Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: 4x5 or 8x10 vs GFX50S vs 645Z vs XP100 vs Mamiya 7 HELP!! Going crazy!  (Read 6424 times)

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496

Will they represent a real substitute of film? Will a human eye tell the difference on a 16x20' print and lower size, between the film and digital?

If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?

By 16x20', do you mean 16 inches by 20 inches (about 40cmx60cm)? These are relatively small prints for the systems you consider, so I am not sure I understood what you meant.

It would also help to know what kind of pictures you do and what kind of lenses you need. Good wide-angle lenses, for example, may not be easy to find in all systems.
Logged

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

What I found to be intriguing about Mr. Reichman test on prints was just about this, all the talk about analogue feeling when you look at tones on print, it was proved to be hard to tell when looking at print.

So then my final question could be summed up as follow, can you tell an analogue shot from a digital one when looking at printed file of a 16x20 inches?

The "feel", would be recognizable?
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3710
    • Photos of Arkansas

Was the analog shot scanned? thus it becomes digital.  Unless the shot is being actually developed and printed in a darkroom, which is easier for B&W and color even in 16 x 20 size, I feel that once it's scanned it's digital, it's just digital capture by another method, in this case a scanner. The largest negative I ever worked in a darkroom color or B&W was 4x5, I can't imagine working with 8x10 without a scan.

Just my thoughts on this as the film vs digital argument for color left me a long time ago, just too much hassle for color in the darkroom and if you scan the negative, the rest is digital.

For over 7 years I worked with Cibrachrome in the darkroom and loved the look, however all those prints have now totally faded and I greatly prefer working a scanned negative and making an inkjet or Fuji print from them.  There is no comparison to working in total darkness i.e. color in a darkroom, and scanning in the same file and working it in digital at least for me.  B&W is totally different subject as the workflow in the darkroom is much more relaxed, at least for me.

Paul Caldwell
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1264
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com

One note I use the XF with the Iq3100 handheld all the time. 70% of all images. I have two rules. One keep the shutter speed twice the focal length. Secondly I use the vibration delay mode with 0,5s.

With that combination I get sharp images 90% of the time.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3710
    • Photos of Arkansas

One note I use the XF with the Iq3100 handheld all the time. 70% of all images. I have two rules. One keep the shutter speed twice the focal length. Secondly I use the vibration delay mode with 0,5s.

With that combination I get sharp images 90% of the time.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Hi Christopher, probably my age, just can't get that formula to work for me, especially with any type of tele lens, 110mm and beyond.  Much better hit rate with the GFX for me. 

Paul Caldwell
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1264
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com

Certainly true. With 150 and longer lenses I prefer the 1:3 rule and the GFX especially with the IS in the 120 is amazing. Would hope any future lens on the 180-300 range from Fuji has IS as well.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3667
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com

One note I use the XF with the Iq3100 handheld all the time. 70% of all images.

For me 99% of my wedding images with the XF 100mp are handheld.

For 16x20 prints 1:1 [shutter speed:focal length] actually works pretty well, but to maximize sharpness at 100% pixel peeping I suggest 2:1 to 2.5:1 [shutter speed:focal length].
Logged
DOUG PETERSON ([email protected]), Digital Transitions (Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto)
Office: 877.367.8537 | Cell: 740.707.2183 | Phase One IQ3 100mp - 9 Surprises

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496

So then my final question could be summed up as follow, can you tell an analogue shot from a digital one when looking at printed file of a 16x20 inches?

The "feel", would be recognizable?

Yes, of course. But probably not for the reasons you think.

I go to museum and galleries regularly, they have large and even huge prints. Finding out which ones were analogue and which ones were digital captures is relatively easy, but not on sharpness. Digital is as sharp as analogue, especially for the relatively small prints you are considering. For a sharp print at 16"x20", about 24 mpix are enough.

What gives color film away are the colors. They are almost impossible to recreate digitally, especially if one observes the print close on large prints. What gives B&W film away is the aspect of the grain, but some advanced digital processes can come pretty close. What gives silver halide B&W print paper away compared to high end inkjet is the aspect of some medium grays, when observed very carefully.

But for 16x20" prints observed from arm length, the only difference that is likely to be noticed is that the colors of film are unique. They also vary depending on the film you use, so you would first have to tell us that part.
Logged

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

I shoot mainly Kodak Portra 160. I am just willing to find a digital alternative to a 4x5 process, flying, shipping, x-ray, scans, and to be handy (and on medium term) "cheaper".

