Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: marcs on May 22, 2009, 04:19:06 pm
-
1. Any observations would be welcome. I have been primarily using my P-45 but not too impressed with prints at 4.5x5.5 feet compared with those I've seen from professional artists using 8x10 (Crewdson, Wall, et al)...and I do have a master printer that works for me (but he has never worked with 8x10 negs).
2. I am thinking of making the switch (time and money not an issue) to either the P-65 or 8x10. If there are any users with recent 8x10 experience, please provide your opinion as to best "normal" lens and modern camera. I've looked a bit at the Arca Swiss F-line and Wehman.
If there is already another topic on this, please provide a pointer. And yes, I've seen largeformatphotography.info.
Thanks!
Marc Schullman
-
I have no direct experience comparing the 2, but FWIW I heard that Crewdson dumped his 8x10 in favor of a P65+. I imagine that says alot about the ability to make ridiculously large prints.
-
1. Any observations would be welcome. I have been primarily using my P-45 but not too impressed with prints at 4.5x5.5 feet compared with those I've seen from professional artists using 8x10 (Crewdson, Wall, et al)...and I do have a master printer that works for me (but he has never worked with 8x10 negs).
2. I am thinking of making the switch (time and money not an issue) to either the P-65 or 8x10. If there are any users with recent 8x10 experience, please provide your opinion as to best "normal" lens and modern camera. I've looked a bit at the Arca Swiss F-line and Wehman.
If there is already another topic on this, please provide a pointer. And yes, I've seen largeformatphotography.info.
Thanks!
Marc Schullman
Marc,
One of the two photographers that you mention recently tested the Phase One P65+ directly against his 8x10 Sinar. When we compared the 1.5 GB 8x10 film scan vs. the 180mb TIF there we were both pretty amazed at the differences. The digital file had substantially more detail in the shadow area. It was easily 2-3 stops of information that the 8x10 transparency just didn't record. The color accuracy was also much better in the direct digital file. But with this said, the film color was "more pleasing". More accurate isn't always "better." And I would lean towards the film with this one. We are presently working on "film like" curves for him. But the biggest surprise was edge definition. Again, the P65+ yielded more information and resolved edges much truer.
"He" was sold on that test and received his new system last month. Since then he has called to tell me that he "officially put his 8x10 on ice" and isn't planning on using anytime soon.
I don't have permission to use his name in this thread and I don't want to break his trust. If I get his permission then I will post it here.
-
Attached is a simple comparison of actual print size differences between those two backs, p65 outer, p45 inner, not that big of a deal in increase to be honest. If the p45 doesn't make your mouth water then I don't see how the p65 will with only a moderate increase in print size. You may need to go 8x10 if that is really what you are after.
[attachment=13910:p65vsp45.jpg]
Neither way is right or wrong, but here is another way of viewing that same difference (I hope you don't mind I downloaded yours and moved the elements around).
Depending on what you are shooting you can also shoot on a technical or view camera and stitch within the image circle of e.g. a 47mm Schneider and nearly double your resolution.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:[email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Whatever makes you sleep better at night. Of course showing large single areas of difference makes a grander presentation than the smaller edge spaces, and that is what sells.
I'm young and live in South Beach. I try not to sleep at all at night.
By the way, I should say that I shot 8x10 when I was studying in Australia and there is something magical about that format and the tactile experience of it. Almost like the camera itself is large enough that you could fit inside and have a physical presence with the image inside. That said I don't miss hand-processing those suckers one bit.
-
You might want to ask this guy http://www.davidburdeny.com/ (http://www.davidburdeny.com/)
He has some simply amazing images, seems to have moved from film to MF digital and back to film.
Anyway he has posted on this forum before and might be of assistance to you if you send him an e-mail.
-
You might want to ask this guy http://www.davidburdeny.com/ (http://www.davidburdeny.com/)
He has some simply amazing images, seems to have moved from film to MF digital and back to film.
Anyway he has posted on this forum before and might be of assistance to you if you send him an e-mail.
Wow those images are stunning. That may be the best work I've seen this year (as far as finding work I hadn't seen before).
