IQ180 Vs. 8X10 film article

[Schewe]

Only thing I miss is playing around in the darkroom, there was a certain magic in that which i really do miss.

That's what Photoshop is for...vastly more power (and less stink) than the chem darkroom. I honestly don't miss that at all (nor the spotting of prints–which while I was good at, hated!

[fotometria gr]

That's what Photoshop is for...vastly more power (and less stink) than the chem darkroom. I honestly don't miss that at all (nor the spotting of prints–which while I was good at, hated!

There is nothing stopping you from doing so with your films, although I shoot both DB and film (only negative and no more LF on my P2, its only digital there or 6x9 film), I haven't used my enlarger at all from 2005 onwards. I even scanned and reprocessed digitally most of my old work and will continue to do so until I will finish.... But I don't feel that I will abandon film in the near future, IMO "photography is all about DR" and there are situations that even modern digital falls short there, then there is my Roundshot 220vr and of course the huge prints that are occasionally needed with MF since my back is "only" 22mpx (88 only with "microstep"). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[Fine_Art]

I disagree. The information per-pixel is very low. If you had scanned at half the samples per inch, you would not have lost any real image information. In fact it's still slightly soft, and equivalent to 'only' 75 megapixels now.



Compare with a test shot I took using the 80MP Leaf Aptus II 12.

Full frame:



100% crop:

Here is the window sharpened with deconvolution. Its 200 pixels from the edge of the brick to the right side of the black stripe. Its also 0.049 of the image width. So that is the level of detail at 4079 pixels per inch equivalent. x8x10/1024= 318MP

[torger]

Interesting discussion. If one did not think resolution or technical quality of the image was important, one would not invest in digital medium format or use 8x10 film when there's fine 135 DSLRs. So I'm all for this pixel peeping :-).

[fotometria gr]

Forget the pixels and peeping - make a analog print from the 8x10 and one from the IQ180 and then ask normal people to pick which they like best.   

Analog print will not be of much use, it will be better if film is scanned and plotted, the image will have to be converted to digital for any professional use. In such a comparison the answer will vary, it will be in favor of digital if its slide, but for negative, even if the film is 120 or 220, It will depend on A. The highlight DR of the chosen scene, B. How contrasty the scene is. C. The lowlight info that is included on the scene and how deep that goes.
 Generally somebody will prefer film for its highlights and digital for its lowlights/noise, resolution will be in favor of digital (not by as much as is quoted elsewhere in this threat) but "feeling" might be towards film. The scanning must be at least 4000dpi and the scanner one of more than 4.5 D-MAX in "multiscan" mode (more than 8x scanning), mind you that with a 6x4,5 negative on a Nikon 9000ed in 16x mode, this will mean more than half an hour of scanning, but if the scene is such, it may well worth it! Clearly the quality of scanner/scanning and the quality of the lens chosen for the scene plays a major part. I believe that there is a lot of extreme opinions on this threat (from both sides), that can mislead people -especially newcomers- in wrong conclusions and this is very dangerous! I guess that there is still some place for film (and not only for 8x10, but for 35mm as well), but this is narrowing with tech advancement (as it should) until digital will dispose it completely. My hatch is that I would give it another decade for digital to be able to overcome all its advantages and thus replace it completely. Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr

[ced]

The beat goes on...
Let me ruffle some feathers too.
With more than 25 odd years of scanning on high end Hell, Crosfield drum and Scitex flat bed scanners behind me I can honestly and safely say that I have never come across a sharp and chromatic aberration free 4X5, 5X7 or 8X10 inch transparency!!!  I would say that 6X6 and 6X7 cm or any other variation on 120 or 220 film outshone their bigger sheet film cousins by far and when one mounted those in oil there was nothing to touch them.

In my opinion the only reason those larger sheets were called for was to spoil the art directors.  They could flash them around on light boxes and held up to windows in the days when the advertising industry was sloshing around unashamedly in loads of cash.  Without the need for 10x loupes these guys with their very inflated egos were very quick to complain when they saw the proof in final size with all the defects previously mentioned.  Then and only then would they run to grab the magnifiers to have a closer look.
Quite often as these big originals had been every where else before turning up to be reproduced,  they had by then run a gauntlet of scratches and liquid type marks, stains and of course finger prints and kinks (when a trannie has a kink one will have a heck of a time if mounting in oil to get rid of the air bubbles that gather at the kink) leaving the separated films having to be retouched and yes you guessed at whose expense.  Cloning today is a piece of cake then you had four sheets of film to deal with.
 
