Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: TomChik on June 05, 2017, 12:47:17 pm
-
I know its crazy. I've shot 8x10 and XP100 Phase One, a lot. I own an 8x10 and I want to buy a digital to be able to travel without carrying all that stuff with me, to avoid x-ray scanning, to avoid all risks of travelling with film.
I've tried the GFX50S and X1D, I am not sure, can someone help me on telling me where they differs from a 645Z as image quality? Is it the very same sensor? I had a better feeling with Fuji, "faster" than Hassy.
Will they represent a real substitute of film? Will a human eye tell the difference on a 16x20' print and lower size, between the film and digital?
If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?
Its very hard for me to jump to digital, not sure why, changes fast, years ago people were amazed by P21, now we almost have in our phone, and still I can recall pros telling me that P21 file were so much more detailed than a 4x5 drum scan, now we will laugh about such a sentence.
Now some says that a drum scan of a 35mm film will need a Phase One 150MP (coming up soon with an X1D/like camera?).
So where is the truth?
What should I buy in order not to spend 2000$ on each shoot with film and still have a comparable image quality to a human eye?
I know it goes personal, for instance in my case I found a drum scan of a medium format film negative to be more pleasing than a XP100MP file.
But anything digital that is comparable to a 645 film or 67 film and that won't cost 50k and maybe around 20k?
Is a IQ180 a good solution?
thank you for your help!
-
Its very hard for me to jump to digital, not sure why, changes fast, years ago people were amazed by P21, now we almost have in our phone.
Well here's your first issue. This statement is only remotely true if you focus on pixel count only. The iPhone (or other phones) don't even come in the same ballpark of a P21 as a serious photographic tool, neither in pure technical quality nor in flexibility. Don't get me wrong, the iPhone (especially recent models) have surprisingly good cameras and it's a great blessing (and also in some ways a curse) that we have such a reasonable camera that is so small, light, and always with us.
But a replacement for a P21 it is not, nor a replacement for a Mamiya 7.
-
Hi Doug,
thanks for your reply.
I've mentioned P21 and phone as being landmarks in different ages and in the past.
My problem is more about finding myself believing in some colleagues statements where film is "snobbish" cause with a Mark IV you can have the picture anyway, and finding myself believing that Mark IV is not astonishing in detail, compared to any medium format film, for instance. Not to mention higher digital backs.
I know its confusing, cause I am, confused. I know it comes to what kind of photography I do, but still, being just purely and merely technical, what will be a good product to obtain a quality as a, to say, Mamiya 7 portra 160 neg drum scan, in digital? Mainly, that can be, simplified, my question.
Is there anything digital, under 20k, that can make me wonder hours when facing a print done by "that" digital camera, or my Mamiya 7?
thank you
-
There is no one answer to your questions. A lot (nearly all) of it is up to personal taste.
But here's some thoughts in no particular order:
- Try to figure out what you care about. You say you find "a drum scan of a medium format film negative to be more pleasing than a XP100MP file" - this could mean a dozen things. It could mean you like the color palette of a particular film emulsion more than the default color rendering of an IQ3 100mp in Capture One. If that were the case something like the DT Capture One Style Pack (https://digitaltransitions.com/capture-one-style-pack/) could help even the ground by opening you to a variety of initial looks. It could mean you prefer the look of film grain to the clean signal from an IQ3 100mp. In that case the Film Grain tool of Capture One might be a good place to look; it is the closest to actual film grain I've ever seen because they actual do a physics model of the individual grains of film reacting to the "light". Once you figure out, more specifically, what you find pleasing about a particular camera, or lens, or piece of film you're better able to figure out what other gear used with what workflows you will also find pleasing.
- "How much resolution is in film?" is one of the hardest questions you'll find to answer in a way that is both technically accurate and practically useful, and well researched and carefully considered answers can vary considerably (though "150mp for 35mm" is definitely in the laughable range). It's also one I've had a great deal of experience answering due to being the designer and product manager of the DT Film Scanner (https://dtdch.com/film-scanning-kit/). An 8x10 in absolutely perfect conditions (fine-grain emulsion, film held flat in the holder, lens in perfect condition at ideal aperture, focus perfect, scanned to absolute perfection, cable release actuated gently, zero movement during exposure even with the big fat bellows acting like a wind sail) can hold a shocking amount of information; definitely more than a 100mp back (says a guy who sells 100mp backs for a living). That said, the number of 8x10 frames (historic or modern) that I've seen that meet these criteria are vanishingly small, and in practice even anal retentive shooters are likely to get much more subject detail using a 100mp camera than an 8x10 even in the studio, let alone in the field.
- Don't hyperfocus on resolution. It's an important technical consideration for some kinds of images (e.g. landscape, architecture, art reproduction) but it's only one of many technical considerations. Don't get me wrong, when I see a beautifully captured image from the IQ3 100mp that is super sharp it really leaves your jaw on the floor. But a beautifully crafted 5mp image will beat a shoddily 400mp image. And a 16mp camera you have with you takes a far better image than an 8x10 camera you leave at home. From my point of view there are five categories of considerations for a prospective camera buyer/user: technical (resolution, lens sharpness, dynamic range, vibration etc), aesthetic (color, ), practical (size, weight, ease of use), initial cost (self explanatory), ownership (cost to operate, support, service, warranty, frequency of updates, ability to upgrade).