-
All, thanks for the feedback. It is all quite fascinating. Not surprised that "he" adopted the P-65, as it will no doubt add to the warm and pleasant artificiality of "his" created environments (I say this as a compliment). And now it will be more efficient for "his" (staff included) to blend images. I've done this with 4x5 and found it incredibly laborious so I can only imagine the increased work load using larger negs.
I'd be quite interested to see some film like curves and would be happy to pay if I liked what I saw.
Cheerio.
Marc
-
I'd be quite interested to see some film like curves and would be happy to pay if I liked what I saw.
I'm sure you understand that you would only "like what [you] saw" if you happened to shoot the exact same emulsion, film size, and had the same scanning/sharpening/printing procedures. This is a very personal/subjective/specific process.
We've worked with many photographers to match a new Phase back as closely as possible to their specific previous "look". This involves the Color Editor to make specific tweaks to mimic the color response of their preferred emulsion or back/dSLR, curves to match the dynamic range and shadow/mid/high tone rendition, and noise/sharpening settings. All of these settings can be wrapped into a style which can be automatically applied to all incoming tethered captures before they are ever shown on the screen. Since digital backs carry so much fidelity in each pixel they hold up incredibly well with these types of tweaks.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:[email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
8x10 is fantastic when everything is allright...
no wind at all
heavy tripod
no problem with film with Xray
no dust on the film when charging
no trouble with the lab
no trouble with the hight end scan that cost a lot
Digital back is fantastic when you manage to focus properly, you have top notch camera and lenses, your file isn't corrupt, and you are good at image processing.
if money and time is no concern, then i will have both ;-)
8x10... phillips compact II or Toyo 810M or an Ebony or the Arca Misura 8x10
for digital back, you should consider an arca RM3D, an Alpa XY, a cambo Wide RS, a sinar Artech... and an arca M line Two.
-
8x10 is fantastic when everything is allright...
no wind at all
heavy tripod
no problem with film with Xray
no dust on the film when charging
no trouble with the lab
no trouble with the hight end scan that cost a lot
Digital back is fantastic when you manage to focus properly, you have top notch camera and lenses, your file isn't corrupt, and you are good at image processing.
if money and time is no concern, then i will have both ;-)
8x10... phillips compact II or Toyo 810M or an Ebony or the Arca Misura 8x10
for digital back, you should consider an arca RM3D, an Alpa XY, a cambo Wide RS, a sinar Artech... and an arca M line Two.
In fact i never used film before, but really really i have a strong evil feeling inside me telling me that i must try film, and because i don't like to own used so i was looking to buy new Film Camera [MF or LF], sometimes i feel there are areas with film that digital didn't reach yet even surpass film i another areas, so i want to reach those areas where i can't reach with digital.
And as long i have many digitl cameras in both formats, 35mm and MF, so then i decided that if i will get a film camera then it should be a large format [4x5 or 8x10, and sure i lean toward 8x10], so now if i decided to get 8x10, from your post, which camera can be good? let's say for studios work with strobes, or for landscapes.
-
from my personnal point of view, the most versatile and well built camera is the Arca Fline... with the binocular viewer
there's plenty of variation, but the Arca Fline Field Metric Orbix 110/141 is probably the best set up for 4X5 architecture...
For 8x10, i will go for a phillips, but they are not available new... so, the Arca misura 8x10 must be in your short list.
a good place for informations...
largeformatphotography.info and forum (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/)
-
"He" will still need to do focusing stacking as "he" has been doing for a long time with "his" 8x10 film sheets which would be scanned and focus blended in computer. I don't see that changing. I can see that instant feedback and getting the files will be quicker and that is desirable, but I hope the look and feel of the work don't change from "his" previous 8x10 work.
Apparently "he" didn't feel that was a problem...
Seems like a pretty uncompromising fellow and I from what I understand "he" is quite pleased.
I think it's reasonable for 8 x 10 shooters to consider this solution. "They" may like what "they" see.
Signed "Me"
-
Crewdson dumped his 8x10 in favor of a P65+. I imagine that says alot about the ability to make ridiculously large prints.
But not ridiculously long exposures :>))
Mark
-
"They" have been telling us for years that digital is better than film, but if 10* the negative size is an acceptable enlargement for film, and 240-360 original camera pixels per print inch is acceptable for digital, the current 50-60 Mpx digital backs are equivalent of 120 film... if you are shooting for murals large prints or exhibition stand backdrops - shift and stitch.