I am glad as an amateur that I don't have to visit labs to get my films processed.
I live about 25 km from the city and any where round here when I go to look for some 120 roll film the shop keepers look at me like I just arrived from another planet.  If I wanted to have negs or trannies processed I could hand them in locally and wait a week for them to return, I could get them processed the same day but that would be a round trip of 50 km and would have to hang around the city till they would be ready.
I don't live in the highlands of Afghanistan I am here in the capital of Europe...

So I admire anyone who wants the pleasure to lug their large format gear through vales and dales to get their images and then go through all the hassles of bringing them to fruition, it certainly can't be because of better image quality.   Enjoy

[TH_Alpa]

ced,

That is on par with my observations for about the same time of dealing with film and large format.

Let's add to this that the used LF lenses with 4x5" up to 8x10" were not necessarily the most performing optics as compared to MF or SF lenses. Large ICs to cover the format and to offer in addition the necessary movements those LF cameras were built for induce some disadvantages. And that's what LF cameras AND LF lenses were built for, to allow movements like H / V shifts, tilts and swings, to re-frame, to correct perspectives, to adjust sharpness planes. Consequently also the LF film formats have been developed for this purpose, to allow better viewing when doing these movements and adjusting sharpness planes.

Moreover, the (un)flatness of the film can go up to a few mm from center to the edge with 8x10" and up to 1 mm with 4x5", due to the mechanical film-holders and the size of the film, but also due sometimes to films being taken out of the fridge and loaded without waiting for it to be at ambient temperature.

How often did I also meet photographers with LF cameras which had either never or at the best been re-adjusted for parallelism 5 years back or more, or with the standards loose on the rail, or worn out shutters producing vibrations, etc ...

These factors more than often add up.

Again, I do not want to criticize film and LF, I have worked with them successfully and with great fun, and most professional photographers have been (and still are) able to produce wonderful sharp and stunning images by using these LF mediums. So I won't spit in the soup, I have lived with and from it, but let's face the reality.

Thierry

With more than 25 odd years of scanning on high end Hell, Crosfield drum and Scitex flat bed scanners behind me I can honestly and safely say that I have never come across a sharp and chromatic aberration free 4X5, 5X7 or 8X10 inch transparency!!!  I would say that 6X6 and 6X7 cm or any other variation on 120 or 220 film outshone their bigger sheet film cousins by far and when one mounted those in oil there was nothing to touch them.

[fotometria gr]

ced,

That is on par with my observations for about the same time of dealing with film and large format.

Let's add to this that the used LF lenses with 4x5" up to 8x10" were not necessarily the most performing optics as compared to MF or SF lenses. Large ICs to cover the format and to offer in addition the necessary movements those LF cameras were built for induce some disadvantages. And that's what LF cameras AND LF lenses were built for, to allow movements like H / V shifts, tilts and swings, to re-frame, to correct perspectives, to adjust sharpness planes. Consequently also the LF film formats have been developed for this purpose, to allow better viewing when doing these movements and adjusting sharpness planes.

Moreover, the (un)flatness of the film can go up to a few mm from center to the edge with 8x10" and up to 1 mm with 4x5", due to the mechanical film-holders and the size of the film, but also due sometimes to films being taken out of the fridge and loaded without waiting for it to be at ambient temperature.

How often did I also meet photographers with LF cameras which had either never or at the best been re-adjusted for parallelism 5 years back or more, or with the standards loose on the rail, or worn out shutters producing vibrations, etc ...

These factors more than often add up.

Again, I do not want to criticize film and LF, I have worked with them successfully and with great fun, and most professional photographers have been (and still are) able to produce wonderful sharp and stunning images by using these LF mediums. So I won't spit in the soup, I have lived with and from it, but let's face the reality.

