100MP or 4x5 Film?

[Richard Man]

..but, having wrote all that, I highly doubt anyone who can afford a 100MP back, would go to the film route. Money solves a lot of problems ;-)

[Jeffery Salter]

Why not simply do both?  Some projects I shoot with my IQ300, others with a KB Canham 8 x 10 or even with my awesome 4x5  RB Super D Graflex.

Life is too short to quibble.   Once a decision is made of what I want to photograph.  The next step is to choose the tool which helps produce the image that lives in my mind's eye.

Thank you.

[biedron1]

Can't imagine in my wildest dreams going back to film.

Victor

Can't imagine in my wildest dreams going back to digital.

Shooting film is so much more satisfying. IMHO, of course.

Bob

[Wayne Fox]

Under ideal situations (i.e. low contrast scene, perfect focus, flat film with high precision etc) the 4x5 setup could have higher resolution.

Under real world situations (i.e. high contrast scenes, ageing large format lenses etc) the IQ3 100MP setup could retain more effective details.

See below:

Tim Parkin's comparison between large format and IQ180

Markus Zuber's comparison between large format and IQ180

Keep in mind that the IQ180 CCD already has more dynamic range than most of those films in those tests. The IQ3 100MP is a Sony CMOS and has even more dynamic range than that of the IQ180.

I don't think 4x5 film is even in the same ballpark as an IQ3 100 or even a IQ180, and Tim's link to me clearly shows it. To my eye the 4x5 film even doesn't even compete with the Sony A900, which seems to infer that most current FF sensors over 36mp have easily surpassed 4x5 film, (although I would admit that perhaps superfine grain B&W films might be at least more competitive than the color tests.)

I think those tests were to dispel the idea that 8x10 film still held an edge to the IQ180, and in the case of Tim's tests to show flaws in the testing that was posted here on LuLa some time back.  An IQ3 100 takes it to a another level with a modest resolution increase - it would be interesting to see it compared to a well shot scene with 8x10 film.  In either case the quality in the hands of someone skilled with the gear (which I am not with 8x10 film) is outstanding, and to your point the dynamic range of the sony sensors makes shooting with the limitations of film something I'm no longer interested in.

While I see film referred to as "analog" all the time, in fact the original data is manipulated dramatically by the engineers designing the emulsion so there is no chance of ever working with the true analog data that was recorded with film, and perhaps we forget that a "digital" camera is actually an analog device, it just makes the conversion to digital on board rather than later with a scanner.  To me that data is closer to analog that film will ever be, since it really does convert brightness ranges to equivalent digital readouts, leaving any interpretation of that information to the post processing (for the most part).

[Bo_Dez]

Well if you seriously believe that and expect others to do the same there is really nothing else I want to add other than you have shown no proof of concept and your earlier statement ("Why do you assume I am not a digital expert?") seems to suggest that you think of yourself as a digital expert. 

Should this be the case then perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to some published learned links from a recognised digital authority that show objective proof that this phenomena occurs.

I seriously believe that, and so do other people who know what they are talking about. The effects of digital on colour are pretty obvious because the bayer patterning is not ideal. This relates to any digital with a bayer sensor, no matter how good it is.

I have given two photos as proof.

I started working with digital capture in 1995. At that time we also had our own full service lab E6, C-41, Ciba, RA-4, B+W, an Itek Drum and also a Noritsu in our studio but I had been working with film much longer. I've been working with both mediums ever since.

I am genuinely trying to help and all you want to do is discredit me.

[Bo_Dez]

Why not simply do both?  Some projects I shoot with my IQ300, others with a KB Canham 8 x 10 or even with my awesome 4x5  RB Super D Graflex.

Life is too short quibble.   Once I decide what I want photograph, and figure what I want to convey visually.  The next step is to choose the tool which helps produce the image that lives in my mind's eye.

Thank you.

Exactly! Using both mediums is the way forward for me, utilising the pictorial characteristics of each medium or camera to suit the image. Some subjects are far better represented with film for many, many reasons and of corse, some subjects are better represented by digital. The process can also have a heavy bearing on the actual shooting experience and environment too and you can really have an impact on the outcome of a work. Treating medium and capture as a one size fits all is limiting and unnecessary but each to their own.

[Bo_Dez]

I don't think 4x5 film is even in the same ballpark as an IQ3 100 or even a IQ180, and Tim's link to me clearly shows it. To my eye the 4x5 film even doesn't even compete with the Sony A900, which seems to infer that most current FF sensors over 36mp have easily surpassed 4x5 film, (although I would admit that perhaps superfine grain B&W films might be at least more competitive than the color tests.)

