Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: harlemshooter on July 31, 2009, 09:52:08 am
-
I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB. The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.
But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB? I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10. For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.
Does such a study exist?
Thank you!
PS. Not really interested in articles comparing prints (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.
-
I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB. The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.
But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB? I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10. For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.
Does such a study exist?
Thank you!
PS. Not really interested in articles comparing prints (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.
With the Hasselblad H3D11-50, at 8175 * 6132 pixels, you get 34 * 45" at 180 original camera pixels per inch,
42.58 * 56 .78 " 144 ppi, which should look OK if not scrutinized too closely...
I am thinking of getting a 60 inch printer, but I would shift and stitch to get a 100 Mpx + file for 60"
Are you assuming slow, fine grain film in the 10 * 8?
-
I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB. The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.
But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB? I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10. For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.
Does such a study exist?
Thank you!
PS. Not really interested in articles comparing prints (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.
Well of course you say "MFDB" but it will vary wildly according to which back you are talking about. The highest resolution system available is the Phase One P65+. Normally the difference between 50 and 60 megapixels is small but when going up against 8x10 film at huge print sizes every pixel counts. Plus the 65+ mates with a tech camera with much greater ease than a H3D-50.
We've had several P65+ purchasers run this test (8x10 vs 65+) themselves (not for public use - just for their purchase decision). The most meaningful statement I can make is that each person who did this test ended up buying a 65+ including one of the best known of the remaining 8x10 shooters.
A single shot of the P65+ holds up well compared to drum scanned slide film on an 8x10 with proper technique used on both systems. Using a tech camera like a Cambo Wide RS and stitching 2 vertical shots* to a 4:3 horizontal (netting 100+ megapixels) takes the 65+ to an entirely new level.
The other thing is that, as hard as it is to get a 100% image on a P65+ (good tripod, mirror up, cable release etc) it is much harder to do so with 8x10 film where issues of film flatness, squaring up the standards, finding 8x10 lenses which are in perfect condition etc make getting a perfect exposure in the field VERY hard (most 8x10 shooters don't notice because it takes much more time to compare the 100% "pixel" view of 8x10 film compared to zooming in on a digital capture). Moreover 8x10 cameras turn into parasails when there is any wind and are very difficult to carry out into the field for any meaningful distance (a few pieces of film in film holders can weigh many pounds). Finally the need for f/32 on an 8x10 camera versus e.g. f/11.5 on a Cambo Wide RS with a P65+ further exacerbates the difference in the variety of situations in which each platform can be used.
*On a tech camera you stitch WITHIN one continuous image circle from a large format lens so there is no mathematical distortion when you "stitch" the two images together.
If you're anywhere near Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to work with you on such a test in person (no cost) or rent+ship you the system for your testing (greatly discounted rental).
Note that we do have an older test of an Phase One H25 vs. 4x5 film: http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/archive/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/archive/)
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Interesting. I do not like sub 200 ppi as it starts looking flat at 40x50...at least with my work.
Very fine grain film indeed.
With the Hasselblad H3D11-50, at 8175 * 6132 pixels, you get 34 * 45" at 180 original camera pixels per inch,
42.58 * 56 .78 " 144 ppi, which should look OK if not scrutinized too closely...
I am thinking of getting a 60 inch printer, but I would shift and stitch to get a 100 Mpx + file for 60"
Are you assuming slow, fine grain film in the 10 * 8?
-
I know of Crewdson's purchase, as well as a few others.
I understand why their comparisons are confidential, but would like Phase One to publish something along these lines. I will give you a ring before too long to run a test comparing 80x100 inch prints - my 8x10 set up against this vertically stitched P65 cambo wide method you speak of. In the meantime, if you can arrange for this sort of test to be published and the results are favorable, it would be most appreciated. I shoot 8x10 in nicely controlled environments with a very good lens and haven't had to deal with the issues you mentioned...fortunately.
Well of course you say "MFDB" but it will vary wildly according to which back you are talking about. The highest resolution system available is the Phase One P65+.
We've had several P65+ purchasers run this test (8x10 vs 65+) themselves (not for public use - just for their purchase decision). The most meaningful statement I can make is that each person who did this test ended up buying a 65+ including one of the best known of the remaining 8x10 shooters.
A single shot of the P65+ holds up well compared to drum scanned slide film on an 8x10 with proper technique used on both systems. Using a tech camera like a Cambo Wide RS and stitching 2 vertical shots* to a 4:3 horizontal (netting 100+ megapixels) takes the 65+ to an entirely new level.
The other thing is that, as hard as it is to get a 100% image on a P65+ (good tripod, mirror up, cable release etc) it is much harder to do so with 8x10 film where issues of film flatness, squaring up the standards, finding 8x10 lenses which are in perfect condition etc make getting a perfect exposure in the field VERY hard (most 8x10 shooters don't notice because it takes much more time to compare the 100% "pixel" view of 8x10 film compared to zooming in on a digital capture). Moreover 8x10 cameras turn into parasails when there is any wind and are very difficult to carry out into the field for any meaningful distance (a few pieces of film in film holders can weigh many pounds).
*On a tech camera you stitch WITHIN one continuous image circle from a large format lens so there is no mathematical distortion when you "stitch" the two images together.
If you're anywhere near Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to work with you on such a test in person (no cost) or rent+ship you the system for your testing (greatly discounted rental).
Note that we do have an older test of an Phase One H25 vs. 4x5 film: http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/archive/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/archive/)
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
I understand why their comparisons are confidential, but would love Phase One to publish something along these lines. Where I am currently (rural area working on a moving picture), I am unable to run the test myself or come see you. I will give you a ring in the near future to arrange for you to ship me a P65. If you won't publish it, I would like to.
When a customer does a test it is not up to us whether the results are published.
We would be very happy to have you run the test and publish the results yourself and/or give us permission to publish them.
Of course we hope that you would allow us to advise you before and during the test on the best techniques/settings/workflows (given our experience with this system) so that you end up with a test that shows the best real results of each system.
I was told the first day on the job here, and it has been proven over and over, that the best way to promote our products is to let people shoot them and see for themselves the quality. Our door is always open for free to photographers that wish to do such tests, and we will work very hard to provide affordable rentals (hopefully it's understandable that we can't do so for free - though we do credit rentals towards purchases) to anyone who cannot make it to our facilities in-person.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Interesting. I do not like sub 200 ppi as it starts looking flat at 40x50...at least with my work.
Very fine grain film indeed.
It's also the case that the finest grain black and white films capture finer detail than the typical slide film (e.g. Tech Pan versus Astia - not that you can find Tech Pan anymore). So this would be a more aggressive test.
Also there will be some matter of aesthetics concerning grain versus clean detail.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
In terms of resolution, you may stitch three, six or more digital captures to achieve 4x5 or 8x10 film resolution, but IMHO, it's difficult for MFDB to achieve the tonality of large size films. I had extensively compared a Phase One P25 and briefly a P45 with 4x5 early this year, and now I decide to go back to film for this particular reason. Sorry my financial capability won't allow me to try a P65+.
-
*On a tech camera you stitch WITHIN one continuous image circle from a large format lens so there is no mathematical distortion when you "stitch" the two images together.
Doug Peterson
Doug.... Most Schneider Apo-Digitar (medium format) lenses allow you to shift and stitch two or four images, getting the most out of the lenses and the digibacks.
-
Doug.... Most Schneider Apo-Digitar (medium format) lenses allow you to shift and stitch two or four images, getting the most out of the lenses and the digibacks.
Absolutely. The Schneider 47mm for instance has enough room for 4 P65+ frames with the desired amount of frame-overlap for around 205 megapixels. Again this is done without geometrically distorting the image since all four captures are part of the one continuous image circle of the lens.
From our experience one does not need 4 frames to replace an 8x10 workflow, but by all means the option is there for you.
Attached is a visualization of the four frames with overlap and how they fit into the generous image circle of the Schneider 47mm XL Digitar.
Full disclosure: we are a dealer for Schneider/Cambo/Phase-One.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
In terms of resolution, you may stitch three, six or more digital captures to achieve 4x5 or 8x10 film resolution, but IMHO, it's difficult for MFDB to achieve the tonality of large size films. I had extensively compared a Phase One P25 and briefly a P45 with 4x5 early this year, and now I decide to go back to film for this particular reason. Sorry my financial capability won't allow me to try a P65+.
The smoothness range and natural 3D appearance of tones produced by the 40+ and 65+ is one of the points on which we are receiving the most positive feedback. This attribute was also mentioned by Michael in his first review of the 65+.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
As already said, 4x5 or oven 8x10 isn't so much limited by the film or scanning like smaller film formats but by the shooting technique. Many large format users are used to stopping down beyond f22, using instable chinese wood-cameras or historic lenses. They're not looking for the maximum in resolution, their looking for a certain "look".
While on smaller film formats practical resolutions in the scanned file at about 60lp/mm (great lenses, perfect focus, oversampling scan resolution with REAL >4000ppi) are possible, even the best lenses for large format don't deliver the same amount of detail as Leica-lenses or Digitars (40lp/mm with over 70% contrast off-axis), especially not beyond f16-f22 due diffraction.
But I think with careful work, a stable full-metal camera, modern lenses @ f11-f16 and good film holders (like Sinar adhesive holders) you should achieve 40lp/mm "easily":
40lp/mm @ 4x5inch = 8000 x 10000 pixels = 80MP ("perfect pixels", not equal to MFDB-sensor-resolution)
40lp/mm @ 8x10inch = 16000 x 20000 pixels = 320MP
I've seen some large format photography shot with great technique- I'm sorry, they were beyond every digital solution available today. But am I willing to pay, carry and wait for those results? I don't know... But seeing a 8x10 Velvia on the light table...
-
But seeing a 8x10 Velvia on the light table...
Very very true.
-
Absolutely. The Schneider 47mm for instance has enough room for 4 P65+ frames with the desired amount of frame-overlap for around 205 megapixels. Again this is done without geometrically distorting the image since all four captures are part of the one continuous image circle of the lens.
From our experience one does not need 4 frames to replace an 8x10 workflow, but by all means the option is there for you.
Attached is a visualization of the four frames with overlap and how they fit into the generous image circle of the Schneider 47mm XL Digitar.
Full disclosure: we are a dealer for Schneider/Cambo/Phase-One.
[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
Yes - I want a 47XL, it is about a 100 degree lens, and with shift-and-stitch, you can utilize the field of view.
-
Absolutely. The Schneider 47mm for instance has enough room for 4 P65+ frames with the desired amount of frame-overlap for around 205 megapixels. Again this is done without geometrically distorting the image since all four captures are part of the one continuous image circle of the lens.
Doug, but how good is the sharpness then? I use the 47XL with the P45 and with large movements the lens is the limiting factor.
So what we need are offset microlens pixels that move synchronised to the ammount of shift. Just kidding :-)
Seriously: I think 12mm shift are really great and 15-17mm are still good enough with the 47XL (but certainly with a significant loss of sharpness) with the P45. The P65+ has a smaller pixelpitch... so what would you say is the real ammount of shift one can use?
-
Doug, but how good is the sharpness then? I use the 47XL with the P45 and with large movements the lens is the limiting factor.
So what we need are offset microlens pixels that move synchronised to the ammount of shift. Just kidding :-)
Seriously: I think 12mm shift are really great and 15-17mm are still good enough with the 47XL (but certainly with a significant loss of sharpness) with the P45. The P65+ has a smaller pixelpitch... so what would you say is the real ammount of shift one can use?
You mostly answer your own question here. Sharpness fall off towards the edge of the image circle is "by definition" (in other words it wouldn't be the edge of the image circle if sharpness had not started to fall off). How much you will accept is up to you. I used the 65+ a lot with the 47mm XL and I agree that 12mm is really (really) great and 15-17mm are good. I would even say 18-19mm is still ok, but it's definitely a judgment call.
It also depends on if that last bit of movement is capturing low-detail areas like water/sky or high detail areas like bark/grass. It also depends on what aspect ratio you are going to crop to since the image circle is just that - a circle, and will fall off most at the edges of a more squat horizontal image.
Whatever number you come up with I think we both would agree that a 65+ with a Schneider 47mm XL is about as good as it gets on any platform.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
To the OP:
The best 8x10 lens will generate maybe 30 LP/mm at the corners -- if you're lucky -- and closer to 50 in the center. Even tranny film like Astia can resolve 90 line pairs, so it is doubtful film will be your limiting factor with 8x10, your lenses will be. (4x5 is a different story -- LOT's of 4x5 lenses will do over 60 line pairs.)
Anyway, carrying on the math: 30 line pairs per mm is roughly equivalent to 760 per inch, and generating 760 pairs of lines per inch requires 1520 dots per inch. So, assuming you scan an 8x10 sheet at anything over 1520 DPI, you are probably at the maximum for the media. 8x10 at 1520 DPI equal roughly 12,000 x 15,000 pixels or 180 MP. Of course this is a theoretical limit, and in practice so much goes against you in generating a perfect 8x10 capture -- wind, vibrations, motion, lack of perfect focus, inability of film to be held perfectly flat, etc, etc, etc -- that I would say it's safe to assume more like 1/2 to 2/3rds that in the normal best case, so I'd call it 120 MP practical effective digital comparable in the best case, and maybe more like 90 MP in the average case. Either way, it is clear that 8x10 will rule the ultimate resolution roost for at least a few more years.
But from a practical standpoint, 60 MP is not all that far removed from 90, so we are getting pretty darn close with direct digital right now... Factor in the cost per sheet to shoot, process and drum-scan 8x10, and even the best digital back starts to look like a very economical option. Add in the workflow convenience for direct digital, and it's pretty tough to dismiss it in favor of large format analog...
PS: Yes, I have owned, shot and compared them all. In a real-world comparison, a perfect 4x5 or 8x10 capture (they are virtually indistinguishable at 40x50) when perfectly printed is an incredible piece of art. The problem is, for the reasons mentioned above you rarely have a perfect LF capture, and even more rarely get it perfectly scanned and printed -- so it becomes a numbers game. On par, you will have a few frames from LF that are superior to your best high-resolution digital frames, but on average most of your direct digital frames will be technically superior to most of your sheet film frames. And you'll definitely have more digital frames to choose from after any given shoot...
My .02,
-
I used the 65+ a lot with the 47mm XL and I agree that 12mm is really (really) great and 15-17mm are good. I would even say 18-19mm is still ok, but it's definitely a judgment call.
So it's virtually the same as with the P45 and the gain in resolution of the P65+ over the P45 is not limited by the lens here?
I agree: sometimes (but rarely) I use the full ammount of shift my WRS offers (+/-20mm lateral) and depending of the motif it's still okay. Though I feel resolution is roughly halved at 20mm.
Anyway - this is indeed very good info. Thank you!
-
So it's virtually the same as with the P45 and the gain in resolution of the P65+ over the P45 is not limited by the lens here?
I agree: sometimes (but rarely) I use the full ammount of shift my WRS offers (+/-20mm lateral) and depending of the motif it's still okay. Though I feel resolution is roughly halved at 20mm.
Anyway - this is indeed very good info. Thank you!