- There's no substitute for working with a specialized medium format dealer (https://digitaltransitions.com/about-us/) and playing with actual cameras for extended time and getting their practical aid. For example if you showed me an 8x10 drum scan and an IQ3 100mp and started describing what it is you like about the 8x10 I can show you whether or not those things are possible with the IQ3 100mp. If you tell me what you enjoyed was the process of loading the sheet of film, and watching the image come up in the dark room tray then I'm going to tell you that you're better off staying with 8x10. If you tell me you enjoyed holding a wooden camera where every adjustment is mechanical and the shutter makes a nice wurring sound I'm going to tell you to try a tech camera (https://digitaltransitions.com/technical-cameras/). If you tell me it's the look of the film grain or the color palette I'm going to show you to what extent those can and cannot be recreated as the default look for the Phase.
But the shortest answer to your question, in my (highly biased) opinion is:
- If you're okay with a tripod and your subjects don't move much then an IQ3 100mp on a tech camera (https://digitaltransitions.com/technical-cameras/) with Rodenstock lenses
- If you want something portable an Phase One IQ3 100mp on an XF (https://digitaltransitions.com/products/used-digital-backs/)
- If the above is out of your budget replace the 100mp above with an refurbished Phase One IQ180 (https://digitaltransitions.com/products/used-digital-backs/).
-
Is there anything digital, under 20k, that can make me wonder hours when facing a print done by "that" digital camera, or my Mamiya 7?
Well this question is a lot more succinct and easier to answer.
Go to a dealer and ask to see prints, or receive files for you to make your own prints, from medium format cameras within your budget (and maybe from one above your budget and one from below your budget for good measure). Then stare at it and see if you wonder for hours!
If so, then borrow that camera and shoot it alongside your film, and see if it's still true when it's in your hands and not someone else's.
If so, buy it. If not, don't.
Any competent dealer will be more than glad to help with that.
-
Thanks Doug, one fast question, why aren't you mentioning GFX50S or X1D as a possible sub?
thanks
-
Hey Tom,
You're all over the map, and I'm going to say you're going to get answers all over the map. Honestly, if you're working with a final print size of less than 40" on the long edge, the 50mp selection of cameras currently available will provide you with a portable, affordable solution.
As to the 645z/X1D/GFX discussion, it boils down to a few tidbits:
- X1D gets you leaf lenses, and Hasselblad glass and colors out of the box
- 645z gets you a wide selection of existing lenses
- GFX gives you a few fun things thanks to the focal plane shutter. You can go for a Cambo Actus Mini styled setup using a lot of the same movements you have known.
The Cambo can be setup with either the GFX, A7RII or a PhaseOne back (though it'd need a shutter if using anything other than the 100mp back).
-
Because he is a Phase One Dealer. That doesn't make his posts any less valid.
If you are looking for the best quality out there it's a Phase or Hassi 100MP system.
The GFX and X1D are great as well. However, certainly not even close when it comes to maximum quality.
They have other benefits, like being lighter, water resistent and for example with the GFX the 120mm has IS, which is amazing for Medium Format.
(For reference I own a IQ3100/IQ180 and a GFX)
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
"If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?"
Answer: nobody will - as the late Michael Reichmann himself proved to anyone who visited his Toronto gallery and tried a similar comparison between prints from a Phase one P45 back and same size prints from a Canon G10 compact.
We worry about the wrong things. Resolution is one of them. We have plenty, and either of your choices will be more than capable of far larger prints and will still look great - as good as your 4x5 large format.
-
Because he is a Phase One Dealer. That doesn't make his posts any less valid.
This is entirely fair. I have many reasons why an IQ3 100mp on a tech camera or IQ1 80mp on an XF are better options than the GFX or X1D but I'll be the first to point out that I am biased and that you should seek good sources of information/evaluation on those as well!
There are many good options out there today. Some are just "gooder" than others :).
-
"If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?"
Answer: nobody will - as the late Michael Reichmann himself proved to anyone who visited his Toronto gallery and tried a similar comparison between prints from a Phase one P45 back and same size prints from a Canon G10 compact.
We worry about the wrong things. Resolution is one of them. We have plenty, and either of your choices will be more than capable of far larger prints and will still look great - as good as your 4x5 large format.
In Reichman's test he tried, loosely, to match the color coming from both, and did not use Capture One for processing the Phase One raw files. That eliminates one of the attributes that is different between any two camera systems or films, even in postage stamp sized prints: color. It was also a scene that didn't challenge dynamic range and was only a 13x19" print (relevant for the OP since he is asking about 16x20, but a pretty small print nowadays for fine art landscape).
Notably, Reichman continued to own and purchase additional Phase One cameras after that test :).
-
Thanks for your precious replies.
Its all very interesting.
I see, and Doug please prove me wrong, that Phase will go on X1D and GFX camera style in a very near future.
Next year most likely 150MP will be equipped on new Phase, and X1D and Fuji might go app to 100MP, maybe with a very low price.
Will it still be worth it to go for a 180 today, as of June 2017?
Or, as Quentin correctly hopefully said, :), a 50MP today will be as good as, for a final print 16x20?
Still its not really clear to me what is so new with Fuji GFX (ok, mirrorless), on sensor level, compared to a 2014 same sensor Pentax 645Z?
Will file be identical? Same sensor?
thank you
-
Phase One already has a mirrorless setup, but it's attaching their current back to an Alpa + Rodenstock lens in a pre-tuned kit.
