Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: pjtn on February 03, 2012, 01:13:29 am
-
I want to start producing 40" x 40" square prints of my work and feel that MFD is the way to go. Currently I'm demoing a Pentax 645D but I'm wonder about other options available.
The Mamiya DM22 is available in my country for only $6,900, but will it produce files good enough for 40" square prints?
Then there's the camera to mount it onto. I love cameras like the Hasselblad 500 C/M and Contax 645, are there issues mounting digital backs to older cameras such as these? Otherwise I've found the Mamiya 645 AFD on eBay second hand for around $1500, are these bodies any good?
I've been shooting with a Canon 5D MKII so I'm new to the MFD field.
-
I forgot to mention that I'm doing long exposure (2-10 minute) black and white landscape photography.
-
I forgot to mention that I'm doing long exposure (2-10 minute) black and white landscape photography.
2-10 minutes massively cuts down your options in MFD. You're left with a Phase One P20+, P21+, P25+, P30+, or P45+ back (on the camera of your choice); or a Pentax 645D. The Pentax 645D has the best and most recent sensor of these. The P30+ and P45+ are the next best. The P25+ and P45+ have a slightly larger sensor, which keeps wideangles wider.
AVOID any Mamiya with a "DMxx" or "DLxx" name. That means it has a Leaf back, which means a Dalsa CCD, which means it cannot do long exposures of the sort you want. The other Phase One backs I didn't mention (P40+, P65+, and all the latest IQ1xx series) all have the same problem. AVOID.
As bodies go, there's nothing wrong with a Mamiya 645AFD; it's what I have. That is, some folks don't like any of the Mamiya AFD/DF line; but within that line, there's really not much separating the 4 incremental versions of the bodies. If you like one, you are amenable to them all. You're a Canon man, and the things that some people bemoan in the Mamiya tend to be the same in a Canon (tiny buttons and menus etc.); in fact the trend to "Canonisation" increased as the series developed, so you'll find the most mechanical levers and switches on the oldest AFD, while the newer AFDIII and DF are the most reliant on tiny buttons. And BTW, a 645AFD body should not cost more than about $500; $650 with film back; $900 complete with 80mm AF lens and back.
If you don't need AF for all your lenses, Mamiya is the best way to go, as there are tonnes of very inexpensive, very fast, and very unusual (fisheye, shift, soft focus, macro, mirror, zoom, tilt-shift bellows) manual focus M645 lenses out there, and most other makes of medium format SLR lenses can be adapted onto it. I think this info could be important to you, as you are clearly aiming at the sub-$10k end of the market.
If your lens tastes are more classic and less specialist, there are Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad 500 series and the Contax 645, and these will take a Phase One back no problem. They also have the option of using a waist-level finder - the Mamiya and Pentax don't. But here are a few caveats. Everything by Contax seems to cost 2-3 times more than everything by Mamiya and Pentax, and Contax are long out of business. Because of the greater crop factor, wideangles are more limited on the Hasselblad 500's. And you need an autofocusing body (Mamiya, Contax, Hasselblad H, Rollei 6008AF) to get focus confirmation with manual focus lenses; focusing a Hasselblad 500 with the precision demanded by a high-megapixel digital back is said by some to be tricky.
So you'll have to weigh things up along the lines of:
- The Pentax has the most desirable sensor, and the best value for money digital package, but does it have the range of lenses you want?
- The Contax has the most desirable body, and some standout lenses, but does it have the range of lenses you want, and can you afford them?
- The Mamiya has the largest and most affordable range of lenses, and a 645AFD is so inexpensive that a backup body is no issue, but how do you feel about the body?
- The old Hasselblads have the most classic look and feel, but the widest rectilinear lens on film will only be a modest wideangle on cropped digital, and is nailing focus with wider apertures a critical feature of your work?
Ray
-
2-10 minutes massively cuts down your options in MFD. You're left with a Phase One P20+, P21+, P25+, P30+, or P45+ back (on the camera of your choice); or a Pentax 645D. The Pentax 645D has the best and most recent sensor of these. The P30+ and P45+ are the next best. The P25+ and P45+ have a slightly larger sensor, which keeps wideangles wider.
Am I nuts? I thought the Pentax could not handle exposures that long. I haven't seen anything past 60 seconds without it getting quite noisy. Can you link to any tests showing longer exposure capability?