Only when viewed at 100%. When printed the same size the appearance of the corners will be the same. In other words going from a 45+ to a 65+ you don't loose anything at the extreme corners (the quality there is the same); you just gain additional resolution in the 95% of the final print that is not the extreme corners. Of course this only comes into play with large shifts. With moderate shifts the 65+ is sharp from corner to corner.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
so I'd call it 120 MP practical effective digital comparable in the best case, and maybe more like 90 MP in the average case. Either way, it is clear that 8x10 will rule the ultimate resolution roost for at least a few more years.
It's very hard to argue with Jack's tremendous experience and excellent background knowledge here. The practical tests of our of our customers disagree here, but as Jack (and I earlier) explained you have to be VERY good and very careful with 8x10 to get anywhere close to the numbers stated above.
Also, 120 megapixels can be easily stitched as tho_mas and I have been back-and-forthing on and while it's not "easy" to get it perfect with a P65+ (IMO it wouldn't be fun if it was) it is cakewalk compared to doing the same thing with 8x10.
Again, in their own tests our customers are finding the 65+ to either match or surpass their own 8x10 workflows, and we are happy to help any photographer do this test on their own (see my first post).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Only when viewed at 100%. When printed the same size the appearance of the corners will be the same. In other words going from a 45+ to a 65+ you don't loose anything at the extreme corners (the quality there is the same); you just gain additional resolution in the 95% of the final print that is not the extreme corners. Of course this only comes into play with large shifts. With moderate shifts the 65+ is sharp from corner to corner.
yes, that was my reading.
But... as the film plane of the P65+ is wider the shift with the P65+ is actually 2.50 millimeters more (on each side) than with the P45.
That says something for the P65+ ...
-
yes, that was my reading.
But... as the film plane of the P65+ is wider the shift with the P65+ is actually 2.50 millimeters more (on each side) than with the P45.
That says something for the P65+ ...
What's a millimeter here or there .
If you're ever in Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to loan you a 65+ for you to make up your own mind :-).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
If you're ever in Atlanta or Miami we'd be happy to loan you a 65+ for you to make up your own mind :-).
would certainly be a pleasure!
It's a long way. And it's just a 15minutes drive to Phase One here in my hometown (...in Germany) :-)
-
40lp/mm @ 4x5inch = 8000 x 10000 pixels = 80MP ("perfect pixels", not equal to MFDB-sensor-resolution)
40lp/mm @ 8x10inch = 16000 x 20000 pixels = 320MP
You'll note that this "perfect resolution" is a mere 2000DPI, which is why most professional DLabs just scan at 2400DPI and call it "good enough".
-
You'll note that this "perfect resolution" is a mere 2000DPI, which is why most professional DLabs just scan at 2400DPI and call it "good enough".
I recall from somewhere the sample frequency needs to be 2X the actual to be able to accurate?
-
In my opinion , both of you are saying the same things. The difference is merely rethorical. Thanks so much for such an interesting thread.
Eduardo
It's very hard to argue with Jack's tremendous experience and excellent background knowledge here. The practical tests of our of our customers disagree here, but as Jack (and I earlier) explained you have to be VERY good and very careful with 8x10 to get anywhere close to the numbers stated above.
Also, 120 megapixels can be easily stitched as tho_mas and I have been back-and-forthing on and while it's not "easy" to get it perfect with a P65+ (IMO it wouldn't be fun if it was) it is cakewalk compared to doing the same thing with 8x10.
Again, in their own tests our customers are finding the 65+ to either match or surpass their own 8x10 workflows, and we are happy to help any photographer do this test on their own (see my first post).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
What about tonality? I only have personal experience between 4X5 and FF DSLR but the difference was somewhat like a skyscraper and a shack. I assume that the same size ratio of imaging area would be true between the MFDB and 8X10 if not more exaggerated. Imaging area size is more than just pure resolution is it not?
-
Again, in their own tests our customers are finding the 65+ to either match or surpass their own 8x10 workflows, and we are happy to help any photographer do this test on their own (see my first post).
That was my point Doug... In the best case, you would probably see marginally better results from scanned film, but that is so difficult to achieve in reality that in most cases, the direct digital workflow at 60MP is going to snuff it. Heck, the direct digital workflow at 39MP using MF optics snuffs the best LF film and scans most of the time . But, *IF* (or when) you do happen to get it all just right, scanned LF film is impressive -- unfortunately, that just doesn't happen very often even when you know what you're doing.
Cheers,
-
sorry if this seems to be a dead horse, but I guess I have to beat it again
I was talking this over with a close friend who has just gotten a used P45+ from ebay(actually from Calumet I believe, ex-rental back)
he really enjoys shooting portraits, and has been shooting 8x10 since school(art center, here in Pasadena) some years ago. recently, he's been asked to NOT shoot film, mostly due to turnaround issues(this being for editorial work mostly), but also because the quality of and 8x10 isn't needed. the cost of film, processing, and drum scans(he won't go near a flatbed with his film) seems to be a little too much for most budgets right now. so, he picked up his back for some insanely low price(~$9000 i believe), and so far, has really liked it.
but the one thing he said that he misses the most however is the extremely shallow DOF that he gets with the 8x10 capture. now, he generally shoots on color neg, so the res. of neg's aren't as good as chromes, or b/w(he shoots 400nc), but the shallow DOF(generally working at 5.6(wide open) or f/8 to minimize the background, and bring more attention to the face of the subject.
he has stated that he JUST can't get that in MF digital capture, straight out of the camera. he's currently using a H2f with the 100mm 2.2 lens, he considered trying the Contax, cause it has the 80mm f/2, but it isn't all that different from 2.2 really....
he doesn't print big, his portfolio is only printed at 11x17, so the 8x10 res isn't all that important, MAINLY the "look" of the extremely shallow DOF that he is able to achieve with the 8x10.
I'm just getting my feet wet with 8x10(b/w only right now, soon to be contact printing on AZO, silver chloride paper). I don't plan to shoot color for a while until I get used to the camera. Its easier though than 4x5, the bigger g/g makes things MUCH easier to focus, hell, I don't really even need a loupe most of the time!
so, its really a horses for courses thing here, some people like shooting 8x10/4x5, if it gets them WHAT THEY WANT. besides, its all about the END RESULT, right?
-Dan
merry christmas!!!!
-
sorry if this seems to be a dead horse, but I guess I have to beat it again
but the one thing he said that he misses the most however is the extremely shallow DOF that he gets with the 8x10 capture. now, he generally shoots on color neg, so the res. of neg's aren't as good as chromes, or b/w(he shoots 400nc), but the shallow DOF(generally working at 5.6(wide open) or f/8 to minimize the background, and bring more attention to the face of the subject.
he has stated that he JUST can't get that in MF digital capture, straight out of the camera. he's currently using a H2f with the 100mm 2.2 lens, he considered trying the Contax, cause it has the 80mm f/2, but it isn't all that different from 2.2 really....
he doesn't print big, his portfolio is only printed at 11x17, so the 8x10 res isn't all that important, MAINLY the "look" of the extremely shallow DOF that he is able to achieve with the 8x10.
its all about the END RESULT, right?
-Dan
merry christmas!!!!
One wonders if he could tolerate the changed perspective that the addition of a 13mm extension tube would add to his 100. Closer to focus but essentially much more shallow apparent DOF...
without the warping that an HTS would introduce.
Bob
-
Hi,
I'd guess that you may be a little optimistic on 40 lp/mm. Check for instance these MTF curves:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/...rL_56_210_2.pdf (http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/ApoSymmarL/ApoSymmarL_56_210_2.pdf)
Keep in mind that the curves are for 5, 10 and 20 lp/mm. The 40 lp/mm is not normally used for large format lenses. Add to that Velvia has about 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm.
So according to the MTF data from Schneider the APO Symmar is about 60% at 20 lp/mm, I cannot guess what it would be at 40 lp/mm, but let's assume 20%. Let's assume that Velvia has something like 60 % MTF at 40 lp/mm. So MTF for lens + film would be something like 12%, that doesn't make for very high quality pixels. Add to this all the factors Doug Peterson mentioned.
The MTF curves below are for a Schneider APO Digitar 100 mm, they are for 20, 40 and 60 lp/mm. Note especially that the APO Digitar performs at a similar level (on axis) at 40 lp/mm as the APO-Symmar at 20 lp/mm. The Hasselbald HC 120 mm Macro is similar to the Digitar, MTF data here: http://www.hasselblad.com/media/6432/hc_macro_120.pdf (http://www.hasselblad.com/media/6432/hc_macro_120.pdf) .
On the other hand:
Shooting small volume, getting hold of a decent 8x10 camera and scanning on a decent flatbed scanner it would probably be possible to achieve first class results.
Best regards
Erik
As already said, 4x5 or oven 8x10 isn't so much limited by the film or scanning like smaller film formats but by the shooting technique. Many large format users are used to stopping down beyond f22, using instable chinese wood-cameras or historic lenses. They're not looking for the maximum in resolution, their looking for a certain "look".
While on smaller film formats practical resolutions in the scanned file at about 60lp/mm (great lenses, perfect focus, oversampling scan resolution with REAL >4000ppi) are possible, even the best lenses for large format don't deliver the same amount of detail as Leica-lenses or Digitars (40lp/mm with over 70% contrast off-axis), especially not beyond f16-f22 due diffraction.
But I think with careful work, a stable full-metal camera, modern lenses @ f11-f16 and good film holders (like Sinar adhesive holders) you should achieve 40lp/mm "easily":
40lp/mm @ 4x5inch = 8000 x 10000 pixels = 80MP ("perfect pixels", not equal to MFDB-sensor-resolution)
40lp/mm @ 8x10inch = 16000 x 20000 pixels = 320MP
I've seen some large format photography shot with great technique- I'm sorry, they were beyond every digital solution available today. But am I willing to pay, carry and wait for those results? I don't know... But seeing a 8x10 Velvia on the light table...
-
I just saw an art gallery with prints 60 plus inches by Rodney Lough jr (http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/) in Vegas and 3 of the 50 or so images where shot on a phase back, the rest of the images where shot on 8x10 film and printed on Fuji paper. I have to say the 8x10 blew away the digital prints. I was amazed at the difference.
-
I just saw an art gallery with prints 60 plus inches by Rodney Lough jr (http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/) in Vegas and 3 of the 50 or so images where shot on a phase back, the rest of the images where shot on 8x10 film and printed on Fuji paper. I have to say the 8x10 blew away the digital prints. I was amazed at the difference.
Do you know which Phase back?
-
I just saw an art gallery with prints 60 plus inches by Rodney Lough jr (http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/) in Vegas and 3 of the 50 or so images where shot on a phase back, the rest of the images where shot on 8x10 film and printed on Fuji paper. I have to say the 8x10 blew away the digital prints. I was amazed at the difference.
Is it possible that he was just learning to work with the back and had years of experience with film? Maybe the next show will have 45 digital images and 5 film and the tables will be turned?
-
I've seen the portrait-work of Martin Schoeller shot with 8x10. Simply spectacular. It's nice to have the option for a fast technique, but I don't think you can simulate the look of 8x10 (especially low DoF) with digital yet. And it's propably one of the few things amateurs (clients/customers...) understand instead of giving them the feeling they could have done it themselves because they're private camera has the same amount of megapixels... It's not about cutting costs on film or processing but to offer something unique within the swamped market, something the clients are willing to pay for
-
I've seen the portrait-work of Martin Schoeller shot with 8x10. Simply spectacular. It's nice to have the option for a fast technique, but I don't think you can simulate the look of 8x10 (especially low DoF) with digital yet. And it's propably one of the few things amateurs (clients/customers...) understand instead of giving them the feeling they could have done it themselves because they're private camera has the same amount of megapixels... It's not about cutting costs on film or processing but to offer something unique within the swamped market, something the clients are willing to pay for
This is the best bokeh tool i was able to find... http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx (http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx)
-
Since this thread has been revived, I'll add a couple other FWIW comments...
I would agree that 8x10 has smoother tonality than just about anything else except 11x14 (). Also, I never mentioned the main reason I stopped shooting 8x10 -- cost. $8 per sheet for color neg or tranny and my lab charged $8 per sheet to process it. Now I had to scan it. Sure, I could do it on my Epson flatbed for a decent 16x20 print, but for anything more, I needed to pay for a 2400 DPI drumscan (2400 is right at about color film grain size)... 2400 DPI on 8x10 is a HUGE file, ~~ 460MP to be exact, and at 16-bit that meant roughly 2.7 *Gigs* per image. Working with 2.75 Gig files is not much fun, even with a big machine.
Then the hard reality was that any image quality advantages were pretty minor compared to the best direct digital options, then adding in cost and convenience, digital won hands down, at least for me.
I think if anybody today wants to shoot LF, then they should plan on processing themselves. And then IMO a 5x7 (or 5x8) camera with a 4x5 reducing back makes a pretty compelling kit as most of the lenses cross over between the formats.
-
BRING BACK TYPE 55!
(sorry, every now and again I have to say it)
-
Hi,
Lot of good points. I'd just add that you probably need drum scans to get really good quality from slide films, and those drum scans need a skilled operator.
Those 60 MP backs are quite expensive, tough...
Best regards
Erik
That was my point Doug... In the best case, you would probably see marginally better results from scanned film, but that is so difficult to achieve in reality that in most cases, the direct digital workflow at 60MP is going to snuff it. Heck, the direct digital workflow at 39MP using MF optics snuffs the best LF film and scans most of the time . But, *IF* (or when) you do happen to get it all just right, scanned LF film is impressive -- unfortunately, that just doesn't happen very often even when you know what you're doing.
Cheers,
-
BRING BACK TYPE 55!
(sorry, every now and again I have to say it)
Right! If they did that, I might even get myself another view camera.
Eric
-
I have one sitting gathering serious dust in a garage in another country, still waiting for that T55 to reappear.
-
What about tonality? I only have personal experience between 4X5 and FF DSLR but the difference was somewhat like a skyscraper and a shack. I assume that the same size ratio of imaging area would be true between the MFDB and 8X10 if not more exaggerated. Imaging area size is more than just pure resolution is it not?
Just being curious, how do you define these tonalities, what basic aspect of image quality are they derived from?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For most magazine work a drum scan is a waste. The web press is the great equalizer. Much of the front of book 4x5 and 8x10 stuff in mags like W and Interview is scanned on high end flat beds or maybe old Imacons. The main editorials are usually, but not always, drum scanned. All that is important in a magazine is the look of the shot, which always survives the web press.
For natural light people photography, I don't think anything looks like 8x10, or 4x5 even.
And to echo the sentiment I've seen in this thread: BRING BACK TYPE 55!!!!!
sorry if this seems to be a dead horse, but I guess I have to beat it again
I was talking this over with a close friend who has just gotten a used P45+ from ebay(actually from Calumet I believe, ex-rental back)
he really enjoys shooting portraits, and has been shooting 8x10 since school(art center, here in Pasadena) some years ago. recently, he's been asked to NOT shoot film, mostly due to turnaround issues(this being for editorial work mostly), but also because the quality of and 8x10 isn't needed. the cost of film, processing, and drum scans(he won't go near a flatbed with his film) seems to be a little too much for most budgets right now. so, he picked up his back for some insanely low price(~$9000 i believe), and so far, has really liked it.
but the one thing he said that he misses the most however is the extremely shallow DOF that he gets with the 8x10 capture. now, he generally shoots on color neg, so the res. of neg's aren't as good as chromes, or b/w(he shoots 400nc), but the shallow DOF(generally working at 5.6(wide open) or f/8 to minimize the background, and bring more attention to the face of the subject.
he has stated that he JUST can't get that in MF digital capture, straight out of the camera. he's currently using a H2f with the 100mm 2.2 lens, he considered trying the Contax, cause it has the 80mm f/2, but it isn't all that different from 2.2 really....
he doesn't print big, his portfolio is only printed at 11x17, so the 8x10 res isn't all that important, MAINLY the "look" of the extremely shallow DOF that he is able to achieve with the 8x10.
