IQ180 Vs. 8X10 film article

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In my view, live view is one the most important developments. LV means that the sensor image is used for viewing and focusing. LV makes pin point focusing possible. AF doesn't do, ground glass focusing doesn't probably either. Using a shimmed Alpa with a laser rangefinder would do it at long range, but perhaps less well for close up work. Anyway, the Alpa is an impressive design.

Now, I understand that LV on MFDB is in it's infancy, but the basic technology solves the problem of achieving correct focus.

Best regards
Erik

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

[Graham Mitchell]

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

We were comparing 8x10 film and 80MP digital here. It gets rather complicated to introduce specific subject types (e.g those suitable for multishot) and the reality is that digital is far more practical, faster and more flexible than 8x10 so some would say that a resolution comparison is meaningless from the start.

[TH_Alpa]

Theodoros,

I was just "throwing" the multi-shot purposely in the equation of quality: 22 MPx with true-colour or even microstep (16 shot) with a final resolution of 88 MPx was already at the quality level of at least 4x5" film, if not more, and this more than 10 years ago.

I am of course well aware that it is limited to stills.

Thierry

... You almost made my portrait here, but I have to disagree in using multishot or microstep where things can't be absolutely still ... Theodoros.

[fotometria gr]

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

Your observation may be right, in my view what differentiates a photographer than a "photographer" is that the first "solves the equation" while the second "equates the solution", if I am right, perhaps economics becomes even more important. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[TH_Alpa]

It definitively is, making sliding adapters completely obsolete (especially now when it needs such a precise tool to cope with the high resolution of the current backs).

Thierry

...
In my view, live view is one the most important developments...
Erik

[Fine_Art]

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.

10,000 frames is easy when you have no real additional cost per frame. When you shoot film you don't think that way. You think is this shot worth $50 to me? If you are out in the field you take 1 or 2 rolls per good day. If you are a photojournalist or someone that is paid for a volume of product shots it's totally different. They can justify a MFDB.

Typically when you see the real shot you know it. This is the one. Taking many practice shots of average things is not producing anything people would consider buying. In other words gear, of whatever kind is a cost, not an asset. The actual photos, if they are good are the only asset. The goal is to generate assets at minimal cost. I'm an amateur. I do this for enjoyment. If I was a pro I would stay in business because i create revenue streams not liability streams.

Michael can justify all his gear purchases because his opinion in reviews here generates lots of site traffic. He could also do fine photography with a basic camera. It would still sell as prints.

[fotometria gr]

We were comparing 8x10 film and 80MP digital here. It gets rather complicated to introduce specific subject types (e.g those suitable for multishot) and the reality is that digital is far more practical, faster and more flexible than 8x10 so some would say that a resolution comparison is meaningless from the start.

My question was for how many of the 10000 shots you need the 80mpx Graham, I know what we where comparing in the OP. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Mitchell is a working pro. He has customers paying for his work. So his situation is different from a "fine art photographer", it is reasonable for a fine art photographer to shoot film, but less so for a pro. With digital you can check exposure and focus immediately.

Michael Reichmann (whom I think you refer to) was shooting digital on MF optical bench camera, but he went for using his IQ180 on Alpa and Phase One. I guess using the Linhof in the field was a bit to much hassle.

Finally, what I have seen from my testing, I cannot get better results from 67 than from 24 MP digital. Admittedly this is based on pixel peeping, not on real prints.  But if pixels are better on screen they will also be better in print. The observation is also based on the equipment I have and the way I'm using it.

I see a single advantage with film, and that is that it handles extreme overexposures better, because it has different saturation characteristics from digital sensors. Film has also a special color and tonality. I'm pretty sure that can be reproduced using curves. But if you like "film colors" you may be more happy with film. Digital is by default more "accurate" and sensor response is essentially linear. So there is little color shift with exposure. As a site note, a processed image will not be linear, an S-curve is normally added in processing. Lightroom and Capture One do this by default.

The enclosed file shows Imatest evaluations of a 41 step Stouffer wedge (havíng a scene range of 4.1, 13.5 stops) it was shot on a simple light table, uneven illumination probably causes the knee on the digital image. Obviously the film image is affected by both film and scanner characteristics.

Best regards
Erik

10,000 frames is easy when you have no real additional cost per frame. When you shoot film you don't think that way. You think is this shot worth $50 to me? If you are out in the field you take 1 or 2 rolls per good day. If you are a photojournalist or someone that is paid for a volume of product shots it's totally different. They can justify a MFDB.