-
Apparently "he" didn't feel that was a problem...
Seems like a pretty uncompromising fellow and I from what I understand "he" is quite pleased.
I think it's reasonable for 8 x 10 shooters to consider this solution. "They" may like what "they" see.
Signed "Me"
Who says you Large Sensor Photography Reps couldn't be transparent and clear?
B
BTW: Does the heading "Digital Backs and Large Sensor Photography" sound like medical equipment? I think people have been taking gwitf seriously.
-
If there are other reviews between MF digital (any manufacturer) and 4x5 or 8x10, please post links.
Thanks!
Marc
-
A little OT but Crewdson is a hack. The only thing he has done that is any good are the firefly photos. Really good and meaningful. He is to photography what Rick Moody is to literature: a douchebag. A poor man's Dicorsia with a schtick.
The prints do look nice, as well they should for the stupid budgets and number of crew. Thanks MassMoCA for sponsoring this fraud possible!
-
"One of the two photographers that you mention recently tested the Phase One P65+ directly against his 8x10 Sinar. When we compared the 1.5 GB 8x10 film scan vs. the 180mb TIF there we were both pretty amazed at the differences. The digital file had substantially more detail in the shadow area. It was easily 2-3 stops of information that the 8x10 transparency just didn't record."
When DR is important use negative film, it has more than 15 stops of DR (of course thats highlight information, so you have to expose for the shadows, the opposite of digital). But on the other side, 8x10 slides look gorgeous!
-
I was a bit suprised at that comparison as well. Digital has more information in the blacks than a tranny. Duh. You don't need a P65+ for that.
-
Marc,
One of the two photographers that you mention recently tested the Phase One P65+ directly against his 8x10 Sinar. When we compared the 1.5 GB 8x10 film scan vs. the 180mb TIF there we were both pretty amazed at the differences. The digital file had substantially more detail in the shadow area. It was easily 2-3 stops of information that the 8x10 transparency just didn't record. The color accuracy was also much better in the direct digital file. But with this said, the film color was "more pleasing". More accurate isn't always "better." And I would lean towards the film with this one. We are presently working on "film like" curves for him.
Very commendable, Dave, that you would undertake that effort to create more "film like" curves for the customer. Unfortunately, that should really be the responsibility of Phase One, Hasselblad etc. They seem not to appreciate that there were millions of photographers out there who actually liked the look of the films that they used for years, and that these films represented the fruits of decades of R&D and customer feedback. I simply do not understand why they feel it the customer's responsibility to roll their own film. Sure, there are some who want that option, but there are far more who would like to be able to get the look of, say, a Portra 160VC film with the press of a button, and then they can go fiddle with it in post. If the MFDB makers can't do it on their own, there are probably dozens of "retired" color film guys from Kodak and Agfa available that could do the job.
BTW, there is a piece on the Hasselblad website about Alec Soth, who also shot/shoots with an 8x10 and has switched to an H3D-50 for at least some of his work. http://www.hasselbladusa.com/user-showcase/alec-soth.aspx (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/user-showcase/alec-soth.aspx)
-
BTW, there is a piece on the Hasselblad website about Alec Soth, who also shot/shoots with an 8x10 and has switched to an H3D-50 for at least some of his work. http://www.hasselbladusa.com/user-showcase/alec-soth.aspx (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/user-showcase/alec-soth.aspx)
Very interesting thread. To me, the main difference in the look and feel of MFDB and 8x10 is the way the focus falls off immediately with 8x10. So it's an optical difference. If "he" is doing focus brackets anyway, and wanting everything sharp, I'd see no difference in the two formats; I'd choose digital for sure, and eliminate all the hassles of 8x10 and drum scanning.