I'm just getting my feet wet with 8x10(b/w only right now, soon to be contact printing on AZO, silver chloride paper). I don't plan to shoot color for a while until I get used to the camera. Its easier though than 4x5, the bigger g/g makes things MUCH easier to focus, hell, I don't really even need a loupe most of the time!
so, its really a horses for courses thing here, some people like shooting 8x10/4x5, if it gets them WHAT THEY WANT. besides, its all about the END RESULT, right?
-Dan
merry christmas!!!!
-
Just being curious, how do you define these tonalities, what basic aspect of image quality are they derived from?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
IMO, "tonality" is simply related to the appearance of grain in film or noise in digital. After all, most people will say that the tonality of 8x10 is much better than 35mm (for film) even if the same film stock is used (say TMAX 100). Since digital noise is generally much less obvious than film grain, I think that digital captures will compare very well with film captures in terms of "tonality", even if the film area is significantly larger than the silicon area.
-
I've just purchased a P65+ back to replace my 8x10 which I have been shooting for years.
For the first time this year I exhibited large (120cm x 150cm) prints from 8x10 neg alongside stitched panoramic frames from the Sinar 75LV. The stitched prints were 120cm x 410cm. Because the images were stitched resolution was not really an issue but still pushing the prints that large tested the files.
Much of the work I have been producing uses large open skies and the one area the digital back 'killed' the 8x10 was in the reproduction of the smoothness and perfect gradation of the skies. The 8X10 rarely came close to this and many, many frames over the years were lost due to the 'uneven-ness' of the developing process. I tried many labs around the world to overcome this problem and all promised they could provide perfectly even developing. In the end Kodak's support steered me to Lightwaves in San Fransisco who did/do a great job - better than everyone else anyway, but there were always still some frames that showed mottling in the blank skies. The were also problems with the scanning which was done on a Creo Flatbed wet mounted. The low-contrast subjects I was shooting did not scan well at all and as the Creo used a 'stitching' system the lack of texture in the images often left scanning lines and steps in the gradations. I also tried traditional drum scans but once again there were 'imperfections' that showed up in the skies - small lines that would have been hidden in texture had there been any...
All these problems were eventually solved one way or another and had I stayed with the 8X10 I would have gone to processing my own film in a jobo but would not have enjoyed the re-exposure to the chemicals which I was happy to leave behind when my b&w darkroom days finished.
Shooting 8X10 involved importing the film to Sydney from New York (always with the worry of X-rays in the back of my mind). The film was then transported and shot in very harsh, dusty and salty environments (the large scans took my assistant at least a full day of spotting the scan to clean off the scratches and dust). The film then was couriered from Sydney to San Francisco, processed and couriered back with high cost, x-rays again and with risk of loss. All the film was then low-res scanned for proofing and then the finals scanned properly for exhibition.
After comparing MFDB and 8x10 in the last exhibition there was really little noticeable difference between the two. Some areas were better and worse on both systems. The gradation though in the digital files was simply beautiful and way ahead of the 8X10.
So now I've compared prints from the 2 systems on the wall I feel satisfied that the quality of the MFDB is comparable to the 8x10. It's at least at the point where the hassle and risk of the 8x10 process seems pointless.
This may sound strange, but the one aspect of shooting film I will miss is the natural 'constraint' placed on the image. The flexibility of the raw digital file and the new technologies can provide almost too many options. The film would often force me to a different place which then turned out to be better than I imagined. I had a sense that the image would 'find its own character'. But I guess its just a matter of learning to work with a new system.
Murray
-
"Again, in their own tests our customers are finding the XX to either match or surpass their own 8x10 workflows, and we are happy to help any photographer do this test on their own (see my first post)."
We are seeing the same results here in NY also. For some customers, not all, the quality is equal to or better than what they are getting now. Phase is just one solution. Camera back and camera system solutions from Hasselblad, Leaf, Seitz, and Sinar work just as well and are just as easy to use. As Doug has said we invite you to test and see for your self.
Best,
Rich Andres
Foto Care
-
Thanks, Murray, for the unbiased report from a pro who (apparently) doesn't have a vested interest one way or the other. Some truly stunning work on your site as well!
Now, if only MFDBs would cost less... I'll stick with my Mamiya C220 until the prices come down enough so I wouldn't have to sell my Harley to buy one
-
thanks everyone, and thank you Murray!
I really appreciate everyone's responses, even though I'm not the original poster, I've gotten a somewhat personal connection to this thread, being that a good friend of mine shoots 8x10, and has been struggling 'going digital'. in fact, he hasn't really wanted to go to a full digital process, rather, he'd prefer to have the hybrid process that he's been doing for the last few years.
I still like the darkroom for SOME things, definitely NOT everything, but somethings. Like going out to the beach for a day, shooting 3 or 4 rolls of Tri-X or Tmax(35mm or 120), coming home, grabbing a cold one out of the fridge(might end up being 2 sometimes ), and processing the film in the tub. So, to me, I find it relaxing, having known what I have on film, Knowing 100% what I got, before developing, and seeing those negs hang there to dry, I just can't get enough!!!!!
same thing with sheet film: you know your film stock and developer, and you get predictable results! For me(being a current photo student), I know I need to embrace digital capture, but money-wise, I'm not able to 'afford' the digi equipment yet. And somehow, I don't know if I want to yet, even if I could afford it.
maybe this will change when I'm shooting jobs for money, not just to make an instructor at school happy. but I am totally happy that I switched from digital(how I started 3 years ago) to film, because I've learned SOOOOOOO much about exposure, and mostly composition, and getting the picture RIGHT IN THE FILM, not in post. I personally HATE photoshop, but its a necessary tool. I still only do functions in photoshop that I could do manually in the darkroom(dodging, burning, color adjustment, etc...), so I force myself to be nitpicky about how I expose and develop the film, color or b/w.
but sitting in front of a computer while the film scans is a pain in the @s$!!!!!!
just my $.02
-Dan
-
Thanks, Murray, for the unbiased report from a pro who (apparently) doesn't have a vested interest one way or the other. Some truly stunning work on your site as well!
Now, if only MFDBs would cost less... I'll stick with my Mamiya C220 until the prices come down enough so I wouldn't have to sell my Harley to buy one
While waiting you can always upgrade to a C330.
-
Bernard, I'm probably going to do this badly as I'm not sure I can put it in words. Tonality to me (unlike the silly suggestion of film grain) is the way transitions are made from dark to light and within colours. The tonality of a 4X5 scan or a large stitched image for that matter where there is more sensor/film dedicated for each square inch of final image, especially when compared to a single 35mm shot of the same thing is incredible in its smoothness of transitions giving a far more lifelike, 3D and quality feel to an image. Taking a shot with a p&s alongside your D3X and just looking at the difference in smoothness of rendition of tones is sort of the idea that I'm looking to convey.
-
Hi,
Bernard knows what tonality means. Problem is that many of the terms used on this forums are not very well defined. I guess I'd agree with your description, but it's quite obvious from the response Bernard got that interpretations of terms differ.
Things get a bit worse when we want to have something that can be quantified or put in a formula.
Another issue is that there are some of us who want to understand why things work a certain way.Just as an example: It's not very obvious how size of film can affect tone curve, except for noise. It is pretty obvious that we can have less noise with a larger format, because it collects more photons. It's also pretty obvious that a larger format gives better resolution or a higher MTF for a given feature size, if all parameters except film size are kept constant. In real life other factors play a role, the person behind the camera is a major one.
Best regards
Erik
Bernard, I'm probably going to do this badly as I'm not sure I can put it in words. Tonality to me (unlike the silly suggestion of film grain) is the way transitions are made from dark to light and within colours. The tonality of a 4X5 scan or a large stitched image for that matter where there is more sensor/film dedicated for each square inch of final image, especially when compared to a single 35mm shot of the same thing is incredible in its smoothness of transitions giving a far more lifelike, 3D and quality feel to an image. Taking a shot with a p&s alongside your D3X and just looking at the difference in smoothness of rendition of tones is sort of the idea that I'm looking to convey.
-
Hi,
You may consider Lightroom (or Capture One) for your needs.
Best regards
Erik
thanks everyone, and thank you Murray!
I really appreciate everyone's responses, even though I'm not the original poster, I've gotten a somewhat personal connection to this thread, being that a good friend of mine shoots 8x10, and has been struggling 'going digital'. in fact, he hasn't really wanted to go to a full digital process, rather, he'd prefer to have the hybrid process that he's been doing for the last few years.
I still like the darkroom for SOME things, definitely NOT everything, but somethings. Like going out to the beach for a day, shooting 3 or 4 rolls of Tri-X or Tmax(35mm or 120), coming home, grabbing a cold one out of the fridge(might end up being 2 sometimes ), and processing the film in the tub. So, to me, I find it relaxing, having known what I have on film, Knowing 100% what I got, before developing, and seeing those negs hang there to dry, I just can't get enough!!!!!
same thing with sheet film: you know your film stock and developer, and you get predictable results! For me(being a current photo student), I know I need to embrace digital capture, but money-wise, I'm not able to 'afford' the digi equipment yet. And somehow, I don't know if I want to yet, even if I could afford it.
maybe this will change when I'm shooting jobs for money, not just to make an instructor at school happy. but I am totally happy that I switched from digital(how I started 3 years ago) to film, because I've learned SOOOOOOO much about exposure, and mostly composition, and getting the picture RIGHT IN THE FILM, not in post. I personally HATE photoshop, but its a necessary tool. I still only do functions in photoshop that I could do manually in the darkroom(dodging, burning, color adjustment, etc...), so I force myself to be nitpicky about how I expose and develop the film, color or b/w.
but sitting in front of a computer while the film scans is a pain in the @s$!!!!!!
just my $.02
-Dan
-
erik,
are you talking about C1 or Lightroom for file-management?
so far I've just be archiving film scans in file folders, similar to arranging various word docs that most people do every day,
just super organized .
job/assignmentname_dateshot_filename(ex. Living Room_GainerHouse)_filenumber
if I were shooting digital, I'd have capture one or lightroom auto-name files, but since I'm shooting film, I don't have to save EVERYTHING, just the final scans of the selected frames. so, in the end, less HD space used, and my negs/transparencies sit happily in their archival sleeves in cachet boxes in my closet(for now ).
all files redundant.. saved on desktop hd's (non-scratch disk of course) and in a 2nd backup drive I keep at my friends house. I'm thinking of doing a 3rd, and keeping it somewhere else, but it takes some time. And I'm not shooting prof. yet, I'm still a student. AND i have the film to re-scan if needed as well.
-Dan
-
Uhg. Is it that most posters are stuck in the MP, technology of latest rave, and what they sell??? Indeed there is more ;
What about tonality? I only have personal experience between 4X5 and FF DSLR but the difference was somewhat like a skyscraper and a shack. I assume that the same size ratio of imaging area would be true between the MFDB and 8X10 if not more exaggerated. Imaging area size is more than just pure resolution is it not?
As some of you likely recall I compared Mamiya ZD raw files to drum scans of Velvia 50 from Mamiya 7 some time back http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&pid=153583 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&mode=threaded&pid=153583)
On that merit, and now instead using a 28MP Leaf back, and of being new to 4x5 with Velvia 50, I can simply state that I am overwhelmed by the appearance of large format film. To my humble eyes (which are sensitive) the resolution of 28MP Leaf back compared to 4x5 Velvia appears to make my digital back a tad like a shack compared to a skysraper... Not only that, Fuji Quickloads are cheap in comparison.
Yet, there is more to the difference, the rendering of digital vs. film is very different. It sure makes me wonder many times why I as an amateur have a $$$ digital back in my possession, and not stuck and shot more with film...
In terms of resolution, you may stitch three, six or more digital captures to achieve 4x5 or 8x10 film resolution, but IMHO, it's difficult for MFDB to achieve the tonality of large size films. I had extensively compared a Phase One P25 and briefly a P45 with 4x5 early this year, and now I decide to go back to film for this particular reason. Sorry my financial capability won't allow me to try a P65+.
The constant comparing of dslr vs mfdb, and now in posts here even dslr compared to 8x10 is tad pathetic. Photography is a loads of more than just pixels and gear. Murray Fredricks posted above, and I looked up his website. Indeed very, very impressive photos with a Leaf Digital Back. Same time my observation is that those photos demonstrate one use for landscape at which a digital back can excel. As for the traditional type of landscape photography, e.g. such as by Jack Dykinga I am not at all convinced that a digital back prevails, actually in situations of capturing strong light in golden hours I feel rather convinced that slide film provide a much superior rendering. Digital and film are two complete different medias with complete differing renderings. One need to consider if digital is actually correct for ones use. Personally, I remain being struck by landscapes photos made with large format and medium format film more than I am by digital. Simply the rendering of light and colors of Velvia 50 is amazing. Also, very few know how to delicately adjust and process landscape photos to very high quality levels, as compared to what is done for portraits. Frankly speaking, indeed to reach very high quality levels for digital landscape photography it takes alot more than a dslr and CS4/Lightroom. Gear wise a quality digital back such as Leaf or P1 is superior to dslr, yet more so, with ditgital so much of the of rendering is placed into hands of the photographer, and frankly speaking most common is that the adjusted renderings do not have the naturally looking enhancements of the landscapes as film does. I believe painted art can teach us some.
Further, I wish to also express that discussion of digital back or dslr replacing film is tad pathetic, since that places all focus on digital technology and pixel peeping. Film and digital are simply different tools. As for what MP equals film, that argument has been going on for years...
For 3.1MP being claimed equal to 35mm Provia 100 - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d30/d30.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30.shtml)
For 6MP being claimed equal to slight less than 6x7 slide film - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003)
Indeed the whole business wish us to believe that digital is superior (they wish to SELL)... is digital superior for landscape photography really, for I assume that is what 8x10 is used for? I suggest an experiment: take a look at books of landscape photography, is there any with digital that even come near the ones which were made to the top notch level using slide film? I have found none. My latest addition is "Transient Light: A Photographic Guide to Capturing the Medium" by Ian Cameron. Flipping throw it the images indeed are impressive. They were all shot with Pentax 6x7 SLR and Fuji Velvia 50, apparent scanned on a Nikon 120 film scanner...
Above stated, my Aptus 65 digital back is stellar and one I am very pleased with. The downside is lots of weight due to the Mamiya 645 system, and that it does not replace film or vice versa. Film days was much simpler and lighter weight.
Above my humble view to share.
