Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 8x10/MFDB Comparison  (Read 68389 times)

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1782
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2009, 03:19:59 am »

I have one sitting gathering serious dust in a garage in another country, still waiting for that T55 to reappear.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2009, 05:12:49 am »

Quote from: pom
What about tonality? I only have personal experience between 4X5 and FF DSLR but the difference was somewhat like a   skyscraper and a shack. I assume that the same size ratio of imaging area would be true between the MFDB and 8X10 if not more exaggerated. Imaging area size is more than just pure resolution is it not?

Just being curious, how do you define these tonalities, what basic aspect of image quality are they derived from?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2009, 11:52:24 am »

For most magazine work a drum scan is a waste.  The web press is the great equalizer. Much of the front of book 4x5 and 8x10 stuff in mags like W and Interview is scanned on high end flat beds or maybe old Imacons.  The main editorials are usually, but not always, drum scanned.  All that is important in a magazine is the look of the shot, which always survives the web press.

For natural light people photography, I don't think anything looks like 8x10, or 4x5 even.

And to echo the sentiment I've seen in this thread:  BRING BACK TYPE 55!!!!!

Quote from: DanielStone
sorry if this seems to be a dead horse, but I guess I have to beat it again

I was talking this over with a close friend who has just gotten a used P45+ from ebay(actually from Calumet I believe, ex-rental back)

he really enjoys shooting portraits, and has been shooting 8x10 since school(art center, here in Pasadena) some years ago. recently, he's been asked to NOT shoot film, mostly due to turnaround issues(this being for editorial work mostly), but also because the quality of and 8x10 isn't needed. the cost of film, processing, and drum scans(he won't go near a flatbed with his film) seems to be a little too much for most budgets right now. so, he picked up his back for some insanely low price(~$9000 i believe), and so far, has really liked it.

but the one thing he said that he misses the most however is the extremely shallow DOF that he gets with the 8x10 capture. now, he generally shoots on color neg, so the res. of neg's aren't as good as chromes, or b/w(he shoots 400nc), but the shallow DOF(generally working at 5.6(wide open) or f/8 to minimize the background, and bring more attention to the face of the subject.

he has stated that he JUST can't get that in MF digital capture, straight out of the camera. he's currently using a H2f with the 100mm 2.2 lens, he considered trying the Contax, cause it has the 80mm f/2, but it isn't all that different from 2.2 really....

he doesn't print big, his portfolio is only printed at 11x17, so the 8x10 res isn't all that important, MAINLY  the "look" of the extremely shallow DOF that he is able to achieve with the 8x10.

I'm just getting my feet wet with 8x10(b/w only right now, soon to be contact printing on AZO, silver chloride paper). I don't plan to shoot color for a while until I get used to the camera. Its easier though than 4x5, the bigger g/g makes things MUCH easier to focus, hell, I don't really even need a loupe most of the time!


so, its really a horses for courses thing here, some people like shooting 8x10/4x5, if it gets them WHAT THEY WANT. besides, its all about the END RESULT, right?

-Dan


merry christmas!!!!
Logged

brianc1959

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
    • http://
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2009, 08:05:59 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Just being curious, how do you define these tonalities, what basic aspect of image quality are they derived from?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard

IMO, "tonality" is simply related to the appearance of grain in film or noise in digital.  After all, most people will say that the tonality of 8x10 is much better than 35mm (for film) even if the same film stock is used (say TMAX 100).  Since digital noise is generally much less obvious than film grain, I think that digital captures will compare very well with film captures in terms of "tonality", even if the film area is significantly larger than the silicon area.
Logged

Murray Fredericks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 295
    • http://www.murrayfredericks.com
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2009, 02:07:08 am »

I've just purchased a P65+ back to replace my 8x10 which I have been shooting for years.

For the first time this year I exhibited large (120cm x 150cm) prints from 8x10 neg alongside stitched panoramic frames from the Sinar 75LV. The stitched prints were 120cm x 410cm. Because the images were stitched resolution was not really an issue but still pushing the prints that large tested the files.