Thierry

Shall we all agree then that LF film photography is useless (like I implemented and the continued quoter CED said?) and that the use of LF cameras is only sensible with MFDBs and perhaps some 120 or 220 film in 6x7 till 6x12? Am I right that sold all my LF lenses and now aim for Mamiya RZ lenses on my P2 (with a sinar auto aperture shutter of course), that have smaller circle and superb resolution for my MFDB? Is the movement capabilities the only benefits that have been left for a view camera? Should anybody that would seek such a camera today look for nothing more than a 2x3? To all the above my answer would be YES, to ...shoot film, ....i've quoted my opinion earlier. Let's have some more discussion in a new base then,  ....thanks CED for your quote (and TH for your supplement)! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[TH_Alpa]

This, and the size of the film, which to some extend compensates the "average" (as compared to MF and SF lenses) lens quality with less enlargement for the same final print.

Thierry

... Is the movement capabilities the only benefits that have been left for a view camera? ... Theodoros

[UlfKrentz]

Hi,

everything you write about the problems with LF is true. LF especially 8x10 is a hassle. Around 2001 I sold all my film equipment. 35mm, MF and LF and continued digitally.

But for a portrait project I started 3 or 4 years ago I wanted to try/use 8x10 and b&w film (lenses: Sironar 300 / ApoRonar 360mm / Fujinon W360 / Sinaron 360). To find out whether this is the right thing to to I compared my initial tests it with digital cameras 5DMkII/50L/85L and Hasselblad/100mm (to find f-stops with comparable dof and eye-sharpness, I prefered the look of the canon, the images looked more "LF" than with the Hasselblad). Because I still was not sure whether 8x10 is worth the extra work I shot the first 40 portraits parallel with the 5D Mark II and the 50L/85L (I mounted the 8x10 and the canon side by side and pressed the shutters parallel). I even filmed the sessions with the 5D.

I scanned the negatives and printed them with Epson printers (4000/9880/9890) and on chemical baryta papers in sizes between 8x10 and 16x20. I did the same with the 5D files. I also added the 8x10 film border to the digital files to mimic the film appearance.

My result: 8x10 inch is worth the extra work. Everyone who sees the images likes the 8x10 versions better (I did a lot of blind comparisons, asked people or myself to sort the images in two stacks). For me that was a strange experience. Especially because I do only 2-4 sheets per person and some more digital captures. I have no "real" explanation for it. Today I have approximately 70 portraits on 8x10 inch an every time I do the next I ask myself is 8x10 necessary? The 5D is so much lighter and easier to use. But the result asks for the extra effort.

Best,
Johannes

Yes, that´s what I was wondering about when reading this thread. Trying to maximise the DOF in 8x10 and compare it to a "small" digital MF size, where should this lead to? Max DOF is exactly where 8x10 has its greatest downsides. It´s the shallow DOF where 8x10 shines, where it is more than a legend. We´ve also made the same experience with a portrait, we did not even use film, only went with polaroid. The final image was printed reduced to 6x7cm in size and even in this small size it had something very special, anything between strength and softness, hard to explain.
Haven´t used 8x10 for several years now, but everything is still here and I´m actually very tempted to get it back to work once more...

Cheers, Ulf

[design_freak]

I think that these are two completely different worlds. What else comes to us when we use 8x10, and what else we want to achieve by using the DB. I think the scanning and printing large-format printer for 8x10 is sacrilege. Contact Sheet is the essence of 8x10. It is about the unique atmosphere of these pictures. That's my 2 cents.

Best regards,
DF

[feppe]

Shall we all agree then that LF film photography is useless (like I implemented and the continued quoter CED said?) and that the use of LF cameras is only sensible with MFDBs and perhaps some 120 or 220 film in 6x7 till 6x12?

That's absurd, a position probably the entire membership of the thriving largeformatphotography.info forum would disagree with.

It's funny how it seems to be only the (purely) digital guys who even care about analog vs. digital discussion. It's so 2006.

[Fine_Art]

The contention continues to be make it easier on yourself, throw money at it. The break even point demands a lot of volume. Years ago when I got my Mamiyas, RB67 for studio, 645 super with finder, they were $400 each at Adorama. I admit i don't use them much due to the convenience of the DSLRs. When I do need the big shot, it does not cost much.