Anders
-
Hi,
It seems that you don't like Photoshop. The stuff you say you do can be done much easier in Lightroom than in Photoshop. In addition Lightroom has been developed by photographers for photographers. Photoshop was more intended for the graphics business.
I have not really used C1, tried it a few times. RAW-engine is probably better than in LR.
Best regards
Erik
erik,
are you talking about C1 or Lightroom for file-management?
so far I've just be archiving film scans in file folders, similar to arranging various word docs that most people do every day,
just super organized .
job/assignmentname_dateshot_filename(ex. Living Room_GainerHouse)_filenumber
if I were shooting digital, I'd have capture one or lightroom auto-name files, but since I'm shooting film, I don't have to save EVERYTHING, just the final scans of the selected frames. so, in the end, less HD space used, and my negs/transparencies sit happily in their archival sleeves in cachet boxes in my closet(for now ).
all files redundant.. saved on desktop hd's (non-scratch disk of course) and in a 2nd backup drive I keep at my friends house. I'm thinking of doing a 3rd, and keeping it somewhere else, but it takes some time. And I'm not shooting prof. yet, I'm still a student. AND i have the film to re-scan if needed as well.
-Dan
-
Bernard, I'm probably going to do this badly as I'm not sure I can put it in words. Tonality to me (unlike the silly suggestion of film grain) is the way transitions are made from dark to light and within colours. The tonality of a 4X5 scan or a large stitched image for that matter where there is more sensor/film dedicated for each square inch of final image, especially when compared to a single 35mm shot of the same thing is incredible in its smoothness of transitions giving a far more lifelike, 3D and quality feel to an image. Taking a shot with a p&s alongside your D3X and just looking at the difference in smoothness of rendition of tones is sort of the idea that I'm looking to convey.
Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain. It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.
I think you've basically admitted that if you compare two equal-sized images, one enlarged from 8x10 and the other from 35mm (both using the same emulsion), then the enlargement from 8x10 will have smoother tonality than the one from 35mm. So, if not the appearance of film grain, then please tell me exactly what it is that causes the apparent difference in tonality?
In particular, lets consider that both images are of cloudless featureless sky. The average density of the two printed images, as measured by a reflection densitometer, will be exactly the same. The only difference will be the different degree of blotchiness caused by film grain being enlarged to a different amount, will it not?
-
Hi,
I have set up a small collection of links on my web-page relating to DSLR and MFDB and film:
http://83.177.178.7/ekr/index.php/photoart...vs-mfdb-vs-film (http://83.177.178.7/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/25-dslr-vs-mfdb-vs-film)
I'd particularly recommend this one:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
None of these articles discusses 8x10" but several are discussing 4x5 vs MFDB.
I'm not shooting either. Mostly I used Pentax 67 MF before going digital, now I'm on DSLR. One reason I'm interested in this is that I'm interested in the theory behind imaging.
Best regards
Erik
I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB. The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.
But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB? I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10. For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.
Does such a study exist?
Thank you!
PS. Not really interested in articles comparing prints (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.
-
My personal opinion is that tonality is related to the sensor size amoung other things. Light doesn't look as good through a smaller area.
Bill
[quote name='brianc1959' date='Dec 28 2009, 11:23 PM' post='336167']
Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain. It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.
...
-
Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain. It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.
I think you've basically admitted that if you compare two equal-sized images, one enlarged from 8x10 and the other from 35mm (both using the same emulsion), then the enlargement from 8x10 will have smoother tonality than the one from 35mm. So, if not the appearance of film grain, then please tell me exactly what it is that causes the apparent difference in tonality?
In particular, lets consider that both images are of cloudless featureless sky. The average density of the two printed images, as measured by a reflection densitometer, will be exactly the same. The only difference will be the different degree of blotchiness caused by film grain being enlarged to a different amount, will it not?
At least some film types are different between the different formats. For 35mm, the lenses and some films are developed to enhance sharpness (via increased contrast, etc.), since sharpness was always an issue with the smaller formats. I find the larger formats more relaxed, although I am not sure how to explain that. The lens designs and the films do not need to emphasize sharpness, since the size of the capture medium is so large. LF lenses are very simple designs compared to 35mm, and this has an impact in the images which is immediately obvious. The 3D look (yeah, let's not start that discussion again), the gentle roll-off of sharpness, and so on.
-
Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain. It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.
I think you've basically admitted that if you compare two equal-sized images, one enlarged from 8x10 and the other from 35mm (both using the same emulsion), then the enlargement from 8x10 will have smoother tonality than the one from 35mm. So, if not the appearance of film grain, then please tell me exactly what it is that causes the apparent difference in tonality?
In particular, lets consider that both images are of cloudless featureless sky. The average density of the two printed images, as measured by a reflection densitometer, will be exactly the same. The only difference will be the different degree of blotchiness caused by film grain being enlarged to a different amount, will it not?
I specifically explained what I meant by tonality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with film grain. The more imaging area dedicated to any specific part of the image, the more defrentiation between tones and colours can be accomplished. A cloudless featureless sky has only one tone (ish) and as such is irrelevant. Take an image with transitions between dark and light and transitions in colour, one with a larger imaging area than the other and the larger imaging area will have smoother, more pleasing and more accurate transitions between the tones as well as showing transitions that will just not exist in the image from the smaller imaging area. Note that I haven't mentioned grain or resolution once.
I did have test shots demonstrating this in the past between a 5D shot and a 5D stitched on the back of a 'Camera Fusion' adaptor to make a 200 megapixel file. Yes the jump in resolution was large, but the tonality difference was breathtaking. Same camera - just using more imaging area for each part of the image. Instead of using 20 pixels square to describe the transition between light and dark in a given area of the image - using 6 MEGAPIXELS worth of a FF chip. Abrupt tonality is not the fault of grain blotchiness, it's due to not having enough pixels or film area to accurately describe the transition between areas of light and dark or the subtle differences in the transition between colours.
I do not know how this translates to incredible pixel counts such as on the P65+ which is why I asked my original question, how does the tonality compare?
Just a note for people, I've never used or played seriously with the file of a MFDB. I have shot T55 (I kinda stuck with one film) and used the Camera Fusion adaptor on 4x5 as well as my current stitching work shown in the link in my sig. I'm not comparing 35mm to 4X5 in any way other than to give an exaggerated example of differences in tonality based on imaging area.
-
I think that part of the difference (at least between small and large film, but probably applies to sensors) is an effect of micro-contrast. Part of this is lens resolution, but part is grain/noise and an ability of film to differentiate between small local contrast points, like specular reflections on a dark leaf. As the contrasted areas become smaller, the grain would tend to obscure the definition. On film, there is also an issue of infectious development that can reduce micro contrast and detail. Larger film reduces this problem. There is some debate, but developers like Pyro can create edge effects that increase perceived sharpness and micro-contrast. Being more linear than film, I would think that digital would show this mico-contrast differently, and have a different look than film with its curve. However, with curves applied, digital should look similar in theory. On the other hand, some digital systems have issues with very high micro contrast and can have weird edge effects that don't happen with film.
I have a 16M hassy back and find that it is great for smooth gradations, especially out of focus areas due to being pretty "grainless" (pixelless?), but is not as resolving as LF. I would love to try a very hi-res back.
On a different point, while I have no scientific basis for this, I always find that prints from 8x10 can look sort of hyper-real, since they seem to me to present more resolving power than the human eye (e.g. a life size portrait where you see every skin pore or vein in the eye), while 4x5 doesn't seem to do this for me. i have not yet seen prints from high megapixel backs to see if this effect still is there.
-
I specifically explained what I meant by tonality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with film grain. The more imaging area dedicated to any specific part of the image, the more defrentiation between tones and colours can be accomplished. A cloudless featureless sky has only one tone (ish) and as such is irrelevant. Take an image with transitions between dark and light and transitions in colour, one with a larger imaging area than the other and the larger imaging area will have smoother, more pleasing and more accurate transitions between the tones as well as showing transitions that will just not exist in the image from the smaller imaging area. Note that I haven't mentioned grain or resolution once.
I did have test shots demonstrating this in the past between a 5D shot and a 5D stitched on the back of a 'Camera Fusion' adaptor to make a 200 megapixel file. Yes the jump in resolution was large, but the tonality difference was breathtaking. Same camera - just using more imaging area for each part of the image. Instead of using 20 pixels square to describe the transition between light and dark in a given area of the image - using 6 MEGAPIXELS worth of a FF chip. Abrupt tonality is not the fault of grain blotchiness, it's due to not having enough pixels or film area to accurately describe the transition between areas of light and dark or the subtle differences in the transition between colours.
I do not know how this translates to incredible pixel counts such as on the P65+ which is why I asked my original question, how does the tonality compare?
Just a note for people, I've never used or played seriously with the file of a MFDB. I have shot T55 (I kinda stuck with one film) and used the Camera Fusion adaptor on 4x5 as well as my current stitching work shown in the link in my sig. I'm not comparing 35mm to 4X5 in any way other than to give an exaggerated example of differences in tonality based on imaging area.
OK, so you're saying that very low spatial frequencies - such as the very slowly varying tone of clear blue sky - are irrelevant when thinking about tonality. I completely disagree. This slowly varying tone - and the ability of the capture medium to faithfully record it - is an excellent measure of tonality. An image of the sky is not just a single tone - it should be a very smooth gradation of tone. If you are thinking that a higher spatial frequency is needed to define tonality, then what is that spatial frequency?
-
I'm not going to argue the physics because I have zero background in the field.
I only know what I've seen and that is with digital vs digital (heck same camera) through stitching. At iso 100 there is zero noise but the tonality is as different as it was with 35mm vs 4X5 film. Sorry I can't help any further, I just don't know enough to argue this using the correct terms and math. I only know what I've seen for myself.
-
excellent points, anders.
Uhg. Is it that most posters are stuck in the MP, technology of latest rave, and what they sell??? Indeed there is more ;
As some of you likely recall I compared Mamiya ZD raw files to drum scans of Velvia 50 from Mamiya 7 some time back http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&pid=153583 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&mode=threaded&pid=153583)
On that merit, and now instead using a 28MP Leaf back, and of being new to 4x5 with Velvia 50, I can simply state that I am overwhelmed by the appearance of large format film. To my humble eyes (which are sensitive) the resolution of 28MP Leaf back compared to 4x5 Velvia appears to make my digital back a tad like a shack compared to a skysraper... Not only that, Fuji Quickloads are cheap in comparison.
Yet, there is more to the difference, the rendering of digital vs. film is very different. It sure makes me wonder many times why I as an amateur have a $$$ digital back in my possession, and not stuck and shot more with film...
The constant comparing of dslr vs mfdb, and now in posts here even dslr compared to 8x10 is tad pathetic. Photography is a loads of more than just pixels and gear. Murray Fredricks posted above, and I looked up his website. Indeed very, very impressive photos with a Leaf Digital Back. Same time my observation is that those photos demonstrate one use for landscape at which a digital back can excel. As for the traditional type of landscape photography, e.g. such as by Jack Dykinga I am not at all convinced that a digital back prevails, actually in situations of capturing strong light in golden hours I feel rather convinced that slide film provide a much superior rendering. Digital and film are two complete different medias with complete differing renderings. One need to consider if digital is actually correct for ones use. Personally, I remain being struck by landscapes photos made with large format and medium format film more than I am by digital. Simply the rendering of light and colors of Velvia 50 is amazing. Also, very few know how to delicately adjust and process landscape photos to very high quality levels, as compared to what is done for portraits. Frankly speaking, indeed to reach very high quality levels for digital landscape photography it takes alot more than a dslr and CS4/Lightroom. Gear wise a quality digital back such as Leaf or P1 is superior to dslr, yet more so, with ditgital so much of the of rendering is placed into hands of the photographer, and frankly speaking most common is that the adjusted renderings do not have the naturally looking enhancements of the landscapes as film does. I believe painted art can teach us some.
Further, I wish to also express that discussion of digital back or dslr replacing film is tad pathetic, since that places all focus on digital technology and pixel peeping. Film and digital are simply different tools. As for what MP equals film, that argument has been going on for years...
For 3.1MP being claimed equal to 35mm Provia 100 - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d30/d30.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30.shtml)
For 6MP being claimed equal to slight less than 6x7 slide film - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003)
Indeed the whole business wish us to believe that digital is superior (they wish to SELL)... is digital superior for landscape photography really, for I assume that is what 8x10 is used for? I suggest an experiment: take a look at books of landscape photography, is there any with digital that even come near the ones which were made to the top notch level using slide film? I have found none. My latest addition is "Transient Light: A Photographic Guide to Capturing the Medium" by Ian Cameron. Flipping throw it the images indeed are impressive. They were all shot with Pentax 6x7 SLR and Fuji Velvia 50, apparent scanned on a Nikon 120 film scanner...
Above stated, my Aptus 65 digital back is stellar and one I am very pleased with. The downside is lots of weight due to the Mamiya 645 system, and that it does not replace film or vice versa. Film days was much simpler and lighter weight.
Above my humble view to share.
Anders
-
In the past ~5 months since my original post I have used my Canham 4x5 and Ebony 8x10 alongside my Phase One P45+ (and often a friend's P65+) for various personal art projects. My work is not landscape (so my observations will differ from Murray's), rather more akin to staged/posed scenes involving models (and still life) in controlled natural and artificial light.
Color and BW negs, as well as slides, are Howtek 7500 scanned and printed via Inkjet to 40x50 or larger. I develop the BW myself and ship out color film to a not-so-local lab. Phase One files are printed with the same Epson.
No question, prints from the P65+ and p45+ are stunning in terms of sharpness/detail, particularly when the longer lenses were used. Some have involved extensive stitching and/or blending, others not. I won't go into my major issues with color rendition and the general artificial/digitized look I perceive. I've spend hundreds and hundreds of hours attempting unsuccessfully to get the "feel" of films like Portra. I have finally resigned myself to this vain pursuit to emulate film and now am OK with the digital "look" for certain projects.
Prints from LF, when everything goes right, are truly in a class of their own. I am uncertain whether digital technology will ever be able to reproduce the creamy, difficult to define/quantify lively look of sheet film for certain applications. There is something magical how light interacts with silver halide. Film satisfies my aesthetic preferences.
Digital certainly has it's own look. Perhaps in the future after I have become accustomed to it I will embrace it. If I were a commercial photographer, maybe I would use digital 90% of the time due to it's efficiency. It is time consuming, and often incredibly testing, to work with sheet film. On the other hand, I like how it slows down my already hectic enough life.
There is no definitive answer, as we all know. It comes down to the look you, and you alone, want. I have certainly learned a great deal by using both formats. Cheers to all.
-
Hi,
Not that I disagree, some points...
To some extent, micro contrast you are talking about is MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) it simply measures how much of the contrast is kept for for detail of different size. MTF is decreasing as detail size diminishes. MTF is also limited by diffraction which is a law of physics, so lens designers cannot do anything about it.
Now:
Feature size (which is measured in lp/mm) is depending on film/sensor size. So larger sensors/film has larger feature size. The fall of on MTF with decreasing detail size is different between lenses. In general lenses designed for smaller formats are better designs, they need to be to get the best from the small format.
Very good lenses can be made for large formats, but costs can be astronomical (think about "Hubble Space Telescope").
