cropped by the lens, one is cropped in the darkroom.
They only difference is the magnification in the dark room results in a
lose of resolution IN ALL CASES. You do not have the same image you
have a smaller version of the same image with each corresponding lens
field of view. so if you where trying to get the SAME image quality.
You would not. You would have the same problem in both film and
digital that you are SCALING in the very very wrong place unless you
like Grain or scaling artifacts.
Yes, there's certainly a cost, in both cases.
However, when shooting pushed 35mm TRI-X, this was a LOT bigger problem
than when shooting at ISO 1600 today with a D700 :-). I think it used
to be that a lot of shots, excepting perhaps commercial advertising
work, were used/displayed out near their maximum tolerable size. Today
that is certainly NOT the case, we've got a lot more slack with the
modern tech (unless, obviously, you're working to an unusually large
size even for today).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