-
Uhhh....how about any B&W film......40 x 40 should be easy....bet you could get an entire hassy set up 500 series for under 1500 USD
-
My "normal" print is 40x30 and goes up from there. I had no trouble doing this with a P45+ and even less with the P65+. The P45+ will give you longer shutters. As for a body I use a combination is a tech cam (Cambo WRS) and a Phase DF.
Don
-
Uhhh....how about any B&W film......40 x 40 should be easy....bet you could get an entire hassy set up 500 series for under 1500 USD
Wouldn't a 40 x 40 print from a 6x6 neg be pushing it a bit? - serious question not a knowing observation :)
-
Wouldn't a 40 x 40 print from a 6x6 neg be pushing it a bit? - serious question not a knowing observation :)
Considering all of the sensors mentioned will lose 20% of their effective resolution if printing only square as mentioned by the OP (so even a p45+ which is probably the best choice is really only about a 32mp camera when capturing), a 6x6 neg well exposed with good glass and good scans might not be too far off. Certainly decent IQ if done right, worth considering for the OP based on Dennis's point on the low cost of entry since shooting and developing ones own B&W film is doable. Add a scanner, maybe a cheap one just to determine which negs to get a drum scan on, although I've seen some pretty good results with even an Epson v700 flatbed scanner on B&W negs.
-
Thank you everyone for the very useful replies! I'm having some trouble doing long exposure tests on the 645D because I don't have any adapters for the 55mm ƒ/2.8 lens for my 10 stop filter. The next problem is that I have no remote that will fit.
I've tried taking photographs in a dark room in my house and holding the shutter down for 2 minutes. Obviously the photographs are soft because of this but it gives a reasonable idea of noise.
One of the reasons I wanted to test this camera was to see the noise in long exposures. I was worried that if it becomes too noisy the Pentax would have no advantage over my 5D MKII. Here's an example at 300% to show the noise:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4834/noisetest.jpg)
The Hasselblad 500C/M and film is extremely tempting, I just wonder how long Kodak T Max will be around for. I don't have experience in film either unfortunately. I would consider though limiting my largest size to 30x30" or thereabouts if I can't get the quality in a 40x40". The low cost of startup with film is very tempting too.
I've also heard there's a 36mp Nikon D800 coming without an AA filter. With some Carl Zeiss primes that would be an interesting camera to see but I find it hard to believe it will get anywhere near MF territory.
For interests sake here is a screen shot of the Pentax (left) and Canon (right) uprezzed to 30x30" @ 240ppi and zoomed out to 50% to better mimic what an actual print looks like. The Pentax was shot at ƒ/11 using the 55mm ƒ/2.8, ISO100 and 1/100. The Canon was shot at ƒ/8 using the 24-105mm ƒ/4 at 45mm, ISO100 and 1/310. Both on a tripod:
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6632/pentaxcanon.jpg)
I've printed this and done a blind comparison with my fiancee. She finds it impossible to tell which is which at a distance but when about 2 feet away she can pick the Pentax.
-
Hi,
I second what Wayne says. I have made a really excellent print from 67 Velvia (I think) at 70x100 cm. So film may be an option for your application, especially as it seems you need long exposures. Unfortunately I also see several "buts". To begin with, my experience is that 67 Velvia is not on par with a 24 MP digital DSLR. In some cases it clearly outresolves the digital camera, as the media has higher resolution, but the images are noisy.
Processing may also be an issue. I need to send my films to a pro labb, and it takes a week to get them back.
These two articles sum up my experience of film:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?showall=1
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
Regarding the Pentax 645D it seems to be an excellent alternative. I have been considering it from time to time, but I don't print that large normally. If you go with the Pentax I'd recommend that you check out http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/Pentax645D/index.html, it costs some money, but he has a lot of good info and has tested a lot of lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Considering all of the sensors mentioned will lose 20% of their effective resolution if printing only square as mentioned by the OP (so even a p45+ which is probably the best choice is really only about a 32mp camera when capturing), a 6x6 neg well exposed with good glass and good scans might not be too far off. Certainly decent IQ if done right, worth considering for the OP based on Dennis's point on the low cost of entry since shooting and developing ones own B&W film is doable. Add a scanner, maybe a cheap one just to determine which negs to get a drum scan on, although I've seen some pretty good results with even an Epson v700 flatbed scanner on B&W negs.
-
Hi,
To me the right hand picture looks better on screen (24" monitor viewed at 22") probably due to higher image contrast.
I made a 70x100 cm print from an APS-C camera with 10MP. I can see sharpness drop of at 60 cm (two feet) but it seems reasonably sharp at 80-100 cm (three feet).