We can say that increasing the film/sensor format we will increase feature size, thus edge contrast would increase with format would all being equal. Now, things are not equal. Lenses for small formats like Hasselblad and Schneider digital lenses are extremely sharp, having perhaps an advantage of two regarding MTF at say 40 lp/mm over larger format lenses. This explains, in part, while it seems that MFDBs are said to match 4x5".
MTF at medium frequencies can be enhanced by sharpening. Certain developers achieve something called the "adjacency effect boost" which also acts as sharpening. Adjacency effect boost essentially depends on depletion of the developer, causing diffusion of developer from the less exposed areas to the more exposed areas. This effect is dependent on developer and development techniques. This is very similar to sharpening, and affects low and medium frequencies. Edge contrast is enhanced but resolution is not affected.
A good explanation is here: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html)
Digital image processing involves a lot of sharpening. Every stage of the image process does have an MTF.
1) Lens
2) Film/developer
3) Enlarging lens
4) Photographic paper
In the digital world they would be:
1) Lens
2) Sensor
3) Printer
With digital we always apply sharpening between each step, which mean that we can regain a great deal of MTF. This may also help MFDBs to match 4x5".
An issue with film is grain and noise. Even if we scan film we cannot enhance sharpness as much as with digital, because we would also enhance grain. Good sharpening technique can enhance sharpness without increasing grain to much, "Real World Image Sharpening by Bruce Frazer and Jeff Schewe" contains a wealth of information on this.
One issue that comes to mind is that 135 and MF lenses are normally very well corrected. Highly corrected lenses often have a less than optimal "bokeh", some authors talk about overcorrecting spherical aberration can cause bad bookeh. As large format lenses are normally not very highly corrected they may tend to a better bookeh. Also the sharpening applied to digital images may make the edges harder.
One issue of grain is that it can actually improve impression of sharpness:
1) Gives the eye something to focus on
2) Can mask minor unsharpness
A final factor that may come into effect is that MFDBs don't have a OLP (optical low pass filter). The lack of OLP will result in some false detail, which can be perceived as extra sharpness. It's a guess that "digital photographers" like the effect of sharpening and the effects caused by the lack of aliasing filter while analogue photographers appreciate a different sort of imaging, with possibly higher resolution but less edge contrast.
Best regards
Erik
I think that part of the difference (at least between small and large film, but probably applies to sensors) is an effect of micro-contrast. Part of this is lens resolution, but part is grain/noise and an ability of film to differentiate between small local contrast points, like specular reflections on a dark leaf. As the contrasted areas become smaller, the grain would tend to obscure the definition. On film, there is also an issue of infectious development that can reduce micro contrast and detail. Larger film reduces this problem. There is some debate, but developers like Pyro can create edge effects that increase perceived sharpness and micro-contrast. Being more linear than film, I would think that digital would show this mico-contrast differently, and have a different look than film with its curve. However, with curves applied, digital should look similar in theory. On the other hand, some digital systems have issues with very high micro contrast and can have weird edge effects that don't happen with film.
I have a 16M hassy back and find that it is great for smooth gradations, especially out of focus areas due to being pretty "grainless" (pixelless?), but is not as resolving as LF. I would love to try a very hi-res back.
On a different point, while I have no scientific basis for this, I always find that prints from 8x10 can look sort of hyper-real, since they seem to me to present more resolving power than the human eye (e.g. a life size portrait where you see every skin pore or vein in the eye), while 4x5 doesn't seem to do this for me. i have not yet seen prints from high megapixel backs to see if this effect still is there.
-
Erik,
Just scanning through your post... and ending grabbing two issues that you touch on and that are simply not correct;
1. MF lenses versus large format. My Schneider 72XL appear to beat all my Mamiya 645 lenses except perhaps my Mamiya 28mm! I am not sure which of those two is sharpest. Withe the 72XL my Aptus was mounted on my Burmease teak Shen-Hao 4x5. Even my Rodenstock 150 Sironar-N appear to equally outdo most my Mamiya lenses... It goes to show that what LF companies claims of that we need digital LF lenses is not necessarily true! Lets att that the 72XL has a 229mm image circle...
2. Sharpening. A digital back simply do NOT need the sharpening that a file from a dslr. Yes, the lack of AA but also a different type and a very quality sensor on a MFDB, in particular the Dalsa sensors.
Apart from these, I think I already made my points in post above, focus on MP and analyzing it leads to nowhere. There is difference between rendering from dslr, mfdb and film. Take a look at landscape photo books as I suggested... any with digital images to beat those of Jack Dykinga?
Rgds
Hi,
Not that I disagree, some points...
To some extent, micro contrast you are talking about is MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) it simply measures how much of the contrast is kept for for detail of different size. MTF is decreasing as detail size diminishes. MTF is also limited by diffraction which is a law of physics, so lens designers cannot do anything about it.
Now:
Feature size (which is measured in lp/mm) is depending on film/sensor size. So larger sensors/film has larger feature size. The fall of on MTF with decreasing detail size is different between lenses. In general lenses designed for smaller formats are better designs, they need to be to get the best from the small format.
Very good lenses can be made for large formats, but costs can be astronomical (think about "Hubble Space Telescope").
We can say that increasing the film/sensor format we will increase feature size, thus edge contrast would increase with format would all being equal. Now, things are not equal. Lenses for small formats like Hasselblad and Schneider digital lenses are extremely sharp, having perhaps an advantage of two regarding MTF at say 40 lp/mm over larger format lenses. This explains, in part, while it seems that MFDBs are said to match 4x5".
MTF at medium frequencies can be enhanced by sharpening. Certain developers achieve something called the "adjacency effect boost" which also acts as sharpening. Adjacency effect boost essentially depends on depletion of the developer, causing diffusion of developer from the less exposed areas to the more exposed areas. This effect is dependent on developer and development techniques. This is very similar to sharpening, and affects low and medium frequencies. Edge contrast is enhanced but resolution is not affected.
A good explanation is here: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html)
Digital image processing involves a lot of sharpening. Every stage of the image process does have an MTF.
1) Lens
2) Film/developer
3) Enlarging lens
4) Photographic paper
In the digital world they would be:
1) Lens
2) Sensor
3) Printer
With digital we always apply sharpening between each step, which mean that we can regain a great deal of MTF. This may also help MFDBs to match 4x5".
An issue with film is grain and noise. Even if we scan film we cannot enhance sharpness as much as with digital, because we would also enhance grain. Good sharpening technique can enhance sharpness without increasing grain to much, "Real World Image Sharpening by Bruce Frazer and Jeff Schewe" contains a wealth of information on this.
One issue that comes to mind is that 135 and MF lenses are normally very well corrected. Highly corrected lenses often have a less than optimal "bokeh", some authors talk about overcorrecting spherical aberration can cause bad bookeh. As large format lenses are normally not very highly corrected they may tend to a better bookeh. Also the sharpening applied to digital images may make the edges harder.
One issue of grain is that it can actually improve impression of sharpness:
1) Gives the eye something to focus on
2) Can mask minor unsharpness
A final factor that may come into effect is that MFDBs don't have a OLP (optical low pass filter). The lack of OLP will result in some false detail, which can be perceived as extra sharpness. It's a guess that "digital photographers" like the effect of sharpening and the effects caused by the lack of aliasing filter while analogue photographers appreciate a different sort of imaging, with possibly higher resolution but less edge contrast.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Anders,
I have a couple of issues with your comments.
1) Please don't forget that original posting was about 8x10" film. That format has an image circle of 325 mm (nominally, calculated from 8x10 inch size) so the XL lens you have would not cover it.
2) I don't know which 72XL lens you have, I have downloaded the MTF curves for for the Schneider 72XL lens:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/..._xl_56_72_2.pdf (http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/super-angulon/super-angulon_xl_56_72_2.pdf)
Please note that the MTF figures are here for 5, 10, and 20 lp/mm.
The corresponding curves for the Schneider APO Digitar 24/5.6 are here:
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/foto_e/d...R47815_2CIE.pdf (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/foto_e/dig/pdf/TD_AP_56_24_R47815_2CIE.pdf)
Note that the curves are for 15, 30 and 60 lp/mm. So the most valid comparison would be to compare the top (15 lp/mm) line on the "Digitar" with the bottom line (20 lp/mm) on the 72 XL.
Admittedly, the APO Digitars are top of the class, but Hasselblad is certainly having pretty good lenses in the HC-series and Phase One is migrating to very high quality lenses, too.
3) I presume that you are comparing center sharpness between your Mamiya and your 72XL and that is a perfectly valid comparison, but I'd presume that our potential 8x10 buyer would be interested in having superior sharpness across the whole image.
4) Regarding the sharpening issue:
- All digital image processing involves sharpning
- The optimal amount of sharpening varies with equipment
I was not discussing DSLRs at all in my post. The point of the discussion was entirely MFDB and up.
Many large format photographers progressed from LF-film to digital. Charlie Cramer has done that and wrote about the experience here on LL. Joseph Holmes had also a lengthy discussion converting from LF-film to digital.
So, sorry, I actually think that my writing is correct. Why does it differ from what you see? I don't know!
As a comment on the side, I have noticed that you and I have a tendency to have opposite viewpoints, sorry for that, I have great respect for both your writing and your photographs. Michael Reichmann had an interview and a shooting section with Jack Dykinga in llVJ 18, very interesting.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Just scanning through your post... and ending grabbing two issues that you touch on and that are simply not correct;
1. MF lenses versus large format. My Schneider 72XL appear to beat all my Mamiya 645 lenses except perhaps my Mamiya 28mm! I am not sure which of those two is sharpest. Withe the 72XL my Aptus was mounted on my Burmease teak Shen-Hao 4x5. Even my Rodenstock 150 Sironar-N appear to equally outdo most my Mamiya lenses... It goes to show that what LF companies claims of that we need digital LF lenses is not necessarily true! Lets att that the 72XL has a 229mm image circle...
2. Sharpening. A digital back simply do NOT need the sharpening that a file from a dslr. Yes, the lack of AA but also a different type and a very quality sensor on a MFDB, in particular the Dalsa sensors.
Apart from these, I think I already made my points in post above, focus on MP and analyzing it leads to nowhere. There is difference between rendering from dslr, mfdb and film. Take a look at landscape photo books as I suggested... any with digital images to beat those of Jack Dykinga?
Rgds
-
I went to Rodney Lough Jr's new gallery in the "City Center" on the strip in Vegas the other day and got to talk with him for about 45 minutes, on this issue. He had two images he stitched together with the P65 (5 images with little overlap to a 6 foot panorama). We scrutinized the fine detail there. Then we scrutinized his 10 foot panorama that was cropped from a 8x10 transparency and drum scanned. We both concluded from the areas we looked at that the 8x10 (cropped) was noticeable better in fine detail. The Hasselblad with the P65 exceeded 200 Mega Pixels (before interpolation) and might have been more in the 300 range. Both the digital and the film were developed with top notch skills. Both were printed on Fuji Flex at 300 ppi using the Light-jet.
As a "digital guy" this stunned me. I am now adding LF to the mix!
-
Why we still see nowdays most of the world top class photographers who work big prints using exclusively LF film? Why? Because there are all old fashion and stupid?
These guys have all the money and the best technicians and laboratories.
So again, why don't they switch to digital now?
I would like to know the answer.
Fred.
-
Why we still see nowdays most of the world top class photographers who work big prints using exclusively LF film? Why? Because there are all old fashion and stupid?
These guys have all the money and the best technicians and laboratories.
So again, why don't they switch to digital now?
I would like to know the answer.
Why do people buy hand made John Lobbs shoes? Branding, marketing, old world craftsmanship. Forget what the final output maybe... if you want to be famous then you have to create brand awareness around what your doing as well has your output. Why do you think all these people advertise the camera's they use? Because they are hard to use and hard to acquire as in the case of Luminous Landscape it is a p65+.
Keep in mind that art and fashion go hand in hand. There are connections, friends in the business, family money, protocol, sweaters and tea, you get the idea. As always there are exceptions but they are rare.
The art gallery buying public love's nutcases. If you spend crazing amounts of money, or go on year long escapades, or use crazy methods they love you all the more. Everyone else is shooting typically for volume commercial work. Not these one-off Steve Fossett type scenarios.
So if you want to join the ranks of Soth and others create a back story about yourself... how you were driven to tell the story about this or that and you waited 30 days in the cold for the light to be just right or you slept in a cardboard box for a year and you use an 8x10 or a p65+ all by yourself in your lonely tortured world just to express to the rest of us why your so tortured... then you can be a true artist to the gallery clubs.
-
fred,
shooting LF is MUCH more labor-intensive than going "point, click, "hmmm, a little brighter would be nice" ".
but the results are worth it.
those "old farts" who still shoot LF film are going to be around for a while, especially since there is a new generation(myself included, I'm 21) who are starting to pick up used 4x5 and 8x10 equipment, and seeing that they can AFFORD to shoot LF film(even though its expensive to most people my age), but 99% can't afford a P65+, or the finest lenses to match it to in order to take advantage of all that sensor has to offer.
most large shops(B&H, Samy's(to an extent), Adorama, FotoImpex(DE), and Calumet) still stock LF film regularly, even though the demand is WAAAY down from what it was even 2-3 years ago.
different strokes for different folks, but spending $2k to get up and running with some FINE 8x10 or 4x5 equipment is small change compared to $40-60k to get a digital setup(even at used prices) that can get close to the detail that a 4x5 or 8x10 transparency(or negative if done well) can produce.
yes, the LF is heavier to carry, but that's what you do instead of getting a gym membership .
besides, the turnover rate of digital(if you want to stay with the latest and greatest technology), you'll have to either sell a LOT of prints, or teach workshops where you're full to the brim with people wanting to see how you shoot. or if you're just rich, that nixes both previous suggestions .
8x10 and 4x5 doesn't just have the 'sharpness' down, but it has a certain look that even MF digital can't really tackle head on(movements mainly)
-Dan
-
Lu-La is a great place! I like the expressions used to argue. I do not agree with Pcunite but have to say that his style and images made me laugh. I respect your arguments and do not feel concerned as I'm not tortured at all since the end of my teenage and do not plan to talk to the world about how bad I feel.
I learn more english expressions here than in my all english studdies and it's a lot of fun and pleasure for me to read you.
Daniel, I agree 100% what you said. I'm in about the same situation as yours ( although a little older ).
Yes, nice and healphy to see a new generation of LF users.
Fred.
-
yes, the LF is heavier to carry, but that's what you do instead of getting a gym membership
My 8x10 camera only weighs 3,4 kg -not that much more than a full frame DSLR outfit. Modern 4x5 cameras are actually lighter than Canon or Nikon's top models...
-
This is what I said earlier in this thread regarding Rodney Lough Jr's gallery. I did not know at the time he shot with the P65 but next to the film prints, it did not stand up.
Just because CD's are newer then vinyl, the old vinyl still sounds better
I went to Rodney Lough Jr's new gallery in the "City Center" on the strip in Vegas the other day and got to talk with him for about 45 minutes, on this issue. He had two images he stitched together with the P65 (5 images with little overlap to a 6 foot panorama). We scrutinized the fine detail there. Then we scrutinized his 10 foot panorama that was cropped from a 8x10 transparency and drum scanned. We both concluded from the areas we looked at that the 8x10 (cropped) was noticeable better in fine detail. The Hasselblad with the P65 exceeded 200 Mega Pixels (before interpolation) and might have been more in the 300 range. Both the digital and the film were developed with top notch skills. Both were printed on Fuji Flex at 300 ppi using the Light-jet.