For Soth, I'd just wonder how the "digital" would be accepted in his fine art world. There's just a mojo, no doubt, for a fine art guy to be shooting 8x10; it just fits in the whole artist mentality. And when you're running in those fine art circles, your "story" is pretty important; how you're perceived. And if you've ever seen an original Soth print from 8x10, you see the wonderful optical quality that results from 8x10. I doubt he'd get anywhere near that with 645 MFDB. Hard to put your finger on the optical quality, but you know it when you see it immediately. You see that blue house picture on the Hasselblad site, and it sure does not feel like a Soth image. (And sorta lame for Hasselblad to mix in his 8x10 film work on their web story). I'd just think, from a print sales standpoint, it's a whole lot more romantic and fantasylike to think of him, alone in a snow covered Minnesota field, under a dark cloth with an 8x10, than it does with an H3 on a tripod, with a MacBookPro on another tripod, next to him. I just think galleries love to tell a good story about the people they represent, and digital/batterychargers/firewirecables do not make for such a "romantic artist" story.
The other comment i'd make about that Soth/Hasselblad link: Hasselblad really gets it about graphic design and promotion. Their site is clean and contemporary; and the Victor Magazine is stunning. Jawdroppingly beautiful, and nicely designed. Whereas Phase is stuck in white-type-on-black background Star Trek graphic design, circa 1988. I know it's a subtle thing, but when you wondering, "does a company get it?", it's increasingly obvious that Hasselblad is really beginning to "get it".
-
"does a company get it?", it's increasingly obvious that Hasselblad is really beginning to "get it".
If you work professionally your suppose to be able to get past the design, the look, the feel of advertising.
We're suppose to be more savvy, but really presentation means a lot and to a customer base that spends 90% of their waking moments designing the look, the feel of advertising we're probably more susceptible than most to clean, intelligent design.
Leaf did a good job early on, selling the film like look and aligning themselves with good photographers, Phase took forever to get the standard grin and bite images off their site, Sinar (who knows about Sinar?), but Hasselblad, yea they get it. They feature photographers that produce fashion, art, commerce, editorial, illustrative, location, studio, all stunning, all displayed cleanly on a real consumer based site without screaming an obvious sales message, in the photographer profiles.
When Hasselblad closed off their system I thought, they're goes the medium format . . . excuse me "large sensor photography" neighborhood and they sent all their competitors spinning and running to align with F+H and Mamiya, which both weren't really 100% ready for prime time.
Hasselblad . . . they just held on tight, regardless of the criticism.
Now it makes sense.
They are quickly becoming the Apple computer of the professional photography world and they're doing it right because as times are tough and everybody's pulling back, blad is pushing forward with lower prices and the end of that silly trade-in-trade-up system.
Buy it, use it, sell it., or better yet, buy another one and keep the old for backup.
Smart.
JR
-
I agree that Hasselblad definitely knows how to present themselves well, even at the trade shows with the whole mock-up fashion shoot they set up for people to try their cameras on they use REAL models, styling and set design.. not the laughable wannabe stuff the other brands are doing. PhaseOne could learn a thing or two from them when it comes to branding.. designing cameras, not so much
-
it's increasingly obvious that Hasselblad is really beginning to "get it".
They could really seal the deal by making a black camera again
-
Hi All,
As I have been shooting both 8 x 10 neg & tranny side by side with the Sinar 75LV for large exhibition prints for a few years and I thought I would add some observations. (I note this is not the +65).
As single frames, the MFDB is way behind the 8x10 scans (I would love to test the +65), but when stitched the final results from the MFDB files are simply outstanding.
In particular, the gradations of the digital file are much smoother than the scans. Also flat subjects shot on neg are much better shot on the digital system as scanning flatter negs poses serious issues. On MFDB there are no issues with uneven development 'mottling', chemical streaking in the sky and the DR is better.
These are just 'observations' and do not recognize that resolution and reproduction quality are only one part of the equation. Each medium has its own aesthetic which may or may not be appropriate for a particular statement.
The laborious and expensive methods of 8x10 photography necessarily affect the resulting imagery for good and bad. Some images are only possible on MFDB and some will only result if the 8x10 is used.
For any of you in London or visiting, I will be exhibiting both side by side at HAMILTONS Gallery, http://www.hamiltonsgallery.com/ (http://www.hamiltonsgallery.com/), from the 23rd of June until September. The 8x10 prints are from neg and are 1.2m x 1.5m and the stitched digital files are 1.5m x 4m.
Cheers
Murray
-
Whatever the camera used, isn't stitching the best answer for people looking for very high image quality in fine art applications?
A recent 385 megapixel sample.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3298/3562307963_c140bdd65a_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Very interesting, thank you.