There will be updates to the 33x44 chip in the not too distant future, but it may take a bit to get into the mirrorless lineup. Yes, Sony has a timeline that shows even higher MP in the larger CMOS chips, but it's a waiting for the next product cycle you get into.
The Pentax 645z is taking the CMOS chip and fitting it into their current system. The GFX & X1D is taking that 51mp chip and building a camera around it. Smaller lenses, and fun features, but a trade off in lack of a mirrorbox.
Files have their own color & info in them, but really, you're getting the same 14-bit info. Color rendition and editing is a subjective discussion, you'd really want to spend the time personally rather than rely on others.
-
Yes same sensor. The difference is size and weight!!!
From my humble opinion I would not by a IQ180 new at the moment. (If you get a great price used, around 10-12k, that's a different story)
Don't get me wrong I still use my IQ180, but prefer working with the IQ3100 or the GFX.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
In Reichman's test he tried, loosely, to match the color coming from both, and did not use Capture One for processing the Phase One raw files. That eliminates one of the attributes that is different between any two camera systems or films, even in postage stamp sized prints: color. It was also a scene that didn't challenge dynamic range and was only a 13x19" print (relevant for the OP since he is asking about 16x20, but a pretty small print nowadays for fine art landscape).
Notably, Reichman continued to own and purchase additional Phase One cameras after that test :).
I reviewed about 20 prints at Michael's studio. Not a single person who had done so before me could reliably tell what camera had taken what print.
Doug, with all due respect, you have a vested interest in advancing the virtues of the current top Phase one offering, but that was not Tom's question. I'd unhesitatingly recommend trying a Fuji GFX and hope Tom tries one out alongside the very different Hasselblad X1D in comparison with his 4x5 camera of choice.
-
Basic question for Tom: do you use movements? Will you miss that capability? Do you use flash and expect to be able to use a leaf shutter? Tripod-only use, or do you now want to break away from the tripod sometimes? (I assume that if you use 8 x 10, you aren't a speed graflex guy). What do you like to photograph, and how do you like to work? Are you looking to break away from old habits?
-
Doug, with all due respect, you have a vested interest in advancing the virtues of the current top Phase one offering, but that was not Tom's question. I'd unhesitatingly recommend trying a Fuji GFX and hope Tom tries one out alongside the very different Hasselblad X1D in comparison with his 4x5 camera of choice.
No offense taken; I directly acknowledge my biases, include them in my signature and try to remember to explicitly state them where relevant.
I unhesitatingly hope he tries an X1D (and/or Fuji GFX). I would only add that I hope he tries out a Phase on a tech cam and/or XF as well :). They are quite different animals in many regards. In a very real way one of the only things they share in common is the sensor is larger than 35mm.
-
Nancy, Christopher, Joe, Quentin, thanks so much all of you for your kind replies and questions.
Nancy, this is a good question, I love handheld, and I tend to use an 8x10 very fast, not handheld clearly. This is why I love the idea of a Fuji or H1D, cause digital back can be a pain (sorry Doug, I love xp100, but mirror got stucked once, although its great assitance that Phase give to pros on 5 years span, unique).
So, yes, I love handheld, and portraits, almost reportage.
I have to say I just ran a test print with a drum scan from a 120 roll I had shot with a Mamiya 7II lens, 80mm., versus a Nikon D810 and a Canon 5D Mark IV. I was impressed by the details of the Canon. And probably the great Reichman test had a great meaning. I see too many details on Mark IV (30MB), so many I had to use grain on C1 (thanks Doug, that works well though) to match drum scan (1.19GB drum scan) of Mamiya "imperfection", and still details were too high. Nikon D810 was shot on a 4x5 crop mode, and was lacking of details compared to Canon, not to Mamiya.
So, as you see, maybe even a Fuji can be way too much as details. Its all very (amazingly) confusing. And forum like this one are a huge help to get through the woods.
At this very moment I am still thinking about IQ180 with XF, or Mark IV, or Fuji (Hasselblad I love the design, felt a bit slow handheld). Or just keep my 10x8 and get a RX1RII for fast shootings. Hard choices. And suggestions are so welcome.
Ideally, I want to be abel to shoot a reportage picture, with an 8x10 attitude, so thinking where to be with the camera, rather than frame moving the subject, so with a kind of "calmness" and details to bring home just in case I want to run a very large print up to 5x7 feet.
Am I asking too much I guess?
-
The term "hand held", to me is very limited with any Phase One XF and back solution. I had much more luck with the P45+ and IQ160, but with the 80MP and 100MP backs, you have to have a "very very steady" hand. At least I do. I used to try hand held pano's with the IQ100 and 55LS or 35LS but kept finding at least 1 of the series would be slight off due to vibration from the mirror ( or me). Hand holding any moderate to long telephoto for me is a not go period, just to much vibration and thus blur. I am sure others can do this just not me. The IS on the 120mm Fuji is excellent.
Recently on a trip to Yosemite, I had both the IQ3100 and GFX. I would prefer to use the Phase all the time, but for me that means carrying a tripod for all setups. The GFX freed me tremendously and on the days I hiked in the park, I just carried the GFX and 4 lenses. The difference in weight is considerable (much less for the GFX over the P1 and 3 lenses) but the ability to hand hold a pano series or just hand hold with the 120mm or 200mm Mamiya F 2.8 APO was a huge benefit for me. DR of the 50 and 100MP chips to me is very very close.