As a "digital guy" this stunned me. I am now adding LF to the mix!
-
My 8x10 camera only weighs 3,4 kg -not that much more than a full frame DSLR outfit. Modern 4x5 cameras are actually lighter than Canon or Nikon's top models...
ya, unfortunately, my Sinar 4x5 is a 'bit' too heavy to trek TOO far into the hills with . but the movements it gives me when I do still life keep it in my arsenal, for now.
I've been re-thinking selling most of my gear(including the sinar) and going with an 8x10 deardorff, or light(er)-weight 8x10 field camera. I could combine this with a 4x5 and 5x7 reducing back, and use ALL the lenses for ALL the formats. Unfortunately, I've accumulated so much CRAP the last 2 years, I'd have to sell off quite a bit in order to fund this little project.
but the more I get used to using the LF gear, the easier, and faster(setting up/tearing down) it becomes, allowing me to move on and get the next shot(funny saying that, I take about 10 mins to photograph 1 8X10, about 7 mins with the 4x5, I can get through a whole 36exp roll of 35mm in about 6 sec on motor drive).
The more work I look at like R.L. Jr's, Peter Lik, and some of the English guys who use LF a lot(especially for color), the more I get motivated to get out and make photographs with the "big guys(cameras)".
I love backpacking, but to me, being out in nature is the thing that keeps me shooting film. I can hike up into the hills behind where I live(LA), and be up there for a full weekend, just bringing some Readyloads/Quickloads(those that I have left that is), and 5-8 film holders(with changing bag), I can come home Sunday night with EASILY 30-40 GREAT shots, that I know 100% I got the way I wanted them.
having a lab that can develop E-6 for ~$1.50/4x5 or $5/8x10 sheet keeps me going with the color, b/w I do myself in Jobo drums.
getting the time to shoot is hard though: I wasn't able to get into ANY of the classes I needed to get ahead towards transferring to a Univ. for this spring term, so I'm currently looking for work that would allow me enough time to be out photographing and traveling(my 2nd passion). But alas, I'm not rich(yet!), and film costs money, so I have to draw the line somewhere .
besides, shooting LF is good for your health , keeps you sane when you see that you only spent $300 on film and developing in a month, rather than a years salary in 1hr on your new digital setup, which will be phased out in another 2 years .
-Dan
-
Just because CD's are newer then vinyl, the old vinyl still sounds better
hear ya there . Listening to some of my dad's beatles records right now as I type this!
its great to see some new(er) bands recording and outputting vinyl to the markets, just buy 2 of them(1 to play, one to store as a backup)
-Dan
-
Independently of quality between MFD and LF film, I think Daniel resumed perfectly a simple fact:
For a young photographer, there is simply no other alternative than LF film.
There is a lack.
I remember when student, we used to have both Lubitel or Pentax 67 and we were able to work in large films if it was our purpose.
These were not Hasselblad, but at least you had acess to learn the techniques etc...
The wonderful digital MF system that are available now are simply too expensive and reserved to the settle Pro, companies, or very
wealphy people.
There is no, lets say, 5000 euros ?? system.
So LF film is still going to be used for awhile. This level of digital tools is still reserved to a kind of elite and it will not change quickly.
Fred.
-
Independently of quality between MFD and LF film, I think Daniel resumed perfectly a simple fact:
For a young photographer, there is simply no other alternative than LF film.
There is a lack.
I remember when student, we used to have both Lubitel or Pentax 67 and we were able to work in large films if it was our purpose.
These were not Hasselblad, but at least you had acess to learn the techniques etc...
The wonderful digital MF system that are available now are simply too expensive and reserved to the settle Pro, companies, or very
wealphy people.
There is no, lets say, 5000 euros ?? system.
So LF film is still going to be used for awhile. This level of digital tools is still reserved to a kind of elite and it will not change quickly.
Fred.
I've not read all the posts so forgive me if it's been debated and I missed it. The talk with film is about getting a quality scan made. So how about the B&W shooter that makes silver prints with an enlarger. The limit then would be lens and paper/developer combination. Or a C type for the colour worker. Does the digital side of working with film limit the quality to digital technology?
Kevin.
-
Do you guys shooting sheet film, particularily 8x10 worry about its availability in the future?
With Fuji announcing an end to quickload etc.. the trend continues to see a reduction in large formats future.
I think a lot of photographers consider trying or returning to large format must be put off by this trend. For anyone who is new to LF it seems a risk to invest the time and money (but more time!) to master a medium which seems to be in decline.
I think if photographers were more confident of LF having a furure then more would give it a go. This is surely the reason why some big Fine Art names have moved to MFD.
Setting the money bit aside, if you were considering taking up either LF or MFD the learning curve with MFD is certainly easier, the instant nature of it allows you to learn fast. With LF on the other hand it can take a long time to get your techniques down.
But still, if 8x10 sheet film had a guaranteed future, i think it trend would be one of growth.
Any opinions?
-
Do you guys shooting sheet film, particularily 8x10 worry about its availability in the future?
With Fuji announcing an end to quickload etc.. the trend continues to see a reduction in large formats future.
I think a lot of photographers consider trying or returning to large format must be put off by this trend. For anyone who is new to LF it seems a risk to invest the time and money (but more time!) to master a medium which seems to be in decline.
I think if photographers were more confident of LF having a furure then more would give it a go. This is surely the reason why some big Fine Art names have moved to MFD.
Setting the money bit aside, if you were considering taking up either LF or MFD the learning curve with MFD is certainly easier, the instant nature of it allows you to learn fast. With LF on the other hand it can take a long time to get your techniques down.
But still, if 8x10 sheet film had a guaranteed future, i think it trend would be one of growth.
Any opinions?
If you shoot B&W I don't think it will be a problem, neither do I think colour will completely vanish anytime soon. Ilford make film in all kinds of sizes including ULF.If you think it is going to go away in the near future now is the time to give it a go.
Kevin.
-
When electricity was developed I am sure the candle makers said, where in trouble I still buy candles
I can still buy new vinyl records.
When color film came out everyone probably said BW is dead. Wow I can still buy BW film.
When dvd's came out everyone said, laser disc will die, ok I guess they did die.
I shoot mf digital because of the volume of shoots not the quality.
Setting the money bit aside, if you were considering taking up either LF or MFD the learning curve with MFD is certainly easier, the instant nature of it allows you to learn fast. With LF on the other hand it can take a long time to get your techniques down.
But still, if 8x10 sheet film had a guaranteed future, i think it trend would be one of growth.
-
hear ya there . Listening to some of my dad's beatles records right now as I type this!
Ouch, that hurt Oh well, I picked up the Verve Remixed and the City Lounge series from my son.
I am shooting 8x10 for people and MFDB for everything else. For me using an 8x10 solves the necessity for ritual process; there is magic in the air and everyone involved seems intent on capturing it on the film. It's not just the look sometimes, it's the gravity.
Mark
-
Make your own glass negatives:
Best,
Johannes
Or even just buy them:
"HARMAN has a coating machine specifically designed for coating on glass plates, and produces specialist plates for scientific uses - nuclear plates for particle physics, and Q-plates for mass spectrography. We also have the capability of producing photographic glass plate equivalents of some of our film products, though these are not
routinely available."
http://www.harmantechnology.com/dotnetnuke...42/Default.aspx (http://www.harmantechnology.com/dotnetnuke/Technology/Photographic/tabid/142/Default.aspx)
-
I like te glass plates Johannes but its a bit more 'retro' than i had in mind might be tricky to wroap one around the drum scanner... but i like the idea of those 'nuclear plates' from Harmon
I think the future of sheet film lies with smaller players like Ilford.
How are you guys outputting the 8x10 film, contacts or scanning?
-
The best 8x10 lens will generate maybe 30 LP/mm at the corners -- if you're lucky -- and closer to 50 in the center. Even tranny film like Astia can resolve 90 line pairs, so it is doubtful film will be your limiting factor with 8x10, your lenses will be. (4x5 is a different story -- LOT's of 4x5 lenses will do over 60 line pairs.)
Anyway, carrying on the math: 30 line pairs per mm is roughly equivalent to 760 per inch, and generating 760 pairs of lines per inch requires 1520 dots per inch. So, assuming you scan an 8x10 sheet at anything over 1520 DPI, you are probably at the maximum for the media. 8x10 at 1520 DPI equal roughly 12,000 x 15,000 pixels or 180 MP. Of course this is a theoretical limit, and in practice so much goes against you in generating a perfect 8x10 capture -- wind, vibrations, motion, lack of perfect focus, inability of film to be held perfectly flat, etc, etc, etc -- that I would say it's safe to assume more like 1/2 to 2/3rds that in the normal best case, so I'd call it 120 MP practical effective digital comparable in the best case, and maybe more like 90 MP in the average case. Either way, it is clear that 8x10 will rule the ultimate resolution roost for at least a few more years.
The above discussion assumes that sampling at 2 samples per cycle will get all the information according to the Nyquist theorem. As Roger Clark (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/sampling1/index.html) points out, that assumes that the sampling is in phase with the signal, which usually is not the case in a real world situation. To avoid aliasing and capture all the detail requires sampling at 2-3x Nyquist as Roger demonstrates in Figure 1 of his paper.
Furthermore, your discussion does not take MTF into account. Digital sensors have excellent MTF at low frequencies, but MTF falls off dramatically towards Nyquist. Above Nyquist, aliasing is present with digital sampling and false detail is recorded. With film, MTF falls off gradually and some contrast is present at very high frequencies, and aliasing is not present with film. Stating that a lens resolves 30 lp/mm without stating the contrast at that resoluiton is incomplete. Is that at 50% MTF, the Rayleigh limit, or the Dawes limit? The values are quite different. Roger concludes, "The conclusion is 2 to 3 pixels per cycle at the Dawes limit records close to all the detail in the image, but 2 pixels per cycle at the Rayleigh limit is pretty close." Would you care to revise your analysis?
-
But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB? I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10. For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.
Does such a study exist?
This is all really theory until comparing prints (I'd put 8x10 maybe up around 300 MP or more).
If you go to Rodney Lough Jr's new gallery in the city center, on the strip, in Las Vegas there is an entire gallery of these comparisons. All images are huge. All except one (a 4x5 image) are either 8x10 or the P65 stitched. I have my opinions, but go in, spend an hour scrutinizing the detail in each, then you will know. I'm impressed the the P65 when multi stitched. Rodney (who is a top printer in the world today) seems to think that 8x10 still has a significant advantage (based on my talk with him) over the P65 even when stitching 5 or so shots.
-
This is all really theory until comparing prints (I'd put 8x10 maybe up around 300 MP or more).
I have heard it was about 180 MP.
-
His 8x10 shots blow away the PhaseOne shots, hands down.
This is all really theory until comparing prints (I'd put 8x10 maybe up around 300 MP or more).
If you go to Rodney Lough Jr's new gallery in the city center, on the strip, in Las Vegas there is an entire gallery of these comparisons. All images are huge. All except one (a 4x5 image) are either 8x10 or the P65 stitched. I have my opinions, but go in, spend an hour scrutinizing the detail in each, then you will know. I'm impressed the the P65 when multi stitched. Rodney (who is a top printer in the world today) seems to think that 8x10 still has a significant advantage (based on my talk with him) over the P65 even when stitching 5 or so shots.
-
This is a wonderful thread, full of comparisons and deep theoretical knowledge. Awesome.
.02 from another perspective: years ago someone came up with a rule of thumb for film enlargement - that 10X was an approximate upper limit to maintain a smooth tonality in the film:print process. That's not absolute, but it seemed to make sense. That means 35 mm ix limited to about 8x10 (maybe a bit larger), MF to 22" square, 4x5 to 40" min, etc. Again, this is not an absolute rule, but it seems to be confirmed by viewing: that something happens in a film print when it gets larger than this - some of the "tonalities" are lost, or at least worked harder, and some richness seems to fall to the side. Of course, anything less than the 10X (say 5X) is really sweet.
For digital, this is harder. There is probably some way to interpolate from MB to print size, but there are so many variables, including printer quality, sharpening algorithms, and even which generation sensor was used that affect this. All this is apart from MB. I suspect we each develop a sweet spot for our own equipment and work flow.
In film, I used to like printing MF film, scanned, to 16" square - fit the paper, fit the printer, file size would be reasonable, and the images very taut. Changing to a full digital process affects all aspects of that workflow. And thus most of us probably have to find a new rationale for what works best. I'd offer the suggestion that its not any one criteria, but rather all of them put together, assembled intuitively, and after trial and error, the photographer (artist) finds the best combination for his/her needs. This varies by subject matter, marketplace, weight of the gear, what gear is in the closet, etc.
In short, there are a lot of variables in this mix.
Geoff
-
His 8x10 shots blow away the PhaseOne shots, hands down.
OK, maybe I am seriously contradicting myself here, but I just went back to the gallery and spent a whole bunch of time looking very carefully at all the prints (8x10 VS P65 stitched).
Now my feedback is this:
The image he first showed me (P65 stitch) might have been the worst one to compare to the 8x10.
Many of the P65 stitched prints are impeccable in detail (at about 6 foot)!
I did not realize how many of the images were P65 stitches (a lot of them).
So, now I'm kind of swaying back to the idea of innovating with the MF back with stitching. By the end of the year I should complete my own tests (both LF film and MF stitches) and I think that will answer it, at least for myself.
Lastly, in about 4-5 weeks I should be doing another SW shoot and am planning on using the Leica S2 (37.5MP) with a lot of stitching. My shoot will be about a week and I am going to attempt to do 200-300+ mega pixel stitches. Once I get the prints done (April/May) I should be able to add more useful feedback to the issue. I might even bring in my work to show Rodney and see what he thinks about the detail.
-
So, if I'm following all the threads here correctly.... dslr is about as good as MFDB and uh, MFDB is about as good as 8x10.
So... DSLR is about as good as 8x10.
Huh, I never would of drawn that conclusion without the Luminous Landscape.
(Fully Implied Snarkiness)
-CB
-
And it gets even better: a compact such as a Canon G11 is to many people as good as a P45+. This means it is also as good as 16"by20" and must be capable off taking better deep space images than the Hubble.......... It is a wonderfull life here on the Luminous Landscape.
-
So, if I'm following all the threads here correctly.... dslr is about as good as MFDB and uh, MFDB is about as good as 8x10.
So... DSLR is about as good as 8x10.
Huh, I never would of drawn that conclusion without the Luminous Landscape.
(Fully Implied Snarkiness)
-CB
Huh? I read the thread and drew the opposite conclusion which was that 8x10 will murder any mfdb, no surprises there.
-
I want to end up with a large format, because of LL i went with MF, and because of LL and GD i want to move to LF [8x10], this is all your fault here.
-
So, if I'm following all the threads here correctly.... dslr is about as good as MFDB and uh, MFDB is about as good as 8x10.