Typically when you see the real shot you know it. This is the one. Taking many practice shots of average things is not producing anything people would consider buying. In other words gear, of whatever kind is a cost, not an asset. The actual photos, if they are good are the only asset. The goal is to generate assets at minimal cost. I'm an amateur. I do this for enjoyment. If I was a pro I would stay in business because i create revenue streams not liability streams.

Michael can justify all his gear purchases because his opinion in reviews here generates lots of site traffic. He could also do fine photography with a basic camera. It would still sell as prints.

[cng]

The $10 processing fee doesn't tell the whole story.

Don't forget the quality of the processing and scanning.  All the good pro labs in my area have either shut down or their quality has dropped noticeably (which pretty much suggests that they will also be shutting down in the near to medium future).  Even though I only shoot film once every few months for kicks, I am getting more and more frustrated with labs consistently screwing up my film.

I am a very late entrant to digital capture.  I used to shoot 4x5 but after taking delivery of my IQ180 I would never go back to film for commercial work.  The only thing I miss is the DoF characteristics of the larger formats compared to 645.

These film/digital comparisons ultimately serve no purpose.  Just shoot what you want to shoot, how you want shoot it, using what you want to shoot it with.  I'm as curious as the next guy about some of this stuff, but the level of angst on this matter is misguided and very distracting to the production of actual work (if you allow it to be).

[yaya]

My question was for how many of the 10000 shots you need the 80mpx Graham, I know what we where comparing in the OP. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Imagine it was a single project that required only 1 frame which was very carefully selected out of the 10K frames. If the output required an 80MP input then ALL 10K frame will have to be shot at 80MP...

I'm exaggerating of course but if your average fashion session takes 15 frames per shot and you have 10 shots/ day, 3 days/ week then you're looking at easily > 10K frames/ year and it's a helluva lot easier and more flexible than LF film...

[Quentin]

I've shot 8x10 and drum scanned it on a Howtek D4500 and on various flatbeds, and before that shot 4x5 and medium format film again scanned with drum and Imacon scanners. The biggest problem with film is consistency.  Film bends and curls in the magazine / film holder, often by very small amounts but enough to cause problems with precise focus and eveness accross the film plane.  Worse, the effect varies from shot to shot.  The larger the format, usually the worse the problem.  With high end digital capture these issues have been eliminated.

Then we have film grain to contend with along with all the issues of processing, film storage, colour casts, etc.   Finally, when we have the shot we want on the film medium we have chosen, what do we usually do?  We digitise it by scanning, meaning we end up with a digital file by an indirect route and in the process we have introduced another set of variables such as scanner quality, fim flatness (again! - even drum scanners are not perfect), dynamic range etc.

Quite apart from eliminating these issues, digital capture allows us precisely to align multiple digital shots for HDR, stitching, etc. which, if not impossible with film, is certainly a lot harder to achieve than with digital.

All this renders these tests of little more than academic interest.  Film has niche appeal, but even if 8x10 film holds a theoretical edge in resolution over the latest high rez backs, it has so many other downsides the sacrifices are simply not worth the effort.

[fotometria gr]

Imagine it was a single project that required only 1 frame which was very carefully selected out of the 10K frames. If the output required an 80MP input then ALL 10K frame will have to be shot at 80MP...

I'm exaggerating of course but if your average fashion session takes 15 frames per shot and you have 10 shots/ day, 3 days/ week then you're looking at easily > 10K frames/ year and it's a helluva lot easier and more flexible than LF film...

So, since fashion requires 10000 shots of .....80mpx,   there was no fashion photography 4 years ago and even more so 7 years ago... and Graham wasn't a fashion photographer last year that he shot at 22mpx, nor 90% of the fashion photographers that are doing their shooting with a 21-24.5mpx DSLRs are fashion photographers! Thank you for explaining that to me.... I just came from ....outer space! My opinion is clearly that such a (marvelous) toy will never pay back its money, it is not needed for more than 1% (may be not needed at all) of the shooting of any fashion or studio photographer and that for the (hypothetical) 1%, film would do! Its great equipment for landscapes however and even more so if there is a dual camera camera strategy (MF + view or tech) with a common back for both, there the extra resolution may be needed for perhaps .....20% of the shots, that is if and only if you manage to have the right contacts that pay enough (if you don't there is always film and stitching)! For stills and fine art, there is nothing like 4X or 16x shooting and for everything else..... ! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Does anybody remember the story of the tower of Babel from the bible? I wonder why communication is falling lower and even lower by the day....

[bcooter]

Most of the younger assistants I work with, shoot film for some if not all of their personal work.

I've seen this more in the last few years than previous years and it's anybody's guess why.

Maybe it's to experience something they've never had like "waiting" to see a processed image, maybe they're tired (like a lot of us) of spending way too much time on the computer to make something digital look analog.

