Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Rdmax on February 26, 2017, 12:59:00 pm
-
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?
-
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?
Seriously? I don't believe I've ever heard of someone considering those two choices. If you go with film, will you use a wet darkroom, or scan and use a digital workflow after that? Are you experienced in chemical darkroom work? If the answers are "I'll scan" and "No", and if the initial cost difference is unimportant to you, I'd recommend the digital capture route.
Jim
-
Well I didn't see a topic so I decided to make one. :D
-
That's a very individual question. For me, the first time I ever used a digital camera in 2002 I thought I'd still shoot film and kept my film gear. By 2005 I sold it all except for some vintage stuff that I wanted more as keepsakes (1936 Leica, 1955 Zeiss medium format, and some others) but I have never shot film again and am shooting with the 100MP Phase back now along with a few other smaller format cameras. But not everyone is that way, some still feel that digital isn't capable of giving them the look that their large and medium format film cameras give them, others wouldn't go back to chemical based imaging ever again...
-
Shooting 4x5 film is a very different experience than shooting a digital back. If all you need is high resolution, go for the digital back. Large format film comes with a lot of limitations (one sheet of film per holder, lengthy setup times, no room for error when you only have four or five sheets in total, limited film selection and availability, color film may be really hard to process at home or get processed in a lab, etc).
-
Shooting 4x5 film is a very different experience than shooting a digital back. If all you need is high resolution, go for the digital back. Large format film comes with a lot of limitations (one sheet of film per holder, lengthy setup times, no room for error when you only have four or five sheets in total, limited film selection and availability, color film may be really hard to process at home or get processed in a lab, etc).
Uh, two sheets of film per holder. At least, I've never seen a holder with less than two sheets, although I have seen ones with more.
Jim
-
Oh right, forgot about the flip!
-
I got into large format photography in 2012. I thoroughly enjoy it and are doing 3 personal portrait projects with it. One nice side effect is that people can see it's not a trivial process and are willing to work with you.
Now I am speaking from a position of not having the $30k-$50K for a 100MP MFDB system. If I were? I will probably get an 8x10 ~_o
-
Can't imagine in my wildest dreams going back to film. I have a 3100 so maybe its just me.....
Victor
-
From an image quality standpoint, there is little doubt in my mind that the 100mp backs are ahead of 4x5, but I haven't done any comparison.
Then again, add stitching to the mix and even 8x10 is left far behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
From an image quality standpoint, there is little doubt in my mind that the 100mp backs are ahead of 4x5, but I haven't done any comparison.
Then again, add stitching to the mix and even 8x10 is left far behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
Wow. Aside from cost, why stick around with 4x5?
-
Wow. Aside from cost, why stick around with 4x5?
The only reason I can think of is the fact that large movements are not possible with digital lenses on MFBDs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I do shoot both but for different reasons (and other film & digital formats).
For performance and convenience the 100MP is by far the superior solution these days although there are some limitations but they are pretty esoteric (rear tilt being the main one for me although there are solutions around that if I really wanted to carry a bigger camera system).
Shooting film is a process thing these days for me - i.e. a zen out in the field thing. I don't develop the film but I do scan and you do need to be committed to that. It's a tedious labour of love for me TBH but others might disagree if 100% analogue.
If you are results oriented, unless looking for an analogue end to end solution, I'd definitely go with the 100mp solution and either a technical field camera like a Cambo Actus DB or Linhof Techno if the tilt / swing / shift process is important, or a pancake technical camera.
-
Wow. Aside from cost, why stick around with 4x5?
As others mentioned, it's really a "process" thing. Some people enjoy process, but my guess is that for 99.99999% of the people, if they could afford a 100MP system, they would go with that.
-
I do shoot both but for different reasons (and other film & digital formats).
For performance and convenience the 100MP is by far the superior solution these days although there are some limitations but they are pretty esoteric (rear tilt being the main one for me although there are solutions around that if I really wanted to carry a bigger camera system).
Shooting film is a process thing these days for me - i.e. a zen out in the field thing. I don't develop the film but I do scan and you do need to be committed to that. It's a tedious labour of love for me TBH but others might disagree if 100% analogue.
If you are results oriented, unless looking for an analogue end to end solution, I'd definitely go with the 100mp solution and either a technical field camera like a Cambo Actus DB or Linhof Techno if the tilt / swing / shift process is important, or a pancake technical camera.