I think those tests were to dispel the idea that 8x10 film still held an edge to the IQ180, and in the case of Tim's tests to show flaws in the testing that was posted here on LuLa some time back.  An IQ3 100 takes it to a another level with a modest resolution increase - it would be interesting to see it compared to a well shot scene with 8x10 film.  In either case the quality in the hands of someone skilled with the gear (which I am not with 8x10 film) is outstanding, and to your point the dynamic range of the sony sensors makes shooting with the limitations of film something I'm no longer interested in.

While I see film referred to as "analog" all the time, in fact the original data is manipulated dramatically by the engineers designing the emulsion so the there is no chance of ever working with the true analog data that was recorded with film, and perhaps we forget that a "digital" camera is actually an analog device, it just makes the conversion to digital on board rather than later with a scanner.  To me that data is closer to analog that film will ever be, since it really does convert brightness ranges to equivalent digital readouts, leaving any interpretation of that information to the post processing (for the most part).

The characteristics you prioritise will determine which ever you think is superior. Unless you take the time to really study the differences they are sometimes not obvious on quick glances. And once you see them they are difficult to unsee and become quite obvious and a bit of a bugbear. Again, it just depends on your own priorities and workflow requirements.

For some things digital is better and for some things film is better. Once you realise the characteristics of each then you can relate it to your own work and choose the medium according to your image.

[dchew]

Yet, if you go to Tim Parkin's comparison and look at the 5th image, the power cord all but disappears in the 8x10 Velvia while clearly there in the IQ180.

So it is also easy to see what you want to see in those comparisons.

Dave

[Bo_Dez]

Yet, if you go to Tim Parkin's comparison and look at the 5th image, the power cord all but disappears in the 8x10 Velvia while clearly there in the IQ180.

So it is also easy to see what you want to see in those comparisons.

Dave

Yes it's a perfect example. The digital colour and tonality has far less depth and reality to it. Again, it depends on how the individual prioritises characteristics and that largely depends on what your subject is and what you are trying to say. For me, colour that is much more representational of reality is more important than a power cord I'm likely to retouch out, that is IMO not the case for every one and of corse, your mileage may vary. There are certain things and certain types of photography that are best represented by film for the exact reason displayed in this photo and of corse the same can be said for digital. It is knowing the characteristics of each an applying it to your own work.

[TonyW]

I seriously believe that, and so do other people who know what they are talking about. The effects of digital on colour are pretty obvious because the bayer patterning is not ideal. This relates to any digital with a bayer sensor, no matter how good it is.

I have given two photos as proof.

I do not doubt that you believe it, but you must accept that your subjective view can be questioned as can mine.  Your implication that others know what they are talking about while obviously I do not has not been missed but I choose to ignore for the moment.

The photos you have provided are so far from proof considering what has already been stated about camera position, raw editor etc. etc, but they do serve to support your view allowing you to ignore others considered opinion.

So once again I politely ask you to provide objective evidence e.g. documentation from a recognised authority, a means to objectively test and prove your beliefs.

I started working with digital capture in 1995. At that time we also had our own full service lab E6, C-41, Ciba, RA-4, B+W, an Itek Drum and also a Noritsu in our studio but I had been working with film much longer. I've been working with both mediums ever since.

I am not too sure what this adds to the discussion, but it may be that some of us have been working with digital much longer.  Maybe introducing the first medical digital systems to UK in the early 1980's.  With analogue much longer including commissioning your Noritsu/Fuji/Gretag/Durst/Kreonite C41, E6 and print systems including set up of QC systems to monitor performance. 

I am genuinely trying to help and all you want to do is discredit me.

I understand that you are trying to help by offering your opinion, as is the case with all who have posted here. 

But I take issue with your suggestion that I am attempting to discredit you.  I have merely disagreed with your belief and its basis and have asked you for proof, as what has been presented so far is not.

I post here anonymously (for my own good reasons - financial), and know that some forum members do not like this.  Therefore I am particularly cautious that I am not seen to hide behind this anonymity to throw stones and insults. 

I could have taken offence at your seemingly scathing dismissal of my statements but I let them ride. 

Still if you genuinely believe I have slighted you I hope you can accept my assurances that this has not been my intention. 

[Bo_Dez]

I do not doubt that you believe it, but you must accept that your subjective view can be questioned as can mine.  Your implication that others know what they are talking about while obviously I do not has not been missed but I choose to ignore for the moment.