The GFX solution was also less weight than my Nikon D810 and the same lenses (selected focal range)
I am sure the X1D will give the same results, ( have not tried it).
Paul Caldwell
-
Thanks Paul, I've tried Fuji 120, wonderful lens.
Fuji is probably the way to go and your hiking experience over carry on weight explains that perfectly. My question is, can you take a file from this camera, make a print that will give you the very same feeling of a 4x5 or 8x10 negative?
It would be interesting to see a new 8x10 vs 180 but with new 50mp sensor (or 4x5 vs 51mp) done nowadays.
Probably you can bring home a great result with 51MP, comparable to 4x5.
-
Will they represent a real substitute of film? Will a human eye tell the difference on a 16x20' print and lower size, between the film and digital?
If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?
By 16x20', do you mean 16 inches by 20 inches (about 40cmx60cm)? These are relatively small prints for the systems you consider, so I am not sure I understood what you meant.
It would also help to know what kind of pictures you do and what kind of lenses you need. Good wide-angle lenses, for example, may not be easy to find in all systems.
-
What I found to be intriguing about Mr. Reichman test on prints was just about this, all the talk about analogue feeling when you look at tones on print, it was proved to be hard to tell when looking at print.
So then my final question could be summed up as follow, can you tell an analogue shot from a digital one when looking at printed file of a 16x20 inches?
The "feel", would be recognizable?
-
Was the analog shot scanned? thus it becomes digital. Unless the shot is being actually developed and printed in a darkroom, which is easier for B&W and color even in 16 x 20 size, I feel that once it's scanned it's digital, it's just digital capture by another method, in this case a scanner. The largest negative I ever worked in a darkroom color or B&W was 4x5, I can't imagine working with 8x10 without a scan.
Just my thoughts on this as the film vs digital argument for color left me a long time ago, just too much hassle for color in the darkroom and if you scan the negative, the rest is digital.
For over 7 years I worked with Cibrachrome in the darkroom and loved the look, however all those prints have now totally faded and I greatly prefer working a scanned negative and making an inkjet or Fuji print from them. There is no comparison to working in total darkness i.e. color in a darkroom, and scanning in the same file and working it in digital at least for me. B&W is totally different subject as the workflow in the darkroom is much more relaxed, at least for me.
Paul Caldwell
-
One note I use the XF with the Iq3100 handheld all the time. 70% of all images. I have two rules. One keep the shutter speed twice the focal length. Secondly I use the vibration delay mode with 0,5s.
With that combination I get sharp images 90% of the time.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
One note I use the XF with the Iq3100 handheld all the time. 70% of all images. I have two rules. One keep the shutter speed twice the focal length. Secondly I use the vibration delay mode with 0,5s.
With that combination I get sharp images 90% of the time.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
Hi Christopher, probably my age, just can't get that formula to work for me, especially with any type of tele lens, 110mm and beyond. Much better hit rate with the GFX for me.
Paul Caldwell
-
Certainly true. With 150 and longer lenses I prefer the 1:3 rule and the GFX especially with the IS in the 120 is amazing. Would hope any future lens on the 180-300 range from Fuji has IS as well.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
One note I use the XF with the Iq3100 handheld all the time. 70% of all images.
For me 99% of my wedding images with the XF 100mp are handheld.
For 16x20 prints 1:1 [shutter speed:focal length] actually works pretty well, but to maximize sharpness at 100% pixel peeping I suggest 2:1 to 2.5:1 [shutter speed:focal length].
-
So then my final question could be summed up as follow, can you tell an analogue shot from a digital one when looking at printed file of a 16x20 inches?
The "feel", would be recognizable?
Yes, of course. But probably not for the reasons you think.
I go to museum and galleries regularly, they have large and even huge prints. Finding out which ones were analogue and which ones were digital captures is relatively easy, but not on sharpness. Digital is as sharp as analogue, especially for the relatively small prints you are considering. For a sharp print at 16"x20", about 24 mpix are enough.
What gives color film away are the colors. They are almost impossible to recreate digitally, especially if one observes the print close on large prints. What gives B&W film away is the aspect of the grain, but some advanced digital processes can come pretty close. What gives silver halide B&W print paper away compared to high end inkjet is the aspect of some medium grays, when observed very carefully.
But for 16x20" prints observed from arm length, the only difference that is likely to be noticed is that the colors of film are unique. They also vary depending on the film you use, so you would first have to tell us that part.
-
I shoot mainly Kodak Portra 160. I am just willing to find a digital alternative to a 4x5 process, flying, shipping, x-ray, scans, and to be handy (and on medium term) "cheaper".
I do wonder if 180 vs 4x5 famous test is still valid. And even there, it was never clear to me, cause you can find the very good test done here, where clearly 180 looked great, and on others (Tim Parkin) where looks less a winner.
-
I shoot mainly Kodak Portra 160. I am just willing to find a digital alternative to a 4x5 process, flying, shipping, x-ray, scans, and to be handy (and on medium term) "cheaper".
I do wonder if 180 vs 4x5 famous test is still valid. And even there, it was never clear to me, cause you can find the very good test done here, where clearly 180 looked great, and on others (Tim Parkin) where looks less a winner.
If you print no bigger than 16"x20", any MF camera will be fine. If you use Kodak Portra, the MF cameras which gives the closest tonality are the ones from Hasselblad, according to Edward Burtynsky (interview here (https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/interview-edward-burtynsky/)). Therefore, I would suggest an X1D or a second hand H4D or H3DII camera.