I think this sums things up pretty neatly. I just got a film back for my digital tech cam setup, for backup and mainly fun purposes. I love the look of film and how it makes me think so much more before pressing the shutter, but to be honest, if I were under pressure to deliver results, there's no way I'd be confident enough to work with film, digital is just so much more convenient.
-
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 (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html) between large format and IQ180
Markus Zuber's comparison (http://www.phase1.co.kr/q/phase1/info.php?mid=9&r=view&uid=1579) 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.
-
It's not just resolution. Film just has better colour, especially when considering resolution and fine detail.
A bayer array makes colour disappear in some cases as seen in this film/digital comparison.
-
Agree with Bo_dez, i shoot Alpa and Leaf 80 mpx, but color is nor as good as film. Close but not the same.
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
-
I should also mention that with 4x5, while you don't have the latest lens, what's available are quite nice, and in fact you have access to 100+ years lens like the Petzval or the Cooke triplets, which have *characters*, or even (my favorite) modern classics like the Cooke PS945.
(http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20170120-Scanned-18-Edit-Edit.jpg)
-
Uh, two sheets of film per holder. At least, I've never seen a holder with less than two sheets, although I have seen ones with more.
Jim
Yes, but for many I think one film holder may be considered as one shot. This was the way I was originally taught using 5x4" - 10x8" film. Duplicate the shot on flip side of film holder and process one side first giving you a backup in case of film damage in processing or other potential disasters. Of course there would be exceptions such as missing the "decisive moment", clouds passing by, or light changing between first shot and flipping holder, but IME these were fairly rare for the type of work undertaken
It's not just resolution. Film just has better colour, especially when considering resolution and fine detail.
A bayer array makes colour disappear in some cases as seen in this film/digital comparison.
I really do not think that this is the case any stronger than using a particular transparency film may make certain colours appear more saturated and the variance of E6 processing (hopefully subtle but still there). It is my belief that this is a matter of post processing and camera profiles with digital rather than an inherent issue. Further with a little work I see no reason why a particular look cannot be achieved with your editing tools of choice and saved as a new profile or preset.
For me as much as I enjoyed the creative process of shooting LF and processing and printing I would have no hesitation in choosing digital for many reasons not least of which is flexibility and IQ
-
I really do not think that this is the case any stronger than using a particular transparency film may make certain colours appear more saturated and the variance of E6 processing (hopefully subtle but still there). It is my belief that this is a matter of post processing and camera profiles with digital rather than an inherent issue. Further with a little work I see no reason why a particular look cannot be achieved with your editing tools of choice and saved as a new profile or preset.
Nothing to do with saturation or colour profiles and post production has little bearing on what digital removes. I'm not sure if you saw the picture, but most of the red berries in that photo are completely removed by nature of the bayer array. This is what digital does, it can not by nature replicate colour accurately as film.
-
I should also mention that with 4x5, while you don't have the latest lens, what's available are quite nice, and in fact you have access to 100+ years lens like the Petzval or the Cooke triplets, which have *characters*, or even (my favorite) modern classics like the Cooke PS945.
So true. That Cooke is one is a beautiful lens. Don't want to generalise but personally I don't like modern lenses much, at least by default, much for the same reasons I don't like digital. The tonality and sharpness can be quite jarring, false, and personally speaking, quite ugly in comparison and no amount of pixel peeping is relevant or revealing of much more than feats of engineering. Something that I don't really care much for or feel it contributes to a photo in any meaningful way.
-
Nothing to do with saturation or colour profiles and post production has little bearing on what digital removes. I'm not sure if you saw the picture, but most of the red berries in that photo are completely removed by nature of the bayer array. This is what digital does, it can not by nature replicate colour accurately as film.
On the contrary it has everything to do with profiles and how you set your post processing. Digital remove nothing that a particular film type and processing will not.
I did see the image you included, perhaps it was a poor example but with a 5 sec post edit (attached) I seem to have more red berries than you have on film. Of course your shots are at different angles and the red berries in the film shot at front by rocks are hidden in the digital by the second shot.
-
Um...no the digital shot has very little berries and the film shot has a lot.
-
It's not just resolution. Film just has better colour, especially when considering resolution and fine detail.
A bayer array makes colour disappear in some cases as seen in this film/digital comparison.
Yes, I'd say the Raw converter is doing the disappearing; with film the manufacturer and lab does the heavy lifting for colors, with digital you need to become your own expert -or hire one.
Edmund
-
Yes, I'd say the Raw converter is doing the disappearing; with film the manufacturer and lab does the heavy lifting for colors, with digital you need to become your own expert -or hire one.