Hi All,
As I have been shooting both 8 x 10 neg & tranny side by side with the Sinar 75LV for large exhibition prints for a few years and I thought I would add some observations. (I note this is not the +65).
As single frames, the MFDB is way behind the 8x10 scans (I would love to test the +65), but when stitched the final results from the MFDB files are simply outstanding.
In particular, the gradations of the digital file are much smoother than the scans. Also flat subjects shot on neg are much better shot on the digital system as scanning flatter negs poses serious issues. On MFDB there are no issues with uneven development 'mottling', chemical streaking in the sky and the DR is better.
These are just 'observations' and do not recognize that resolution and reproduction quality are only one part of the equation. Each medium has its own aesthetic which may or may not be appropriate for a particular statement.
The laborious and expensive methods of 8x10 photography necessarily affect the resulting imagery for good and bad. Some images are only possible on MFDB and some will only result if the 8x10 is used.
For any of you in London or visiting, I will be exhibiting both side by side at HAMILTONS Gallery, http://www.hamiltonsgallery.com/ (http://www.hamiltonsgallery.com/), from the 23rd of June until September. The 8x10 prints are from neg and are 1.2m x 1.5m and the stitched digital files are 1.5m x 4m.
Cheers
Murray
-
True, but in works like most of Burdeny's, stitching would not work, I think.
Very nice pic Bernard. It must be awsome in big print.
Eduardo
Whatever the camera used, isn't stitching the best answer for people looking for very high image quality in fine art applications?
A recent 385 megapixel sample.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3558867127_67af3acefa_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
8x10 is fantastic when everything is allright...
no wind at all
heavy tripod
no problem with film with Xray
no dust on the film when charging
no trouble with the lab
no trouble with the hight end scan that cost a lot
You forgot light-leaking film holders, and the film holder that wedges out the lower right hand corner so it's never sharp but you're not sure which film holder it is.
Crewdson prints looks they do because of the way he lights and preps his sets, a huge and costly undertaking for each shot. He lights for Type C, pure and simple, which is what you have to do to manage that tired old horse. Film itself has little to do with it.
I have shot 100's of 8x10's, no sharper than a carefully processed 12mp digital camera IMHO. True, nothing today in digital OR film can touch the regal tonality of Royal-X and Super-XX etc shot 8x10 and enlarged with a cold-head, but those days are gone forever...and we wouldn't like the grain and mottle today anyway.
Bernard is right, digital stitching for anything buy models. Recently tried a few rolls with a Fuji 6x17, found it to be a step down from basic 4 or 5 panel D2X stitches.
-
I agree that Hasselblad definitely knows how to present themselves well, even at the trade shows with the whole mock-up fashion shoot they set up for people to try their cameras on they use REAL models, styling and set design.. not the laughable wannabe stuff the other brands are doing. PhaseOne could learn a thing or two from them when it comes to branding.. designing cameras, not so much
A photographer I know offered Phase this same style of user involvement production for Photokina, on or off site, but Phase turned it down.
The first rule of sales is get the product into the potential buyers hands.
B
-
I would say an authority on shooting large format and now shooting digital is Joseph Holmes.He has pages on his testaments on using digital vs film. He also really knows how to scan so his comparisons are some of the best I have ever seen.
I think there was something Michael posted in the news not too long ago on these pages.
I met Alec Soth when he was in NY for a PPE and Magnum conference. I really like his Niagara Falls series as I grew up in Toronto> hence there are memories in there and they have what it takes to make you believe in magic.
I also know Joel Meyerowitz , who also shoots large format for large format printing.
I used to shoot 8x10, used to have one of the best drum scanners in the world, and I am pretty good at getting the most out of film from a drum scan.
Now the film never stays flat in the holders unless you tape them down, the lenses are always at there limit of coverage, they are not that sharp compared to the modern lenses but, you can make a whopping file from an 8x10 and I would say if the image is good there isn't much of a limit in print making even if it contains grain CA etc. The same goes for digital. You get sharper lenses , better coverage, true colour, easier workflow as far as quick manipulations on the raw files, and you can go very large even if some digital artefacts are there.
It would be worth renting an 8x10 and just trying . I do believe the prices on 8X10 must be rock bottom as there is no market for it at all. Which makes me wonder if it isn't possible to have both....