So... DSLR is about as good as 8x10.
so even a G10 is as good ;-)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)
-
...that is, if you don't murder yourself first (and everything else goes absolutely perfectly) after spending 40+ hours spotting dust in PS after obtaining a drum scan.
Huh? I read the thread and drew the opposite conclusion which was that 8x10 will murder any mfdb, no surprises there.
-
...that is, if you don't murder yourself first (and everything else goes absolutely perfectly) after spending 40+ hours spotting dust in PS after obtaining a drum scan.
Harlem,
are you scanning yourself, or having a lab do them? That's a LOT of spotting?!
my longest time spend cloning dust on 4x5 and 8x10 I've had scanned here in LA was like 2hrs max(and I'm pretty slow). wow....
-Dan
-
my longest time spend cloning dust on 4x5 and 8x10 I've had scanned here in LA was like 2hrs max(and I'm pretty slow). wow....
-Dan
8" x 10" sheets scanned to 1.6gig were taking my retoucher 2 full days to clean up spots, dust and scratches. The scans were oil mounted...
The shots were produced in very salty dusty envirnoments...
Cheers
Murray
-
8" x 10" sheets scanned to 1.6gig were taking my retoucher 2 full days to clean up spots, dust and scratches. The scans were oil mounted...
The shots were produced in very salty dusty envirnoments...
Cheers
Murray
were you loading your film in a changing bag/tent in the field just out of curiosity? still, that's a good bit of post time. I've only shot in the desert once, and I can vouch what you state about sand getting *everywhere*, I had to change socks and undies twice that day
were you shooting chromes or negs for your salt series? I've only recently started shooting 8x10, its like looking at a small TV screen ! I think that I'll stick with 4x5 chromes(E100G, Provia/velvia when I run out of Kodak) and negs(efke 25, TMX 100, portra 160nc)
all scan really nicely, the b/w is processed in pyro, so it has a nice long tonal scale. and the pyro helps to reduce apparent grain in the scans too!
-Dan
-
were you loading your film in a changing bag/tent in the field just out of curiosity? still, that's a good bit of post time. I've only shot in the desert once, and I can vouch what you state about sand getting *everywhere*, I had to change socks and undies twice that day
were you shooting chromes or negs for your salt series? I've only recently started shooting 8x10, its like looking at a small TV screen ! I think that I'll stick with 4x5 chromes(E100G, Provia/velvia when I run out of Kodak) and negs(efke 25, TMX 100, portra 160nc)
-Dan
Dan,
For the 'SALT' series I was changing in a harrison dark bag, washing my hands before, carrying everything 'sealed' in multi-layered bags. I took air in cans and inspected each slide meticulously and tapping any 'rocks' out of the light traps.
'Commando' is easier for the clothes thing
I shot nearly all neg (portra NC) and occasionally went to chrome (E100S) for the really flat stuff.
As I said earlier, the biggest problem was getting smooth development of the open skies - this is where digital wins hands down...
Murray
-
Dan,
For the 'SALT' series I was changing in a harrison dark bag, washing my hands before, carrying everything 'sealed' in multi-layered bags. I took air in cans and inspected each slide meticulously and tapping any 'rocks' out of the light traps.
'Commando' is easier for the clothes thing
I shot nearly all neg (portra NC) and occasionally went to chrome (E100S) for the really flat stuff.
As I said earlier, the biggest problem was getting smooth development of the open skies - this is where digital wins hands down...
Murray
hear ya there . Smooth development for color with the short dev. time(c-41 mostly) can be a PITA. I have only shot e-6 in 8x10 for color, no c-41(yet), but lots of 4x5. I develop in Jobo drums on a motor base, so the rotary constant, random, motion helps to keep things from mottling too much. E-6 i ship out for dip-n-dunk. There's a lab here in Santa Barbara that does E-6 4x5 for $1.50/sheet and $5/sheet for 8x10, its Samys in downtown Santa Barbara. just in case you thought about switching labs ever. they take mail order, and have a super-fast turnaround, usually within a day. I've never had a problem with them. and they have a good amount of throughput, since Santa Barbara has enough artist "purists" and students who shoot e6 to keep the lines busy, also to help keep processing costs down too! Labs here in LA average about $4-5/sheet for 4x5 and about $8-10 for 8x10 film. e-6 and c-41.
most people just do their own b/w.
if I could afford a P65+ or an Aptus-II 10, I'd shoot with one, but even though I'm 21, I HATE sitting behind a computer, much less photoshop. I guess I'm just kinda "old-fashioned", I like hand writing letters instead of email if its possible, and mailing parcels to me is fun . I guess this is why I shoot film, for the process, rather than the end result. But right now I don't have the resources to invest in a digital system that could match the rez I can get out of a 4x5 or 8x10 piece of c-41/e6/bw film. Canons and nikons are nice, and the D3x has a place in my heart, but MF digital just isn't in reach as of yet.
thanks for the info, its great learning about your process! One more question if I may, are you using a folding-camera, since you're out there in the boonies, or a rail camera?
-Dan
-
hear ya there . Smooth development for color with the short dev. time(c-41 mostly) can be a PITA.
thanks for the info, its great learning about your process! One more question if I may, are you using a folding-camera, since you're out there in the boonies, or a rail camera?
-Dan
Had I continued shooting mostly c-41 with open skies I would have gone down the jobo path. Never had much of a problem with E-6...
Only lab I could find that did it right was light waves in SanFran...
I use a Toyo field camera...
Cheers
Murray
-
if I could afford a P65+ or an Aptus-II 10, I'd shoot with one, but even though I'm 21, I HATE sitting behind a computer, much less photoshop. I guess I'm just kinda "old-fashioned", I like hand writing letters instead of email if its possible, and mailing parcels to me is fun . I guess this is why I shoot film, for the process, rather than the end result. But right now I don't have the resources to invest in a digital system that could match the rez I can get out of a 4x5 or 8x10 piece of c-41/e6/bw film.
MF digital just isn't in reach as of yet.
-Dan
I am old and ill, and I would like to find someone like you to work with me, help me get a return on my investment and take over when I retire.
...but LA is a long way from Warwickshire, and it would need to be someone who likes Photoshop.
-
Huh? I read the thread and drew the opposite conclusion which was that 8x10 will murder any mfdb, no surprises there.
That is because they did not read the thread...
-
I am old and ill, and I would like to find someone like you to work with me, help me get a return on my investment and take over when I retire.
...but LA is a long way from Warwickshire, and it would need to be someone who likes Photoshop.
Hey Dick,
I'd like to talk to you more about this, but yes, unfortunately, LA is a long way from the UK, so it probably won't work. BTW I LOVE photoshop, the amount of control it gives me is great. What I hate is sitting in front of a computer for long amounts of time. The more I use photoshop(as with anything I guess), the better, and faster I become. But I'm a photographer, not a digital tech or retoucher. I want to know how to do it, but I can't get out from behind the camera to really get down to learning it. But that'll have to change.
just out of curiosity, what do you shoot? do you have a website I could look at?
-Dan
-
I think delegating is the healphiest attitude. You can learn to be better with Photoshop, but you are photographer and will never reach the master of proper digital retoucher and printer, because they do that full time and adquire a 6th sense in their particular area.
Delegating is the best way, it is a wonderfull human experience and you save time and energy for your art, and trust others to make their art for your purpose.
I think Dick is right.
Fred.
-
I think delegating is the healphiest attitude. You can learn to be better with Photoshop, but you are photographer and will never reach the master of proper digital retoucher and printer, because they do that full time and adquire a 6th sense in their particular area.
Delegating is the best way, it is a wonderfull human experience and you save time and energy for your art, and trust others to make their art for your purpose.
I think Dick is right.
Fred.
Well, i'm a photographer and also a retoucher. I'm not the best in both, but i think i'm growing and getting better results day by day. Being a photographer that work with photoshop makes me faster, better and i descover more things, if i was just a retoucher i wouldn't understand many aspects of photoshop or how to do something. But i'm also a photographer, i know the light, i know how to take photographs that has to be retouched. I'm into the process in both side, and i think this is a great way to approach many problems. I take photos and play with photoshop fulltime. I know that many retouchers cannot reach my level because they are not photographers first... Of course i will never be the master of photoshop, but this is because i'm not good enough By the way, my clients call me because i can deliver a final image and because my taste and my "style" are made of photographs+photoshop and i can create images that are more what they want. Just my way to make photographs
-
Well, i'm a photographer and also a retoucher. I'm not the best in both, but i think i'm growing and getting better results day by day. Being a photographer that work with photoshop makes me faster, better and i descover more things, if i was just a retoucher i wouldn't understand many aspects of photoshop or how to do something. But i'm also a photographer, i know the light, i know how to take photographs that has to be retouched. I'm into the process in both side, and i think this is a great way to approach many problems. I take photos and play with photoshop fulltime. I know that many retouchers cannot reach my level because they are not photographers first... Of course i will never be the master of photoshop, but this is because i'm not good enough By the way, my clients call me because i can deliver a final image and because my taste and my "style" are made of photographs+photoshop and i can create images that are more what they want. Just my way to make photographs
Michele,
In my understanding, the way you work with retouching, beeing and knowing also photography is the best. Isn't it a renaissance way of working?
Fred.
-
Yes it is
-
I think that delegating works best if you understand the process that you delegate...
I do not want to delegate, and what I like about digital is being in total control.
...I think that so many photographers now do not take the trouble to "get it right in camera" and rely on someone else to post-process their work into something usable.
-
...I think that so many photographers now do not take the trouble to "get it right in camera" and rely on someone else to post-process their work into something usable.
Sadly I do this from time to time. A gum wrapper on the floor? Ahh I'll clone it out later...
-
I think that delegating works best if you understand the process that you delegate...
I do not want to delegate, and what I like about digital is being in total control.
...I think that so many photographers now do not take the trouble to "get it right in camera" and rely on someone else to post-process their work into something usable.
For years, shooting interiors we were always climbing ladders to remove Exit signs from the ceiling. Now that I'm shooting digital.... yeah we still take them down... if it can be done better and faster in the field, why not? I call it Realityshop.
-
For years, shooting interiors we were always climbing ladders to remove Exit signs from the ceiling. Now that I'm shooting digital.... yeah we still take them down... if it can be done better and faster in the field, why not? I call it Realityshop.
You can remove exit signs physically? With out tools or getting the in trouble from the electricians?
I am going to have look up how to do this.
-
You can remove exit signs physically? With out tools or getting the in trouble from the electricians?
I am going to have look up how to do this.
LoL.... the majority of them (in the US) are mounted on quick release spring clips and either just slide down or are hinged on one side... the easy ones have simple plug connectors on the wiring and drop out pretty easily. If they are hard wired I leave them alone but will still cover them with a white card since they typically throw green or red light across the ceiling. I've had people give me grief on site for removing them, what can I say... we get away with what we can to make the best shot : )
-
You can remove exit signs physically? With out tools or getting the in trouble from the electricians?
I am going to have look up how to do this.
Leatherman Tools!
I've removed stop signs, street signs, mailboxes, bus stops . . . .
-
which back is equivalent to an 8x10 neg resolution?
-
did u get an answer than about 8x10 vs mfdb? im interested too as i shoot 8x10!!
-
did u get an answer than about 8x10 vs mfdb? im interested too as i shoot 8x10!!
There are six pages of answers to that question in this very thread.
-
which back is equivalent to an 8x10 neg resolution?
How long is a piece of string?
What film are you using?
Someone said that 40 Mpx is equivalent to 5 * 4, so you would need 160.
The old yardstick was that you could enlarge from film up to 10* the neg size, and the new yardstick is 360 original camera pixels per print inch...
So for film you get 2.25" * 10 = 22.5 inches from 2.25" 120 MF roll film,...
and form a 60Mpx H4D-60 or P65 + you get 9,000 pixels/360 = 25 inches,,,
So, using the 360 original camera pixels per print inch yardstick, silicon is little higher res than film.
If you use 180 as your yardstick, 645 MDF is equivalent to 5 * 4.
If you use the right yardstick, or compare to low-res high speed sheet film, 60Mpx is equivalent to 10 * 8".
...like I said, how long is your piece of string?
-
Someone said that 40 Mpx is equivalent to 5 * 4, so you would need 80 Mpx for 10 * 8
Actually 160mp, since you're quadrupling the surface area.
The old yardstick was that you could enlarge from film up to 10* the neg size, and the new yardstick is 360 original camera pixels per print inch...
You're the only one I see regularly advocating 360 original camera pixels per inch, I think most would agree that's overkill. By your two yardsticks, a 10x enlargement of 35mm film (to 14.1x9.4") would yield the same print quality as a 15.4mp digital capture printed at the same size. You don't seriously believe that, do you?
-
The old yardstick was that you could enlarge from film up to 10* the neg size, and the new yardstick is 360 original camera pixels per print inch...
I'm afraid that's not enough. According to the LL LR3 tutorial you need 720dpi to yield good results.
[Yes, this is a joke. Yes, Mr Schewe makes a case for 720ppi in some cases, but I doubt he or anyone else seriously considers even 360ppi a "new yardstick" for prints that are viewed at from reasonable distances. In fact, he used to advocate anything above 180ppi and still seems to stick to it. If one subscribes to the notion that "viewing distance is only limited by the size of one's nose," that's a whole different story.]
-
Actually 160mp, since you're quadrupling the surface area.
Yes, Thanks
You're the only one I see regularly advocating 360 original camera pixels per inch, I think most would agree that's overkill. By your two yardsticks, a 10x enlargement of 35mm film (to 14.1x9.4") would yield the same print quality as a 15.4mp digital capture printed at the same size. You don't seriously believe that, do you?
I appreciate that 360 original camera pixels is "excellent" and anything higher is OTT... and I expect that I might be making some prints at 180.
35mm film looks rough at greater than A4, as does the output of my 12Mpx P&S, but the mega-pixels from a multi-shot MFD...
Not all films are equal, and not all Megapixels are equal.
-
I'm afraid that's not enough. According to the LL LR3 tutorial you need 720dpi to yield good results.
If one subscribes to the notion that "viewing distance is only limited by the size of one's nose," that's a whole different story.
If your eyes do not have bellows built-in, and you are over 25, viewing distance is limited by the power of you reading glasses.
I do not want to print pictures for people to ignore them and walk past them... I want them to take in the whole picture, and then perhaps be drawn in to the picture to look at the detail.
The "old master" paintings did this about half a millennium ago, but photographers have tried to re-write the rules.
-
How long is a piece of string?
What film are you using?
Someone said that 40 Mpx is equivalent to 5 * 4, so you would need 160.
The old yardstick was that you could enlarge from film up to 10* the neg size, and the new yardstick is 360 original camera pixels per print inch...
So for film you get 2.25" * 10 = 22.5 inches from 2.25" 120 MF roll film,...
and form a 60Mpx H4D-60 or P65 + you get 9,000 pixels/360 = 25 inches,,,
So, using the 360 original camera pixels per print inch yardstick, silicon is little higher res than film.
If you use 180 as your yardstick, 645 MDF is equivalent to 5 * 4.
If you use the right yardstick, or compare to low-res high speed sheet film, 60Mpx is equivalent to 10 * 8".
...like I said, how long is your piece of string?