Much of the visual impression has to do with sharpening and contrast.
The images below are taken from an article base on studio shots from Imaging Resource. The images were cropped and printed at A2 and A0 size (with the crops being A4). The prints were scanned on simple flatbed scanner at 300 PPI. The full article is here:
A2 Sample: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Pentax645D/A2_print_center.jpg
A0 Sample: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Pentax645D/A0_print_center.jpg
Best regards
Erik
I've printed this and done a blind comparison with my fiancee. She finds it impossible to tell which is which at a distance but when about 2 feet away she can pick the Pentax.
-
I'm looking at a second hand Hasselblad H3DII39, does anyone know what the long exposure characteristics are of this camera?
I'd also be curious to know what advantages there are of a Hasselblad over a Pentax?
-
Actually I'd be interested in hearing about the Hasselblad H3DII39 as well. I'm finding a few of these second hand at good prices. If it can produce good 40" square prints from long exposures I think I'd be pretty sold on one of these.
-
I'd also be curious to know what advantages there are of a Hasselblad over a Pentax?
Hum... the main ones that come to my mind would be
- thethered shooting,
- the leaf shutter lenses and their T/S adapter,
- a wider lenses line up,
- their gyroscopic AF tuning system (but it might not be relevant for landscape).
On the other hand, the Pentax has significant advantages over the Hassy that are key for landscape shooting:
- weather proofed body,
- weather proofed battery keeping a good battery life in low temperatures,
- dual memory cards,
- better long exposures,
- double tripod screw hole,
- cheaper system,
- better high ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm glad I've been looking into other options but it seems like the Pentax fits all of my requirements better than the other systems available.
I just looked up the weight of a H3D-39 with 55-110 lens and it's a whopping 3.35kg. Compared with a 645D and 45-85 lens at 2.34kg that's a whole kilo. The extra weight alone might affect the image quality over a long exposure.
I tried a 4 minute exposure today by taping the shutter button down (pretty technical stuff) and putting the camera in a dark room. The result when blown up to 40" x 40" looks more than acceptable, I was quite impressed.
My only worry now is that Pentax Ricoh will call it quits on the 645D line, or even worse, let Marc Newson design the next one... ;)
-
I look forward to the CP+ show later this week where I am positive that Ricoh will reveal stronger interest in the 645 line. If you need the 45-85mm lens you will have an option to replace it next year with the digital optimized 30-70mm.
Regards,
Radu
-
I didn't know that a 30-70mm lens was coming out next year, thanks for letting me know. It will be good to see what kind of image quality improvement it will make. If that is the case I might just purchase the 55mm lens for the time being. I assume the 55mm would have better image quality that the 45-85mm being a prime and optimised for digital.
-
I didn't know that a 30-70mm lens was coming out next year, thanks for letting me know. It will be good to see what kind of image quality improvement it will make. If that is the case I might just purchase the 55mm lens for the time being. I assume the 55mm would have better image quality that the 45-85mm being a prime and optimised for digital.
No problem! Look here for the still current roadmap:
(http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/425/947/011.jpg)
Probably we will see in a few days time (CP+ is starting on 9th in Japan) the portrait lens in the final form and the 30-70mm zoom in prototype form. I fully expect the tethering software to be announced this week to complement the portrait lens for studio work. Also Ricoh could revamp the lens roadmap if they feel like investing more than Hoya in this field.
About the 55mm the opinions are divided but my opinion is that for the money it is a very good offer. You can read some thought about it (along with 25mm/4 and 150mm/2,8) from a French magazine here: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1160/moyen-format-pentax-645d-test-terrain-19.html
Regards,
Radu
-
That will be quite the lens lineup when they're done. Such long telephotos will be very unique in the medium format world. My main disappointment with the 55mm lens is that it feels a little plasticky. Are the other Pentax lenses like that?
I'm just curious, how come the Hasselblad and Phase One systems cost so much more than the Pentax 645D? I'm not seeing any advantages in their systems right now, am I overlooking something?
-
I'm looking at a second hand Hasselblad H3DII39, does anyone know what the long exposure characteristics are of this camera?
I'd also be curious to know what advantages there are of a Hasselblad over a Pentax?
Quick google search:
http://www.hasselblad.com/media/1342803/uk_h3dii39_datasheet_v4.pdf
Max 32 seconds - forget it.