I don't know, though I do find it interesting.

Our neighbors teenager goes to the most exclusive middle school on the west side of L.A. and is taking a photography course.

They require the students to shoot and process film and the students are stoked because they've never done it.  They think film is fascinating.

Once again, this isn't scientific polling, just something I've noticed lately.

Slightly off topic, I've also noticed more people i work with are using their pads, vs. their computers.  Everybody has a computer, but the computer seems to be a device we work on, where a pad is something we use for information and to view content to enjoy.

Kind of a different mindset.

film





IMO

BC

[Graham Mitchell]

So, since fashion requires 10000 shots of .....80mpx,    there was no fashion photography 4 years ago and even more so 7 years ago... and Graham wasn't a fashion photographer last year that he shot at 22mpx, nor 90% of the fashion photographers that are doing their shooting with a 21-24.5mpx DSLRs are fashion photographers!

Of course not every project needs 80MP. In fact I chose this back in the end because I wanted a 645-sized sensor, not the 80MP, and this is the only option currently available for the Hy6. I would have actually preferred the 60MP 645 sensor which you see in the IQ160 because of the faster frame rate, but that sensor is not available on my platform. And my dream sensor would probably be a 40MP 645 sized sensor, but that doesn't exist.

Now that I have it, it's nice to know that I won't be limited by file size if a client decides to print an image on a shop wall, for example, or crop well into an image, or if I ever want to make a large print of something. And I'm looking forward to seeing how 60" wide prints will look. The last time I had an exhibition years ago, most of my shots were from the 5D mkI and didn't stand up that well at that size.

[NicolasBelokurov]

Film has niche appeal, but even if 8x10 film holds a theoretical edge in resolution over the latest high rez backs, it has so many other downsides the sacrifices are simply not worth the effort.

It seems to me that the debate as a whole went to a very general ground. The "film people" in the thread talk about the film quality as an abstract fact (abstract from the commercial realities of today) and the "digital people" analyze the film from the perspective of a large or medium commercial studio professional.
IMO from a commercial view, film (and specially large format)  is indeed a niche product and should be treated as such.
If you think about a low volume and very high quality workflow, large format film still stands it ground and in a low volume scenario, all the downsides and sacrifices you mention really are not such a big deal.
I'm thinking about landscapes and portraiture work for example. For instance, I do landscapes, often in long, several days high mountain treks and shot around 500 4x5 negs and slides during the last year. As much as would like to improve my productivity, it's simply not possible mainly due to the light and weather conditions I consider valid for my landscape photography. I own an FF digital camera and the curious thing is that I still can work the same amount of scenes per hour as with 4x5. Very low volume. Under these conditions, I consider film to be the right choice because:
1). The entering fee is pretty low (about what it costs to buy a 5d2 camera)
2). Large prints (even scanned in a low end flatbed scanner) run circles around my 5d2. For larger prints a drumscanner can be used if desired.
3). The 10-15k that separate my setup from a nice MFDB can easily buy me several thousands processed frames. I'd need at least 8-10 years of treks and travels to work through so many material.
4). The 3rd or the 4th landscape sold covered the whole equipment purchase
I could sell all the film and 35mm digital stuff and buy a 645D for example but can't find a reason for doing so, it's anti economical.

And I guess that could be the case of many landscape photographers, from the lower levels up to the top pros. For fashion, studio, advertising, interiors, etc, digital is hard to beat and it is great to see so many new and wonderful cameras in the market.

[patrickfransdesmet]

PLEASE STOP COMPARING !
It really does not make sense to compare film with digital
they are 2 completely different media
and in the case you really want to compare
it does not make sense to SCAN film
you loose so much of the negative's potential
COMPARE PRINTS
in this case I would suggest to compare an optical print from the 8x10, contact, or enlarged on FB paper, manual tray processed
and your digital file printed out as good as possible
Then compare what you see
and you will see, they differ so much, it is a matter of taste,
what do you like most

[yaya]

So, since fashion requires 10000 shots of .....80mpx,   there was no fashion photography 4 years ago and even more so 7 years ago... and Graham wasn't a fashion photographer last year that he shot at 22mpx, nor 90% of the fashion photographers that are doing their shooting with a 21-24.5mpx DSLRs are fashion photographers! Thank you for explaining that to me.... I just came from ....outer space! My opinion is clearly that such a (marvelous) toy will never pay back its money, it is not needed for more than 1% (may be not needed at all) of the shooting of any fashion or studio photographer and that for the (hypothetical) 1%, film would do! Its great equipment for landscapes however and even more so if there is a dual camera camera strategy (MF + view or tech) with a common back for both, there the extra resolution may be needed for perhaps .....20% of the shots, that is if and only if you manage to have the right contacts that pay enough (if you don't there is always film and stitching)! For stills and fine art, there is nothing like 4X or 16x shooting and for everything else..... ! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Does anybody remember the story of the tower of Babel from the bible? I wonder why communication is falling lower and even lower by the day....

