P-65 vs 8x10 comparison for large prints

[hubell]

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

[gwhitf]

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

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".

[James R Russell]

"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

[amsp]

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

[Carsten W]

it's increasingly obvious that Hasselblad is really beginning to "get it".

They could really seal the deal by making a black camera again

[Murray Fredericks]

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/, 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

[BernardLanguillier]

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.



Cheers,
Bernard

[marcs]

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/, 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

[uaiomex]

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.



Cheers,
Bernard

[bill t.]

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.

[bcooter]

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

[neil snape]

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....

[marcs]

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....

[Mark_Tuttle]

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

and

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

[marcs]

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

and

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

[feppe]

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.



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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Tomas Johanson]

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/, 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

[JerryReed]

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 Fredericks]

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]