-
Thank you for your link and reply, I tried it, I had a feeling of a 1 second shutter lag, it was just me or someone experienced the same with it?
-
Holy shit that interview was painful to read.
-
It's a very interesting article and interview, thanks for sharing.
Do you guys feel the same as Burtynsky in saying that 50MP equals 4x5 and 100MP equals 8x10?
-
Thank you for your link and reply, I tried it, I had a feeling of a 1 second shutter lag, it was just me or someone experienced the same with it?
If you are talking about the X1D, its shutter is almost silent and with little lag, but there is a louder click a split second afterwards while the shutter resets.
And if you don't like the X1D, an older H3DII-39 or H3DII-50 can be had for less money, has a collection of very nice lenses to go with it, will do ISO 160 just as your portra film and will fill your 16"x20" prints just fine. I know from experience.
-
Do you guys feel the same as Burtynsky in saying that 50MP equals 4x5 and 100MP equals 8x10?
Frankly, if Burtynsky, who owns a fine art print shop and generally knows his bit about how to get huge prints sold to museums (like this one (https://www.artsy.net/artwork/edward-burtynsky-saw-mills-number-1-lagos-nigeria) 48"x63"!), there should be some truth to that idea. And I am no Burtynsky, but I visit exhibitions with large prints regularly and I would say that the comparison is generally correct.
-
I've shot with a Hasselblad 40MB back and scaled up to 5x7 ft, and it was a problem, lot of problems actually.
So a 39MP won't be a chance, when I would love to make bigger prints (rare), although a 51MP sounds better. Or the 100, it looks like is a 10k cheaper than Phaseone. Although Focus is a pain and C1 is very good in handling files.
-
It's a very interesting article and interview, thanks for sharing.
Do you guys feel the same as Burtynsky in saying that 50MP equals 4x5 and 100MP equals 8x10?
Close. I have worked on the basis that 70mp equals 4x5 Large format fine grained film. But that's just subjective resolution. In other respects, a high quality digital camera will considerably better film. Taken overall, it is very much in the right ballpark.
-
I think this is kind of tricky ground. While I do feel like my 43mp A7r2 can match the detail of fine grain 4x5 film... there are subjective things to consider. If you print a digital capture enlarged to the point where you see pixels, it begins to fall apart. It's just not pretty. If you do the same with an image on film then you just begin to see the grain, which can be beautiful. So, while digital may capture greater detail, I feel like you can take a film capture to a larger print without losing it's innate beauty.
Yeah?
-
Chris, sure, I agree. That is why some artists still won't abandon 8x10 for digital, interpolation its just not good enough to go large scale.
On the other hand, if you look at any latest Gursky, that to me looked very digital (I might be wrong). And its a 4 meter long print.
(https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2925/34110125501_7dff545217_b.jpg)
-
I've shot with a Hasselblad 40MB back and scaled up to 5x7 ft, and it was a problem, lot of problems actually.
You were talking about 16"x24" prints. I qualified my answers with that.
Please note that if you enlarge 8"x10" to 5x7 ft, there will be a "problem" as well. Have you heard of Richard Learoyd?
https://fraenkelgallery.com/artists/richard-learoyd
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/oct/23/richard-learoyd-dark-mirror-camera-obscura-photography-vanda-museum-artworks
-
I am wondering why stitching is somehow left out of this discussion.
I have 2m wide prints made from 300+ megapixels DSLR spherical stitches in planar projection that make the 8x10 images I have seen feel a bit low-fi... :)
And these are now super easy to do with the 100mp backs such as my H6D-100c.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I left it out, but yes stitching is something I almost always do. With the 100Mp pretty much always on a tripod, but the GFX allows hand held work (for me) and so LR does a great job on the stitching.
Paul Caldwell
-
I saw his show, that is way too much, I appreciate the approach and the honesty in it, but is nothing I am looking at when I talk about detail. Let's say is quite the opposite of portability vs detail.
I am interested on the learning curve of artists I admire. Gursky 10 years ago were making great prints with a 30/40MP back. Its interesting to notice why this won't be enough today becacuse we have 100MP now, and so on.
Will a 1TB back make Merkel print look bad in 50 years from now, I doubt it. I know we are talking about something that has to do with photography, but also is not defining it. Although is very interesting Burtynsky pointing out negs shipping, x-ray... same problem I face all the time. And just the idea to fly with an X1D or GFX, way better imho than a whole digital back and camera... feels like a dream.
-
Bernard, stitching doesn't feel right to me, I always like human figures to be in picture, probably works best for landscape, but photography to me is 8x10. And I would love to find the closest thing to take one shot, one, and have it safe with me without thinking of negs lost or Fedex packages lost when coming home.
-
Hey Tom, where are you located at? I think the biggest thing you need is some time working with someone who can show you what works for them. You need to get the files in your hands, and see what you can make of the details. Stitching, even a 2 shot with folks in it could cover you for resolution & scale.
And printing a 5'x7' is very different from a 16"x24", so the end result does matter.
-
The X1D has its quirks, but it is the closest thing I have ever used in medium format digital to the ethos of the Mamiya 7. It is decidedly NOT a Leatherman tool-like camera. I like that. It seems to freak out others.
Interesting interview with Burtynsky for his take on "Hasselblad color" v. "Phase One color". Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the popular view expressed here that everything that comes off the same Sony medium format sensor is the same and can easily be equalized in post (i.e., it's all just a matter of profiling.) But, hey, what does he know? He is only one of the most successful fine art photographers in the world and founded/runs his own major fine art printing operation in Toronto.