Edmund
Why do you assume I am not a digital expert?
-
Um...no the digital shot has very little berries and the film shot has a lot.
Ok so I misunderstood which was which. But don't you see that the angle has changed between the two shots and berries are being obscured by leaves? The red berries cannot just disappear selectively.
I stand by my earlier statements - this is processing in raw to reveal what you want to reveal and conceal whatever.
-
Ok so I misunderstood which was which. But don't you see that the angle has changed between the two shots and berries are being obscured by leaves? The red berries cannot just disappear selectively.
I stand by my earlier statements - this is processing in raw to reveal what you want to reveal and conceal whatever.
I'm not talking about the small amount of berries from camera angle. The whole bush has far less berries.
Yes the red berries just disappear selectively.
Sure, feel free to stand by that.
-
.....Yes the red berries just disappear selectively.
;D :'( 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.
-
If I had the choice, I would use 100mp back.
as much as I 'love' the process of 4x5, the process of developing C41 is getting more and more difficult (obtaining the chemicals to process) but there is still something more appealing to my eyes with film than digital on large landscape exposures
but I cant afford a 100mp system (back, body, lens, insurance etc) so its academic for me anyway
-
Yes, I'd say the Raw converter is doing the disappearing; with film the manufacturer and lab does the heavy lifting for colors, with digital you need to become your own expert -or hire one.
When I was in the color science biz, if I had time to kill at SPIE and other conferences, I'd sometimes watch papers or attend workshops on color film and paper design. I came away hugely impressed by the artfulness of the engineers doing the work, and the immense difficulties that they faced given the stacking of the emulsions, the dyes they had to work with, the way the developers and couplers worked. In the case of printing, they had to stack two highly compromised processes on top of each other, using each one to compensate for the departures from fidelity of the other. After a few of these sessions, I stopped whining about the lack of accuracy of film compared to digital capture, and became flatly amazed that color film worked at all. By the way, it was clear that the film system designers were not aiming for accurate color at all; pleasing was the target.
Compared to film, designing an accurate digital color system is a piece of cake.
With respect to who does the work, I think that chemical color printing was harder than digital editing. Dealing with color shifts when dodging and burning. Making contrast reduction or sharpening masks. Pin registration. Yuk.
Jim
-
...
With respect to who does the work, I think that chemical color printing was harder than digital editing. Dealing with color shifts when dodging and burning. Making contrast reduction or sharpening masks. Pin registration. Yuk.
Jim
that's one area I kept well away from.
After developing, I switch to a digital workflow for the rest of the pipeline. Develop, then scan. I really couldn't be bothered with englarging, editing & printing analogue.
-
....After a few of these sessions, I stopped whining about the lack of accuracy of film compared to digital capture, and became flatly amazed that color film worked at all. By the way, it was clear that the film system designers were not aiming for accurate color at all; pleasing was the target.
Compared to film, designing an accurate digital color system is a piece of cake.
With respect to who does the work, I think that chemical color printing was harder than digital editing. Dealing with color shifts when dodging and burning. Making contrast reduction or sharpening masks. Pin registration. Yuk.
Jim
;D Absolutely agree, having to know at least some of the science behind film and paper processing due to being employed to set up processing labs both professional and large D&P along with QC/QA systems it was amazing to think of the brain power (and sweat and tears that went into formulating the whole process towards an image) and the magic that made it all work - usually very well.
And yes my opinion is that chemical colour printing much harder than digital editing and printing and the chemical process so limiting in many ways when comparing. In short we have never had it so good
-
The sample picture shown has both noise (CCD readout noise?) and JPEG compression artifacts. Considering that some cameras also employ noise reduction techniques that are applied to the raw output of the sensor even when NR is turned off (astrophotographers should know), I wouldn't be surprised if the berries disappeared. Software along the way might've thought that those single red pixels were artifacts and not part of the image, so it removed most of them. The CFA has nothing to do with this.
By the way, it was clear that the film system designers were not aiming for accurate color at all; pleasing was the target.
This is exactly why we have so many different films, each own with its unique look (that many try to emulate in digital). I wouldn't say film has better color than digital. It has pleasing colors (provided you use the right film for your subject), but you can make digital look like anything you want.
I really like Portra for portraits during sunset and Superia for cloudy days. I would never switch them around because they would most likely produce unpleasant hues.