The photos you have provided are so far from proof considering what has already been stated about camera position, raw editor etc. etc, but they do serve to support your view allowing you to ignore others considered opinion.

So once again I politely ask you to provide objective evidence e.g. documentation from a recognised authority, a means to objectively test and prove your beliefs.
I am not too sure what this adds to the discussion, but it may be that some of us have been working with digital much longer.  Maybe introducing the first medical digital systems to UK in the early 1980's.  With analogue much longer including commissioning your Noritsu/Fuji/Gretag/Durst/Kreonite C41, E6 and print systems including set up of QC systems to monitor performance. 
I understand that you are trying to help by offering your opinion, as is the case with all who have posted here. 

But I take issue with your suggestion that I am attempting to discredit you.  I have merely disagreed with your belief and its basis and have asked you for proof, as what has been presented so far is not.

I post here anonymously (for my own good reasons - financial), and know that some forum members do not like this.  Therefore I am particularly cautious that I am not seen to hide behind this anonymity to throw stones and insults. 

I could have taken offence at your seemingly scathing dismissal of my statements but I let them ride. 

Still if you genuinely believe I have slighted you I hope you can accept my assurances that this has not been my intention.

OK, I accept that. I had taken your posts as an attack when it seemed you hadn't even looked at the photo I had shown, editing it in a way that had nothing to do with what I was discussing, editing the wrong picture in a way that suggested you hadn't understood and you just were assuming that I must be wrong. I post anonymously for many reasons but I appreciate and understand that this comes with a limit to what people take as credible. I don't care about credibility because I have nothing to prove and that is not why I post. I post between spare moments of work because of the banter with fellow humans who share a common interest in photography, to help and to learn, and I do it anonymously because I keep my private and business lives separate. I pass on the things I have learned and people are free to take it or leave it and that is their choice that is not me being dismissive.

The two images are very tight crops. A red berry on a green bush will only show, on a pixel level, if there are enough red pixels to reproduce it. If the red berry only takes up the space of a green pixel then it becomes green. This is not the case with film as it is stacked on top of itself and has the capacity to create colour information on a much finer level and display a more natural and accurate representation of colour free from these sort of artefacts. This is amore extreme example of this effect because there are more green pixels than red in a bayer array, but the same can be said for the delicacies of skin and of corse many other things and a bayer sensor is somewhat limited in its ability to reproduce. If you want to reproduce skin in it's most natural and human likeness, the best way to do this is with film.

[eronald]

Please guys, don't get personal.

Are you sure it's worth discussing the merits of the tech? Somebody used the word "representational". Portrait artists use an old medium, and are still called in to do their thing because customers want the end result, that artist's SUBJECTIVE REPRESENTATION. Galleries are still selling paintings.

If you are an artist who has built up a rep for film work, people will hire you to shoot film. Anybody who insists he has transferred his skills seamlessly from film to digital and is producing identical work also believes his customers are blind.

Edmund


Edmund

[landscapephoto]

Hi there,
Want to get into large format and considering either one of the new 100MP backs or a large format camera.
Anyone use both? Thoughts?

If you use film, you should use 8"x10", not 4"x5". Or wet plate, that sells.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for your comments! My take is that Tim Parkin finds that film gives superior detail under the microscope or when properly scanned. I have done a great print 70x100 cm from 6x7 cm Velvia, messing around 2 hours with Photokit Sharpener. I certainly think that film can deliver, but it takes a lot of effort to make it great.

What I have seen is really that once I started digital, film was pretty dead for me. I also found that Velvia 6x7 was about on par with 24 MP digital, but much more noisy and colour all over the place.

Back in 2006, when the P45 arrived a lot of former 4x5" photographer opted for the P45. I have seen an interview with Charlie Cramer on the issue. Charlie is really a likeable person it seems, would love to meet him.

Joseph Holmes has also written a lot about converting from film to digital, great work!

So I think that P45 and around may be good enough to replace 4x5". No doubt, careful scanning at say 6000 PPI may take 4x5" a bit further, but I would think that scanning arund 2000 PPI was regarded best practice for 4x5".

Now, 8x10" is four time the area of 4x5", so I would think that it would be difficult for say 80-100 MP MFD to keep up, under ideal conditions. But, conditions are rarely ideal. For instance. We may need to stop down for DoF which pulls diffraction into the equation.