I do wonder if 180 vs 4x5 famous test is still valid. And even there, it was never clear to me, cause you can find the very good test done here, where clearly 180 looked great, and on others (Tim Parkin) where looks less a winner.
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496

I shoot mainly Kodak Portra 160. I am just willing to find a digital alternative to a 4x5 process, flying, shipping, x-ray, scans, and to be handy (and on medium term) "cheaper".

I do wonder if 180 vs 4x5 famous test is still valid. And even there, it was never clear to me, cause you can find the very good test done here, where clearly 180 looked great, and on others (Tim Parkin) where looks less a winner.

If you print no bigger than 16"x20", any MF camera will be fine. If you use Kodak Portra, the MF cameras which gives the closest tonality are the ones from Hasselblad, according to Edward Burtynsky (interview here). Therefore, I would suggest an X1D or a second hand H4D or H3DII camera.
Logged

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

Thank you for your link and reply, I tried it, I had a feeling of a 1 second shutter lag, it was just me or someone experienced the same with it?
Logged

douglevy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
    • New England Wedding Photographer Doug Levy

Holy shit that interview was painful to read.

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

It's a very interesting article and interview, thanks for sharing.

Do you guys feel the same as Burtynsky in saying that 50MP equals 4x5 and 100MP equals 8x10?
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496

Thank you for your link and reply, I tried it, I had a feeling of a 1 second shutter lag, it was just me or someone experienced the same with it?

If you are talking about the X1D, its shutter is almost silent and with little lag, but there is a louder click a split second afterwards while the shutter resets.

And if you don't like the X1D, an older H3DII-39 or H3DII-50 can be had for less money, has a collection of very nice lenses to go with it, will do ISO 160 just as your portra film and will fill your 16"x20" prints just fine. I know from experience.
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496

Do you guys feel the same as Burtynsky in saying that 50MP equals 4x5 and 100MP equals 8x10?

Frankly, if Burtynsky, who owns a fine art print shop and generally knows his bit about how to get huge prints sold to museums (like this one 48"x63"!), there should be some truth to that idea. And I am no Burtynsky, but I visit exhibitions with large prints regularly and I would say that the comparison is generally correct.
Logged

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

I've shot with a Hasselblad 40MB back and scaled up to 5x7 ft, and it was a problem, lot of problems actually.
So a 39MP won't be a chance, when I would love to make bigger prints (rare), although a 51MP sounds better. Or the 100, it looks like is a 10k cheaper than Phaseone. Although Focus is a pain and C1 is very good in handling files.
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook

It's a very interesting article and interview, thanks for sharing.

Do you guys feel the same as Burtynsky in saying that 50MP equals 4x5 and 100MP equals 8x10?

Close.  I have worked on the basis that 70mp equals 4x5 Large format fine grained film.  But that's just subjective resolution.  In other respects, a high quality digital camera will considerably better film.  Taken overall, it is very much in the right ballpark.
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrator, Photographer and senior partner of Bargate Murray, the award winning Luxury Asset Law Firm

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 702
    • www.christopherbarrett.net

I think this is kind of tricky ground.  While I do feel like my 43mp A7r2 can match the detail of fine grain 4x5 film... there are subjective things to consider.  If you print a digital capture enlarged to the point where you see pixels, it begins to fall apart.  It's just not pretty.  If you do the same with an image on film then you just begin to see the grain, which can be beautiful.  So, while digital may capture greater detail, I feel like you can take a film capture to a larger print without losing it's innate beauty.

Yeah?

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

Chris, sure, I agree. That is why some artists still won't abandon 8x10 for digital, interpolation its just not good enough to go large scale.

On the other hand, if you look at any latest Gursky, that to me looked very digital (I might be wrong). And its a 4 meter long print.

Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496

I've shot with a Hasselblad 40MB back and scaled up to 5x7 ft, and it was a problem, lot of problems actually.

You were talking about 16"x24" prints. I qualified my answers with that.

Please note that if you enlarge 8"x10" to 5x7 ft, there will be a "problem" as well. Have you heard of Richard Learoyd?

https://fraenkelgallery.com/artists/richard-learoyd
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/oct/23/richard-learoyd-dark-mirror-camera-obscura-photography-vanda-museum-artworks
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up