-
As for chemical processing, I have a Jobo CPP2 and I use 5L Flexicolor Kodak kits (with separate bleach and fix even) and cost only about $1 sheet. Indeed, once you get used to 4x5, even a Leica M9 seems a bit lacking, so now I use a couple Hassy for my "small" kits. I always scan and use my Epson 7900 for printing. Kodak Portra colors oh-so-good:
(http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20160129-Scanned-89.jpg)
-
As for chemical processing, I have a Jobo CPP2 and I use 5L Flexicolor Kodak kits (with separate bleach and fix even) and cost only about $1 sheet.....[/img]
I have a CPP2 with lift also, but getting hold of the flexicolor kits (replenishers) is tricky unless you are able to walk into a supplier like B&H in person
At least with digital, once you have the kit you are good to go and not reliant on supplies
-
I gave up trying to be a good or even average image processor with film in a darkroom many years ago. Digital technology has been a boon for my photography enabling me to do what I couldn't do without the expensive time consuming help of a lab. So I guess the answer might be as follows: If you are a slow and careful worker with your camera and in the darkroom medium format film may be an enjoyable way to go. If you are happy to use an outside lab to do everything and like the retro feel/look of the whole film thing that may also be a way to go.
However I have to say that as an owner of a 100mp digital system (Hasselblad) I cannot really believe that a 5x4 or even whole plate camera system would produce reliably solid images unless in the hands of a highly experienced and talented expert.
Digital is so forgiving - on a still life shoot I may take several hundred shots to get what I want and then a few hours later I can look at the finished print. Cannot easily do that with film.
The only trouble is that the entry cost is high but once that is paid the cost of ownership (film, processing, screw-ups) is much lower.
Finally the combination of digital backs with live view on a traditional large format or 5x4 camera system is a hard thing to beat.
-
I have a CPP2 with lift also, but getting hold of the flexicolor kits (replenishers) is tricky unless you are able to walk into a supplier like B&H in person
I buy them from Unique Photo in NJ. I am located in California.
-
I buy them from Unique Photo in NJ. I am located in California.
unfortunately for me, I'm in Canada
Unique Photo wanted $13 for the chemical, and $80-$150 for the shipping :/
-
unfortunately for me, I'm in Canada
Unique Photo wanted $13 for the chemical, and $80-$150 for the shipping :/
Well OK, but the situation in US is not as dire as having to walk into B&H.
-
..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 ;-)
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html) between large format and IQ180
Markus Zuber's comparison (http://www.phase1.co.kr/q/phase1/info.php?mid=9&r=view&uid=1579) 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).
-
;D :'( 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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....
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :)
-
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 ^^^
-
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.
-
It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.
In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.
If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.
Good luck.
-
Hi,
My take is:
- 100 MP digital, excellent results with little effort
- 4x5" needs a lot of effort. Excellent results possible, but a lot of effort.
So, my guess is that 4x5" is quite OK for low volume work, if you know what you are doing. Takes a lot of work and needs good scanning. Excellent results achievable with affordable gear.
An MFD back will deliver excellent results with little effort, but cost of entry is high.
Second hand MFD is quite affordable, may be worth a try. That said, I am a bit skeptic…
Best regards
Erik
It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.
In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.
If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.
Good luck.
-
It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.
In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.
If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.
Good luck.
The look or perspective is only dependent on exactly where you stand and shoot and where the subject is. The look will be different depending on the rendeting by the lens and the DoF. So you will not get a different look from a 4x5 than a 100MP Phase One camera, only if you choose different positions relative to your scene.
-
Using a back with live view of a tech camera may be the best of both worlds.
It is really hard to beat live view, especially with the ease of double tapping on a touch screen to zoom in a fraction of a second anywhere in the screen.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The look or perspective is only dependent on exactly where you stand and shoot and where the subject is. The look will be different depending on the rendeting by the lens and the DoF. So you will not get a different look from a 4x5 than a 100MP Phase One camera, only if you choose different positions relative to your scene.
Unless one can use stitching to cover the 4x5 area, it will look different for the same subject and composition. Using the same lens will mean having to be much further away with the digital back, changing perspective and dof in the process. At the same distance you would need a shorter focal length instead, which will change perspective and dof as well as other lens characteristics.