E-6 (Slides and Transparencies)
2 Hours Normal Process
135-36 unmounted    $8.00
135-24 unmounted    $7.00
135-36 mounted    $10.50
135-24 mounted    $9.00
120 format    $7.50
220 format    $14.00
4x5 format    $3.00
5x7 format    $7.00
8x10 format    $10.50
Mounting only    $5.50

It takes a lot of those plus film cost to come up to the >$50,000 for the latest digital backs. Long before you will have broken even the back will be a toy compared to the latest that is being hawked. For most people 4 or 9 shots with a 645 will deliver the big gallery print. Bringing in money rather than sending it to the bank for your MFDB loan.

[TH_Alpa]

That's exactly the point where many make the mistake. Use the equipment you have invested in, if the quality of the images produced by the DB and the lenses has been up to the task at the beginning of your investment it continues to be many years after. LF photographers were investing in a LF camera, and did not "upgrade" for decades, sometimes for a lifetime. I know that the product cycles are not longer comparable but still, am believing that a nice "old" 22 MPx sensor, may be a multi-shot version does still produce 99% of the needed or requested quality.

Thierry

... Long before you will have broken even the back will be a toy compared to the latest that is being hawked ...

[feppe]

That's exactly the point where many make the mistake. Use the equipment you have invested in, if the quality of the images produced by the DB and the lenses has been up to the task at the beginning of your investment it continues to be many years after. LF photographers were investing in a LF camera, and did not "upgrade" for decades, sometimes for a lifetime. I know that the product cycles are not longer comparable but still, am believing that a nice "old" 22 MPx sensor, may be a multi-shot version does still produce 99% of the needed or requested quality.

That's of course how it is in theory, but I'm always surprised by how even many pros seem to be convinced by "SHINY!" new camera or back, and drop five figures on a marginal upgrade every few years. 22MP was plenty five years ago, then it was 65, now 80. WITH LIVE VIEW. MUST HAVE NAO.

I'm sure there's some (perceived or real) need to stay relevant at the high end pros with MFDBs work in, but I'm sure there's also some lack of understanding of ROI which I've talked about in another thread, and pure geekery.

In fairness, "upgrading" an analog camera is as easy as changing to a new film emulsion. Then again, new game-changing films came around only once every decade or so.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That is one side of it.

Another side:

I bought a Pentax 67, 45/4, 90/2.8, 165/2.8, 300/4 and an 1.4x extender for perhaps 4k$. Than I needed a slide projector and bought a Götschman 67 for 3 kUSD. Than I wanted to scan so I got a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi for another three grand and finally upgraded to a Scan Multi Pro for another three grand. Now most of it collects dust, as I went digital in 2004. But yes, do you happen to have what you need, large format would be economical.

Best regards
Erik

The contention continues to be make it easier on yourself, throw money at it. The break even point demands a lot of volume. Years ago when I got my Mamiyas, RB67 for studio, 645 super with finder, they were $400 each at Adorama. I admit i don't use them much due to the convenience of the DSLRs. When I do need the big shot, it does not cost much.

E-6 (Slides and Transparencies)
2 Hours Normal Process
135-36 unmounted    $8.00
135-24 unmounted    $7.00
135-36 mounted    $10.50
135-24 mounted    $9.00
120 format    $7.50
220 format    $14.00
4x5 format    $3.00
5x7 format    $7.00
8x10 format    $10.50
Mounting only    $5.50

It takes a lot of those plus film cost to come up to the >$50,000 for the latest digital backs. Long before you will have broken even the back will be a toy compared to the latest that is being hawked. For most people 4 or 9 shots with a 645 will deliver the big gallery print. Bringing in money rather than sending it to the bank for your MFDB loan.

[fotometria gr]

That's exactly the point where many make the mistake. Use the equipment you have invested in, if the quality of the images produced by the DB and the lenses has been up to the task at the beginning of your investment it continues to be many years after. LF photographers were investing in a LF camera, and did not "upgrade" for decades, sometimes for a lifetime. I know that the product cycles are not longer comparable but still, am believing that a nice "old" 22 MPx sensor, may be a multi-shot version does still produce 99% of the needed or requested quality.