-
Hcubell, I was impressed by that interview too, and again thanks Landscapephoto for sharing.
I am not 100% sure about negative to be Imacon and chrome being Phase. And honestly, Phocus is a nightmare compared to C1.
About stitching, Joe, I'm currently in Paris, will be back in Miami soon, I travel a lot.
Not sure, if you can stitch, why they bother selling 50k camera? Maybe its enough stitching with a Fuji GFX.
Although stitching can widen horizon, I am more interested in the closest digital process to a Mamiya 7 or a 4x5/8x10, but without film shipping and airports and expenses superhigh.
Burtynsky touches a nerve in the interview, the slow process of a 4x5, will be missed when shooting. But what digital gives you in terms of production of image (speed, number of images in a year, travels, dust cleaning?!) its a lot.
Until now, I was just thinking at this setup:
4x5
Sony Rx1RII
or (at this point, and after our long chat, and thanks all of you guys)
Hasselblad X1D / Fuji GFX
Leica M6!
or
her majesty Hasselblad 100MP
10k less than Phase its a lot.
I just wonder if I can resell it after, and if Hasselblad offers the same (amazing) assistance and fast repair of Phase....! (Doug I hear you already...)
-
Another question since I forgot to throw in another game changer... A7RII, what will be the best lens to match X1D quality for Sony camera? equivalent of a 35mm on 24x36mm format... thank you!
-
For what it's worth:
- some images shot with the H6D-100c: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/albums/72157676446696963
- some pano stitches: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/albums/72157600916381270
Let me know if you need more info. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not sure, if you can stitch, why they bother selling 50k camera? Maybe its enough stitching with a Fuji GFX.
Although stitching can widen horizon, I am more interested in the closest digital process to a Mamiya 7 or a 4x5/8x10, but without film shipping and airports and expenses superhigh.
Stitching gets you larger files, but you can't freeze a scene the same way as you can with a single shot of a 100mp camera. It's why I'm still tempted by a Horseman SW612 setup. Stitching the Eiffel Tower makes sense (btw - who the F*#k thought it a good idea to do a zip line there? http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/06/you-can-now-zip-line-off-the-eiffel-tower-6687923/ ) while stitching a dancer doesn't.
-
funny how people just casually talk about shooting 4x5 and 8x10...how many here have actually done it? the process, the cost, the time, the hassle,....it's a hobby....do it if you really enjoy the process, don't if you want a perfect file....i have shot a lot of 4x5 and quite a bit of 8x10....and even compared to 4x5, 8x10 is a different animal....and it's all really pointless if the scans aren't top notch.....
if i would shoot large format today i would look into alternative processes, transfers and maybe go even bigger.....large plates....
otherwise any 50mpix back with latest sony chip will provide IQ that really allows no excuses....even A7RII or 810 will do....but for big prints i would go with a DMF system....better files....
of course the new 100mpix backs are better but lets not forget that everything hanging in museums and galleries is not shot with any of those....and next year the new 100mpix X1D or GFX100 will come out for a lot less.....
the one thing that i do prefer about larger negative(s) is the different look of the different formats......a normal lens for a 8x10 is about a 300mm lens....and that comes with a different compression and DOF then a 50 on a A7RII or a 65 on a hasselblad/fuji/phase......the stretched foreground/background of a 16mm (on 35mm) landscape shot is just not possible on 8x10....but you get this amazing (to me more natural) perspective......especially when it comes to shooting people....
back in the day of shooting film when we had to shoot groups of people in a tight room and not want to pull out the ultra wide for obvious reasons (foreheads, noses, hands closer to the lens look huge,....) we would set up 2 (mamiya's, hasselblads, fuji's) and shoot simultaneously.....2 shots stitched with a 90 look a lot different then one with a 55....especially when it comes to people.....and it is a lot easier to shoot with 2 120/220 cameras then with one 4x5....
-
TomChik>>>> I am more interested in the closest digital process to … 4x5/8x10
TomChik>>>> anything digital that is comparable to a 645 film or 67 film and that won't cost 50k and maybe around 20k?
TomChik>>>> ...but photography to me is 8x10
TomChik>>>> Burtynsky touches a nerve in the interview, the slow process of a 4x5, will be missed when shooting.
Based on all of these comments, you should look into a technical camera (Alpa STC, Arca Rm3Di, Cambo WRS, Sinar, Linhoff …)
That would be the closest thing to view camera, both in terms of shooting experience as well as image quality.
An IQ180 would fit your stated budget, but if you can manage an IQ3-100 would be the best for usability and image fildelity.
Although, I must say that for 16x20 inch prints 8x10 film or IQ180 is an epic overkill.
I doubt the image quality differences become evident until print sizes of at least 36 inch (long side).
-
Hi,
Some reflections...
When the 39 MP MFD sensors arrived back in 2006 a lot of 4"x5" shooters switched from film to digital. Michael Reichmann, Charlie Cramer and Bill Atkinson did a comparison between film, up to to 4"x5" at that time. There was some critique that they scanned 4"x5" at 2000 PPI.
My guess is that the 2000 PPI was enough for what they were doing. It is possible to scan higher PPI but file size may increase more than quality.
The great attraction of digital may be that the images can be virtually noise free and may be very tolerant of post processing.
