Topic: P-65 vs 8x10 comparison for large prints (Read 19925 times)

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

JDG · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2009, 04:42:02 pm »

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.

Dave Gallagher · « **Reply #2 on:** May 22, 2009, 04:56:47 pm »

Quote from: marcs

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.

Doug Peterson · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2009, 05:04:47 pm »

Quote from: John-S

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)
__________________
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

Doug Peterson · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2009, 05:13:14 pm »

Quote from: John-S

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.

lisa_r · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2009, 05:21:01 pm »

You might want to ask this guy 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.

Doug Peterson · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2009, 05:25:44 pm »

Quote from: lisa_r

You might want to ask this guy 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).

marcs · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2009, 06:15:54 pm »

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

Doug Peterson · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2009, 07:03:50 pm »

Quote from: marcs

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)
__________________
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

archivue · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2009, 07:11:09 pm »

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.

Professional · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2009, 07:28:43 pm »

Quote from: archivue

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.

archivue · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2009, 08:55:44 pm »

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

Steve Hendrix · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2009, 09:20:03 pm »

Quote from: John-S

"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"

mtomalty · « **Reply #13 on:** May 23, 2009, 01:10:25 am »

Quote

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

Dick Roadnight · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2009, 05:22:20 am »

"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.

bcooter · « **Reply #15 on:** May 23, 2009, 10:26:22 am »

Quote from: Steve Hendrix/Phase One

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.

marcs · « **Reply #16 on:** May 23, 2009, 10:44:12 am »

If there are other reviews between MF digital (any manufacturer) and 4x5 or 8x10, please post links.

Thanks!

Marc

TMARK · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2009, 11:07:29 am »

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!

georgl · « **Reply #18 on:** May 23, 2009, 01:50:41 pm »

"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!

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #19 on:** May 23, 2009, 01:59:34 pm »

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.

Author Topic: P-65 vs 8x10 comparison for large prints (Read 19925 times)

lisa_r

bcooter