100MP or 4x5 Film?

[Rdmax]

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?

[Jim Kasson]

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

[Rdmax]

Well I didn't see a topic so I decided to make one.

[E.J. Peiker]

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...

[razrblck]

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).

[Jim Kasson]

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

[razrblck]

Oh right, forgot about the flip!

[Richard Man]

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

[vjbelle]

Can't imagine in my wildest dreams going back to film.  I have a 3100 so maybe its just me.....

Victor

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Rdmax]

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?

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Graham Welland]

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.

[Richard Man]

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.

[beano_z]

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.

[voidshatter]

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 between large format and IQ180

Markus Zuber's comparison 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.

[Bo_Dez]

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.

[gregoricivera]

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

[Richard Man]

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.

[TonyW]

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