Much of the work I have been producing uses large open skies and the one area the digital back 'killed' the 8x10 was in the reproduction of the smoothness and perfect gradation of the skies. The 8X10 rarely came close to this and many, many frames over the years were lost due to the 'uneven-ness' of the developing process. I tried many labs around the world to overcome this problem and all promised they could provide perfectly even developing. In the end Kodak's support steered me to Lightwaves in San Fransisco who did/do a great job - better than everyone else anyway, but there were always still some frames that showed mottling in the blank skies. The were also problems with the scanning which was done on a Creo Flatbed wet mounted. The low-contrast subjects I was shooting did not scan well at all and as the Creo used a 'stitching' system the lack of texture in the images often left scanning lines and steps in the gradations. I also tried traditional drum scans but once again there were 'imperfections' that showed up in the skies  - small lines that would have been hidden in texture had there been any...

All these problems were eventually solved one way or another and had I stayed with the 8X10 I would have gone to processing my own film in a jobo but would not have enjoyed the re-exposure to the chemicals which I was happy to leave behind when my b&w darkroom days finished.

Shooting 8X10 involved importing the film to Sydney from New York (always with the worry of X-rays in the back of my mind). The film was then transported and shot in very harsh, dusty and salty environments (the large scans took my assistant at least a full day of spotting the scan to clean off the scratches and dust). The film then was couriered from Sydney to San Francisco, processed and couriered back with high cost, x-rays again and with risk of loss. All the film was then low-res scanned for proofing and then the finals scanned properly for exhibition.

After comparing MFDB and 8x10 in the last exhibition there was really little noticeable difference between the two. Some areas were better and worse on both systems. The gradation though in the digital files was simply beautiful and way ahead of the 8X10.

So now I've compared prints from the 2 systems on the wall I feel satisfied that the quality of the MFDB is comparable to the 8x10. It's at least at the point where the hassle and risk of the 8x10 process seems pointless.  

This may sound strange, but the one aspect of shooting film I will miss is the natural 'constraint' placed on the image. The flexibility of the raw digital file and the new technologies can provide almost too many options. The film would often force me to  a different place which then turned out to be better than I imagined. I had a sense that the image would 'find its own character'. But I guess its just a matter of learning to work with a new system.

Murray
« Last Edit: December 28, 2009, 02:07:56 am by Murray Fredericks »
Logged
Exhibition Website   http://www.murrayfr

RichA@FotoCare

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
    • http://fotocare.com
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2009, 07:54:56 am »



"Again, in their own tests our customers are finding the XX to either match or surpass their own 8x10 workflows, and we are happy to help any photographer do this test on their own (see my first post)."

We are seeing the same results here in NY also.  For some customers, not all, the quality is equal to or better than what they are getting now.  Phase is just one solution.  Camera back and camera system solutions from Hasselblad, Leaf, Seitz, and Sinar work just as well and are just as easy to use.  As Doug has said we invite you to test and see for your self.

Best,
Rich Andres
Foto Care

Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2009, 08:39:58 am »

Thanks, Murray, for the unbiased report from a pro who (apparently) doesn't have a vested interest one way or the other. Some truly stunning work on your site as well!

Now, if only MFDBs would cost less... I'll stick with my Mamiya C220 until the prices come down enough so I wouldn't have to sell my Harley to buy one
« Last Edit: December 28, 2009, 08:41:21 am by feppe »
Logged

DanielStone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2009, 12:02:29 pm »

thanks everyone, and thank you Murray!

I really appreciate everyone's responses, even though I'm not the original poster, I've gotten a somewhat personal connection to this thread, being that a good friend of mine shoots 8x10, and has been struggling 'going digital'. in fact, he hasn't really wanted to go to a full digital process, rather, he'd prefer to have the hybrid process that he's been doing for the last few years.

I still like the darkroom for SOME things, definitely NOT everything, but somethings. Like going out to the beach for a day, shooting 3 or 4 rolls of Tri-X or Tmax(35mm or 120), coming home, grabbing a cold one out of the fridge(might end up being 2 sometimes  ), and processing the film in the tub. So, to me, I find it relaxing, having known what I have on film, Knowing 100% what I got, before developing, and seeing those negs hang there to dry, I just can't get enough!!!!!

same thing with sheet film: you know your film stock and developer, and you get predictable results! For me(being a current photo student), I know I need to embrace digital capture, but money-wise, I'm not able to 'afford' the digi equipment yet. And somehow, I don't know if I want to yet, even if I could afford it.