-
Do you have a link to Holmes' testaments on using film vs digital?
Thanks.
I would say an authority on shooting large format and now shooting digital is Joseph Holmes.He has pages on his testaments on using digital vs film. He also really knows how to scan so his comparisons are some of the best I have ever seen.
I think there was something Michael posted in the news not too long ago on these pages.
I met Alec Soth when he was in NY for a PPE and Magnum conference. I really like his Niagara Falls series as I grew up in Toronto> hence there are memories in there and they have what it takes to make you believe in magic.
I also know Joel Meyerowitz , who also shoots large format for large format printing.
I used to shoot 8x10, used to have one of the best drum scanners in the world, and I am pretty good at getting the most out of film from a drum scan.
Now the film never stays flat in the holders unless you tape them down, the lenses are always at there limit of coverage, they are not that sharp compared to the modern lenses but, you can make a whopping file from an 8x10 and I would say if the image is good there isn't much of a limit in print making even if it contains grain CA etc. The same goes for digital. You get sharper lenses , better coverage, true colour, easier workflow as far as quick manipulations on the raw files, and you can go very large even if some digital artefacts are there.
It would be worth renting an 8x10 and just trying . I do believe the prices on 8X10 must be rock bottom as there is no market for it at all. Which makes me wonder if it isn't possible to have both....
-
Do you have a link to Holmes' testaments on using film vs digital?
Thanks.
I believe he might be referring to these:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
and
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
-
Thanks.
If anyone knows of any links to comparison tests between 4x5 or 8x10 and MF digital please provide a pointer.
I have yet to see a 40x50inch (or larger) print in person where the digital compares favorably to a film print of the same type (landscape, portrait or other).
Perhaps there is an indescribable quality of film that has not yet been touched upon...
MS
I believe he might be referring to these:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
and
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
-
Whatever the camera used, isn't stitching the best answer for people looking for very high image quality in fine art applications?
A recent 385 megapixel sample.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3558867127_67af3acefa_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, that is a stunning scene! Gorgeous contrast between the blinding sky and the deep shadows of the clouds. That is the best I've seen from you.
-
Bernard, that is a stunning scene! Gorgeous contrast between the blinding sky and the deep shadows of the clouds. That is the best I've seen from you.
Thanks a lot Harri.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Murray,
I have looked at your site, fantastic images and a great project. I will absolutely visit your exhibition in London.
Tomas
Hi All,
As I have been shooting both 8 x 10 neg & tranny side by side with the Sinar 75LV for large exhibition prints for a few years and I thought I would add some observations. (I note this is not the +65).
As single frames, the MFDB is way behind the 8x10 scans (I would love to test the +65), but when stitched the final results from the MFDB files are simply outstanding.
In particular, the gradations of the digital file are much smoother than the scans. Also flat subjects shot on neg are much better shot on the digital system as scanning flatter negs poses serious issues. On MFDB there are no issues with uneven development 'mottling', chemical streaking in the sky and the DR is better.
These are just 'observations' and do not recognize that resolution and reproduction quality are only one part of the equation. Each medium has its own aesthetic which may or may not be appropriate for a particular statement.
The laborious and expensive methods of 8x10 photography necessarily affect the resulting imagery for good and bad. Some images are only possible on MFDB and some will only result if the 8x10 is used.
For any of you in London or visiting, I will be exhibiting both side by side at HAMILTONS Gallery, http://www.hamiltonsgallery.com/ (http://www.hamiltonsgallery.com/), from the 23rd of June until September. The 8x10 prints are from neg and are 1.2m x 1.5m and the stitched digital files are 1.5m x 4m.
Cheers
Murray
-
Murray,
May I ask how you have mounted these very large images; are they matted? If so, can you please let me know whose matte board is as large as 12 feet?
JR
-
Murray,
May I ask how you have mounted these very large images; are they matted? If so, can you please let me know whose matte board is as large as 12 feet?
JR
Hi Jerry,
the prints have been sent to Grieger in Germany (Gursky's framers apparently) and they have the expertise. I do not have any specifics.
The prints will be dry mounted and then set in a box frame. They will not be over-matted.
From my inquires at home here in Australia, the problem was not the board but the perspex as there must be no joins.