-
Hi,
My way of shooting is to look for subject and after that finding a vantage point. Done that I try to find the best composition and choose lens in accordance. Ideally I would have the perfect lens for the compostion, that works very well in 24x36mm as I use a bunch of decent quality zooms. With MFD it is a bit more tricky. But, would I shoot say 120 mm at f/8 with my P45+ and 90 mm at f/5.6 on the A7rII perspective, look and DoF would be virtually the same.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDLook/Perspective/MFDvsFF.jpg
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDLook/Perspective/MFDvsFF.jpg)
Would we include APS-C, we would need a 60 mm lens at f/3.8. Not having that I used a 50 mm at f/4:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDLook/Perspective/MFDvsFFvsAPS-C.jpg
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDLook/Perspective/MFDvsFFvsAPS-C.jpg)
The composition may need an 80 mm lens on the P45+, but I may only have 60 mm and 100mm. In that case I may use the 100mm and do a stitch. Perspective would be the same, but I would need to stop down a little bit more, using say f/10 instead of f/8 for the same DoF.
Getting back 100 MP vs. 4x5 film. You can make excellent 4000 PPI scans from 4x5" for around 31$ at http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/prices/
Making the best of a film scan will take some work and turn around will take some time. For low volume the film option may be viable. Break even may be around 1000 high resolution drum scans.
One other point is that to make best use of 4x5" film you would still need to shoot medium apertures. Stopping down beyond f/11 takes you in diffraction affected territory. That applies both to 100MP MFD and 4x5".
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
Unless one can use stitching to cover the 4x5 area, it will look different for the same subject and composition. Using the same lens will mean having to be much further away with the digital back, changing perspective and dof in the process. At the same distance you would need a shorter focal length instead, which will change perspective and dof as well as other lens characteristics.
-
One other point is that to make best use of 4x5" film you would still need to shoot medium apertures. Stopping down beyond f/11 takes you in diffraction affected territory. That applies both to 100MP MFD and 4x5".
Erik, you correctly worked out that, with appropriate lens focal length selection, that DOF, perspective and FOV can be identical across formats.
The same is true of diffraction. At the apertures that equalize DOF, diffraction in same sized prints will be the same.
Jim
-
It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.
In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.
If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.
Good luck.
On this I disagree.
Have not shot 4x5 for at least 15 years. Reason being 5x7 and 8x10.
I can put together a competent 4x5/5x7 or 8x10 camera/lens/holders out fit for under $1000. Spending more I can get one of higher quality and precision.
Shooting B&W and contact printing I can go from loading film to finished contact print - silver or Pt/Pd or even carbon transfer - all without electricity. I know as I have done it when living where we had no electric power.
One is not superior to the other. Film and digital both have advantages. For me the only real choice is which I prefer to use. Film has me involved and moving around. Digital has me in front of an electronic hellbox for hours on end. Sitting and static for the most part. Digital costs worlds more to use and on the high end with medium format backs - the cost is astronomical compared to Large Format film.
As long as the final image looks the way I want and the process is satisfying and enjoyable - it does not really matter. It is the old bitching about oils or watercolor, mixing ones own pigments or getting them from commercial sources.
I'll enjoy final images, mine and yours - no matter how you got them. In many cases the fact the original print I am looking at is the result of the artist hand, limited in number to how long they have the patience to produce them rather than digitally printed with the real ability to output ten thousand perfect and identical prints is what I prefer. Just a difference in 'touch and involvement' to various degrees.
The fact one is technically 'superior' doesn't really matter when I am looking at the finished image. That is me - your mileage may vary.
-
For me the only real choice is which I prefer to use. Film has me involved and moving around. Digital has me in front of an electronic hellbox for hours on end. Sitting and static for the most part....
...
I'll enjoy final images, mine and yours - no matter how you got them. In many cases the fact the original print I am looking at is the result of the artist hand, limited in number .....
depends of what your final outcome is...
If your outcome is a homemade wet darkroom print i believe you; if you scan your film and put it to a inkjet printer you will find yourself spending more hours in front of this hellbox getting the colours right and removing dust than when you started digital. Digital does not mean it has to be produced in large numbers or vice versa.
-
Why not just rent a MFD system when you need it? If you're in a major market like LA, NY, SF, etc then there are plenty of guys who will rent you a kit I'm sure.
I'm super low volume, as I only shoot for myself. So film works best for me and my work flow. Outsourcing drum scans and doing the post work myself keeps costs quite low. Yes I can't just "scan everything" as if I had my own drum scanner(used to, sold it due to low use).
To me, 50MP is a sweet spot in the digital domain. Big enough to make some BIG prints from with enough clarity and detail, but small enough you can still fit enough shots on a 16gb card :D
If I were to go for a digital solution, it'd be a 50mp solution. Then again, I'm not doing mural size prints to stick my nose into either ::)
-Dan