maybe this will change when I'm shooting jobs for money, not just to make an instructor at school happy. but I am totally happy that I switched from digital(how I started 3 years ago) to film, because I've learned SOOOOOOO much about exposure, and mostly composition, and getting the picture RIGHT IN THE FILM, not in post. I personally HATE photoshop, but its a necessary tool. I still only do functions in photoshop that I could do manually in the darkroom(dodging, burning, color adjustment, etc...), so I force myself to be nitpicky about how I expose and develop the film, color or b/w.


but sitting in front of a computer while the film scans is a pain in the @s$!!!!!!

just my $.02

-Dan
Logged

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 145
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2009, 12:41:30 pm »

Quote from: feppe
Thanks, Murray, for the unbiased report from a pro who (apparently) doesn't have a vested interest one way or the other. Some truly stunning work on your site as well!

Now, if only MFDBs would cost less... I'll stick with my Mamiya C220 until the prices come down enough so I wouldn't have to sell my Harley to buy one


While waiting you can always upgrade to a C330.



Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1782
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2009, 02:50:49 pm »

Bernard, I'm probably going to do this badly as I'm not sure I can put it in words. Tonality to me (unlike the silly suggestion of film grain) is the way transitions are made from dark to light and within colours. The tonality of a 4X5 scan or a large stitched image for that matter where there is more sensor/film dedicated for each square inch of final image, especially when compared to a single 35mm shot of the same thing is incredible in its smoothness of transitions giving a far more lifelike, 3D and quality feel to an image. Taking a shot with a p&s alongside your D3X and just looking at the difference in smoothness of rendition of tones is sort of the idea that I'm looking to convey.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #50 on: December 28, 2009, 04:18:15 pm »

Hi,

Bernard knows what tonality means. Problem is that many of the terms used on this forums are not very well defined. I guess I'd agree with your description, but it's quite obvious from the response Bernard got that interpretations of terms differ.

Things get a bit worse when we want to have something that can be quantified or put in a formula.

Another issue is that there are some of us who want to understand why things work a certain way.Just as an example: It's not very obvious how size of film can affect tone curve, except for noise. It is pretty obvious that we can have less noise with a larger format, because it collects more photons. It's also pretty obvious that a larger format gives better resolution or a higher MTF for a given feature size, if all parameters except film size are kept constant. In real life other factors play a role, the person behind the camera is a major one.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Ben Rubinstein
Bernard, I'm probably going to do this badly as I'm not sure I can put it in words. Tonality to me (unlike the silly suggestion of film grain) is the way transitions are made from dark to light and within colours. The tonality of a 4X5 scan or a large stitched image for that matter where there is more sensor/film dedicated for each square inch of final image, especially when compared to a single 35mm shot of the same thing is incredible in its smoothness of transitions giving a far more lifelike, 3D and quality feel to an image. Taking a shot with a p&s alongside your D3X and just looking at the difference in smoothness of rendition of tones is sort of the idea that I'm looking to convey.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #51 on: December 28, 2009, 04:25:05 pm »

Hi,

You may consider Lightroom (or Capture One) for your needs.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: DanielStone
thanks everyone, and thank you Murray!

I really appreciate everyone's responses, even though I'm not the original poster, I've gotten a somewhat personal connection to this thread, being that a good friend of mine shoots 8x10, and has been struggling 'going digital'. in fact, he hasn't really wanted to go to a full digital process, rather, he'd prefer to have the hybrid process that he's been doing for the last few years.

I still like the darkroom for SOME things, definitely NOT everything, but somethings. Like going out to the beach for a day, shooting 3 or 4 rolls of Tri-X or Tmax(35mm or 120), coming home, grabbing a cold one out of the fridge(might end up being 2 sometimes  ), and processing the film in the tub. So, to me, I find it relaxing, having known what I have on film, Knowing 100% what I got, before developing, and seeing those negs hang there to dry, I just can't get enough!!!!!

same thing with sheet film: you know your film stock and developer, and you get predictable results! For me(being a current photo student), I know I need to embrace digital capture, but money-wise, I'm not able to 'afford' the digi equipment yet. And somehow, I don't know if I want to yet, even if I could afford it.