This is not a cheap exercise
I have attached a new image.
For those interested (and from an earlier post), there is also a film that I shot on the whole 7 year project that is currently touring the international festivals called 'SALT'. The next festival is Silverdocs in Washington DC 6/18 , then Moscow, then Montreal. Sydney is next week!
www.saltdoco.com
See attachments!
Murray
[attachment=13953:SALT_poster_small.jpg]
-
Hi Jerry,
the prints have been sent to Grieger in Germany (Gursky's framers apparently) and they have the expertise. I do not have any specifics.
The prints will be dry mounted and then set in a box frame. They will not be over-matted.
From my inquires at home here in Australia, the problem was not the board but the perspex as there must be no joins.
This is not a cheap exercise
I have attached a new image.
For those interested (and from an earlier post), there is also a film that I shot on the whole 7 year project that is currently touring the international festivals called 'SALT'. The next festival is Silverdocs in Washington DC 6/18 , then Moscow, then Montreal. Sydney is next week!
www.saltdoco.com
See attachments!
Murray
[attachment=13953:SALT_poster_small.jpg]
Murray,
Looking at the landscape photos on your website; impressive, both in capture of light and in skillful composition. How do you do stitching? Flat stitching or? And... how do you compose them / visualize them so well, viewfinder or groundglass, or some prior background experience before turning digital?
By chance will your film also come to Asia, I am i Hong Kong. It would be very interesting to see it.
Regards
Anders
-
Murray,
Looking at the landscape photos on your website; impressive, both in capture of light and in skillful composition. How do you do stitching? Flat stitching or? And... how do you compose them / visualize them so well, viewfinder or groundglass, or some prior background experience before turning digital?
By chance will your film also come to Asia, I am i Hong Kong. It would be very interesting to see it.
Regards
Anders
Hi Anders,
nothing on my website is stitched - the first stitched image is the one just posted and there will be more in the upcoming show. Everything on the website is shot on 8x10 neg.
Stitching and keeping the horizon perfectly straight has been the challenge. The FOV is too wide for flat (I think you mean 'planar') stitching. It is usually cylindrical.
In terms of this thread, one thing MFDB can do is reproduce these large field of views with no visible extreme wide angle lens effects. It is the sole reason I began using it for this project.
Cheers
Murray
-
In terms of this thread, one thing MFDB can do is reproduce these large field of views with no visible extreme wide angle lens effects. It is the sole reason I began using it for this project.
Can you explain this further?
I have done stitching with that RRS Pano adapter, but even using the nodal point, I found it a not appealing way to work. I vastly prefer a shift lens, like the Canon approach, or ideally, now, the HTS adaptor for the H2.
By "wide angle lens effects", can you describe that in real-world terms?
Nice image of that desert, also.
Thanks.
-
Can you explain this further?
I have done stitching with that RRS Pano adapter, but even using the nodal point, I found it a not appealing way to work. I vastly prefer a shift lens, like the Canon approach, or ideally, now, the HTS adaptor for the H2.
By "wide angle lens effects", can you describe that in real-world terms?
Nice image of that desert, also.
Thanks.
Hi,
you see the 'stretching' of the scene in the corners when you put on an extreme shift. The corners distort or stretch around the curve of the lens. That's all I mean by wide angle lens effects.
Stitching by rotating around a nodal point (not by shifting) then stitching using a cylindrical or spherical projection can stop those effects. (switch to a planar projection here to see what happen if you shifted).
Stitching using rotation will introduce other visual effects and how noticeable they are will depend on your subject - specifically horizontal AND vertical lines eg architecture.
Murray
-
you see the 'stretching' of the scene in the corners when you put on an extreme shift. The corners distort or stretch around the curve of the lens. That's all I mean by wide angle lens effects.
Stitching by rotating around a nodal point (not by shifting) then stitching using a cylindrical or spherical projection can stop those effects. (switch to a planar projection here to see what happen if you shifted).
Stitching using rotation will introduce other visual effects and how noticeable they are will depend on your subject - specifically horizontal AND vertical lines eg architecture.
If you haven't yet, you might want to give a try to the latest version of PTgui Pro, it has some projection abilities that can help mitigate to some extend these effects.
Regards,
Bernard