Thierry

You almost made my portrait here, but I have to disagree in using multishot or microstep where things can't be absolutely still (by all means do so if they are still). If I was to seek more resolution or DR than my 528c when things move, I would use negative film on my Contax645 and if there was a need for movements...., then the DB or 120 film would jump on the P2 (although I admit I would try to cheat first and keep the Contax as much as possible). In my view the product cycles are shorter only as far as digital is concerned, thats why I am totally against the insane policy of some MFDB manufacturers to "close" their systems and vanish the older but very capable digital equipment from the S/H market whenever they get a trade! I wonder how they can't see that their policy is suicidal and they also kill smaller companies like Alpa or Silvestri that only try to keep the legend alive. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[Graham Mitchell]

It takes a lot of those plus film cost to come up to the >$50,000 for the latest digital backs.

The $10 processing fee doesn't tell the whole story. By the time you've shot 1000 frames, you've spent $12K in film, $10K in processing, and if you drum scan just 1 shot in 20, then that's another $10K. A total of $32K, and with nothing to resell at the end. That's $32 per frame (average) and 95% of the film is still unscanned.

My Leaf Aptus II 12 was 'only' $32K. I could take 10,000 frames with it over a year, then resell it for a $10K loss. That's 10,000 photos for $10K, or $1 each. And all are digitized (we only scanned a small proportion of the film shots in the comparison. And I haven't even mentioned all the time and money spent on trips to and from film dealer, lab, scanner, etc). Even if you took the same low volume of photos, it would only be $10 per frame.

Very few types of commercial photography could be carried out with so few exposures per year, making this comparison moot for all except for a few landscape or fine art guys.

The break even point according to the above method would be 313 frames a year (i.e. 313 frames of 8x10 film costs about same as 1 year depreciation of 80MP back, almost unlimited shots, based on above figures). And an extra bonus for digital - the depreciation slows down, making the shots even cheaper the longer you keep the back. The film costs stay the same.

[fotometria gr]

The $10 processing fee doesn't tell the whole story. By the time you've shot 1000 frames, you've spent $12K in film, $10K in processing, and if you drum scan just 1 shot in 20, then that's another $10K. A total of $32K, and with nothing to resell at the end. That's $32 per frame (average) and 95% of the film is still unscanned.

My Leaf Aptus II 12 was 'only' $32K. I could take 10,000 frames with it over a year, then resell it for a $10K loss. That's 10,000 photos for $10K, or $1 each. And all are digitized (we only scanned a small proportion of the film shots in the comparison. And I haven't even mentioned all the time and money spent on trips to and from film dealer, lab, scanner, etc). Even if you took the same low volume of photos, it would only be $10 per frame.

Very few types of commercial photography could be carried out with so few exposures per year, making this comparison moot for all except for a few landscape or fine art guys.

The break even point according to the above method would be 313 frames a year (i.e. 313 frames of 8x10 film costs about same as 1 year depreciation of 10MP back, almost unlimited shots).

OK Graham, but do you need its 80mpx for each one of the 10000 shots? How did you cope up to now with your 22mpx sinarback? I mean that if the 80mpx are needed only for 100 out of the 10000 shots, then perhaps you could cope with the 22mpx and 10 rolls of 120 film annually! At least that is what I am doing and I do have the true color of the multishot or 88mpx with microstep when I reproduce copies of Byzantine Ikons for the church! All that with only a fraction of 32k!! Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr

[TH_Alpa]

Exactly, agreed.

I would say luckily for the DB and some DSLR MF camera manufacturers. Somehow, I have the feeling that DBs and cameras built/stuffed with sensors, electronics, automatisms, etc ... have less (emotional) value in our minds (and I count myself in), than a good old LF view or tech camera. "RIO" has indeed less a place here than "shiny" and "staying relevant". It is clear that this has become much more important than the economics of the equation, for many. It is in no way a negative critic, just an observation.

Thierry

That's of course how it is in theory, but I'm always surprised by how even many pros seem to be convinced by "SHINY!" new camera or back, and drop five figures on a marginal upgrade every few years. 22MP was plenty five years ago, then it was 65, now 80. WITH LIVE VIEW. MUST HAVE NAO.

I'm sure there's some (perceived or real) need to stay relevant at the high end pros with MFDBs work in, but I'm sure there's also some lack of understanding of ROI which I've talked about in another thread, and pure geekery.

In fairness, "upgrading" an analog camera is as easy as changing to a new film emulsion. Then again, new game-changing films came around only once every decade or so.