maybe this will change when I'm shooting jobs for money, not just to make an instructor at school happy. but I am totally happy that I switched from digital(how I started 3 years ago) to film, because I've learned SOOOOOOO much about exposure, and mostly composition, and getting the picture RIGHT IN THE FILM, not in post. I personally HATE photoshop, but its a necessary tool. I still only do functions in photoshop that I could do manually in the darkroom(dodging, burning, color adjustment, etc...), so I force myself to be nitpicky about how I expose and develop the film, color or b/w.


but sitting in front of a computer while the film scans is a pain in the @s$!!!!!!

just my $.02

-Dan
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

DanielStone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2009, 12:13:20 am »

erik,

are you talking about C1 or Lightroom for file-management?

so far I've just be archiving film scans in file folders, similar to arranging various word docs that most people do every day,

just super organized .

job/assignmentname_dateshot_filename(ex. Living Room_GainerHouse)_filenumber

if I were shooting digital, I'd have capture one or lightroom auto-name files, but since I'm shooting film, I don't have to save EVERYTHING, just the final scans of the selected frames. so, in the end, less HD space used, and my negs/transparencies sit happily in their archival sleeves in cachet boxes in my closet(for now ).

all files redundant.. saved on desktop hd's (non-scratch disk of course) and in a 2nd backup drive I keep at my friends house. I'm thinking of doing a 3rd, and keeping it somewhere else, but it takes some time. And I'm not shooting prof. yet, I'm still a student. AND i have the film to re-scan if needed as well.

-Dan
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #53 on: December 29, 2009, 01:27:34 am »

Uhg. Is it that most posters are stuck in the MP, technology of latest rave, and what they sell??? Indeed there is more ;

Quote from: pom
What about tonality? I only have personal experience between 4X5 and FF DSLR but the difference was somewhat like a   skyscraper and a shack. I assume that the same size ratio of imaging area would be true between the MFDB and 8X10 if not more exaggerated. Imaging area size is more than just pure resolution is it not?

As some of you likely recall I compared Mamiya ZD raw files to drum scans of Velvia 50 from Mamiya 7 some time back http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&pid=153583

On that merit, and now instead using a 28MP Leaf back, and of being new to 4x5 with Velvia 50, I can simply state that I am overwhelmed by the appearance of large format film. To my humble eyes (which are sensitive) the resolution of 28MP Leaf back compared to 4x5 Velvia appears to make my digital back a tad like a shack compared to a skysraper... Not only that, Fuji Quickloads are cheap in comparison.

Yet, there is more to the difference, the rendering of digital vs. film is very different. It sure makes me wonder many times why I as an amateur have a $$$ digital back in my possession, and not stuck and shot more with film...

Quote from: filmcapture
In terms of resolution, you may stitch three, six or more digital captures to achieve 4x5 or 8x10 film resolution, but IMHO, it's difficult for MFDB to achieve the tonality of large size films. I had extensively compared a Phase One P25 and briefly a P45 with 4x5 early this year, and now I decide to go back to film for this particular reason. Sorry my financial capability won't allow me to try a P65+.

The constant comparing of dslr vs mfdb, and now in posts here even dslr compared to 8x10 is tad pathetic. Photography is a loads of more than just pixels and gear. Murray Fredricks posted above, and I looked up his website. Indeed very, very impressive photos with a Leaf Digital Back. Same time my observation is that those photos demonstrate one use for landscape at which a digital back can excel. As for the traditional type of landscape photography, e.g. such as by Jack Dykinga I am not at all convinced that a digital back prevails, actually in situations of capturing strong light in golden hours I feel rather convinced that slide film provide a much superior rendering. Digital and film are two complete different medias with complete differing renderings. One need to consider if digital is actually correct for ones use. Personally, I remain being struck by landscapes photos made with large format and medium format film more than I am by digital. Simply the rendering of light and colors of Velvia 50 is amazing. Also, very few know how to delicately adjust and process landscape photos to very high quality levels, as compared to what is done for portraits. Frankly speaking, indeed to reach very high quality levels for digital landscape photography it takes alot more than a dslr and CS4/Lightroom. Gear wise a quality digital back such as Leaf or P1 is superior to dslr, yet more so, with ditgital  so much of the of rendering is placed into hands of the photographer, and frankly speaking most common is that the adjusted renderings do not have the naturally looking enhancements of the landscapes as film does. I believe painted art can teach us some.