My normal print size is 16"x23" inch. It is the largest print size for desktop printers using cut sheet paper and works very nice with 50x70 cm frames ( 19" x 29" ). Personally, I have found that 12 MP are quiet enough for prints at that size, but that is based on my perception and eye sight. That said, I was perplexed how small difference there was between 12 MP APS-C and 24 MP full frame at 16"x23" print size.
Since than I have moved up to 39 MP on MFD and 42 MP on 24x36 mm. I would not say I felt there was an advantage of 39 MP MFD compared to 24 MP full frame at my standard print size, viewed with the naked eye. Viewing with a 5X loupe the MFD advantage was very apparent.
Jim Kasson did a lot of evaluation on the Fuji GFX, comparing it to his other system that is a Sony A7rII. The GFX was much better in measurable image quality, but he found that measurable advantage was not visible in prints 15" high.
Going 30" height, there was a significant difference: http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/
Jim has indicated that he has analysed those images looking very closely.
Once I got to 42 MP on my A7rII, I have not done a lot of comparisons between the A7rII and the P45+. What I have seen is that the A7rII can match and surpass the 10 year old P45+ with Hasselblad V-series lenses.
But, I have also found that a decent viewing distance can negate resolution advantages. The Hasselblad Distagons I have are not so great of axis. For instance, my Distagon 40/4 CF on the P45+ is no match for the Canon 16-35/4L zoom on the A7rII. If I make a 33"x47" print with both systems the A7rII just smokes the P45+/Distagon combo. But, increase viewing distance to three feet and the weakness of the Distagon disappears.
I would also say that it is very hard to make best use of the high resolution of today's sensors. We need a dead on precise focus and a flat subject. Going outside the optimum other factors like 'CoC' and diffraction will play a significant role.
So, my best suggestion would be to get the best sensor and the best lenses you can afford. To make best use of them you need to do everything absolutely right.
A steady tripod, mirror lock up and accurate focusing at 1:1 magnification in live view may be a decent starting point…
Best regards
Erik
I know its crazy. I've shot 8x10 and XP100 Phase One, a lot. I own an 8x10 and I want to buy a digital to be able to travel without carrying all that stuff with me, to avoid x-ray scanning, to avoid all risks of travelling with film.
I've tried the GFX50S and X1D, I am not sure, can someone help me on telling me where they differs from a 645Z as image quality? Is it the very same sensor? I had a better feeling with Fuji, "faster" than Hassy.
Will they represent a real substitute of film? Will a human eye tell the difference on a 16x20' print and lower size, between the film and digital?
If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?
Its very hard for me to jump to digital, not sure why, changes fast, years ago people were amazed by P21, now we almost have in our phone, and still I can recall pros telling me that P21 file were so much more detailed than a 4x5 drum scan, now we will laugh about such a sentence.
Now some says that a drum scan of a 35mm film will need a Phase One 150MP (coming up soon with an X1D/like camera?).
So where is the truth?
What should I buy in order not to spend 2000$ on each shoot with film and still have a comparable image quality to a human eye?
I know it goes personal, for instance in my case I found a drum scan of a medium format film negative to be more pleasing than a XP100MP file.
But anything digital that is comparable to a 645 film or 67 film and that won't cost 50k and maybe around 20k?
Is a IQ180 a good solution?
thank you for your help!
-
Thank you Eric, good points.
Jamgolf, thank you, sure, when I was mentioning about 8x10 I was mentioning it more for single shoot idea vs stitching, photography is many things (luckily).
Bernard thanks for sharing, wonderful images.
-
funny how people just casually talk about shooting 4x5 and 8x10...how many here have actually done it? the process, the cost, the time, the hassle,....it's a hobby....do it if you really enjoy the process, don't if you want a perfect file....i have shot a lot of 4x5 and quite a bit of 8x10....and even compared to 4x5, 8x10 is a different animal....and it's all really pointless if the scans aren't top notch.....
I just shot 130+ sheets of 4x5 Portra 160 in 2 long weekends for my personal projects. Does that count ~_o?
-
I just shot 130+ sheets of 4x5 Portra 160 in 2 long weekends for my personal projects. Does that count ~_o?
you are my hero! i have done enough of it to appreciate it!
it does not surprise me that you did it for a personal project....
a very good friend is doing the same thing right now...ongoing project....he just told me he just found out that one of his film holders has a light leak:) oh well...the joys of large format...i have been there too!
-
re: the Burtynsky interview, those were some really innate interview questions. Couldn't they have asked a more knowledgeable person to do the interview?
-
Nothing like a good ol' digital v. film, this platform v. that platform, x number of pixels v. y number of pixels thread. ;-)
As others have said, at 16x20, you won't be able to tell the difference between 4x5, MF digital or even small format digital. Shoot whatever you want at that scale. You can probably shoot an iPhone at that size and most would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
I print my images at 44x60. Mostly I use the H5-40 though I just purchased the X1D (which is in for repairs - another story. Not happy). My work consists of larger than life portraits. The detail that you can see on my prints is astounding. I could shoot with a higher resolution camera but I don't know that it would do any good. I recently completed a commission for a solo museum show that will consist of about 50 44x60 prints. For this commission, I shot over 4,400 images. From a workflow standpoint, just developing, proofing and editing that number of photos would be too incredibly tedious. From a cost standpoint, it would be prohibitive. Shot with 4x5, the costs of film and processing alone would be in the $50,000 range. Shot with 120mm film, the costs would be in the $30,000 range. Those costs don't include the cost of high end scans either. That's just not going to happen.