Short and sweet. Put in your own numbers, change them as you believe, but its great to have a simple "rule of thumb" to allow comparisons.....
-
Another issue is the quality of scans... 8x10 drum scans are extremely expensive (and slow). Anything short of a drum scanner (and perhaps some of the Creo or Scitex "super flatbeds") will not produce good results. I was amazed recently (I've been shooting digital for years) when I had to deal with a bunch of slide scans (35mm) made on various Nikon Coolscans. 35mm average-quality slide film is supposed to be about 6mp equivalent, and it might well have been in terms of resolution (the files were 10-15 mp in dimension, but a scan will always be softer than native digital of the same resolution). What shocked me was the lack of color accuracy and dynamic range. I've, admittedly, been spoiled by shooting the D3x (11 stops of DR, at least approaching MF quality), but these weren't even in the same ballpark. These were files that often had only 4-5 stops of DR and glaring color problems. I'll be the first to admit that a good scanner and a good operator could have done much better than this garbage, but that is another variable to add into any film/digital comparison - there is an art to good scans, and people who can produce them are rare. In addition to the perfect capture, you need a perfect scan, and those are tough to come by...
-
Who says the D3x has 11 stops of dynamic range.. poppycock! more like 8 stops
-
I've gotten a heck of a lot more than 8 stops out of the D3x! I don't believe DxOMark's nearly 13 stops, but I don't believe 8 stops either... I'd say (from 25,000+ shots on my D3x) that 11 is a pretty good estimate. It really reaches deep into the shadows in 14-bit mode, while holding highlight detail as well. Of course, the first and last of those stops are equivalent to Zones II and VIII - texture, but not full detail. From prints I've seen from Hasselblad and Phase systems, the D3x is comparable (not better, but also not worse) in printed DR. Of course, I haven't made those Hassy/Phase prints myself, and I don't know exactly how they were made (other than that they were large prints being used as manufacturer samples at a show, so one would hope they had done a decent job). Any digital system in this range is going to have MUCH more DR than an average film scan, which was my initial point (substitute your favorite MF system for my D3x and the point is exactly the same)... If it's even possible to get equivalent DR out of any film, it would have to be a slow B+W film, and a fairly special scan. Drum scans of 8x10 range from $100 on up, and the equipment is even more expensive than a P65+ (not to mention difficult to use).
-
Who says the D3x has 11 stops of dynamic range.. poppycock! more like 8 stops
Jonathan, you cannot issue such a searing statement without backing it up with evidence. We await your reply...
-
well, maybe not 8, but not 11 either. Prove to me that it's 11. It goes both ways.
-
well, maybe not 8, but not 11 either. Prove to me that it's 11. It goes both ways.
Correct, not 11 but 13.65 :D
Proof is here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D3X) (click the dynamic range 'button'), unless you want to debate the proof ... Okay, I'll help you, engineering DR may be different from practical DR, but that's for you to substantiate, since it goes both ways.
Cheers,
Bart
-
DxO isn't proof. I'm not going to debate this.
They claim the d3x has more dynamic range than a phase one P65 ..
-
DxO isn't proof. I'm not going to debate this.
They claim the d3x has more dynamic range than a phase one P65 ..
Burying one's head in the sand never helps (unless when seeking a disconnect from reality) ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
I am 100% certain that the dynamic range in files from a nikon are much lower than that of a full frame MF back, and even a back with less than 22mp. If you want to jump on dxo's marketing train, go for it. Do a proper test with real images. When people talk about dxo, I give them a link to dpreview. Here it is ... http://www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com)
-
Bart,
I am 100% certain that the dynamic range in files from a nikon are much lower than that of a full frame MF back, and even a back with less than 22mp. If you want to jump on dxo's marketing train, go for it. Do a proper test with real images. When people talk about dxo, I give them a link to dpreview. Here it is ... http://www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com)
So I take it that we're supposed to take your word for it... because it's your word? And we're supposed to ignore DXOMark, despite the fact they they publish their methodology.
Seriously.
-
Bart,
I am 100% certain that the dynamic range in files from a nikon are much lower than that of a full frame MF back, and even a back with less than 22mp.
Even a back with less than 22MP? Especially easy with such a back and appropriate low noise read-out circuitry.
If you want to jump on dxo's marketing train, go for it.
I don't want to, but it happens (?) to be quite well in line with what one can determine for oneself. I did a test for the lowely Canon 1Ds3 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4771) (I know, not MF but you are questioning the DxO stats without any proof), and found their tests to be closely aligned with my results (my 11.3 stops, vs DxO's 11.97 stops, within 2/3rds of a stop similar for 2 different copies of a model), so I have no reason to assume the rest is bogus, do you?
Do a proper test with real images.
I do all the time, and find the tests to be a reliable predictor of my own results.
When people talk about dxo, I give them a link to dpreview. Here it is ... http://www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com)
I'm not sure which part of DPR you are specifically referring to, but it's in general not a site I'd refer to for fundamental proof of anything but mass hysteria (although I do enjoy the contributions of a select few of the contributors).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am very close to deleting my luminous landscape account because of the previous two posters. Waste of my time.
-
kindergarten
-
I am 100% certain that the dynamic range in files from a nikon are much lower than that of a full frame MF back
that will be no less than infamous "6 stops of DR" ::) ?
-
I am very close to deleting my luminous landscape account because of the previous two posters. Waste of my time.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
- Carl Sagan
You're not the first one to claim incredible DR advantage for MFDBs. It seems you can't back your claims with verifiable data, and dismiss well-documented and falsifiable analysis which disagrees with your views with mere handwaving. That's just not good enough.
-
To the OP:
The best 8x10 lens will generate maybe 30 LP/mm at the corners -- if you're lucky -- and closer to 50 in the center.
apo sironar S 240 and up, are better than that !
-
I sure learned my lesson on this one.
I apologize to the OP for the direction that the topic was taken.
-
Another issue is the quality of scans... 8x10 drum scans are extremely expensive (and slow).
I think that to be fair to film, we should be thinking of comparing analog wet prints from 10 * 8" sheet film to digital prints from MF digital cameras... but not many people wet print now, do they?
-
we're supposed to ignore DXOMark, despite the fact they they publish their methodology?
I wouldn't ignore DXOMark one bit. They have a specific methodology that gives you some useful information.
However, their approach also leaves out several critical components of the process a real-world photographer uses in the course of making a real-world image. A great example would be the impact of using raw processing software which was developed in-house by the same company that makes the hardware and firmware and the central goal of which is to squeeze every bit of data out of the raw file and present it in the most photographically pleasing way possible.
The best method continues to be (for those who are both interested and financially able to consider MF) to go shoot pictures with each system in a variety of situations that you would actually shoot for your work/pleasure and then see what you're able to get out of the files. Learning enough about each system to get the most out each (where to place exposure, what software to convert the files with which settings etc) is a not-small part of this and a dealer can help in this regard.
Here's a hint though: I've never once heard one of our customers complain the files they got from the digital back were less pliable/flexible than the files from their dSLR. Never.
[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ("doug@captureintegration.com")
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/")
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Personal Work (http://"http://www.doug-peterson.com/")
[/font]
-
I wouldn't ignore DXOMark one bit. They have a specific methodology that gives you some useful information.
However, their approach also leaves out several critical components of the process a real-world photographer uses in the course of making a real-world image. A great example would be the impact of using raw processing software which was developed in-house by the same company that makes the hardware and firmware and the central goal of which is to squeeze every bit of data out of the raw file and present it in the most photographically pleasing way possible.
The best method continues to be (for those who are both interested and financially able to consider MF) to go shoot pictures with each system in a variety of situations that you would actually shoot for your work/pleasure and then see what you're able to get out of the files. Learning enough about each system to get the most out each (where to place exposure, what software to convert the files with which settings etc) is a not-small part of this and a dealer can help in this regard.
Here's a hint though: I've never once heard one of our customers complain the files they got from the digital back were less pliable/flexible than the files from their dSLR. Never.
[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ("doug@captureintegration.com")
Good and valid points which have been put forward by you and others many times over. The problem I and many others have is that nobody seems to have well-documented and verifiable data to support claims of significantly higher DR of MFDBs, let alone the ill-defined and subjective areas of IQ MFDBs supposedly excel at, such as micro-contrast, tonality and tolerance to extreme post-processing. Having these same unsupported claims pop up on technical threads is not helpful.
Even then I am sure that MFDBs are better in almost all areas of IQ - the question is how much, and what is the ROI on MFDB vs. high-end DSLR. And I believe that was the point of the OP.
In the end I've always been fond of your approach: let the prospective buyer convince themselves. If someone can get significantly better IQ from a camera they're not used to (MFDB) compared to a DSLR system they've been working with for years, it's a testament to the IQ of MFDBs, no matter what the numbers say.
-
Hi,
I had some very careful look at a couple of images from a Leica S2 and a Nikon D3X taken by Lloyd Chambers. Those images were taken with considerable care. My main interest was Aliasing and Moiré with the S3 lacking OLP filter (AA-filter) while the Nikon having one. I also checked into dynamic range, by "lifting" shadow detail.
The Leica S2 image obviously has better resolution, due to larger sensor and probably a better lens. The Nikon images require more sharpening.
My findings are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
There were a couple of discussions based on that article:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44978.0
But also this one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg377924
Regarding the deconvolution issue it was started by Bart van der Wolf (I hope it's right?). Lloyd Chambers added a discussion of deconvolution initiated by Bart's recommendations. We than discovered that LR3/ACR 6.2 also has deconvolution. It works, but your mileage may vary.
We also had some reasoning about possible reasons for the perceived difference in MFDBs and DSLRs and Bart came up with the idea that MF having higher MTF may be a part of the explanation. MF will have higher MTF for a given feature size if all other factors are kept constant. Another factor we discussed was that lens/system flare is an area where MF may have an advantage. Some of this discussion may relate to Mark Dubovoy's comment on MFDB's having significantly more DR than DSLR "with full texture".
Fine texture is much affected by MTF at feature size. As MFDBs would have a larger feature size they would have a significant advantage regarding MTF. Also, some of the lenses available are very good.
Both of those discussion were good and civilized.
Best regards
Erik
-
apo sironar S 240 and up, are better than that !
Show me a verified test target (like USAF or similar) captured on 8x10 film (any kind) with an APO Sironar S of your choice that confirms corner to corner better than 30 lp's and a center better than 50 on all axis and all color channels, and I will gladly concede the point. The best 8x10 lens I ever owned was a 450 APO Ronar and it basically met those specs.
-
Hi,
I would suggest that properly scanned film is sharper that what is possible by the wet process. Mostly because we can apply sharpening at different stages in the process.
There may be cases where the wet process can outperform scanned film, like using the very best 135 lenses (like Leica) on the very sharpest film.
Best regards
Erik
-
Show me a verified test target (like USAF or similar) captured on 8x10 film (any kind) with an APO Sironar S of your choice that confirms corner to corner better than 30 lp's and a center better than 50 on all axis and all color channels, and I will gladly concede the point. The best 8x10 lens I ever owned was a 450 APO Ronar and it basically met those specs.
¿Have you investigated the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses? ...are they only good for ULF?
-
¿Have you investigated the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses? ...are they only good for ULF?
If by investigated you mean tested personally, no. Firstly, they are really expensive, like $6000. Second, they are designed for one thing and that's coverage with their massive, nearly 1 meter IC's. Most folks that buy them are going to use them for ULF capture, and most folks that shoot ULF use their negatives to make contact prints. And a lens does not need to have particularly high resolution if its primary use is contact prints; something that rendered on the order of only 15 LP/mm across the frame would make an insanely detailed contact print even if viewed under a loupe.
-
If by investigated you mean tested personally, no. Firstly, they are really expensive, like $6000. Second, they are designed for one thing and that's coverage with their massive, nearly 1 meter IC's. Most folks that buy them are going to use them for ULF capture, and most folks that shoot ULF use their negatives to make contact prints. And a lens does not need to have particularly high resolution if its primary use is contact prints; something that rendered on the order of only 15 LP/mm across the frame would make an insanely detailed contact print even if viewed under a loupe.
Thanks...
The only thing I miss from 25mm is long lenses... 640mm (with a 2* teleconverter when needed), giving about a 1 degree field of view.
¿Does anyone do a 10 micron CoC, 1 degree FOV lens for 645 MFD that I can use on my Sinar P2/3? (I do not have anything longer than 900mm, and that is a WW2 aero reccy lens (pre-digital).
-
Thanks...
The only thing I miss from 25mm is long lenses... 640mm (with a 2* teleconverter when needed), giving about a 1 degree field of view.
¿Does anyone do a 10 micron CoC, 1 degree FOV lens for 645 MFD that I can use on my Sinar P2/3? (I do not have anything longer than 900mm, and that is a WW2 aero reccy lens (pre-digital).
I'd recommend a flatfield APO refracting telescope in the roughly 1200mm fl range (6 inch f/8, 5inch f/10, or 4-5 inch f5-6 with a 2X teleconverter). Or at least, the objective lens cell of one, if you want to put it on a Sinar lensboard. But I have to ask, what motivates you to use this sort of lens on a view camera? Considering wind, vibration, and maintaining optical alignment, I think you'd be far better off with the rigidity of a full-bodied lens/telescope.
-
I'd recommend a flatfield APO refracting telescope in the roughly 1200mm fl range (6 inch f/8, 5inch f/10, or 4-5 inch f5-6 with a 2X teleconverter). Or at least, the objective lens cell of one, if you want to put it on a Sinar lensboard. But I have to ask, what motivates you to use this sort of lens on a view camera? Considering wind, vibration, and maintaining optical alignment, I think you'd be far better off with the rigidity of a full-bodied lens/telescope.
I would not want optical alignment, as I would want to use movements for landscapes, house shots etc. Wildlife would be another application.
My 24" focal length f6 aero recy lens is about 6 inches across the front element... I suppose there is nothing to prevent me using a tele-convertor with that, but I do not think it would out-resolve a 6 micron sensor.
I would like a 5 * 4 inch 10 micron sensor... it would be great for WA, but not much advantage for narrow FOV.
-
I would not want optical alignment, as I would want to use movements for landscapes, house shots etc. Wildlife would be another application.
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, or picky enough, but I cannot really see the need for movements with a field of view of only 1 degree. If you shoot a house with such a lens/telescope, won't you be so far away from it that the verticals will be vertical anyway? Maybe there's a little dof to be gained with Scheimpflug tilt, though, even with that acute angle of view.
-
Harlem shooter. You are in New York! Rent the equipment and try it yourself.
-
here's a guy still printing optically(not sure how much however), and still shooting 4x5 and 8X10 FILM.
albeit drum scanning and outputting digitally primarily from what I've heard. And recently experimenting with a P65+ and stitching.
but it seems that he is still creating most of his originals on film, slide film nonetheless. Seems to work for him.
but then again he probably doesn't care about how many LPmm his lenses can resolve, he just uses the ones that work for him.
I've never met him, but his work seems to speak for itself
http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/
-Dan
-
here's a guy still printing optically(not sure how much however), and still shooting 4x5 and 8X10 FILM.
http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/
-Dan
Nice to see someone "doing it properly" and using tilt on a view camera to get the foreground in focus... but ¿does any get $3,500 for a print?