Further, I wish to also express that discussion of digital back or dslr replacing film is tad pathetic, since that places all focus on digital technology and pixel peeping. Film and digital are simply different tools. As for what MP equals film, that argument has been going on for years...
For 3.1MP being claimed equal to 35mm Provia 100 - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d30/d30.shtml
For 6MP being claimed equal to slight less than 6x7 slide film - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003
Indeed the whole business wish us to believe that digital is superior (they wish to SELL)... is digital superior for landscape photography really, for I assume that is what 8x10 is used for? I suggest an experiment: take a look at books of landscape photography, is there any with digital that even come near the ones which were made to the top notch level using slide film? I have found none. My latest addition is "Transient Light: A Photographic Guide to Capturing the Medium" by Ian Cameron. Flipping throw it the images indeed are impressive. They were all shot with Pentax 6x7 SLR and Fuji Velvia 50, apparent scanned on a Nikon 120 film scanner...

Above stated, my Aptus 65 digital back is stellar and one I am very pleased with. The downside is lots of weight due to the Mamiya 645 system, and that it does not replace film or vice versa. Film days was much simpler and lighter weight.

Above my humble view to share.

Anders
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #54 on: December 29, 2009, 02:10:19 am »

Hi,

It seems that you don't like Photoshop. The stuff you say you do can be done much easier in Lightroom than in Photoshop. In addition Lightroom has been developed by photographers for photographers. Photoshop was more intended for the graphics business.

I have not really used C1, tried it a few times. RAW-engine is probably better than in LR.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: DanielStone
erik,

are you talking about C1 or Lightroom for file-management?

so far I've just be archiving film scans in file folders, similar to arranging various word docs that most people do every day,

just super organized .

job/assignmentname_dateshot_filename(ex. Living Room_GainerHouse)_filenumber

if I were shooting digital, I'd have capture one or lightroom auto-name files, but since I'm shooting film, I don't have to save EVERYTHING, just the final scans of the selected frames. so, in the end, less HD space used, and my negs/transparencies sit happily in their archival sleeves in cachet boxes in my closet(for now ).

all files redundant.. saved on desktop hd's (non-scratch disk of course) and in a 2nd backup drive I keep at my friends house. I'm thinking of doing a 3rd, and keeping it somewhere else, but it takes some time. And I'm not shooting prof. yet, I'm still a student. AND i have the film to re-scan if needed as well.

-Dan
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

brianc1959

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
    • http://
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #55 on: December 29, 2009, 02:23:39 am »

Quote from: Ben Rubinstein
Bernard, I'm probably going to do this badly as I'm not sure I can put it in words. Tonality to me (unlike the silly suggestion of film grain) is the way transitions are made from dark to light and within colours. The tonality of a 4X5 scan or a large stitched image for that matter where there is more sensor/film dedicated for each square inch of final image, especially when compared to a single 35mm shot of the same thing is incredible in its smoothness of transitions giving a far more lifelike, 3D and quality feel to an image. Taking a shot with a p&s alongside your D3X and just looking at the difference in smoothness of rendition of tones is sort of the idea that I'm looking to convey.

Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain.  It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.

I think you've basically admitted that if you compare two equal-sized images, one enlarged from 8x10 and the other from 35mm (both using the same emulsion), then the enlargement from 8x10 will have smoother tonality than the one from 35mm.  So, if not the appearance of film grain, then please tell me exactly what it is that causes the apparent difference in tonality?  

In particular, lets consider that both images are of cloudless featureless sky.  The average density of the two printed images, as measured by a reflection densitometer, will be exactly the same.  The only difference will be the different degree of blotchiness caused by film grain being enlarged to a different amount, will it not?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #56 on: December 29, 2009, 02:46:15 am »

Hi,

I have set up a small collection of links on my web-page relating to DSLR and MFDB and film:

http://83.177.178.7/ekr/index.php/photoart...vs-mfdb-vs-film

I'd particularly recommend this one:

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

None of these articles discusses 8x10" but several are discussing 4x5 vs MFDB.

I'm not shooting either. Mostly I used Pentax 67 MF before going digital, now I'm on DSLR. One reason I'm interested in this is that I'm interested in the theory behind imaging.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: harlemshooter
I have read articles by Michael and others comparing drum scanned 4x5 film with MFDB.  The consensus seems to be they are "about" equal.