It's the same problem with all the H series. Hasselblad grudgingly let the H4D-40 go up to 4 minutes (256 seconds) - but the sensor is capable of far longer than that; so they either screwed up its thermal/power management (hard to believe, since Imacon introduced DDC "less heat - more power" way back with the iXpress series), or they are treating their customers as babies who cannot be trusted to judge long exposure image noise for themselves.
Ray
-
That will be quite the lens lineup when they're done. Such long telephotos will be very unique in the medium format world. My main disappointment with the 55mm lens is that it feels a little plasticky. Are the other Pentax lenses like that?
I'm just curious, how come the Hasselblad and Phase One systems cost so much more than the Pentax 645D? I'm not seeing any advantages in their systems right now, am I overlooking something?
You're overlooking profit margins, and a certain degree of flexibility that a detachable back delivers.
Hasselblad in fairness have cut their prices somewhat.
Ray
-
Am I nuts? I thought the Pentax could not handle exposures that long. I haven't seen anything past 60 seconds without it getting quite noisy. Can you link to any tests showing longer exposure capability?
There are several multi-minute examples posted in the Astrophotography and MFD thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=59917.0), which has been active in the past few weeks.
In the sensors & backs spreadsheet I have compiled, I have "> 20 min" for the P645D. Can't remember off the top of my head what the source was for that figure.
Actually your remark had the reverse effect of surprising me: can you link to any tests past 60 seconds where it's "getting quite noisy"?
Of course, there is a difference between "exposure is long and acceptable" and "camera goes long but results are unacceptable". One of the biggest issues is that firmware in the vast majority of MF backs/cameras doesn't even permit the "camera goes long" part, whatever about how acceptable the results might be - we'll never know because the manufacturers won't let us go there.
Ray
-
I think I misunderstood ondebanks reply earlier. Are the Hasselblads completely incapable of going over 32 seconds exposure even without a remote release?
That would completely rule out Hasselblad for me leaving only Pentax and Phase One. Given that I can't find any second hand Phase One backs in my price range my decision is made for me.
-
I want to start producing 40" x 40" square prints of my work and feel that MFD is the way to go. Currently I'm demoing a Pentax 645D but I'm wonder about other options available.
The Mamiya DM22 is available in my country for only $6,900, but will it produce files good enough for 40" square prints?
Then there's the camera to mount it onto. I love cameras like the Hasselblad 500 C/M and Contax 645, are there issues mounting digital backs to older cameras such as these? Otherwise I've found the Mamiya 645 AFD on eBay second hand for around $1500, are these bodies any good?
I've been shooting with a Canon 5D MKII so I'm new to the MFD field.
Coming from a different angle, remember the Kodak SLR/n? It came without an AA filter and a funny exposure matrix which could give you 6 iso and long exposure (2 min I think) and clean images. You could pick one up for little money.
Not sure about 40 x 40 though, anything will go to any size it depends on what you expect to see.
As others have said film is a real option, Ilford (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Black+%26+White+Films) will be making B&W films for years to come Pan F or FP4 would be a good choice. If you are happy with one lens something like this would go beyond 40 x 40 http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/
Quite a learning curve finding your exposure development technique (It can be fun), plus I always think when digital runs out of resolution or DR it does it in a big jump, film just tails off more gently. Scanning B&W I find more difficult than scanning colour neg.
Or you could of course go all the way and make wet prints, now that really would be a heavy emotional commitment if digital is all you know.
Kevin.
-
Just get a 6x6 film camera and be happy. B&W film can be enlarged to huge sizes and still look good, and grain just adds character. Or if you don't mind the extra effort and costs get a large format camera.
-
Hi,
Film is a bit problematic.
I have made som very good prints from Velvia 50 using my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro CCD scanner. Unfortunately, neither my scanner nor the Nikon 9000 are made any longer. There is a new MF scanner from Plustek.
I have spent some time testing 67 Velvia and Ektar 100 recently, and found that I get better results with my Sony Alpha 900 in almost all respects except resolution on high contrast detail.
That test also contains two professional drum scans at 6096 PPI kindly supplied by Dominique Ventzke.
All files from the test are available here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/index.html , the drum scans are over 1.5 GByte each, so beware of large files.
The tests are here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
Best regards
Erik
Coming from a different angle, remember the Kodak SLR/n? It came without an AA filter and a funny exposure matrix which could give you 6 iso and long exposure (2 min I think) and clean images. You could pick one up for little money.
Not sure about 40 x 40 though, anything will go to any size it depends on what you expect to see.