Beyond just the resolution issue, which for me is a nonissue, digital opens up greater freedom to shoot and experiment without having to worry about per shot costs. The factor that drove my decision to purchase Hasselblad was the fact that the Pentax and Fuji systems are limited to 1/125 flash sync speed. I regularly shoot with a flash outdoors so I unfortunately couldn't consider those options. If that weren't a concern, I'd probably make my buying decision based upon price. I'm not a fan of throwing money away at these ridiculously priced camera systems. I think for most people, a simple FF DSLR is more than enough camera.
By the way, here's my review of the X1D on Petapixel (https://petapixel.com/2017/04/25/hasselblad-x1d-review-expensive-gadget-worthy-performer/). I've posted this before but perhaps you haven't seen it.
John
-
Hi John,
Thanks for good points. Just a few comments:
- It is quite true that film would have horrible costs if we shoot the way we do with digital. But, we may shoot differently with film.
- With digital we can use a liberal number of exposures and may catch a better moment. I don't think that shooting with sheet film is that good at capturing spontaneous expressions.
- Workflow stuff matters. In old time the photo lab was doing most of the workflow stuff. Now it is mostly the photographer doing the lab work, on the computer. If we edit our stuff ourselves we need to scan film.
- The most practical way to scan film may be to capture with a high resolution digital camera.
- But, if you have a high resolution digital camera, why not use it for the original capture?
- Drum scanning film may still be the best option, and it may not be prohibitively expensive. After all we only need drum scans of the pictures that will hang.
- Scanning film is not easy. Slide film has very narrow dynamic range combined with high density range. That means harsh shadows that even good film scanners have hard time handling. Drum scanners are better at this.
- Negative film has a high dynamic range, but it has a lot quirks. Making excellent conversions of negative colour into good positive colour takes a lot of experience.
So, you get best detail with a drum scanned 8x10 low speed film. It is reasonable that 39MP digital back will yield image quality similar to 4"x5" as many photographers made the switch to 39MP backs.
Personally, I have been perfectly happy with everything starting with 12 MP APS-C for my 16"x23" that is my standard print size.
I would think it is better to focus on making good captures and good processing rather than gear.
Best regards
Erik
Nothing like a good ol' digital v. film, this platform v. that platform, x number of pixels v. y number of pixels thread. ;-)
As others have said, at 16x20, you won't be able to tell the difference between 4x5, MF digital or even small format digital. Shoot whatever you want at that scale. You can probably shoot an iPhone at that size and most would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
I print my images at 44x60. Mostly I use the H5-40 though I just purchased the X1D (which is in for repairs - another story. Not happy). My work consists of larger than life portraits. The detail that you can see on my prints is astounding. I could shoot with a higher resolution camera but I don't know that it would do any good. I recently completed a commission for a solo museum show that will consist of about 50 44x60 prints. For this commission, I shot over 4,400 images. From a workflow standpoint, just developing, proofing and editing that number of photos would be too incredibly tedious. From a cost standpoint, it would be prohibitive. Shot with 4x5, the costs of film and processing alone would be in the $50,000 range. Shot with 120mm film, the costs would be in the $30,000 range. Those costs don't include the cost of high end scans either. That's just not going to happen.
Beyond just the resolution issue, which for me is a nonissue, digital opens up greater freedom to shoot and experiment without having to worry about per shot costs. The factor that drove my decision to purchase Hasselblad was the fact that the Pentax and Fuji systems are limited to 1/125 flash sync speed. I regularly shoot with a flash outdoors so I unfortunately couldn't consider those options. If that weren't a concern, I'd probably make my buying decision based upon price. I'm not a fan of throwing money away at these ridiculously priced camera systems. I think for most people, a simple FF DSLR is more than enough camera.
By the way, here's my review of the X1D on Petapixel (https://petapixel.com/2017/04/25/hasselblad-x1d-review-expensive-gadget-worthy-performer/). I've posted this before but perhaps you haven't seen it.
John
-
For what it is worth I have uploaded a full res 100mp image shot with the H6D-100c with a Rodenstock 90mm f5.6 HR. It is at f11, so probably not 100% peak sharpness but it should still provide a good idea about what can be done with a single capture. Nothing prevents from stitching such scenes of course if this is too "coarse". ;)
I would be surprised if 8x10 done right were significantly better than this, but I could. Be wrong obviously.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/35109904090/in/photostream/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I own the following - XF100, the GFX and the Nikon D810. The XF100 is my go to camera but I always take with me the 810 as a backup. For my work, I almost always use a tripod - 95%+. For me, the files of the XF100 are much more workable than either the GFX or the 810. Additionally, I like the extra pixels when I need to crop as I often like a square format - it just gives me more flexibility. I do print large so that is a factor in my decision. After shooting some with the GFX I don't see a huge benefit over the 810. BTW, I bought the GFX to use when I didn't want to carry the heavy XF100 system. From a user interface perspective, I find the XF100 to be the easiest camera to operate with the 810 coming in second. I really don't like the GFX interface. At the risk irritating a bunch of people, purchasing the GFX was a bit of a mistake for me. Not because of the file quality but the incremental quality above the 810 is only marginal. I have never shot 8x10 but if I had I likely would have done it to give me the best quality info to work with. Other than cost, I can't image why you would choose a 50mp system. Just my random thoughts!