But has anyone compared 8x10 film (of course with a top Schneider lens, or like) to MFDB?  I'd like to see a large print comparison between the P65 by Phase One (or like) with an 8x10.  For artists who must print 40x50 inches, or larger, this kind of study would be most illuminating.

Does such a study exist?  

Thank you!

PS.  Not really interested in articles comparing prints  (or digital equivalents) smaller than ~40x50 inches, as the differences between 8x10, 4x5 and MFDB seem minimal.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 03:34:33 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

billthecat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #57 on: December 29, 2009, 03:54:47 am »

My personal opinion is that tonality is related to the sensor size amoung other things. Light doesn't look as good through a smaller area.

Bill

[quote name='brianc1959' date='Dec 28 2009, 11:23 PM' post='336167']
Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain.  It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.
...
Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #58 on: December 29, 2009, 04:45:30 am »

Quote from: brianc1959
Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain.  It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.

I think you've basically admitted that if you compare two equal-sized images, one enlarged from 8x10 and the other from 35mm (both using the same emulsion), then the enlargement from 8x10 will have smoother tonality than the one from 35mm.  So, if not the appearance of film grain, then please tell me exactly what it is that causes the apparent difference in tonality?  

In particular, lets consider that both images are of cloudless featureless sky.  The average density of the two printed images, as measured by a reflection densitometer, will be exactly the same.  The only difference will be the different degree of blotchiness caused by film grain being enlarged to a different amount, will it not?

At least some film types are different between the different formats. For 35mm, the lenses and some films are developed to enhance sharpness (via increased contrast, etc.), since sharpness was always an issue with the smaller formats. I find the larger formats more relaxed, although I am not sure how to explain that. The lens designs and the films do not need to emphasize sharpness, since the size of the capture medium is so large. LF lenses are very simple designs compared to 35mm, and this has an impact in the images which is immediately obvious. The 3D look (yeah, let's not start that discussion again), the gentle roll-off of sharpness, and so on.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1782
8x10/MFDB Comparison
« Reply #59 on: December 29, 2009, 05:18:27 am »

Quote from: brianc1959
Hi Ben:
I am the person who suggested that tonality related mostly to visibility of noise or film grain.  It was a serious, not a silly suggestion.

I think you've basically admitted that if you compare two equal-sized images, one enlarged from 8x10 and the other from 35mm (both using the same emulsion), then the enlargement from 8x10 will have smoother tonality than the one from 35mm.  So, if not the appearance of film grain, then please tell me exactly what it is that causes the apparent difference in tonality?  

In particular, lets consider that both images are of cloudless featureless sky.  The average density of the two printed images, as measured by a reflection densitometer, will be exactly the same.  The only difference will be the different degree of blotchiness caused by film grain being enlarged to a different amount, will it not?

I specifically explained what I meant by tonality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with film grain. The more imaging area dedicated to any specific part of the image, the more defrentiation between tones and colours can be accomplished. A cloudless featureless sky has only one tone (ish) and as such is irrelevant. Take an image with transitions between dark and light and transitions in colour, one with a larger imaging area than the other and the larger imaging area will have smoother, more pleasing and more accurate transitions between the tones as well as showing transitions that will just not exist in the image from the smaller imaging area. Note that I haven't mentioned grain or resolution once.

I did have test shots demonstrating this in the past between a 5D shot and a 5D stitched on the back of a 'Camera Fusion' adaptor to make a 200 megapixel file. Yes the jump in resolution was large, but the tonality difference was breathtaking. Same camera - just using more imaging area for each part of the image. Instead of using 20 pixels square to describe the transition between light and dark in a given area of the image - using 6 MEGAPIXELS worth of a FF chip. Abrupt tonality is not the fault of grain blotchiness, it's due to not having enough pixels or film area to accurately describe the transition between areas of light and dark or the subtle differences in the transition between colours.

I do not know how this translates to incredible pixel counts such as on the P65+ which is why I asked my original question, how does the tonality compare?

Just a note for people, I've never used or played seriously with the file of a MFDB. I have shot T55 (I kinda stuck with one film) and used the Camera Fusion adaptor on 4x5 as well as my current stitching work shown in the link in my sig. I'm not comparing 35mm to 4X5 in any way other than to give an exaggerated example of differences in tonality based on imaging area.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 05:19:32 am by Ben Rubinstein »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up