Please read my post again as you seem to ignore (by choice?) the words "Imagine" and "exaggerating"...

For some photographers a high-end camera is a "toy" and for some it's a tool...a very capable tool that when wisely utilised into their business, can pay for itself in a fairly short period of time

Basically if your business model and client requirements make such an investment justifiable, then you will have a tool that is likely to cover all your bases...you can produce any output size with it regardless of the subject...as you pointed out already, you cannot shoot a person (at least not a live one) with a multi-shot camera but you can shoot a 640X480p 72dpi thumbnail for web with an 80MP camera...the same camera that will reproduce an old A1-sized manuscript at a native 400dpi resolution in 1.5 seconds...

We're drifting off topic but...anyway...

Yair

[fotometria gr]

Of course not every project needs 80MP. In fact I chose this back in the end because I wanted a 645-sized sensor, not the 80MP, and this is the only option currently available for the Hy6. I would have actually preferred the 60MP 645 sensor which you see in the IQ160 because of the faster frame rate, but that sensor is not available on my platform. And my dream sensor would probably be a 40MP 645 sized sensor, but that doesn't exist.

Now that I have it, it's nice to know that I won't be limited by file size if a client decides to print an image on a shop wall, for example, or crop well into an image, or if I ever want to make a large print of something. And I'm looking forward to seeing how 60" wide prints will look. The last time I had an exhibition years ago, most of my shots were from the 5D mkI and didn't stand up that well at that size.

Thanks for the quote Graham, I needed this to prove to some less experienced quoters that they shouldn't approach new and ultra expensive equipment like some kind of a panacea that people can't live with anymore! In fact, I feel that if Dalsa would produce a new version of their traditional 33mpx sensor at full size, thus bringing the res up to what you state and if a manufacturer would make a multishot version of it (sinar does that already on the current sensor), this could be the one and only back I could ever need! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[fotometria gr]

Please read my post again as you seem to ignore (by choice?) the words "Imagine" and "exaggerating"...

For some photographers a high-end camera is a "toy" and for some it's a tool...a very capable tool that when wisely utilised into their business, can pay for itself in a fairly short period of time

Basically if your business model and client requirements make such an investment justifiable, then you will have a tool that is likely to cover all your bases...you can produce any output size with it regardless of the subject...as you pointed out already, you cannot shoot a person (at least not a live one) with a multi-shot camera but you can shoot a 640X480p 72dpi thumbnail for web with an 80MP camera...the same camera that will reproduce an old A1-sized manuscript at a native 400dpi resolution in 1.5 seconds...

We're drifting off topic but...anyway...

Yair

Obviously you do agree with my quote Yair, you shouldn't take it personally, a statement on a thread is for everybody to read, Graham's reply, along with our discussion has (I believe), put an end to our little but very useful parenthesis on the OP. Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr

[joneil]

Our neighbors teenager goes to the most exclusive middle school on the west side of L.A. and is taking a photography course.

They require the students to shoot and process film and the students are stoked because they've never done it.  They think film is fascinating.

Once again, this isn't scientific polling, just something I've noticed lately.

-snip-

     Three years ago at a local camera store I saw a man trying to sell or trade in his used Nikon F3.  the store simply was not interested in it at all.   Three weeks ago when I picked up one of those 8mm fisheyes, I was talking to the clerk at the camera store, saying " I hear this won't cover 35mm?"

     The clerk brightened up and asked me what film bodies I have.  So I told her I had three Nikon film bodies, and she said "Hey, we're looking for good used film bodies if you want to sell them, especailly Nikon."   When I asked why Nikon and not other brands, she explained it had to do with the backward compatability of many Nikon lenses.

    Anyhow, like you said above, this isn't scientific polling either, but something I've noticed recently too. 


    On the the endless 8x10 vs whatever digital debate - there is *one* business reason to use a large format film camera over digital - public perception.  When you photograph somebody using a 4x5 for exmaple, they often perk right up, thinking this is "something special" - it's gonna be an extra good picutre because of the camera  used. 

    Hey, don't get me wrong, I love my D7000, but sometimes in poltics and business, perception plays out over reality.   Still for the other 99% of the real world and commercial work,  I think - large volume of work, gotta get the work done and have it all ready and proofed 5 minutes ago - yep, digital.   At least for me, it seems digital is the business end of thngs, film is the artistic stuff that I like to do on my won't but ever won't sell


joe