Best regards
Erik

I don't think 4x5 film is even in the same ballpark as an IQ3 100 or even a IQ180, and Tim's link to me clearly shows it. To my eye the 4x5 film even doesn't even compete with the Sony A900, which seems to infer that most current FF sensors over 36mp have easily surpassed 4x5 film, (although I would admit that perhaps superfine grain B&W films might be at least more competitive than the color tests.)

I think those tests were to dispel the idea that 8x10 film still held an edge to the IQ180, and in the case of Tim's tests to show flaws in the testing that was posted here on LuLa some time back.  An IQ3 100 takes it to a another level with a modest resolution increase - it would be interesting to see it compared to a well shot scene with 8x10 film.  In either case the quality in the hands of someone skilled with the gear (which I am not with 8x10 film) is outstanding, and to your point the dynamic range of the sony sensors makes shooting with the limitations of film something I'm no longer interested in.

While I see film referred to as "analog" all the time, in fact the original data is manipulated dramatically by the engineers designing the emulsion so there is no chance of ever working with the true analog data that was recorded with film, and perhaps we forget that a "digital" camera is actually an analog device, it just makes the conversion to digital on board rather than later with a scanner.  To me that data is closer to analog that film will ever be, since it really does convert brightness ranges to equivalent digital readouts, leaving any interpretation of that information to the post processing (for the most part).

[EricWHiss]

I've the luxury of having a lot of camera and digital backs to choose from.  I find that both film and digital have their place.  I do believe there is something to film that eludes pixel peeping at 100% on screen  - you can almost see it better standing back and looking at a finished print.  And standing back to look at the whole can be rewarding.    I really do enjoy film for a lot of reasons not just the look. But detail captured isn't necessarily going to be one of them.   There are those that advocating stitching and I think that does get you pretty far, but I have been an advocate of multi-shot.  For all the color detail lost to the bayer, compared to film, the multi-shot gets back.  I haven't used the scanning backs like the betterlight but would guess they are similar to multishot.  In the end - its horses for courses....

[Wayne Fox]

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for your comments! My take is that Tim Parkin finds that film gives superior detail under the microscope or when properly scanned

Part of the problem is comparing "film" to 100mp digital.  You can't do that, you have to compare a film format to a digital format.  The thread title and OP's question related to 4x5 and 100mp digital.

 Bringing 8x10 into the equation was because parkin's test was linked and implied as evidence that film is competitive with the IQ180, but the post didn't reference a format of film, and I just wanted to point out that Parkin's test was about 8x10 film still holding an edge with the IQ180, and his tests show pretty clearly that the IQ180 resolves far better than 4x5 film.

But as with anything, capture format is relative to output size.  Side by side output of both will look great, but as the size increases or the cropping gets more extreme, eventually the higher resolution of the 100mp back will become evident.

[Chris Barrett]

The difference in image quality will be so negligible as to be less than the variance in most user's own technical skills.  I really don't think it matters.  I'd suggest you look more at the experiential differences and consider what you want your photographic process and workflow to be.

If you want to move through your practice more quickly and have immediate results, then go digital.  If you want to spend more time behind the camera studying the composition, then 4x5 provides a much more 'zen-like' experience.  But then there's the delay of processing film and scanning or printing.

I love digital for my commercial work, but just bought an 8x10 for my personal work... because that is the experience and process that I want to utilize for engaging that work.

It all depends
#NoMagicBullet
CB

[Wayne Fox]

I love digital for my commercial work, but just bought an 8x10 for my personal work... because that is the experience and process that I want to utilize for engaging that work.

I'm jealous.  I'm not really a big fan of film for films sake, but I often think I would like to try 8x10 film for the same reasons you stated ... and I will admit there is nothing like holding an 8x10 transparency over a light table, and looking at the amazing quality and detail (assuming I can actually figure out how to keep that big piece of film flat, and get the thing focused ...)

Please update us on your experience

[DanielStone]

Why not simply do both?  Some projects I shoot with my IQ300, others with a KB Canham 8 x 10 or even with my awesome 4x5  RB Super D Graflex.

Life is too short (to) quibble.   Once a decision is made of what I want to photograph.  The next step is to choose the tool which helps produce the image that lives in my mind's eye.

Thank you.

THIS ^^^

[Joe Towner]

A technical reason for 4x5: lens movements

So generally speaking you'll get a better image from the 100MP, things like shutter speeds faster than 1/500th, weight, setup, autofocus, lens focal lenghts. 

If the shot you see require large lens movements, you're better shooting it on film.