As others have said film is a real option, Ilford (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Black+%26+White+Films) will be making B&W films for years to come Pan F or FP4 would be a good choice. If you are happy with one lens something like this would go beyond 40 x 40 http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/
Quite a learning curve finding your exposure development technique (It can be fun), plus I always think when digital runs out of resolution or DR it does it in a big jump, film just tails off more gently. Scanning B&W I find more difficult than scanning colour neg.
Or you could of course go all the way and make wet prints, now that really would be a heavy emotional commitment if digital is all you know.
Kevin.
-
Hi,
Film is a bit problematic.
I have made som very good prints from Velvia 50 using my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro CCD scanner. Unfortunately, neither my scanner nor the Nikon 9000 are made any longer. There is a new MF scanner from Plustek.
I have spent some time testing 67 Velvia and Ektar 100 recently, and found that I get better results with my Sony Alpha 900 in almost all respects except resolution on high contrast detail.
Best regards
Erik
Just like there's more to the MFD vs. DSLR debate than megapixels, there's more to film vs digital than just resolution. I know you love to look at everything in a very scientific manner, measuring, counting pixels, making graphs and so on, but there's a look & feel to film that is different than digital. If said look & feel is something one appreciates is a different matter all together, but there's no doubt it's there. There's also an emotional aspect to it, some feel it's a huge pain in the ass to work with film, while others love it and feel more connected to the whole process than with digital. Anyway, my point is it's more complex than just numbers.
-
Hi,
Yes you are right. Some folks love film and some have problems with it. I belong the latter category.
If we go back to the original posting the OP wants to make large prints, like 40x40 and ask for advise on weather MFDB is the route to take or not. Add to that he wants to make long exposures, which are problematic with DALSA based backs. The question is why he needs long exposures, I don't know. Film has a reciprocity failure so for light collection it is not very good, but if he needs long exposure for artistic reasons film may be a good option.
On the other hand, my experience is really that my 24MP digital equipment beats my 67 MF analogue equipment. The OP wants to print large, and from what I can see from my tests I have doubts that MF will print better than digital.
My experience is that I can make 70x100 cm prints from 67 Velvia, but also that it is a lot of effort. In square format that is only 27.5". I have not made larger print for practical reasons. I see at least three issues with film.
- Handling and development. Fine if you develop your self.
- Scanning equipment is expensive, and hard to find
- Scanning film is in no way easy
The other issue is that all my tests with film has really been a hassle:
1) Waiting for development
2) Velvia (which was my favorite film in my film days) is very hard to scan because of it's D-MAX
3) I have problems getting colors right
4) Drum scans are needed for best quality and they are expensive
The tests I posted describe my experience with film, based on the equipment I have. Most of the files are downloadable so anyone can check out the files and make their own conclusions. There are also two very high resolution drum scans included. http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/index.html
I was quite enthusiastic for MF film for a long time, and invested a lot in scanners and also a 6x7 projector, so I was seriously involved with MF analogue, but for me it lost out to digital.
Anyway, the original poster seems to test a Pentax 645D and seems happy, so the original question may have been solved. That is always a good thing.
Best regards
Erik
Just like there's more to the MFD vs. DSLR debate than megapixels, there's more to film vs digital than just resolution. I know you love to look at everything in a very scientific manner, measuring, counting pixels, making graphs and so on, but there's a look & feel to film that is different than digital. If said look & feel is something one appreciates is a different matter all together, but there's no doubt it's there. There's also an emotional aspect to it, some feel it's a huge pain in the ass to work with film, while others love it and feel more connected to the whole process than with digital. Anyway, my point is it's more complex than just numbers.
-
I only just remembered someone on this forum suggested that I stack exposures to create the effect of one long exposure. Doing this has a number of advantages, there are more cameras available to me, the noise is minimal and I can judge my exposure more accurately.
The biggest disadvantage that I see is I can't work on the RAW file as easily in Lightroom. I will need to do some minor corrections and export as TIFF for Photoshop where I can create the final file. I like to keep the files in the RAW format as long as possible so not to degrade the image quality.
I've started taking a liking to the Hasselblad H3DII-31 and 50-110mm lens. There seems to be a few floating around second hand at reasonable prices. Next week I'll get a chance to look at some Hasselblads too.
Some of those film examples were very impressive and it sorely tempts me. The look is so much more pleasing than digital. I've seen some 30" x 30" prints from Stavros Pippos made from 6x6 Velvia and Provia that looked fantastic. I'm assuming B&W film would be even greater resolution?
