Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?  (Read 9439 times)

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2009, 04:08:36 pm »

Super.
Logged

Joseph Holmes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
So You Think Medium Format Digital is Easy?
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2009, 08:54:58 pm »

Quote from: mtomalty
Hey Joseph,

This might not be the appropriate place to ask but, after reading through your repots, I have one broad question to ask.

Why?

I don't mean to sound flippant but after years of honing your craft in the methods that you discuss,and showcase, on your website
why the desire to move to a MF digital workflow?

From the results that your tests have provided are you convinced that the end product  (a saleable,large format print)  is a significant
enough improvement to endure the frustrations you have written about?

You are/have migrated from a time tested technique where you can reliably reproduce a quality product to one that is fraught with
apparent obstacles  (sharpness/focus issues, color casts when camera movements are required, and very significant costs to acquire
the best equipment to have a chance to take advantage of certain technological advances).

From your site, and what I have seen in print about you for some years, it doesn't appear that you are a high volume photographer
so that leaves the resulting quality as the impetus and is something I would be curious to hear about rather that speculating secondhand.

Anyhow, if you are interested in sharing anything on the subject I'd be grateful as I have come close to making a similar move a few times
in recent years but have always decided that the gains that I could see in less rigorous testing than you have done didn't compel me to
make the change at the expense required.

Best,
Mark Tomalty

www.marktomalty.com

Mark,

You are correct to assume that quality was the primary motivating factor in my moving to digital capture.  For many years already, digital capture methods have offered much better quality for color than chemical methods in some important respects, and we've had to wait to see the achievable resolution with non-scanning systems reach the levels that view camera users are interested in.

At first it seemed that single-frame 39 MP backs could not quite match modern 4x5 film results w. respect to detail, but eventually it became clear that this was due to a variety of failures of implementation.  Added to that discovery, was the advent of stitching, which, although not always practical, is really quite robust for many kinds of pictures and which can yield massively increased image detail and which offers essentially unlimited freedom of aspect ratio, without relying on cropping, i.e. wider ratios improve quality, rather than decreasing it.

Two tasks for chemical capture can readily reveal some of its weaknesses: copying artwork and rendering gray objects so well that the image actually appears to be in B&W.  Making very accurate copies of colored flat art with digital cameras is easy.  With film its pretty much impossible, though a heavy dose of digital control could force it to happen.  I've seen a few images captured digitally that I would have been unable to tell were color, were it not for a small part of the subject which had color -- the freedom from crossovers is unbelievable, and once you get a little used to what that gives you, it's hard to let it go.  The solidness of the results, when the subject matter is good, can be quite moving in itself.

Another advantage for digital capture that bears on quality is the ability to set the white point after the fact with complete precision (i.e. with zero crossover in the result).  At times, this can be a stunning advantage.  With a transparency, a color temp meter, a bunch of LB filters, and a certain amount of luck are needed just to get into the same ballpark.

Added to the direct quality advantages, the typical speed of operation is itself a valuable asset for productivity, particularly in the face of rapidly vanishing lighting.  And the time savings for buying film, loading and unloading holders, processing film, scanning film, and spotting the film are fairly huge.  And lest I forget, the dynamic range being similar to that of color or B&W negatives, but without the problems associated with color negs, is another giant advantage.

I am looking to make files that will typically include 2- to 4 times more total detail than what I have made with the 4x5, and have been making pictures, which enjoy qualities that I greatly prefer to what film has done, for a couple of years or more now.  So, yes, absolutely, the print quality will be better, but also different.

It's an expensive conversion and the time required has been a lot more than I would have hoped, but armed with much of my experience in this area you will hopefully be able to make the jump much more easily, when you're ready.

If I were primarily interested in B&W, I'd be doing approx. what Tom Mallonee is doing, making modern film 4x5 B&W negs, scanning them, and using a special B&W inkset on cotton to make extremely permanent prints with a special system for pigmented inkset(s).  Even B&W is beginning to yield to digital capture with area-array sensors though.

Good luck,

Joe Holmes
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up