For interest sake this is a quick test I did in my backyard with my 5D MKII set on ISO100. The shot on the left is a single 15 second exposure. On the right 14 exposures varying from 15-30 seconds where stacked in photoshop. The raw files had a little fill light added. In Photoshop I uprezed to 30x30" @ 240ppi and then sharpened. The difference is huge:
Full size image at: http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3448/stackexposuretest.jpg
(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3448/stackexposuretest.jpg)
-
Stacking works of course, but bear in mind that all MFD long exposures will have lengthy gaps in between (while the equally long dark frame is taken internally and subtracted). So if your application cannot have such time gaps, you would be better off with MF film in a motor-winding camera (no dark frames! so long exposures are immediately consecutive, and can be scanned and stacked), or your 5DII (modern CMOS hardly requires dark frames in exposures under a minute or two).
Ray
-
Hmmm, so at what point does a Hasselblad H3DII-31 need to start doing dark frames? Why is it when I finally think I have all this worked out another spanner gets thrown in the works...
-
Hmmm, so at what point does a Hasselblad H3DII-31 need to start doing dark frames? Why is it when I finally think I have all this worked out another spanner gets thrown in the works...
The H3DII and H4D manuals are silent on the matter, so hopefully a user will answer this.
Ray
-
your print sizes are getting bigger everytime a see a thread from you, 20x20 - 30x30 and now we are upto 40x40! you sem undecided in what size you want, and really need to iron that down first before knowing what camera you want ;)
on your latest quest- http://www.photoacute.com/
simon
-
Oh dear someone's keeping tabs on me ;)
My original plan was to purchase an Epson 7890 and only print up to 20" x 20". I did however want to go larger than this but knew my 5D MKII wasn't really up to it so started looking into other cameras. I decided to head towards medium format and put the printer on hold for the time being. I figured this would allow me to print to 30" x 30" at my local lab. After demoing a Pentax 645D I realised then that it will happily print 40" x 40" sizes and have settled on that number.
I've tried to decide on size first each and every time but other things start to change and it throws my original plans right out. If I end up with a system that can only print to 30" x 30" though it won't be the end of the world. I can always introduce the larger size later when newer equipment allows.
Ultimately I've realised I want to try and keep below the $10,000 mark when setting this up. Everyone has been very helpful here in my erratic decision making process.
-
It's late, a few quick comments.
1) You can add noise to digital and make it look remarkebly like film if you like.
2) I switched to scanning film and all digital output in 1998. My digital prints are 3 orders of magnitude better, and also that much easier, than traditional silver prints.
3) With the Canon 1DsII at 16MP, I abandonded 6x7 film in favor of 18"x27" prints at 180 dpi.
4) Film can be a lot of money and scanning and archiving a lot of work, depending on volume.
5) Film and scans can be very ugly and very dirty. Spotting, small scatches, etc. can take a lot of time in PS.
6) You will need a 9000 series printer to go larger than 24" on the shorter side.
7) I am hoping to print up to 27"x40" at 200 dpi (approx) with the Nikon 800E. I prefer not to rez up. But if you added noise and rezzed up you could probably go higher. If you like the noise feel.
8) For anything larger than 24"x30", 6x7 was inadequate for me (with any scan that I could afford, with a $3,000 scanner, other than a $100 per frame drum scan.) Instead I used 4x5 for larger prints.
Just my biases and observations and personal decision making history. I shot all B&W film up to 1998 (20 years.) I switched to color around then and scaned film with digital output . I switched to all digital input - a huge, huge improvement in workflow in my mind - in 2004, except for 4x5 film.
Good luck!
Michael
-
Hi,
Our photo club had a small exhibition and one the exhibitors said "print sizes go up for each year", that statement is certainly true.
Best regards
Erik
Oh dear someone's keeping tabs on me ;)
My original plan was to purchase an Epson 7890 and only print up to 20" x 20". I did however want to go larger than this but knew my 5D MKII wasn't really up to it so started looking into other cameras. I decided to head towards medium format and put the printer on hold for the time being. I figured this would allow me to print to 30" x 30" at my local lab. After demoing a Pentax 645D I realised then that it will happily print 40" x 40" sizes and have settled on that number.
I've tried to decide on size first each and every time but other things start to change and it throws my original plans right out. If I end up with a system that can only print to 30" x 30" though it won't be the end of the world. I can always introduce the larger size later when newer equipment allows.
Ultimately I've realised I want to try and keep below the $10,000 mark when setting this up. Everyone has been very helpful here in my erratic decision making process.